[TEPaul]

JeffB:

The question all along has been---should H.H. Barker be given any credit for Merion East? Given all the available evidence we say no.

It seems the other question inspired by these Merion thread is---should Macdonald/Whigam be given credit for Merion East. Given all the available evidence we say yes---for helping and advising Merion on three separate occasions, all of which we are aware of some of the details of as reflected in Merion's contemporaneous records. They were given credit for those three separate occasions and that is reflected in the MCC records (committee reports and Board minutes) from 1910 and 1911.

Perhaps there is still another question amongst a couple of people of whether Macdonald/Whigam should be given credit for the routing of Merion East or even its design. Given all the available evidence we say no. Did Macdonald and Whigam advize them on aspects of routing and design? Perhaps. Did Macdonald and Whigam create a routing (or design) for them which was used? We say no. That they did themselves, after numerous iterations, and the Merion Board meetings reflect that.

That's the story of the creation of Merion in 1910-1911 and Merion is sticking to it. I have no idea to what degree those MCC board meeting minutes were used over the years in the creation of reports or history books or whatever but nevertheless there they are after almost a century. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I see you've changed the title of this thread to reflect your original intentions more clearly.

If you didn't want it to go in that direction, why the continued insistence on "which three Philadelphia courses", and the contention that Lloyd brought Barker to Merion?

Please, Tom.   You seem to think you're being veiled and coy with your intentions and that might work for most here who are not as keenly interested and aware, but this is getting to be a very old joke at this point.

The fact is, the facts are getting in the way of the story that you and David want to create about the origins of Merion and that must be frustrating for you both at this point.   The fact that we call you guys on it might be "creepy", or whatever other names are hurled, but personally I'm not going to let this misrepresentation stand unrefuted or unrebutted.

Frankly...I think you guys should just let it go.

I really think you can do much better....in fact, I know you can.

[DMoriarty]

Gee what a surprise.  TomPaul and Wayne have carefully examined material they will not disclose, and they have concluded that no one else deserves any credit but Wilson and his Committee.  Who could have predicted it?
_______________________________________________________
Mike,

We should let it go?   TEPaul has been following me from thread to thread, demanding that I explain why I said that Barker may have been the second most notable architect in America at one time.   You have done the same thing with MacWood, and continue to do so.   MacWood tried to address both of you on this thread-- probably so you would quit trying to hijack his others-- and even here you can't talk about anything but Merion. 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I completely agree.   We should all let it go.

Without additional evidence all of us are just reinterpreting the same old stuff over and over and we should all agree to a respectful and even congenial discourse until we have something new to discuss on the topic.

I think a truce is in order.

Thanks,
Mike

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I'll let it go but everytime those two put something on here that's inaccurate about Merion's architectural history, I'm with you, I'll refute it and rebut it, and why not?

[Mike_Cirba]

Just a note about Springhaven I had forgotten.

In 1913, just two years after Barker had been there, Alex Findlay and JH Limeburner did extensive changes to Springhaven, increasing the total distance from 5800 to 6200, building new greens, creating three new holes, building new greens and tees, and changing bunkering schemes.

An article in early 1914 notes;

"If you have not played over the course of the Springhaven Country Club within a year, you will have a hard time familiarizing yourself.   The changes made have been of a most radical nature and now that they have planned, the natural inquiry is, "Why were they not made before?"

Who did the construction??

Fred Pickering.

[TEPaul]

MikeC;

Good stuff in post #205. It may reflect some light on the fact that perhaps not everyone thought H.H. Barker was the second best architect in America, amateur or professional, right behind C.B. Macdonald.

Furthermore, just watch those two self-appointed revisers of golf architecture history scream bloody murder that you are, once again, disrespecting or minimizing the importance of some guy they seem to want to promote at all costs. 

[DMoriarty]

Just a note about Springhaven I had forgotten.

In 1913, just two years after Barker had been there, Alex Findlay and JH Limeburner did extensive changes to Springhaven, increasing the total distance from 5800 to 6200, building new greens, creating three new holes, building new greens and tees, and changing bunkering schemes.

An article in early 1914 notes;

"If you have not played over the course of the Springhaven Country Club within a year, you will have a hard time familiarizing yourself.   The changes made have been of a most radical nature and now that they have planned, the natural inquiry is, "Why were they not made before?"

Who did the construction??

Fred Pickering.

Thanks for the clarification Mike.   A few comments and questions:

1.  As I said above, it was disingenuous and totally without support for Wayne to just to throw up a photo from 1924 and then try to use it to discredit a designer who staked out bunkers over a dozen years before.    I believe you used the same photos to similarly try to discredit Barker, didn't you?   

Anyway, you must now agree that the 1924 aerials of Springhaven that Wayne posted (and you reposted) may have little or nothing to do with Barker's style or skill as a designer, musn't you?   The way you and Wayne used the drawings of Springhaven to bash Barker's reputation, each of you ought to specifically set the record straight. 

In Wayne's case this is the obvious consequence of only digging far enough to support the point he wants to make, and going no further.  This in a nutshell is the recurrent mistake in his logic and methodology.  He only digs deep enough to make the argument he wants to make, and he forgets about, ignores, or conceals everything else.  That is what he did here.  That is what he apparently does by assuming that if Flynn drew it then Flynn designed it.   That is what he had done for years and years regarding Merion's early history, and I have a sneaking suspicion that there are about 276,962 pages (excluding the added dvd of drawings) of similar flawed logic and methodology in the Flynn Manifesto.   

I commend you for  bringing  this information forward, even though it entirely undercuts your previous points.  It is one thing to draw conclusions based on limited information and to rethink the issue when more information comes forward.  It is quite another to ignore, conceal, cover-up, forget-about, lie about, or allow others to lie about information that undercuts one's previous points.  It is nice to see that you may have taken the first path, instead of following Wayne and Tom down the second.   

2.  According to the 1910 article, Barker was there in 1909, not 1911.

3.  Your post seems to imply that the Findlay-Limeburner involvement at Springhaven somehow indicates that Barker's work was inadequate or poorly done.   At least that is how TEPaul reads it.   Could you clarify, because according to your paraphrase of the Findlay-Limeburner contribution, it seems like Findlay-Limeburner were concerned with different and more comprehensive issues, weren't they?   Therefore it would be a mischaracterization or at least unsupported speculation to think that Findlay-Limeburner were fixing Barker's flaws, wouldn't it?    

After all, according to the 1910 Hazard article, Barker only staked out bunkers, and was mostly placing bunkers to guard the approaches to greens, for example "at the left of the sixth and the right of the sixteenth."

4.   I fail to grasp the significance is it that Pickering did the construction?   
  - Are you implying that Pickering was actually designing and not just constructing these courses during this period?
  - Are you implying that Pickering was a geometric hack?   
  - What exacty are you implying? 
  - Are you implying that Pickering wasn't traveling to Europe or Argentina in 1913? 
  - What are you implying, if anything?

5.  One more thing.   I haven't reread your posts above but I seem to recall that your criticism of Springhaven pre-1924 was rather scathing.    That was when you and Wayne were mistakenly assuming that Barker was responsible for what appeared in the photos.   Now that it turns out that Barker may NOT  have been responsible, you seem to be suggesting that the post-Barker changes might have greatly improved the course.  Which is it?  And why the change of heart?    From my perspective it seems that your conclusions come and go based upon what side of the fence you think Barker is on.   Are you now willing to draw the same conclusions about Findlay that you drew about Barker in your posts above?  If not why not?   

Thanks in advance for your responses to my questions.

________________________

TEPaul,

You have laughably gone from condemning Barker for doing the work in the photos, to apparently condemning him for not doing the work in the photos.  Naturally.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I put this out there because I thought it was relevant  to two semi-related issues;

1) The fact that Fred Pickering had extensive golf course construction experience and was primarily utilized by early architectural professionals like Alex Findlay.

2) The seeming fact that very little of what HH Barker ever did architecturally remains, even within his own timeframe.   This is related to the fact that he had almost nothing built on the ground by June 1910, except the changes at Garden City, which were largely and widely attributed to Walter Travis and his grand strategies for the course.   While Barker was there as a pro, and I'm sure somewhat helpful, he neither originated nor conceived of the plans for Garden City...Travis did.

So, to argue that at the time he was at Merion he was the second most successful and noteworthy architect in the country is really not accurate by any stretch.   That mantle most assuredly would have gone to Findlay, Bendelow, Dunn, and any number of others.

Bottom line however, is that there were next to ZERO superb golf courses in the country at the time Merion was making their site and architectural selections, and most of the pro architects of the time were much more concerned with quantity than quality.

NGLA changed that dynamic a bit, but it wasn't even open at the time Merion made their decisions.


by the way...the architecture pictured at Springhaven in that photo Wayne posted sucks eggs, no matter if it was Barker, Findlay, or anyone at the club.  It just isn't very good by any standards, much less early Merion's.

[DMoriarty]

1) The fact that Fred Pickering had extensive golf course construction experience and was primarily utilized by early architectural professionals like Alex Findlay.

I thought this was well known.  Didn't Pickering build and grow in courses up and down the country? Wasn't he primarily involved in  building courses and growing them in?   I thought this was primarily what Pickering did.   

In fact, if I recall correctly, I note in my essay that Pickering and Findlay were in business together doing precisely this!  I know TEPaul did not read the essay, but I assumed you did. 

2) The seeming fact that very little of what HH Barker ever did architecturally remains, even within his own timeframe.   This is related to the fact that he had almost nothing built on the ground by June 1910, except the changes at Garden City, which were largely and widely attributed to Walter Travis and his grand strategies for the course.   While Barker was there as a pro, and I'm sure somewhat helpful, he neither originated nor conceived of the plans for Garden City...Travis did.

So you are now using Springhaven to make the exact opposite point you made above.    All your points always seem to face the same direction, even as your understanding of the facts changes.   

You have offered no support for the point you are trying to make. Barker did not design Springhaven.   He staked out some bunkers.   We don't know if those bunkers lasted or not.    Other courses of his survived. 

As far as the timing of things, there was a long lag back then of when a course was designed and when it was ready for play.   Barker was in high demand for designing courses in 1909, 1910.  Especially among rich and powerful men in the Mid Atlantic states.  See Arcola and Colombia and Merion (whoever hired him) for example.    I don't know why he was so popular but I assume it has something to do with Garden City being considered best course the best course in America before NGLA. 

So, to argue that at the time he was at Merion he was the second most successful and noteworthy architect in the country is really not accurate by any stretch.   That mantle most assuredly would have gone to Findlay, Bendelow, Dunn, and any number of others.

Fortunately for Barker, these guys were not the ones doing the hiring in 1909-10 for his original routings at Arcola, Merion, or Columbia or others.

Look Mike, we will have to disagree on this, but who really cares?  What does it matter? It makes no difference to anything.   It was just background info on Barker, based largely on what I was told about him, and what I have since to come to believe based on my own research.

Bottom line however, is that there were next to ZERO superb golf courses in the country at the time Merion was making their site and architectural selections, and most of the pro architects of the time were much more concerned with quantity than quality.

Funny I seem to recall you arguing and arguing in the past that there were plenty of good courses besides NGLA that Wilson could have studied to learn everything he needed at Merion East.   Remember your long list of all the course he played in the first couple years  of the new century?  What happened to all that?   

NGLA changed that dynamic a bit, but it wasn't even open at the time Merion made their decisions.

Mike are you really going to start with this nonsense again about NGLA not having an influence until after it "officially" opened.  Be reasonable please.   

Honestly.  Do you think you are being reasonable when you write that "NGLA changed the dynamic a bit?"    Have you read much about golf course architecture during this time period? And I mean good golf course architecture.   

I am tired of repeating myself, please be reasonable.

[Tom MacWood]

According to Tom MacWood, Barker’s other designs include Country Club of Virginia (Westhampton Course,) Waverly Country Club in Oregon, Spokane Country Club, Rumson Country Club, Columbia Country Club (1910), a remodel of Detroit Golf Club, Mayfield Country Club, Grove Park Inn (NC), a remodel of East Lake Country Club, Youngstown Country Club, Raritan Valley, Arcola, Brookhaven, Druid Hills (Ga), Winnetka (with H.S. Colt,) Roebuck Country Club, a remodel of Newport Country Club, Palm Beach Country Club, Westhampton (Long Island, with Seth Raynor.)   He also had reportedly planned or remodeled three courses in or near Philadelphia.  

...this is completely and intentionally and knowingly misleading, as virtually NONE of these courses existed in June of 1910!

I've actually discovered a few more since this thread: Philmont, Bedford Springs, CC of Atlantic City, Williamsport, Pocono Manor, Tallahassee, Idle Hour, Skokie (r), and New Orleans. I just discovered New Orleans about a month or two ago. GCGC should also be on the list because Barker's assistance to Travis is well documented.

This might be the end of the road for Barker, but you never know, I've thought that before. If there are one or two more out there, I suspect the west coast might be the most likely place.

PS: In June 1910, when he was engaged by Merion, the courses he had completed or were in process would have been: GCGC, Newport, Philmont, Bedford Springs, Atlantic City, CC of Virginia, Waverly, Spokane, Mayfield, Arcola, Rumson, Columbia, Youngstown, Williamsport, and Springhaven.  

[JESII]

I thought he was engaged by the development company that eventually sold some land to Merion...

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
Technically you might be right, at least that is what the MCC report says, that Joseph Connell obtained a report from HH Barker. So apparently at the very least Connell paid for the report.

IMO since HG Lloyd was calling the shots, and unlike Connell he played golf and was well connected within the game, the more likely scenario is HGL brought in Barker (and CBM & Whigham). That is what the Philadelphia Record and Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

Whoever brought him in 1910, the point is, Barker had an impressive resume at the time.

[JESII]

Looks to be...the entire conversation around attribution is a tough one though.

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
Sometimes attribution is difficult, Merion is a good example, other times it is pretty straightforward. There are exceptions to the rule, but I have found generally speaking attribution is less difficult, and more straightforward, with the big-time architects, who were most often engaged in new designs.  

[JESII]

There are exceptions to the rule, but I have found generally speaking attribution is less difficult, and more straightforward, with the big-time architects, who were most often engaged in new designs.  

How so?

[DMoriarty]

What the early Lesley report to the Board actually said was that Connell obtained Barker's report "on his own account" which I take to mean that Connell paid for the report. The report does not say who wanted to bring in Barker.  It seems it could have been Connell, Lloyd, or both.  

As TomM wrote, later newspaper account(s) suggested it was Lloyd who brought him in.  The two most likely sources of that information are someone fom Merion or someone fom Connell's group.   It is also possible that the newspaper was relying on the November letter to the members from Merion, but all that letter says was that Connell obtained Barker's report on his own account.

Here is a 1910 American Golfer ad from Barker:

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
Golf architects whose primarily focus was new designs (as opposed to re-designs) are the easiest to attribute...guys like Fowler, Colt, Ross, Tilly, CBM, Thompson and few others. A new club is formed; you find several reports documenting big time architect X designing the new course; the course opens a year or so later often under the name of that architect. The course never existed, the prominent architect was engaged, the course opens. That is pretty cut and dried. It also helps that many of those men produced lists of their original designs and redesigns as advertising material.

Golf architects who specialized in redesigns are more difficult attribute because its difficult to know precisely what is new and what is inherited. Men who only dabbled in golf architecture can also be difficult to attribute.

[Tom MacWood]

I recently found a blurb in a Philadelphia paper that places HH Barker in that city April, 1911. He was disembarking on a boat to Liverpool. IMO it is very unlikely he was doing anything at Merion at that time, but who knows. He was living in the NY area, and to my knowledge had no design project in the Philadelphia vicinity at that time.

There are couple of problems with this report however. There was also a syndicated report a couple of days after the boat left that said he was at a meeting of the EPGA in NYC. I found the ship manifest of Herbert Barker leaving Philadelphia for Liverpool. It was misspelled on the Ancestry site as Herbert Behren, but it was definitely a Herbert Barker. But the other problem is I can't find anything showing him (or his wife) returning.

I've always suspected he left the country around this time because there is a big gap in his name showing up anywhere, and at this point he was a very active on the professional circuit. The last report has him as the new pro at Rumson in early April and then silence until the US Open in late June. This trip would also solve a mystery about when exactly he got married. He is single in 1910, but when he leaves for the UK in December 1911 it is with his new wife, Evelyn. I've never been able to figure out when she came over to the States.

Perhaps its a different Herbert Barker, but I don't think so.

[JESII]

Tom,

It doesn't seem to surprise you that Merion didn't mention Barker other than having obtained his routing from Connell, why is that? At least with CBM/HJW it's simply a debate of the degree of involvement, not the existence of it at all.

[Tom MacWood]

What new projects were going on in Philadelphia in the spring of 1911?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

It doesn't seem to surprise you that Merion didn't mention Barker other than having obtained his routing from Connell, why is that? At least with CBM/HJW it's simply a debate of the degree of involvement, not the existence of it at all.

There are a lot of things Merion's records apparently don't mention (the hiring of a greenkeeper for example)...I say apparently only because I have not read them all. I don't know if you read them or not, but have you seen any mention of Pickering or Flynn in the Merion records. From what I understand Johnson contractors are alluded to at some point (I'm might be confusing the Wilson letters for the Merion records), but don't believe there is anything defintive about their hire either.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Pickering is not mentioned by name when they hired him but by default we know it was him even when mentioned unanamed. It is not mentioned either at the time when Flynn first arrived. But also by default we can figure out pretty much when he came. And of course from various explanations, dates, times and functions from those there at the time that were reported after the fact we can determine the timing pretty accurately. You may not agree with that or see it that way but that really doesn't matter, does it?

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

It doesn't seem to surprise you that Merion didn't mention Barker other than having obtained his routing from Connell, why is that? At least with CBM/HJW it's simply a debate of the degree of involvement, not the existence of it at all.

Jim,

By this logic, how can you even include Hugh Wilson or his Construction Committee in the discussion?  There is not even a mention in the Minutes of Wilson or his Committee in relation to planning the course.  Not a single one.  They never come up at all.  At best we can infer that Wilson became a member of the Golf Committee in early 1911, and was involved to the extent that the Golf Committee was involved, but this is pretty sketchy, isn't it?   So why not apply the same logic to Wilson as you do to Barker?

With Barker, we know that he actually drew out a rough layout plan, which is much more than we can say for Wilson.  And we also know that there were newspaper reports indicating that he was there doing Merion's (particularly H.G. Lloyd's) bidding, again much more than we can say for Wilson initially.  On the other hand, we also can infer that quite a lot happened after Barker's known involvement, with extensive involvement from CBM and HJW, and from Merion, and as TomM said, it doesn't look like Barker was playing a role in the spring of 1911 when the final design decisions were being made by Merion.   The minutes say that CBM and HJW approved the final routing plan, not Barker.

But given that Merion had his initial layout plan, don't you think they would have used it as at least a starting point?  For example, in his April 1911 report, Lesley mentioned that prior to going to NGLA they had laid out "many different courses on the new land."  Is it reasonable at least to thing that Barker may have had something to do with at least one of these?   If so, then is it reasonable to completely cut Barker out of the conversation?

It seems to me that these questions would be no brainers if instead of Barker it had been someone who is more famous today, but Barker is easier to ignore because no one has ever heard of him, and also because his involvement cuts directly against the legend of no professionals having any input over the course.  

[TEPaul]

Quote from: Jim Sullivan on Today at 08:09:27 AM

"Tom,
It doesn't seem to surprise you that Merion didn't mention Barker other than having obtained his routing from Connell, why is that? At least with CBM/HJW it's simply a debate of the degree of involvement, not the existence of it at all."


"Jim,
By this logic, how can you even include Hugh Wilson or his Construction Committee in the discussion?  There is not even a mention in the Minutes of Wilson or his Committee in relation to planning the course.  Not a single one.  They never come up at all.  At best we can infer that Wilson became a member of the Golf Committee in early 1911, and was involved to the extent that the Golf Committee was involved, but this is pretty sketchy, isn't it?   So why not apply the same logic to Wilson as you do to Barker?"



Jim Sullivan:

By your logic of MCC not mentioning Barker in the minutes (after the committee report of July 1, 1910) and mentioning CBM and Whigam in the meeting minutes while not mentioning by name Wilson and the names of his committee members in the meeting minutes one most certainly can understand why Wilson and his committee members were not mentioned in board meeting minutes regardless of what they were doing at the time and between board meetings, and why Barker was not mentioned in the board or committee meeting minutes after July 1, 1910.

To understand these differences and distinctions all one really has to do is a bit of in-depth research into the administrative structure and the operating procedures at the board and committee levels of MCC at the time (the same structure Merion GC operates with and under today).

This is not complicated and it is not hard to determine or understand but for some reason it appears most who try to discuss these things on this website are just not interested in knowing these things. Only one or two have ever done this kind of research and it seems the rest are not even interested in knowing the reasons for these things.

Why is that and what does it ultimately tell you?

Who do you suppose it would be anyway that any researcher should to go to to get these explanations and answers?

For your information the so-called Wilson Committee or Wilson Construction Committee was never mentioned by that name or term  in MCC Board meeting minutes, at least not in the 1911 time frame. They were, however, called those names or terms later by others sometimes not on the board and perhaps even by themselves later.

The way they were actually referred to by the board in some meeting minutes was "the Committee on New Golf Grounds." This was one of many AD HOC committees MCC and Merion GC utilized over the years for essentially 'special' projects. "The Committee on New Golf Grounds" might be confused by researchers and historians who do not look more carefully into these subjects in a larger context and in a context of specific time-lines. For instance, another AD HOC committee that was formed and functioned for a 'special' project was the so-called MCC "Site or Search Committee on New Golf Grounds." That one was effectively disbanded in the fall of 1910 when its job and its project was completed or else its chairman stepped down and appointed another to take his place for another 'special' project that was to come up shortly. At least one of its members took over that committee for about two months until changing the committee's name and populating it with other members, including its new chairman, in January 1911 for the next 'special' project that was getting underway at that time. These are AD HOC committees and they are non-standing (not permanent) committees whose chairmen are not expected to attend board meeting with board members, some of whom are the chairmen of those permanent or special AD HOC committees and for those reasons do attend board meetings. In the absence of those AD HOC chairmen of those special project committees at board meetings generally their reports are given by the chairman of te Standing or Permanent Committee underwhich the AD HOC committee operates or else perhaps by a Board member who happens to serve on that AD HOC committee.

If one does not understand these things in detail it would be pretty hard for them to understand what was going on and who was doing what at any particular time. Of course none of this is hard for a board to understand because they are familiar with all these people and what they are doing during these times.

Some might think Board meeting minutes are written to record a club's history. I can assure you in most cases at most clubs this is not the case. The purpose of board meeting minutes is for a board to recall and consider what they did and were doing at the last board meeting and to record the various activities and projects of committees and such between the last board meeting and the next one.


If someone has not done this research or at the very least has never served on this kind of board or committee it really would be pretty difficult to completely understand these kinds of things. I sure know I never did until I had those experiences.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()