[DMoriarty]

Wayne, 

Welcome back. 

Tom,

I am concerned that some people make statements, and at times grandiose ones at that, without giving any support whatsoever to those statements.  These positions are taken for granted by some and become accepted if not countered with evidence and not words.  It is apparent that it doesn't always work, but not to do so would enable perpetuating distorted or erroneous accounts. 

I share your concern.  Do you have any suggestions as to what we can do about TEPaul's posts in this regard?

I see more and more mistakes on GCA regarding the historical record.  Perhaps it is due to agenda-driven research, but often simply restating something that becomes fact merely because it is written in a history book or accepted as oral tradition.

I agree entirely.  This was probably happened with Merion.   A few innocent mistakes were made early on, and  because no one ever bothered to check the accuracy, the mistakes became part of Merion lore, even though they were false.   As time went on, everyone just continued to give the old mistaken story the benefit of the doubt until it was impossible for most to imagine that they could not be true.  Of course some of it was agenda-driven research, or in the case of Merion it could have been agenda driven apathy, where those who claimed to know the most about Merion had managed to ignore or neglect glaring inconsistencies in the record.   Anyway, this is part of what lead to my essay.   No one seemed at all interested in actually knowing what really happened.  Accepting the legend was the path of least resistance, and fit wsll into the agendas of some.   

But why belabor bygones?  I hope now that you are back we can get back to the business started in my essay --  bringing forward the truth about the origin of the Merion courses.

There are many mistakes in the thread on Merion's hole drawings.  I'm not going to get involved in anything to do with that subject, but I do hope that the readers and participants on this site remember that everything written is not correct and it is up to the individual to fact check before accepting anything as true, even if written by Moriarty or MacWood.

You lose me here. Unidentified mistakes were made in the other thread?  Didn't you just write the following?  "I am concerned that some people make statements, and at times grandiose ones at that, without giving any support whatsoever to those statements."   

The above claim may not be grandiose, but you made it "without any support whatsoever."   

Lots of names, dates and words may seem compelling, but can be deceiving.   If someone really wants to learn about the history of a club, I would start with the club first and seek out a club historian if possible.  I would not take for granted things posted on GCA as undeniably true.  This is the primary reason I came back, if only temporary.

This post reminds me a lot of your series of posts which followed my essay.  You repeatedly warned readers about unidentified errors and troubling conclusions, but with the exception of that one letter (which you did not have when you were making your claims) you never really came forward with any support for you claims, did you?   

Now wouldn't those early cautionary posts qualify as you making "statements, and at times grandiose ones at that, without giving any support whatsoever to those statements?"   

Anyway, I will continue to offer support for my claims, and to challenge the claims of others who do not.

________________________________________

Thanks for posting the Springhaven photos.   

The Hazard article only said that Barker staked out their locations of the bunkers, and that they were to be built later.   

- Do you have any reason to believe that Barker was at all involved in building the bunkers?[/b]

The photos were from 1924?   It is my understanding (from the club's website) that the course opened for play in 1904, and that between then and 1924 a number of others tinkered with the course, before and after Barker.   And the Hazard article mentioned that Barker's suggested changes were not major.   

- Could you please distinquish between the features added by Barker and those added by others?   And offer support for your distinctions?   

- Could you also verify that Barker was responsible for the look and shapes of the bunkers as they appear in 1924? 

- You state that Barker built mounds, but the Hazard article only mentioned staking out bunkers.  What is your basis for concluding that Barker built mounds?   Which mounds did he build?   

- The Hazard article mentioned that Barker recommended bunkers guarding the approach to two greens, with one bunker on the left of one hole and one on the right of the other.  I've tried to find evidence of these features in the photos, but unfortunately I don't think that those two holes (6 and 16) were pictured.   Can you identify a single feature that you know for sure was placed, designed, and/or built by Barker?

- You seem to be relying on the club history, but do not explain whether or not this narrative is at all verified or at least verifiable.

Don't get me wrong, I am not denying that Bunker could be responsible for some of those features, but don't you agree that, without further information and support, we cannot conclude much of anything about Barker's work from the photographs you posted?

Again welcome back, and thanks for posting the photos. 

[DMoriarty]

Barker designed Arcola CC which opened for play in 1911.   The original design was quite interesting. 

Mark, I was looking at some old articles mentioning Arcola, but had forgotten that this was the Barker course with which you were involved.   

Wasn't Arcola formed by some prominent businessmen and politicians (a former Governor?) and wasn't it well respected early on? 

[Thomas MacWood]

"PS: I'm sorry for the confusion regarding Barker's involvement, I was influenced by Mr. Verdant Greene's comments from the beginning of this thread."


I think I can see that but no problem. If Verdant Greene said Lloyd contacted and paid Barker for MCC he was wrong. It wasn't Lloyd, it was George Connell. The MCC Search Committee (which Lloyd was on) report to the MCC Board made that very clear. Too bad you never read that. I think David Moriarty had that documentation all along but maybe he forgot to use it as it may not have fit into the trumped up agenda of his essay or something. You should have gone to the source in the first place but you never have. We've been telling you that for years now. I guess you never will listen. Verdant Greene probably was something of an insider around here but in this case his article was not as accurate as the source---eg the MCC Search Committee and the MCC board. After-all they weren't the ones writing newspaper articles, they were the ones who were actually directly involved in the creation of Merion East.

TE
Thank God for Greene and Moriarty...they rightfully introduced and re-introduced Barker to the proceedings. You, Wayne, and the factually challenged histories of Merion had completely ignored the poor fellow - very bad form from a historic perspective.

David
Once you get over the initial shock of the Springhaven photos and start looking at the position and make up of the hazards you can see they were definitely going for a GCGC-like course. If we looked at an aerial of GCGC in 1910 - immediately following the Travis/Barker remodelling - I think you'd find many similarities. The execution at Springhaven could have been better, perhaps if those executing the design had seen GCGC, it woud have been a little less sharp-edged.

That being said there are many identifiable GCGC-like feautures. The nutmeg grater mound feature, which looks like several nutmeg graters in a row. The long straight-line trench hazard, parallel to play - there is few of these at GCGC today, one in fact that Pat Mucci has been trying to get restored for a few years. Those perpendicular hazards, which appear to be simulating the numerous roads that come into play at GCGC. The wrap around L-shaped bunker, I've seen that feature at Rumson, although not quite as angular. In the second or middle photograph, there is a green near the clubhouse with a bunker in front and bunker behing that looks to be a twin of the par-3 12th at GCGC. You would have also found numerous oval pits at GCGC, although probably not quite as round as these. The mounding doesn't look right either; the mounding at GCGC was much more irregular. Its hard to say if they are pre-Barker or post-Barker.

You are correct about Arcola. It was John W. Griggs, former Governor of NJ and ex-Attorney General of the US (McKinely administration). I'm not sure if it is just a coincedence, but like Connell he was a Republican. I believe Lloyd was a Republican as well, in fact Haverford was a Repbulican stronghold.

[wsmorrison]

IMO being involved in the design/redesign of GCGC, Columbia, Merion, Newport, Mayfield, Detroit, Skokie, Waverly, Druid Hills and East Lake is a pretty impressive resume.

Let me say at the outset, before I get slammed.  I do not know much about Barker.  But I am suspect of lists.  Given how much time it has taken to understand Flynn--to the extent I do, I cannot believe that anyone knows a broad range of golf course architects well enough to consider themselves any sort of expert on more than one or two, especially without seeing an extensive amount of work on the ground and sufficient archival information.

Like your lists of golf courses in various locales and various dates, the results lack real substance, though they do form the basis for an outline to be filled in later...I guess that is the purpose.  While the list of names is impressive, what can you tell us about Barker's work at these courses that lies beneath the veneer of an impressive, though misleading resume list? 

What of Barker ever existed or is recognizable today at Merion that so impresses you?  Or is it the fact that he was asked to do something preliminary by someone with no relationship to the club at all?  What remains of Barker at Columbia CC?  What is and was Barker at Garden City GC?  At Newport?  The history of East Lake includes Bendelow, Ross, Cobb and Rees Jones.  No mention of Barker.  What did he do at East Lake?

You said that we and the "factually challenged histories of Merion" ignored the poor fellow, Barker.  By a factor of many magnitudes, the most factually challenged history of Merion is the piece you and Moriarty put together that was published and endorsed on this website.  I'll say it once again to undermine your distortion.  Tom and I were studying Wm Flynn.  We had enough work writing 1700 pages on that.  We did not initially include historical references to Barker or spend much time on events prior to Flynn coming on the scene.  You may chastise us for that, but do not presume to think we were deliberately misleading anyone.  I will not accept a poor conclusion of yours in that regard.  Barker was hired by a land developer, not Merion.  He considered a property that did not include all the property that would eventually be utilized.  Both Barker and Macdonald, who was asked to assist by Griscom within days of Barker's report, recommended a short course that would not result in a championship design with significant test of time abilities (in general, a definite shortcoming to the designs of Macdonald, Raynor and Banks).   

Well, we have now incorporated a more in-depth history prior to Flynn on the scene.   David's essay did spark that initiative, if only to verify your conclusions or disprove them.  Frankly, most of us would have welcomed an expanded role by Macdonald.  But proof was not brought forth in the Moriarty essay.   It merely incentivized us to find out the truth.  Your views and those of David as expressed in his essay are for the most part very wrong.  Come to Merion in a few days and you'll be able to read for yourself and see the evidence required for proof. 

Further, you continue to ignore other essential facts and mistaken oral traditions, such as Flynn was not involved in constructing the initial course design at Merion and you dismiss the capabilities and input of Pickering all in favor of a Macdonald/Whigham model.  By initial course design, unlike David, I do not refer to Barker's plan for the HDC, but instead the course as opened in 1912.  To me, the most fascinating story of Merion's architectural evolution (the amateur designer and committee model is equally important) is that it began as a course with one foot firmly established in the old ways--though on great ground for golf, and a small step into a new design philosophy.  Very quickly, the old was completely abandoned and the course would evolve into a far more natural aesthetic and better course over the years.  Why do you think that was?

By the way, Tom.  Do you think those design features at Springhaven were at all unique to Garden City or Barker/Travis at the time?  They seemed to be of a style that was evident on many golf courses at that time.  I have a collection of nearly 700 early aerial photographs of golf courses and the "steeplechase look" was common as were other aspects of the course.  What do you know of the specific roles of Barker and Travis in the redesign of GC?

[Jeff_Brauer]

"To me, the most fascinating story of Merion's architectural evolution (the amateur designer and committee model is equally important) is that it began as a course with one foot firmly established in the old ways--though on great ground for golf, and a small step into a new design philosophy.  Very quickly, the old was completely abandoned and the course would evolve into a far more natural aesthetic and better course over the years.  Why do you think that was?"

Wayne,

That's a good architectural question, even if on perhaps the wrong thread. 

However, I think it was because they had some deep thinkers, they had some local "competition" in the form of other good to great courses coming on line, but mostly, I think its because the club wanted to host major tournaments, and wanted to refine the design for those, much like ANGC would start to do a few decades later.  I may have listed those in reverse order of importance, and it was quite fortunate that a talent like Flynn was there to shape it into its final form.

[Thomas MacWood]

Let me say at the outset, before I get slammed.  I do not know much about Barker. 

Wayne
No truer words have ever been spoken....which explains why you ignored him despite information he was involved early on. In fact it doesn't appear early American golf architecture is something you really know much about...beyond C&W. I would have hoped when you ran across Barker's name you would have begun digging, to learn more about this mystery man, but apparently you decided he was a nobody and chose to sweep his involvement under the rug.

After reading your early account of Merion's history I'm convinced if it were up to you you would have ignored Macdonald as well. Really you do ignore him for the most part. You mention him once. Hosting Wilson prior to his famous trip of 1910. You do not mention M&W's site visits. You do not mention the Redan, Alps, Eden or any of the other protypical MacD features that existed on the early course, despite the fact you go to great pains to analyze the evolution of each individual hole. IMO your personal dislike for Macdonald's architecture overtook your desire to produce a historically accurate account, that and your emotional attachment to the legend of Hugh Wilson.

Your question about what of Barker's existed or is recongizable at Merion is ignorant, and insults the intelligence of anyone following this thread. The only possible contribution Barker made was the routing (which would be no small contribution). Barker's routing remains at Columbia. All the famous changes made at GCGC came after Baker came on board. If you go back and read the reports of the historic redesign of GCGC you will find Barker commenting on the changes. To quote Travis, "The changes at Garden City were made when HH Barker was the resident professional and many a talk I had with him regarding golf course architecture, which led to his undertaking at my suggestion the laying out of a number of courses--among others that of the Mayfield CC..." I have no idea what Barker did at Newport. Barker advised on bunkering at East Lake, brought in by club president George Adair. Adair and Barker also were involved in Druid Hills, Barker designed it and Adair was in charge of construction.

If your focus was only on Flynn perhaps you should have left out the pages dealing with the early history of Merion. If I'm not mistaken you spend more time discussing Merion than any other course in the entire book. In my view there is no excuse for not trying to get the facts straight or ignoring key individuals. I recall several disagreements you and I had about the existance of Macdonald like features on the early verion. Things that were obvious to any casual observer.

"In addition, you continue to ignore other facts, such as Flynn was not involved in constructing the initial course design at Merion and you dismiss the capabilities and input of Pickering all in favor of a Macdonald/Whigham model.  By initial course design, unlike David, I do not refer to Barker's plan for the HDC, but instead the course as opened in 1912."

I'm sorry. I don't recall ever ignoring Flynn contribution. If anything I believe his contribution has been underplayed. Where did I dismiss the capabilities of Pickering? I believe he was more intrumental to Flynn's development than has been reported.

You said you refer to the course as opened in 1912? Where? In your new and improved Merion history?

Many of the great early courses became great through an evolution...tweeking, improving and removing old features in favor of a more a modern look, style, etc. That is not a good reason IMO to ignore the past and the important contributions made by these early guys...like the routing. The backbone of most great golf courses.

Steeplechase look? I don't see the prototypical cross bunkers at Springhaven. The majority of the fairways hazards are on the flanks.

I wrote an architectural evolution of GCGC....I'll trade it for your Merion report.

[wsmorrison]

You know very little about Barker as well.  That was one of my points.  Unlike you, I do not profess to be an expert nor do I attempt to misrepresent uniformed opinion as fact.  Your version of the Flynn manuscript is several years old, a small fraction of the current version.  So you have no idea at all what is contained in the current version or anything since the 3-4 years old version you have.  Misrepresenting is something you do all to readily and often. 

You mentioned the impressive list of designs/redesigns that Barker was involved with.  The fact is, you don't know anything about Barker's plans for Merion.  Or do you?  You know few specifics at all about any of Barker's work as is demonstrated in your reply.  What did Barker do specifically at any of those courses you listed?  Despite your response, it should be clear to all that you do not...or have not presented anything close to meaningful in any of your lists. 

Quit asking me questions.  Not only is it clear you do not have any regard for answers by anyone other than you and your cohort, you don't have a clue about their meaning.  Take your architectural evolution report and do whatever you want with it.  I could care less.  Did you include your rude and inept introduction to the club in it?  As to the new Merion report, ignore it and wallow in your ignorance in Moriarty's essay.  The present Merion chapter is 200 pages long.  How many do you have?  The present Merion chapter has the board minutes.  Your version does not.  Believe whatever you want, including you know best.  That's fine by me.

[Thomas MacWood]

Another interesting note on Barker and GCGC. I wrote above that the changes began after Barker came on board, I should have also said the changes stopped soon after he left in 1911.

Travis wrote his famous critique of GCGC in 1906. Barker came over in the latter half of 1907.

I love this quote from 1908 after the first phase of changes: "HH Barker, the new professional from Ireland, says the links, even with the forty-odd new bunkers, is not hard enough yet."

[Thomas MacWood]

You know very little about Barker as well.  That was one of my points.  Unlike you, I do not profess to be an expert nor do I attempt to misrepresent uniformed opinion as fact.  Your version of the Flynn manuscript is several years old, a small fraction of the current version.  So you have no idea at all what is contained in the current version or anything since the 3-4 years old version you have.  Misrepresenting is something you do all to readily and often. 

You mentioned the impressive list of designs/redesigns that Barker was involved with.  The fact is, you don't know anything about Barker's plans for Merion.  Or do you?  You know few specifics at all about any of Barker's work as is demonstrated in your reply.  What did Barker do specifically at any of those courses you listed?  Despite your response, it should be clear to all that you do not...or have not presented anything close to meaningful in any of your lists. 

Quit asking me questions.  Not only is it clear you do not have any regard for answers by anyone other than you and your cohort, you don't have a clue about their meaning.  Take your architectural evolution report and do whatever you want with it.  I could care less.  Did you include your rude and inept introduction to the club in it?  As to the new Merion report, ignore it and wallow in your ignorance in Moriarty's essay.  The present Merion chapter is 200 pages long.  How many do you have?  The present Merion chapter has the board minutes.  Your version does not.  Believe whatever you want, including you know best.  That's fine by me.

Wayne
Why do I have to do all your work for you? Why don't you get off your rear and research Barker yourself. You are obviously hell bent on descrediting the poor guy or belittle his accomplishments, I would have thought you would have taken some initiative and began digging, especially after you discovered Verdant Greene's comments. By the way how long were you sitting on the info that Barker produced a routing?

Original designs: CC of Virginia, Waverly, Rumson, Columbia, Mayfield, Youngstown, Raritan Valley, Arcola, Druid Hills, Brookhaven, Winnetka (w/Colt), Roebuck, Spokane, Palm Beach, Idle Hour and Westhampton (NY)

Redesigns: GCGC (systematic changes w/Travis), Springhaven (rebunkered the course, fifty new bunkers), East Lake (new bunkers in 1910; approved Adairs complete redesign a couple of years later), Detroit (rebunkered the course prior to the Western, he 'aranged a system of bunkers for the entire course'), Asheville-Grove Park Inn  (remodeled the old nine and added a second nine, essentially a new course), Newport (don't have details), Skokie (redesigned four holes taking advantage of newly purchased land), Mecklenburg-Charlotte (designed but never built)

Routing: Merion (?)

I'm convinced more courses will pop up in the future. Idle Hour was just recently discovered by Phil and there is another Philadelphia course unaccounted for.

PS: If you choose not to ignore Barker in your new and improved Merion history, feel free to use any of this info, and I don't even want credit.

[DMoriarty]

Wayne,

I'm confused.  The reason you say you came back (if only temporarily) is because you are opposed to people making claims without properly supporting them.   Yet since you have been back virtually all you have done is make claims without supporting them.

- You did post those Springhaven aerials which also appear on Springhaven's website and I thank you for that.  But the conclusions you draw from them or would have us draw from them are entirely unsupported.  I am not even sure what is Barker's and what is from someone else. 

- You characterize the style as "steeplechase" and refer to 500 other aerials, many with the same style, but you fail to offer up any of them and you fail to detail or explore the similarities or differences between Springhaven and any of the others.

- You continue to trash my essay, without offering any basis whatsoever.

- You praise your own much improved discussion of Merion in your Tome, but fail to offer anything of substance.  200 pages.  Wow.  And containing documents to which only you have access.  Impressive.  Membership has its privileges.

- You attack Tom MacWood's knowledge of Barker's work, but you have already admitted that you know nothing about him, so what exactly is your basis for your criticisms of MacWood? 

- You again try to sully Tom MacWood's reputation by making vague references to some supposed inappropriateness at Garden City, even though it is at best second hand, and is an entirely inappropriate avenue for this discussion.  (You did similarly with me in the past by spreading false rumors about my round at Merion.)

- You even offer up your unsupported (and I think unsupportable) contention that Merion East represented a transitional course and that it only became great later.   

So what is this about?   Where is the substance and support you demand of others?   Are you only back to take shots at me, my essay, and Tom MacWood? 

Since it is campaign season:  Where is the beef?

By the way, please stop using my essay to try and trash Tom MacWood.   His contributions were credited in the essay, and mostly involved filling in the background info on Barker, and after further research I believe that everything in the Barker section was accurate.   Other than the info Barker, Tom was very helpful in a general sense and probably in a few ways that are not coming to me right now.  Don't get me wrong, I don't want to diminish his assistance, but he deserves no blame for any shortcomings or errors in the essay.  Those are mine and mine alone. 

For example, connecting Barker and Merion was me.   As I have said in the past, my essay probably downplays the connection a bit too much,  and I did make one assumption about that connection that I have reconsidered and I will update it the next draft.   I am sure Tom would have done a better job of connecting these dots, so I probably should have leaned on him further. 

_______________________
Tom MacWood

The Springhaven photos aren't really shocking.  There was some very interesting stuff there.  My point was that these 1924 photographs are far from dispositive regarding Barker's style, especially if Barker only staked out the bunkers.     Plus I am continually amazed with what Wayne asks for as far as support from others, as compared to what he offers up as support himself.   

_________________________________

"PS: I'm sorry for the confusion regarding Barker's involvement, I was influenced by Mr. Verdant Greene's comments from the beginning of this thread."

I think I can see that but no problem. If Verdant Greene said Lloyd contacted and paid Barker for MCC he was wrong. It wasn't Lloyd, it was George Connell. The MCC Search Committee (which Lloyd was on) report to the MCC Board made that very clear. Too bad you never read that. I think David Moriarty had that documentation all along but maybe he forgot to use it as it may not have fit into the trumped up agenda of his essay or something. You should have gone to the source in the first place but you never have. We've been telling you that for years now. I guess you never will listen. Verdant Greene probably was something of an insider around here but in this case his article was not as accurate as the source---eg the MCC Search Committee and the MCC board. After-all they weren't the ones writing newspaper articles, they were the ones who were actually directly involved in the creation of Merion East.

- I believe there are other newspaper accounts that credit Lloyd (and or Griscom?) with bringing in Connell, and I believe I have pointed them out before. 

- I didn't include discussion of the documentation in my essay?   Tom, again and again you false claim I omitted things from my essay.   It is obvious that you either did not read it or you failed comprehend it at all.   Yet you go on and on in criticism.

- This notion that Tom MacWood should have gone to the source is nonsense.   Between Tom and I, we had almost all of the information you had, plus much more.  In fact, you guys did not have much of this stuff.  Or rather, I should say that you had it right in front of your noses, but you either forgot about it, ignored it, or concealed it.   I brought the reports in question to Wayne's attention, and even sent it to him at his request.  It was only later that he went and got his own copy.   [He also promised me copies of what he retreived, but Wayne has never provided me with the promised copies.  So much for honor and honesty.]

Plus, when we did try to access information from you guys, you guys refused to provide it.  Remember when you falsely claimed that you and Wayne had documentation about Merion purchasing the property in 1909.  I asked you for it, and I believe your comment was something like you don't expect us to do all your research for you, do you?  And Wayne guards his Flynn work like an old shrew guarding old family recipes.  I've repeatedly asked to see his work on Merion, to no avail.

Say what you will about my work on Merion,  but it is out there for everyone to see, everyone to critique, everyone to challenge.  The way it should be and must be if one expects the work to be taken seriously.   Otherwise it should be dismissed in its entirely as nothing but a vanity piece, like your work on Merion and Flynn with Wayne.

[DMoriarty]

Original designs: CC of Virginia, Waverly, Rumson, Columbia, Mayfield, Youngstown, Raritan Valley, Arcola, Druid Hills, Brookhaven, Winnetka (w/Colt), Roebuck, Spokane, Palm Beach, Idle Hour and Westhampton (NY)

Redesigns: GCGC (systematic changes w/Travis), Springhaven (rebunkered the course, fifty new bunkers), East Lake (new bunkers in 1910; approved Adairs complete redesign a couple of years later), Detroit (rebunkered the course prior to the Western, he 'aranged a system of bunkers for the entire course'), Asheville-Grove Park Inn  (remodeled the old nine and added a second nine, essentially a new course), Newport (don't have details), Skokie (redesigned four holes taking advantage of newly purchased land), Mecklenburg-Charlotte (designed but never built)

Routing: Merion (?)

I'm convinced more courses will pop up in the future. Idle Hour was just recently discovered by Phil and there is another Philadelphia course unaccounted for.

PS: If you choose not to ignore Barker in your new and improved Merion history, feel free to use any of this info, and I don't even want credit.

Tom, back to the topic, hopefully.

Which Spokane course was that?   Spokane had a very active golf community by the turn of the century and I think their early courses were well though of.

When did Travis do his work at Columbia?  Is it possible that Barker was still around then?  I think he may have been back in the US in 1916 but I am not entirely clear on where or for how long.

As for the Charlotte-Mecklenberg course, did Ross end up getting the job?   I think the two of them were directly competing for a job in the Charlotte area at one time.   I don't think the one I am thinking of was a redo, though, but a new course in a different location.

[DMoriarty]

Here is a photo of the Grove Park Inn.   I believe the photo was taken in 1920.*



Ross did some work on the course, reportedly in 1924, so the date matters.   In another photo dated 1920, the left wing of the hotel is under construction, as it is in the photo above.

[Mike_Cirba]

From the Southern Courses thread of late;

Tom

Which of Barker's designs were open by June 1910, when he submitted a proposed routing to the development company who were negotiating with MCC?
 
Mike
In the south or nationally? Nationally, courses Barker designed or redesigned that opened in 1909-1910 (that I know of today) would be CC of Viriginia, Waverly, Spokane, Newport, Columbia, Rumson, Skokie and Springhaven. I'm certain some of these courses opened before May and some after May. Arguably his most famous design was under construction in 1910 ~ Mayfield. Mayfield's moto was "beat Myopia."

Tom,

Thanks for the information.   I don't want to take this thread too far off-track, but what I'm hoping to better understand is exactly how well known Barker might have been as an architect by June 1910, which courses would have made his reputation at that point, and possibly why his proposed routing was seemingly not considered.   

As you know, some of these dates are tricky, because a design might be done in one year and the actual course didn't open until 2-3 years later.   So, in this case, I'm trying to see what he actually had built "on the ground" that was open for play by that date.

Of the courses you listed, I understand that Waverly had an existing course from 1896, so I'm assuming it was a re-do, and Spokane didn't purchase their land until 1910 so I'm assuming these two courses didn't much figure into the thinking of anyone at MCC.

In New Jersey, Barker did the routing for Arcola in 1909, but the course didn't open until 1911.   In the case of Rumson, this is another perplexing one, because an existing course was being played in 1910 (formerly Seabright CC), and Barker became the pro there in April 1911, after apparently leaving Garden City.    It's difficult to determine who did what when there.

I'm guessing Skokie was also a re-do, as a nine-hole Bendelow course existed in 1904, and I don't believe it became 18 holes until Ross came in the teens.   Am I understanding that evolution correctly, or did Barker have a larger role?

Two I haven't been able to determine the timeframe on are his work at CC of Virginia (where i know he was the professional before leaving this country in 1915), and Newport, where again a nine holer existed (by Willie David) previously, and the standard story is that Ross then turned that into 18 later.   Any info you can provide on those would be helpful.

The one course I think might have an MCC connection is Springhaven.   In early 1910 it was reported that Barker had been consulting with the club and had recommended the addition of fifty bunkers to the course, which the club said they would build as soon as weather and logistics permitted.   

Still and all, do you think it would be fair to say that Barker was probably better known for his playing abilities and the fact he was the pro at the famous Garden City club at this point (June 1910)  than for any architectural achievements, most of which came later in the south?

Thanks...this is indeed interesting to explore, and I had no idea previously that he was so prolific.   I'm just trying to determine the actual timeframe of his achievements and how that related to how the MCC Committee might have viewed him at the time.

Mike
I'm not interested in turning this thread into another Merion thread.

Tom,

I think it's fundamental to ALL of our discussions of US golf architectural history to accurately determine;

1) How many courses built before NGLA opened were architecturally worthy or renowned as such.  I contend that was very, very few.

and

2) How many "professionals" and other "experts" were actually known to be golf course architects by 1910, or whether they were known more as top amateurs, foreign-born professionals, and dabblers into all things golf from agronomy to clubmaking to their golfing contemporaries throughout the country at that time.   I contend the latter.

When it's stated that;

"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 Country Club, Mayfield Country Club, Country Club of Asheville (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. "

I think it's important to our accurate historical understanding of events to determine accurately when all of this actually took place, because courses like Columbia didn't open until 1911.

I think this is the crux of where we disagree on quite a few matters.   If you wish to blow me off here, that's ok too and I understand.


Tom,

If your attempt to pump up HH Barker somewhat obsessively over the past two months isn't about your similar obsessive focus on disproving the Merion history, then what the hell are you doing here?

At least be straight with us.  These games are way beneath you.

I love how I got taken to task some months back when I dared suggest that you and David were working together on this. 

I'll go back in my hole, but neither of you have proven a thing.

[Thomas MacWood]

David
The course at Spokane is Spokane CC. Barker made a tour out west in 1909. Travis redesigned Columbia prior to the 1921 US Open, I believe it was 1918 or 1919. He rebuilt greens and altered the bunkering. Dr. Harban was also involved. Columbia has some really wild greens. Mecklendburg (Charlotte CC) ran into some problems with their lease in 1912 and decided to move. Barker planned a new course on new land at Myers Park, but eventually they settled with the landowner and scrapped the plans to move. Ross redesigned their 9-hole course and added nine more in 1915. Ross also built a course at Myers Park in the 20s. Willie Park redesigned Grove Park Inn in 1917, so that photo reflects some of his redesign work. Ross is mistakenly credited for also working at GPI....there is an old thread out there somewhere that dealt with the confusion.

I've often wondered how Barker came to this country equiped to immediately begin delving into architectural work. To my knowledge he did no design work at home in Yorkshire. I suspect his construction and landscape experience came from his father, who was in charge of the grounds at Fixby Hall, an estate adjacent to Huddersfield GC. In fact there was and I think still remains, an association between the club and the mansion.

[Thomas MacWood]

Mike
TE asked me to start this thread...because he was hijacking another thread.

The first thread on the golf courses by region, by date, was Philadelphia. I don't recall you complaining about my coverage of Barker at that point. I don't believe his name came up at all.

You were clearly adgetated by the look at Southern golf courses, you complained the courses listed weren't good enough (too many Barker courses). Bob Crosby accused you of Phily provinciallity. I thought that was a very good thread, quite informative. If anything, it became clear you were obsessed with Barker on that thread not me. The thread ended when you wanted to turn it nto a Barker-Merion thread. I refused to allow you to hijack a good thread.

Next was the Midwest list, again you questioned the few Barker references, including Skokie. Next came my California list, no Barker courses, followed by Europe, again no Barker courses.

If anyone is obsessed with Barker its you and TE. I don't get it. What do you have against the poor guy? How many pages did you go on with Wilson & Cobbs Creek? I don't recall anyone complaining about an obsession. Oh well.

[DMoriarty]

Willie Park redesigned Grove Park Inn in 1917, so that photo reflects some of his redesign work. Ross is mistakenly credited for also working at GPI....there is an old thread out there somewhere that dealt with the confusion.

I read one thread, a very good one, in which you determined that Ross' role was limited to changing a hole to make way for a clubhouse move and rebuilding a few greens.  WP is mentioned as possibly having done the original design but not redesign work.  Perhaps I have the wrong thread?

_________________________________

Tom,

If your attempt to pump up HH Barker somewhat obsessively over the past two months isn't about your similar obsessive focus on disproving the Merion history, then what the hell are you doing here?

At least be straight with us.  These games are way beneath you.

I love how I got taken to task some months back when I dared suggest that you and David were working together on this. 

I'll go back in my hole, but neither of you have proven a thing.

Once again, your bizarre accusatory post betrays your paranoia and provincialism.   

-- Tom MacWood has been researching Barker for many years, and has posted about him on numerous occasions, long before I ever told him about Barker's involvement with Merion.   You and others were just were not paying attention.

--This thread exists because TEPaul has been cyber-stalking again, thread to thread, demanding that one of us explain why I wrote (based on MacWood's info) that H.H. Barker may have at one time been the second most prominent course designer, behind C.B. Macdonald.   For example, TEPaul was completely polluting an otherwise interesting California thread with his Barker and Merion fixation.   Like you tried to do in the Southern thread. 

--Tom and I have been working together on what?  As I have said many times (and in the essay itself) Tom MacWood provided me with information on Barker's background and course attributions.   Other than whatever I mentioned in the essay, his contribution was basically to proof-read the essay for me as did others who I will not mention because I don't want to make them targets of abuse.   I don't want to sell Tom's contribution short, but I can't think of an contributions for which he was not specifically credited in the essay. I'd have to go back through it to be sure, but I think that is the case.

In sum, your latest hissy fit is misguided, inappropriate, and unjustified.  Naturally.

Stop with the accusations and this conspiracy garbage.  It has gotten beyond creepy.

[Thomas MacWood]

David
Here is the old Grove Park Inn thread. There were four primary courses in Asheville..I think they all changed their names along the road, which IMO led to the confusion. I was pumping up Barker back then too...pre Merion.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,18432.0.html

[DMoriarty]

David
Here is the old Grove Park Inn thread. There were four primary courses in Asheville..I think they all changed their names along the road, which IMO led to the confusion. I was pumping up Barker back then too...pre Merion.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,18432.0.html

Yes indeed.  Here is an example:

. . .
In 1915 when Barker went back to Europe to help with the War, I think it could be argued he was the more prominent of the two architects (he and Ross) or at least on an even footing. He had Mayfield, Columbia, Arcola, Rumson under his belt. Like Ross he had collaborated with Colt in Chicago (Winnetka)--the difference being Ross constucted Old Elm for Colt, Barker co-designed Winnetka with Colt. He had also already ventured West, it was reported he designed or redesigned a course in Portland.

Barker was also making great strides in the South--historic Asheville CC (GPI), Richmond (Westhampton), Druid Hills, East Lake (redesign) & Brookhaven in Atlanta, and Palm Beach CC. And perhaps a few more.
. . .

But you were pumping up Barker before this, suggesting that in 1913 Barker was a more accomplished and prominent architect than Tillinghast and Ross.  And before that you had listed him as one of the most important designers pre-1920.   

But Tom, don't you think it's time to come clean?  Remember back in '04 when we launched this whole diabolical scheme? I had the info on Barker's involvement at Merion, you had the info rebutting Wilson's trip.   And for four years it has been a carefully choreographed dance of deception and skulduggery . . .  that is until that meddling Mike Cirba found us out.   Now all is lost.  Drats!  Foiled again.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Not to divert this thread, but, Arcola was mentioned.

There's a really neat aerial of Arcola taken prior to the GSP exercising eminent domain and eliminating some of the holes, and prior to the sale of some of the other holes to Buitoni Macaroni.

The course was quite interesting as was the bunker scheme and style.

If I can obtain a copy of the photo I'll send it to someone for posting.

Arcola has survived two major loss of critical land parcels, yet it remains an interesting golf course, although the bunkering was modernized a few years ago and has more of an antiseptic look.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick. Thanks for diverting the thread back to its topic.  I'd like to see the aerial. 

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

Your reply (post) #112 is really good. Your questions and points are right on the money. They very realistic. It is the type of post that should be used as something of a format for all productive discussions on this website. It's just unfortunate that the replies to it by the one or ones you're directing it at are so poor and so unresponsive to your questions and your points.

[Thomas MacWood]

Here is some more information I've fabriacted in order to pump up Barker and hopefully disprove Merion's history. This report comes from the British golf magazine The Golfer in 1909. Its interesting to a get a British perspective on his activities.

"The Golfer has the most excellent reports of the progress that is beign made by HH Barker, in his new life as a professional in America, to which he is now thoroughly accustomed. It will remembered, of course, that he is the old Huddersfiedl amateur who playede for England in the last amateur international match that took place at St. Andrews, and was the same year on of the favorites for the Amateur chmpionship. He sailed a few weeks later for New York. His association with the Garden City Golf Club, which may fairly be said to be the premier club of america, has proved mutually satisfactory, aned he has gradually established for himself a strong poistion in America golf. In particular he has given deep study to questions of course architecture, and has come to be regarded as one best authorities in the States concerning it: his services being in eager demand for the laying out of courses and the imporvement of existing ones. He has just recently completed the laying-out of a fine course for the Richmond, Va., Country Club, and when we last heard of him he was at Portland, Ore, engaged on laying one out there. In America they are going in as strongly for the rearranglemnt of all their old courses as we have been doing in this country and Barker has come formward to fill a fine position just at the right time. His large body of riends will be very pleased to hear of his success."


I'd also like to get back to the other document I made up, that would the column from Verdant Greene that I began this thread with.

"Herbert Barker, who planned the Mayfield course at Cleveland, which just now disputes first honors with the Detroit Country Club and who has acted in an advistory capacity in the laying out and remodeling of at least three courses around Philadelphia, within a half dozen years, besides a host of others, has had enough of being a professional in what some people proudly call the 'Land of the Free'. He goes back to England soon, where it is assumed he will apply for reinstatement to the amateur ranks. That Yorkshireman, who less than a decade ago, won the Irish amateur title, fancied he could capitlaize his ability by coming to the States and turning professional. Garden City, which just then had a hankering for anything English, made him an offer and he accpeted. Mr. Barker, who is of sensative type, has always held his peace, but if he wished could write a volume upon being excluded from the company of gentlemen, so to speak. Barker never won a competition of note on this side, owing parly to poor health for a time, but soon developed striking ability as a links architect. Indeed, only one other man has laid out more courses in this country."

After highlighting some of the more interesting sections I observed that Greene and Barker must have had a fairly close relationship. To which TE said, "It appears Greene probably interviewed Barker, but I don't exactly see where anyone could intuit that Greene had a 'close relationship' from that." I disagree. Its obvious from Greene's insights that Barker wasn't one to be outspokenly critical. He wouldn't be sharing these highly personal thoughts with just a casual acquaintance in an interview. Its clear Greene was close to Barker.

[TEPaul]

"If anyone is obsessed with Barker its you and TE. I don't get it. What do you have against the poor guy? How many pages did you go on with Wilson & Cobbs Creek? I don't recall anyone complaining about an obsession. Oh well."


Tom MacWood:

I have nothing at all AGAINST Barker, but of course neither I nor apparently anyone else on here can stop you from spewing out the total garbage you do about what others think of someone. That line of yours has gotten about as tired as the accusations you've made about C&W and reliance on that book. How many times have you said that on here---a hundred?

Frankly, Barker has fascinated me and for a few years, particularly after Wayne and I got involved at the Columbia restoration with architect Bob Walton about 2-3 years ago. We made a couple of trips down there for a few days. If Columbia is representative it just seems hard to get a real bead on Barker because so much of what he did way back then has changed. That aspect seemed a bit frustrating to Walton, but at least Bob went about his research in a very level-headed and paced way that was devoid of the kind of totally overblown hyperbole and exaggeration you seem to be laying on this recent Barker campaign of yours! With Columbia the history and evolution of the course was so overlaid by the constant oversight and work by Walter Harban who seemed in many ways to be the D.C. counterpart to Philadelphia's Hugh Wilson, and certainly with agronomic research in combination with Piper and Oakley of the US Dept of Agriculture, at that time.

Again, Mike Cirba's post #112 is really a good one and you should try to deal with every point he made and question he asked, instead of deflecting his points and questions by constantly criticizing us. If you really do care about Barker, I think you owe it to him at least.

You may think the way you just throw names and dates and courses around on here indiscriminately might impress someone but it doesn't impress us. You've got a ton of blanks to fill in with those names, dates and courses, if you want to impress anyone with whatever interest you have in Barker. Your wild exaggerations that seem to be your style on here won't fly with most of the people on here who are pretty architecturally and historically savy.

[TEPaul]

" Its clear Greene was close to Barker."

Tom MacWood:

Honestly, if you want a discussion on Barker to get any traction you do need to stop exaggerating like that. That Barker's interview with Greene touched on the issue of the lack of respect back then shown journeymen professionals from abroad is an interesting one but it was not exclusive to Barker, that's for sure. It was an extremely general and commonplace attitude among many and it sure doesn't indicate that Barker and Greene had to have had a close relationship because that issue was mentioned in an interview.

From an earlier post on this same thread it appears you are just now becoming aware of the extent of that issue. Frankly, it was endemic to most all private clubs back then---eg they didn't even allow professionals like Barker in their clubhouses. Not pretty, that's for damn sure, but historically that fact is as solid as concrete.

Just stop exaggerating, and not just exaggerating, doing it as egregiously as you always tend to when you latch onto some subject or some person that has come to interest you. That's the only way Barker is going to get treated accurately in any of these discussions.

[Thomas MacWood]

1) How many courses built before NGLA opened were architecturally worthy or renowned as such.  I contend that was very, very few.

and

2) How many "professionals" and other "experts" were actually known to be golf course architects by 1910, or whether they were known more as top amateurs, foreign-born professionals, and dabblers into all things golf from agronomy to clubmaking to their golfing contemporaries throughout the country at that time.   I contend the latter.

I think it's important to our accurate historical understanding of events to determine accurately when all of this actually took place, because courses like Columbia didn't open until 1911.

I think this is the crux of where we disagree on quite a few matters.   If you wish to blow me off here, that's ok too and I understand.

TE
Here are Mike's two main points/questions. I've address both of them.

1) Garden City and the NGLA were clearly the two cutting edge designs at the time Merion was seeking advice. Thats really all you need to know.

2) I asked you early in the thread who were the best architects operating in 1910-11. You danced around the question and began singing the praises of the amatuer/sportsman...bring up names like Fownes and Leeds, and Crump and Wilson. Talk about not having a historical understanding of events to determine accurately what took place. I don't believe Fownes and Leeds were offering their services to clubs in 1910-11 and Crump & Wilson were unknown commondities in 1910-11.

It appears also in Mike's point #2 he is trying to make the case that Barker was nothing more than a foreign-born professional...dabbler in all things golf from agronomy to clubmaking and not actually known to be golf course architects by 1910.

Clearly Mikes second point is wrong as well...just read the British article above. He obviously doesn't know Barker very well.  I have no idea if he knew agrononmy or not, he was not your typical pro who came up through the ranks of the professional, he was amateur golfer turned pro. His father was gardner, he was a gardner, so chances are he did know a bit about agronomy. He wasn't a clubmaker, he brought one with him, who succeeded him as pro at GCGC, Frank Bellwood, he was at GCGC for 40 years. From the articles and comments I've shared on this thread its obvious Barker was known to be golf course architect in 1910. Mike's point is off the mark.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()