The likes of Herbert H. Barker, Willie Campbell and Robert White....

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

Stop whining about what you regard as personal attacks and accept it as constructive criticism of your methods and findings. 

Since you are so enamored with Barker and believe he was a significant factor in the development of Merion's East Course, why don't you research Atlantic City CC and find out if he did anything there?  If past is prologue, you will do so without contacting the club or visiting the course.

For all we know, Barker's work for the land developers in Ardmore may not even be one of the courses alluded to in the Greene newspaper article.  Perhaps you shouldn't limit yourself to looking for just one more course, but another as well.  Good luck.

[TEPaul]

It seems to me one of the problems many of the very early clubs and courses in America suffered from was what should probably hereinafter be labeled as "A Case of the Interchangeable "Willies"".   


(Willie Davis, Willie Dunn Jr, Willie Campbell, Willie Tucker etc, etc. I think there was even a almost never seen but now seemingly great Scottish immigrant pro/clubmaker/greenskeeper/golf architect/expert researcher/writer who apparently died seeking out some Ivory Tower in Ohio by the name of Willie MacWalnut).

[Jeff_Brauer]

"I've been on club and association boards and committees and the one thing they never do is sit there and lie to one another about what they've done or are trying to do. It has most certainly not escaped my notice that you seem to include even that kind of valuable information as suspect. "

TePaul,

Intersting comments.  I see these meetings as more of an outsider, but am usually briefed in advance by the committee chair about all the different hidden agendas, club politics, etc.  Many times proposals are defeated simply because one guy hates another guys guts!  And boards have been known to word things vaguely, so they can do what they want, in spite of the board refusing to "rubber stamp" their ideas.

I have also seen the resulting minutes of the meetings where there was a virtual slugfest between participants and the notes then simply recorded something like "after lengthy discussion, the board unanimously agreed that....."

So, I agree that contemporary accounts are generally better than distant ones, but would venture to say that any historian would have to look at all sources, including club minutes as potentially suspect.  Even where accurate - I mean the board did agree to what the minutes said they did - stopping there would mean you might be missing the real backstory.

So much of history is perspective and opinion of the writer.  Trying to say that others shouldn't add opinions is just wrong, IMHO.  Think whites vs. Indians and American vs. Japanese viewpoints.

So, lets get real here.  You put forth just as much unsubstantiated opinion - i.e. connecting the dots via sketch info as Tom MacWood or anyone else.  You are just pontificating about the accuracy of club reports as another way to bolster your opinions, just as anyone else can defend using newspaper articles and what not as sources when they use them.

To paraphrase one of your earlier comments, its not your fault, its just the nature of historical research!

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

As usual, you are just off the mark and the reasons are definitely not unknown to me.

Believe me, when you analyze some of these board and committee meeting remarks and minutes you can most definitely see the agendas and the disputes between the participants and personalities. Perhaps the most amazing AND VIOLENT I ever saw is the 1926 board and committee meeting minutes in 1926 at The Links Club in New York of The Creek Club. The two heavy-weight protagonists at that meetings were Howard Dean and C.B. Macdonald. In those meeting minutes it's definitely not hard to tell they went at each other in that meeting in New York City with both barrels. Macdonald quit the club within weeks and at that meeting he was actually the president of the club's holding company.

But what was recorded within the resolutions of what was to be done with the golf course despite all that rancor is completely accurate and supportable by all kinds of other facts of ensuing events, costs, contractors, architects and such.

So nice try, Jeff Brauer, but you're talking about club politics and personalities. Clubs may minimize some of that rancor within their minutes but if you think they actually lie in their minutes about what they did or are about to do you are totally nuts.

It never ceases to amaze me some of the things some say on here to make and particularly to stretch and defend some ridiculous and illogical point.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I didn't say they lie in club meeting minutes. 

I still believe documents outside the clubs themselves can be relevant and that both club docs and newspaper accounts can be flawed.  Neither you or I can generalize about ALL of the millions of club minute documents that must exist.  Ditto on newspaper accounts.  I am sure the accuracy of such articles and minutes vary all over the map. 

Again, good enough reason to use back up sources and a combination of documents, photos, recollections, etc. to form an opinion as to what happened.   Each historical quest requires its own review based on what is available anywhere.

You basically confirm that point, ("and supportable by all kinds of other facts of ensuing events, costs, contractors, architects and such.") although you limit it to club documents only.  I simply don't agree that these are the only sources an amateur historian with an interest in golf courses might consult.  Bascially, I believe all history, esp. of this "minor" kind ends up using a wide variety of documents by neccessity.

And, I wasn't trying to support Tom Mac or David M on any particular point regarding Merion East.  You guys can continue all that on www.watchthe2Tomsgoatit.com

[TEPaul]

"I still believe documents outside the clubs themselves can be relevant and that both club docs and newspaper accounts can be flawed.  Neither you or I can generalize about ALL of the millions of club minute documents that must exist.  Ditto on newspaper accounts.  I am sure the accuracy of such articles and minutes vary all over the map."


JeffB:

My mistake. I'm not trying to generalize about millions of club minute documents that must exist. I'm only generalizing about the raw contemporaneous source material from the few clubs that have been the focus of these on-going discussions and arguments with the likes of those two fellas. Most of them they've never even seen and yet they seem to imply they are automatically not to be considered accurate. To me that's total bullshit. That is all I'm reacting to, and I believe with very good right and reason.  Their only response seems to be that I'm withholding information. I'm doing nothing of the kind. If they want to see what I see then just let them approach these clubs as I have. What the hell is wrong with that approach? 

[TEPaul]

I'd like to get back to the likes of Barker and Campbell and what can really be documented about them and their careers in architecture, particularly with Campbell and Myopia or even TCC. TCC seems to have some of their history showing their original holes were laid out by a couple of club members originally including this Robert Bacon---a pretty interesting guy in a number of ways.

To me the real issue on here is that some believe people like that or even a Herbert Leeds never could've done what they originally did without the help of somebody else----some professional like a Campbell.

I just don't buy that as an historical reality---and definitely not with the reality of what was actually being produced back then in the 1890s. To me this isn't just about those men it's about what really was----what got on the ground back then. It occurs to me way too many on here are making that a whole lot more and more significant than it ever was.

[DMoriarty]

And of course we have our weekly appearance by our beloved Wayne, to give us a running page count on his super secret puff piece of William Flynn and Merion.   As usual, the words are plenty yet the substance is largely absent . . . .

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35535.0.html
TE/JES
If you are honestly interested in Barker, perhaps you could start by searching in your own backyard, and follow up on Green's claim about the three Philly courses. We have a pretty good idea on the first two (Springhaven and Merion). What is the third golf course?

Tom MacWood,

You use newspaper articles that support your claims and disregard others that do not.  You have a disturbing pattern of ignoring information that counters your arguments and overreach the implications of other articles that you deem supports your arguments.  Consider some of your reactions to newspaper articles attributing the design of Merion East to Wilson and his committee.  You and your protoge rejected them yet you threw overwhelming support to a eulogy 30 years after the fact.  You guys are moving targets when it comes to research methods.

I mentioned in the other Barker thread that I've seen a written account that Barker was involved at Atlantic City CC.  I am not interested enough to research this, but Tom MacWood might start with ACCC as the suspected third course.   Of course, there is no evidence that Barker had anything at all to do with Merion.  For now, all we know is that Barker created a rough draft of a course on some of the land that was eventually used for Merion's East Course and not for the Club but for land developers that would later sell the property to the Club.  We are starting to have some idea about Barker's work at Springhaven.  It doesn't appear that it lasted very long as a different design theory and aesthetic subordinated and erased Barker's work within a decade or so.

Just how much of an original architect's work remains and how much reworking was done over time by other architects is not any easy task on any golf course.  The majority of our Flynn book looks at the architectural evolution of the courses he was involved in.  The Merion chapter alone is 200 pages.  Shinnecock Hills, The Country Club, Indian Creek, Cascades, Lancaster, Boca Raton, Philadelphia Country and Huntingdon Valley all get extensive coverage.  In redesign work, Flynn's method of utilizing a survey of the existing course, preliminary plans overlaid on that survey and subsequent design iterations combined with ground and serial aerial photographs (along with some extensive Photoshop overlays by Craig Disher) were used to figure out what existed prior to Flynn, what design process he took to come up with a final plan, how the final plan was adopted and what changes were made over time enabled us to put together comprehensive design evolution reports together.  This is not only useful in recording the history of the architecture, but also helpful in restoration efforts.  Flynn drew to scale (it was inked and enhanced by WS Nichols).  This critical factor enabled our anlaysis process to work.

If an "expert researcher" makes certain claims about the standing or specific attributions of an architect, there should be substance to such claims.  With MacWood and Moriarty, there are fewer facts and a great deal more fiction based upon their methods and biases.

Wayne,

As usual, the only thing remotely approaching substance in this post are your usual half-truth's intended to imply points that you cannot explicitly support.  Like your treatment of Barker at Springhaven:

We are starting to have some idea about Barker's work at Springhaven.  It doesn't appear that it lasted very long as a different design theory and aesthetic subordinated and erased Barker's work within a decade or so.

In fact, you know very little, or nothing, about Barker work at Springhaven.  You have no support for implying anything about Barker's work at Springhaven,  but you want to create the false impression that it was shown in the photos you posted from 1924.    As usual, you don't let the facts get in the way of the point you want to try and make. 

Same goes with your treatment of Barker and Merion.   We know Barker did a routing of Merion.   We know that Merion was was still talking about the routing months after it was drawn up and after Barker's letter (which references the routing as enclosed) was provided to Merion.   We know that Merion's Board of Governors even informed the Members about Barker's routing and that Barker's involvement was noted in the press 5 months after he had done it.   Barker's routing is THE ONLY ROUTING that has thus far been confirmed by the substantive record.     Sure you and TEPaul like to posture about some support for other routings, but until you come forward with the substantive support for such claims, your posturing is dust in the wind.   

As for the rest, taking advice from you on proper methodology for research and writing would be like going to TEPaul for pointers on brevity. 

Tom MacWood,

Stop whining about what you regard as personal attacks and accept it as constructive criticism of your methods and findings. 

Since you are so enamored with Barker and believe he was a significant factor in the development of Merion's East Course, why don't you research Atlantic City CC and find out if he did anything there?  If past is prologue, you will do so without contacting the club or visiting the course.

For all we know, Barker's work for the land developers in Ardmore may not even be one of the courses alluded to in the Greene newspaper article.  Perhaps you shouldn't limit yourself to looking for just one more course, but another as well.  Good luck.

Uhh Wayne, it is not MacWood who is "enamored" with Barker, it is your writing partner, TEPaul.  Only "obsessed" is a better word.     So if you guys are so enamored/obsessed with Barker why don't you guys do a bit of research, instead of railing on us about the guy.   

Everything I have said about Barker was accurate.   As I have said from the beginning, I think I probably gave him less coverage and credit that he probably deserves. 

[DMoriarty]

 

David M

I’m sure that you don’t really mean that, but meant to say that you are just to busy to assist.

I’m sure that there are times when we all fall into that category or at least qualify for that crown to be placed upon our heads once within our life span. However pathetic and pompous we sometimes appear, we may still need the help and assistance of others. I certainly am not perfect.

Melvyn,

Thank you for trying to politely smooth over my rather rough response to TEPaul.  Verbal delicacy was never my strong suit.   But, unfortunatley, in this case I do mean exactly what I said.     I am at wit's end with this guy.    He plays himself off as an expert, but adds little or nothing of substance to any of these conversations.   He attacks and attacks and attacks, and then has the nerve to demand that we do his research for him.   How many times is he going to demand MacWood or I do what amounts to very simple research for him?    MacWood spelled everything out for him with Myopia and Campbell.   Is he not even capable of following up on that by himself. 

Think of how many Merion threads (or other threads hijacked into Merion threads) there have been since my essay was posted months ago.  TEPaul has been the major poster behind most if not all of these threads.   In all these threads has he contributed anything novel and substantive on the topic?  Nothing that I can see.

CAN ANYONE NAME ANYTHING NOVEL AND SUBSTANTIVE THAT TOM PAUL HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE DOZENS OF DISCUSSIONS ON MERION SINCE THE IMO WAS POSTED?

And now he is doing the same thing with Myopia. 

It is obvious he has no ability to do anything for himself and has nothing to offer.  TEPaul has nothing to offer other than third hand regurgitation of the work of others, and some vague, unsupported, and wishy-washy quasi-theories on the "amateur-sportsman."   Almost all of what he has offered af fact has turned out to be absolutely wrong.   

If he has an issue with what we have written, he should quit griping about it and get out and do the research himself.  Wasn't that the plan?   A point-by-point counterpoint?     I'll expect that on the shelves shortly after the  90,000 page Flynn Puff Piece.

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

Sometimes I am considered to be quick on the uptake so I get your drift. What you are really just trying to say is that you are just too busy and preoccupied with trying to take your next breath to help.

Fully understandable, life must go on, but why you Guys just can’t say what you really mean in the first place. I’ll put the problem down to not understanding that New World accent – now if you came from Chicago then I don’t think I would have had a problem!!     

[TEPaul]

"Barker's routing is THE ONLY ROUTING that has thus far been confirmed by the substantive record.     Sure you and TEPaul like to posture about some support for other routings, but until you come forward with the substantive support for such claims, your posturing is dust in the wind."


Isn't that interesting! Barker's routing is THE ONLY ROUTING that has thus far been confirmed by the substantive record!?!?

In that case, I suppose the question needs to be asked and answered as what constitutes "The Substantive Record" of Merion East that needs confirming!  

Are you assuming the substantive record of Merion that needs to be confirmed is something that has to do with your opinion or the opinion of some people on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com THINK the architectural record of Merion East is?!?

I'm afraid not. The sustantive record of the amount routings done for Merion East and and when as it was built are contained in the club records and archives. The fact that you may not be aware of that has absolutely zero effect or influence on the SUBSTANTIVE RECORD of Merion East, that's for sure. Furthermore the substantive Merion record mentions who did those routings, one of which was approved and built and Barker's was definitely not the one.

I guess it's cool that someone on the other side of this country trying to learn the history of Merion and its architecture thinks his determinations of what happened there holds the keys to the SUBSTANTIVE RECORD of Merion East but I'm also quite sure neither Merion nor anyone else gives a damn.  



  

[Thomas MacWood]

Not to continue with info on this other Willie Campbell, but I assume this is the case.  This is an article from May of 1896 where the Belmont Golf Links is discussed (Belmont soon becomes Aronimink).



I've read the history of Aronimink from here:

http://www.aronimink.org/tour/tours.cfm?tourid=4597

and no mention of a Willie Campbell designing Belmont is there.

Joe,
Thanks for the info. It is interesting the club history has no mention of Campbell, although not totally surprising. I think there may have been more than one Campbell in the Phila region. I've seen a reference to a Joe Campbell too, I think he may have been the person who designed Huntingdon. I'm not sure if they were related or not. There is also a Willie Campbell associated with Patty Jewet GC in Colorado, I'm pretty certain thats the Philly Campbell.

While I very much appreciate all your efforts going through the old newspapers and sharing with us what you've found (I think I've learned more about Philly golf history in the few months you've posting than in all the previous years combined) I'm affraid your Philly brethren don't put too much stock in newspaper accounts.

[Mike_Cirba]

"The beginning of golf in New England was in '92.   In the fall of that year, Mr. Laurence Curtis, a well-known banker, of Boston, brought the game to the official notice of the Brookline Country Club.   Mr Curtis, with Messrs. A. Hunnewell and Robert Bacon, were forthwith appointed to layout a course.   It is curious to note that the cost of the course was limited by the club governance to $50.   Five thousand dollars have since been expended upon it, and the club is now endeavoring to lease land adoining its domain in Brookline for the purpose of locating nine additional holes, for the present course of only nine holes utterly inadequate."

"The growth of golf in the club has been phenomenal.  The 1893 and 1894 club championships were won by Mr. H.C Leeds."  - The New York Times, April 26, 1896

[Thomas MacWood]

Mike
That was the five or six hole course that pre-dated Cambpell. I touched on that on the Myopia thread. By the way, while I appreciate contemporaneous newspaper and magazine accounts I'm affraid the self-appointed spiritual guide of Phila golf history is not too keen.

[Mike_Cirba]

"Another excellent golf course not from from Boston is that of the Myopia Hunt Club, at Hamilton.   A course of nine holes was laid out in the summer of 1894, and although some of the deeply dyed horsey men of the club viewed with feelings of suspicion the advent of this new game, it bounded at once into popularity, and last year many of the fondest devotees of the hunt were seen regularly on the links.   The club became a genuine golf club last season, and the many tournaments held over its course had a large number of entires.   The course lies over beautiful rolling country."  -  The New York Times, April 26, 1896

[DMoriarty]

"Barker's routing is THE ONLY ROUTING that has thus far been confirmed by the substantive record.     Sure you and TEPaul like to posture about some support for other routings, but until you come forward with the substantive support for such claims, your posturing is dust in the wind."


Isn't that interesting! Barker's routing is THE ONLY ROUTING that has thus far been confirmed by the substantive record!?!?

In that case, I suppose the question needs to be asked and answered as what constitutes "The Substantive Record" of Merion East that needs confirming! 

Are you assuming the substantive record of Merion that needs to be confirmed is something that has to do with your opinion or the opinion of some people on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com THINK the architectural record of Merion East is?!?

I'm afraid not. The sustantive record of the amount routings done for Merion East and and when as it was built are contained in the club records and archives. The fact that you may not be aware of that has absolutely zero effect or influence on the SUBSTANTIVE RECORD of Merion East, that's for sure. Furthermore the substantive Merion record mentions who did those routings, one of which was approved and built and Barker's was definitely not the one.

I guess it's cool that someone on the other side of this country trying to learn the history of Merion and its architecture thinks his determinations of what happened there holds the keys to the SUBSTANTIVE RECORD of Merion East but I'm also quite sure neither Merion nor anyone else gives a damn.   

TEPaul,  given your past failings to accurately interpret just about anything to do with the history of golf course architecture, your unsubstantiated pronouncements on what the Merion Meeting Minutes may or may not say is nothing but hot air.   

Ironic isn't it, that you demand that MacWood produce for you articles that are readily available you (but for your incompetence and/or laziness)  yet you expect us to rely on your interpretation of a document that you will not let us see?   

Reminds me a bit of the 1909 Deed that you so badly misrepresented, all the while refusing to produce it.

[TEPaul]

Even I am sorry to see the guy who wrote post #33 degenerate into something like that. It's not only sad it seems to be getting sort of scary.


“CAN ANYONE NAME ANYTHING NOVEL AND SUBSTANTIVE THAT TOM PAUL HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE DOZENS OF DISCUSSIONS ON MERION SINCE THE IMO WAS POSTED?”


I’d be glad to, AGAIN. However, not on this thread.

Isn’t it interesting how you hammer me for turning everything into another Merion thread and then you attempt to do that on this one? I’d be happy to explain what I contributed of substance on the years of 1910 and 1911 with the creation of Merion. Go dredge up an old thread dedicated to Merion and ask that question on it and I’ll gladly answer your question.

“And now he is doing the same thing with Myopia.”

I believe I offered on here what Myopia’s own history book said about the architectural history of Myopia. I know you’ve never seen it and I doubt Tom MacWood has even if he said he saw it some years ago. The point is he had no idea at this point what it said. 

I certainly hope you two nitwits have not actually reached the point in architecture analysis where you don’t even care what a club’s own history book  says about it’s own architectural history.   But if you have reached that point it would not surprise me at all.  It seems like you two are so far gone on this crap you call “independent research” (basically an excuse for the fact neither of you have much of anything from these clubs) you don’t even care what a club has to say about itself. My God what a ridiculous joke that is!


“If he has an issue with what we have written, he should quit griping about it and get out and do the research himself.  Wasn't that the plan?   A point-by-point counterpoint? “

Yes, I did have an issue with what you wrote about Merion but since so few seem to believe any of it any longer I don’t have much of an issue with it now. That was the plan a couple of months ago---eg to write a point by point “counterpoint” piece to yours, but after some consideration with some from Merion it doesn’t seem to be necessary any longer. To the people who I think matter the lack of logic and ridiculousness of your essay pretty much stands on its own.

Frankly, I don’t think many people even know what point you ever were trying to make in that essay you keep waffling so often. The supreme irony is even you probably agree what we’ve said all along about how Merion treated Macdonald/Whigam accurately in what they said about him and what he did for them way back then.

[DMoriarty]

CAN ANYONE NAME ANYTHING NOVEL AND SUBSTANTIVE THAT TOM PAUL HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE DOZENS OF DISCUSSIONS ON MERION SINCE THE IMO WAS POSTED?

[DMoriarty]

CAN ANYONE IDENTIFY ANYTHING NOVEL AND SUBSTANTIVE THAT TOM PAUL HAS CONTRIBUTED REGARDING H.H. BARKER?

Here are some of his posts mentioning Barker:

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.  Wink
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 2
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: Why Hugh Wilson and his committee routed and designed Merion East.......
on: May 05, 2008, 09:22:34 am
Started by TEPaul, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 50.3%
David:

Throughout all this I guess I never really thought to ask you something pretty obvious. Maybe we've all just been talking around it, and I'm not really sure what your essay specifically says regarding it.
David:

Throughout all this I guess I never really thought to ask you something pretty obvious. Maybe we've all just been talking around it, and I'm not really sure what your essay specifically says regarding it.

So, the question is, is it your feeling AND YOUR CONTENTION in your essay that Macdonald (and Whigam) actually left Merion with something physical such as a real drawn routing and design plan? Is it your feeling and contention that such a physical thing as a drawn routing and design plan was included with that "LETTER" that the site committee mentions they got from him and mentioned to the MCC board.

I'm sort of wondering if there wasn't something like that how in the world could people like Francis and Lloyd be out there "tweaking" whatever it was you say Macdonald left them with?

I mean, I could certainly see Macdonald/Whigam saying something in that letter like: "We feel you've got enough nice land here to build a good 18 hole course on and you may want to consider the kind of famous template type holes on it we're doing at NGLA. Come to NGLA at some point and we'll show you the drawings and sketches I got from abroad to use to design and build NGLA and I'll explain the principles of those templates and what to look for in that regard on your land."

Do you see them doing more than that? Again, do you think they left Merion with something physical like perhaps a stick routing as Barker did for Connell and perhaps some hole concept ideas they drew for Merion?

Otherwise, again, I just can't see what the likes of Francis and Lloyd would have to go on when you mentioned they were out there "tweaking" Macdonald's routing in 1910, including when you suggest Francis actually had that late night land-swap epiphany. If he didn't have something drawn or physical how could he have known what Macdonald may've been suggesting in that last five hole stretch or anywhere else on what would become the original Merion East?

Thanks.
So, the question is, is it your feeling AND YOUR CONTENTION in your essay that Macdonald (and Whigam) actually left Merion with something physical such as a real drawn routing and design plan? Is it your feeling and contention that such a physical thing as a drawn routing and design plan was included with that "LETTER" that the site committee mentions they got from him and mentioned to the MCC board.

I'm sort of wondering if there wasn't something like that how in the world could people like Francis and Lloyd be out there "tweaking" whatever it was you say Macdonald left them with?

I mean, I could certainly see Macdonald/Whigam saying something in that letter like: "We feel you've got enough nice land here to build a good 18 hole course on and you may want to consider the kind of famous template type holes on it we're doing at NGLA. Come to NGLA at some point and we'll show you the drawings and sketches I got from abroad to use to design and build NGLA and I'll explain the principles of those templates and what to look for in that regard on your land."

Do you see them doing more than that? Again, do you think they left Merion with something physical like perhaps a stick routing as Barker did for Connell and perhaps some hole concept ideas they drew for Merion?

Otherwise, again, I just can't see what the likes of Francis and Lloyd would have to go on when you mentioned they were out there "tweaking" Macdonald's routing in 1910, including when you suggest Francis actually had that late night land-swap epiphany. If he didn't have something drawn or physical how could he have known what Macdonald may've been suggesting in that last five hole stretch or anywhere else on what would become the original Merion East?

Thanks.
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 3
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: The likes of Herbert H. Barker and Willie Campbell....
on: Today at 10:56:15 am
Started by TEPaul, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 49.1%
"Barker's routing is THE ONLY ROUTING that has thus far been confirmed by the substantive record.     Sure you and TEPaul like to posture about some support for other routings, but until you come forward with the substantive support for such claims, your posturing is dust in the wind."


Isn't that interesting! Barker's routing is THE ONLY ROUTING that has thus far been confirmed by the substantive record!?!?

In that case, I suppose the question needs to be asked and answered as what constitutes "The Substantive Record" of Merion East that needs confirming!  Wink

Are you assuming the substantive record of Merion that needs to be confirmed is something that has to do with your opinion or the opinion of some people on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com THINK the architectural record of Merion East is?!?

I'm afraid not. The sustantive record of the amount routings done for Merion East and and when as it was built are contained in the club records and archives. The fact that you may not be aware of that has absolutely zero effect or influence on the SUBSTANTIVE RECORD of Merion East, that's for sure. Furthermore the substantive Merion record mentions who did those routings, one of which was approved and built and Barker's was definitely not the one.

I guess it's cool that someone on the other side of this country trying to learn the history of Merion and its architecture thinks his determinations of what happened there holds the keys to the SUBSTANTIVE RECORD of Merion East but I'm also quite sure neither Merion nor anyone else gives a damn.   Wink



 
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 4
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under IMO
on: June 21, 2008, 12:41:00 pm
Started by Ran Morrissett, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 44.1%

David Moriarty:

I’m moving this post to the thread it belongs on and off the USGA Architecture Archive thread that I don’t believe it belongs on.



You said:
"Why is it that you feel some documents directly relating to the history of the architecture of certain courses ought to be censored?   The Barker Routing is a good example."


David Moriarty:

Censored?

I never said that about any documents relating to the history of the achitecture of any golf course. Where did the word and the idea of "censoring" anything come from? It didn't come from me. Who else could it have come from? Did it come from you? Show me where I said that. It seems you're the only one who used that word and idea. Perhaps you should stop trying to put ideas and words into other people's mouths----it really does get very misleading doing stuff like that.

What I did say is the H.H. Barker stick routing provided to the MCC Search Committee by an independent developer who had nothing whatsoever to do with what MCC did with Merion East is not very relevant to the creation of Merion East. The fact is, after the MCC Search committee recieved that letter from Barker to Connell and mentioned it to the MCC board, it was never mentioned again by anyone who had anything to do with the creation of Merion. Since the letter was written to Connell (and not MCC) on June 10, and since Macdonald and Whigam must have come to Ardmore almost within days (since Macdonald went back to NYC and wrote a letter to Lloyd in June of his and Whigam's observations about the Ardmore land) to have it recorded in a report to the board by July 1, 1910, it seems MCC turned to Macdonald immediately and never considered Barker or even mentioned him again.

That kind of event is probably worth something like a mention in a footnote but it clearly had nothing to do with the routing and design creation of Merion East which did not even beginning until about seven months later (early 1911 when Wilson and his committee were appointed and got to work in the winter of 1911 doing many of their own "courses" or "layouts" (the very thing we today call routings and course designs).

I most certainly wouldn't suggest censoring a mention of Barker and his stick routig, I'd only suggest it be treated for what it was in the move to Ardmore----eg of very little significance.

If either you or Tom MacWood want to imply it was some big deal in the creation of Merion East then be our guests, but I don't think the Merion history will or should treat it very seriously.

Of course if you or MacWood or anyone else could actually produce Barker's stick routing and it turned out to be very similar to the Merion East routing that would be an entirely different matter and it would be considered extremely significant to Merion's architectural history.

 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 5
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: Courses considered great with fewest bunkers...
on: July 01, 2008, 06:16:45 am
Started by Philip Young, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 43.8%
"Can you answer any of the questions?"


Tom MacWood:

I don't know but I can certainly give my opinions on some of your questions.


“Who drew up the plans for CD? Maxwell produced the plans for other three M&M courses, did he also produce the plan for CD?”

I don’t know who drew up the plans for C.D., but I do know that the person who drew up plans for a golf course does not necessarily have to be the only person responsible for the design of the golf course.

“Was the original plan for nine or eighteen holes?”

I don’t know. What I do know is the eventual plan was for eighteen holes

“Why was Maxwell paid for services with a piece of property? When was he given the land and did MacKenzie get some land as well?”

I don’t know what you mean by being paid for services with land. I suppose any service provider can negotiate with a client in any number of “currencies”. I don’t see what that has to do with Mackenzie’s part in the design of CD.

“Why didn't MacKenzie ever mention CD - did he consider it one of his designs?”

I have no idea but there could be a myriad of reasons other than he had nothing to do with its design. It certainly appears to me that Macdonald never mentioned projects he had something to do with or mentioned very little about them. The most logical reason for that to me (which is pretty well borne out) is because he got pissed off at the people at those clubs or projects.

“How much of the original nine hole course was utilized, and should Eugene Goebel being given partial credit?”

I have no idea about that either and I wouldn’t think anyone could know that unless they were aware what that previous nine hole course looked like or even where it was on the land. Do you have any idea about that? I don't think Eugene Goebel should be given even partial credit unless or until someone can figure out exactly what he did there. To me that's no different than H.H. Barker at Merion East----one should not and cannot just assume Merion East's routing and design had anything to do with him just because he was there and did a stick routing on part of the same land for some developer who had nothing to do with MCC.

“The second nine was complete three years after the first. Did it take three years to build or was the project delayed for three years? Did Woods and/or Maxwell supervise its construction?”

I don’t know. It may’ve had to so with the depression but what does that matter as to what Mackenzie’s contribution to the design was? I'd look to Chris Clouser and what he said on that, as he seems to have done a lot more research on the creation of CD than either of us.

“When did M&M part ways?”

I don't know that either but probably when Mackenzie died in Feb. 1934. Have you ever seen anything at all that indicates Mackenzie and Maxwell formally extinguished their desire to ever partner again?  Wink It seems to me one of the most unique modus operandi of some of those English architects, particularly Alison and Mackenzie, was their inclination to create regional partnerships with architects from particular regions. We do have a statement from Mackenzie that he felt Maxwell was perhaps the best architect in the Eastern USA. Alison attempted to partner with Flynn in the early 1920s but that didn't happen, and Park apparently essentially partnered a Philly job with Flynn's construction crew (but that may've resulted from the fact that Park died in the process). I think those particular English architects were as much attempting to partner with the local construction crews of local architects as much as with the architects themselves.

“Did Maxwell ever supervise the construction of a golf course he did not design?”

Not that I’m aware of but that does not mean he did not design a course or courses with someone else, such as a partner----ie MacKenzie.
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 

[DMoriarty]

Whoops, got cut off at 20,000 characters.

Coninued . . .

6
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
on: June 18, 2008, 02:54:57 pm
Started by Melvyn Morrow, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 43.1%
David Moriarty wants facts. So now I’m going to give you just facts, nothing more. These are facts that have been on this DG for two months. Below from a post of his today he recounts that he was met by extreme hostility before his essay came out. There was none of that at all---nothing. Matter of fact, in a group email exchange from Pat Mucci on another subject entirely I asked David Moriarty if he would please consider coming back. I made the same request to Tom MacWood on that group email.

All we did is simply wait for his essay for about two weeks. He did provide a brief outline in that group email on what points he would cover, nothing more. I never asked him anything about his research material or where it may have come from. I still don’t know that and it’s never mattered to me. Perhaps two or three weeks into these threads following his essay I asked him if he'd ever been in contact with Merion because I'd never known. He certainly never volunteered to tell me anything about any of it. Below he seems to try to make it look like we warned him that Merion would be resistant to his research and essay. That never happened all, not an iota. We had no idea what his essay was going to be about and either did anyone else at Merion but he certainly makes it look that way. Basically none of us knew a thing. All any of us did was wait.

He makes it sound like all we did is threaten and bully him both before his essay and as soon as it came out. So I’d like you all to judge that for yourselves. Just below is what he said today happened back then before his essay came out and as soon as it came out. Following that is the first post from me followed by the first post from Wayne Morrison. You Judge for yourselves if it looks like anything remotely like hostility. I’d say it looks to be just about the opposite!   Wink








My Decision Not to Contact Merion
I considered providing Merion with an advanced copy, and even discussed it with Ran, but I ultimately decided against it.

Whenever I had previously tried to discuss Merion, my efforts met nothing but extreme hostility and resistance from those associated with or claiming to be speaking for the club.   More than that, I had been told specifically, repeatedly, and in no uncertain terms that the powers at Merion, including the club historian and chairs and members of various key committees, had said that they were extremely upset that I was even researching Merion’s history, wanted me to stop, and wanted nothing to do with me.   (While I did not know it until recently, these were apparently lies, told to get me to stop looking into Merion.)

So my concern was that presenting the work to Merion would have accomplished nothing positive but would have creates a number of problems.  I feared they would have tried to stop me or delay me from releasing it, or that they would have given it to Wayne and TEPaul, who undoubtedly would have done everything they could to discredit me and my essay and to stop me from releasing it before anyone even got a chance to read it.  Those who have been around for a while may recall the incessant bullying, nastiness, and ugliness directed toward Tom MacWood when these guys got word he was researching Pine Valley and Crump.  I wanted no part of that.

As it turns out, some of my concerns were at least partially justified.  What I thought were private communications with Merion somehow immediately found their way to TEPaul who promptly tried to use them rhetorically against me on the boards.  I doubt that was Merion’s intent, but I also doubt that they fully understand that if they involve Wayne he will inevitably involve TEPaul, and that TEPaul knows no bounds when it comes to trying to protect what he feels is his to protect.

Now I have few questions for all of you:

When it first leaked out that I was working on something that significantly contradicted the accepted notion of Merion’s history, where was the outcry for me to go to Merion first before releasing it?   

As I recall, there was none. To the contrary, there was a frenzy of attacks and criticisms because I wanted to finish the essay before posting it.  Those criticizing me now for not having gone to Merion are some of the same ones who demanded then that I post everything I had immediately.   They could not even wait for the essay to be finished!

Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul were certainly involved in those pre-essay “discussions.”   In fact, before even coming back to the site I forewarned Wayne, Tom Paul, and a number of other posters that I was coming back to openly, honestly, and frankly discuss Merion, and that my ideas would very likely be cutting against much of the accepted notion of Merion’s history.   I even gave them a sampling of the kinds of contentions I would raise.   I asked them, specifically, if they had any problem with any of that.

If Wayne Morrison or Tom Paul or anyone else thought that I needed to go to Merion first, then why did they not tell me so before?    Everyone had ample opportunity to do so.

The fact is, this whole notion is being used as yet another distraction to detract from the substance of my essay, and as an excuse for Wayne and TEPaul to continue to try and trash me and my essay without allowing me to verify any of their claims.   




From TEPaul:
Re: David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under IMO
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2008, 11:26:31 am »   
 
Thanks Ran and David! I, for one, am glad this "White Paper" is finally here.

I haven't had a chance to do more than scan it but I'm looking forward to analyzing the credibility of particularly this idea that H.H. Barker essentially routed the land that is Merion East golf course and that Macdonald and Whigam (and/or Barker) essentially "designed" the holes that basically became Merion East.

THAT, most certianly is something that the history of Merion GC does not contemplate or remotely mention in any way, or ever has to my knowledge, regarding the creation of Merion East, the golf course. As to whether that is just unsupportable speculation promoted by a series of preceding events, or is, in fact, something about which there is some hard provable evidence, I guess we will just have to see with some really good analyses of all the other information extant about the creation of Merion East golf course.

David, that looks to be a lot of work, and congratulations from me on doing it all. We're certainly looking forward to analyzing it carefully, but I should note here and now that simply doing a lot of work (analogous example---Tom MacWood's five part essay entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf") both shouldn't and won't NECESSARILY pass in and of itself as indicating an accurate historical reexamination of Merion East's golf course and its entire creation, or anything else, for that matter.

Let's have a really good AND CIVIL analysis of and dicussion on this paper!

« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 11:29:55 am by TEPaul »   










From Wayne Morrison:
Re: David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under I
« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2008, 02:34:08 pm »   
 
David,

I congratulate you for putting forth such a tremendous effort, and to think this is only part 1.  You must have had access to board records of the Cricket Club that I have not yet seen.  While my research has concentrated on Wm Flynn's work subsequent to the opening of the East Course (he was not present for the initial construction of the course), I am keenly interested in the earliest iteration of the East Course.  If possible, I would like to have a look at some of the primary assets you utilized in the making of this essay.  Reading the article (I must do so in a more thorough fashion) clearly indicates that you have material on hand that I have never seen and which the club is unaware.  I guess you found the Sayers scrapbooks as some information you mentioned is contained in there.

I have found some inconsistencies and errors in my initial review and hope to give it a more concerted effort over the next week or so.  Before jumping to conclusions (as others have done) I want to give this report the consideration it deserves.  I will be happy to share with you my findings.  Clearly the record needs to include some of your discoveries though I am hesitant to say to what extent that history is revised by them.  In fact, if your findings regarding Hugh Wilson's lack of design involvement proves correct (and I am not presuming that it does as yet) then it has some profound impacts on matters closer to my field of study.

I must say that I am concerned or rather alarmed by the quick rush to judgment by Ran, Tom H and others that agree with the findings without a more informed understanding of the course and its history and certainly without an exhaustive study of the essay.  The only way they can agree with David's conclusions are if they take for granted or assume what he states is correct.  While there are an awful lot of facts presented, and potentially very important ones at that, some of the conclusions are troublesome and require a great deal of consideration.  Something that neither Ran nor Tom has done and on a subject that neither one of them knows very much about.

While the conclusions they say are obvious and proven may turn out to be for the most part true, any judgment to that effect is premature and poorly considered at this stage.

 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 7
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: California 1930
on: July 12, 2008, 07:31:59 am
Started by Tom MacWood, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 41.7%
"TE
I never said Watson should be considered one of your fifteen architects. To be honest I've never really thought about who should be on your list. As I said in a previous post my focus is prior to WWII and globally. Fifteen is a very limiting from my perspective, and potentially not very informative."


Tom MacWood:

I realize that and so does the USGA. As I've said a number of times the reason for that is this has to start somewhere. We cannot do this all instantly particularly when some such as yourself aren't even willing to get involved.  Wink

"This thread is about California golf architecture. If you want to explore Barker and pre-WWI American golf architecture, start another thread in which you tell us who were the most prominet architects operating in the US in 1909-1911."

I realize that but answering a simple question like why you (or Moriarty) think H.H. Barker should be considered the second best architect in America in 1910, amateur or professional, right behind C.B. Macdonald isn't exactly going to wreck this thread. My sense is you both feel you just can't answer that and that's why both of you continuously deflect the question.
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 8
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: The importance of understanding the details of Mr Francis' Merion landswap story
on: May 08, 2008, 08:15:03 pm
Started by TEPaul, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 41.5%
"It just does not make sense that they would have been stumped that late into the process when the answer all along was so easy."

Sully:

I have no real idea what you mean to say by that.

"As to the points Pat was just making about the likelyhood of some plans being in existent at some point...Francis also mentioned in that land-swap story that the "swapped-out" land (where the homes on Golf House Road are now) never fit into any golf course PLAN."

I've already mentioned on here numerous times when the existence of plans were mentioned. Francis mentioned it in his land-swap story a couple of times and H. Wilson mentioned it to Piper in a Feb 1, 1911 letter that he had a topo map of the golf course. Obviously Merion had a topo survey map made perhaps off that basic November 1910 plan that was sent out to the membership.

"My suspicion is that the committee was out looking at that land well in advance of June 1910 and had plenty of holes drawn and routing plans...my only question is why Connell would have brought in Barker in June 1910."

I'm sure the search committee was doing exactly that and it's more than a bit illogical to think they would be looking at it for a golf course without even talking to the men the club would make members of Wilson's committee, which of course would include Wilson himself. Of course Lloyd was a member of both committees.

"Can we confirm absolutely any relationship between Connell and HDC?"

But of course we can. Connell and four other people were the ones who bought up most of this land including the 140 acre Johnson Farm most of which is Merion G.C. today BEFORE MCC and their search committee became involved in it.

"What are the land title facts pertaining to him? What was he part of?"

That is what is extremely hard to figure out, other than the fact that Connell was the spokesman for the other four developers. Some of the real estate maps list the Johnson Farm in 1908 as being owned by the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company. I figure that probably was Connell and his group.

On the other hand, we have a hand written quite hard to read contract (referred to as an "indenture") that was executed by The Title and Trust Company of Philadelphia that this man Nickolson was the president of. I think Moriarty referred to Nickolson, at one point, in these threads, as one of the 'ambitious developers' with Connell. I do not think he was that at all, he was simply the president of the title and trust company that acted as a "party" to this June 24, 1909 indenture.

Moriarty also mentioned in his essay that he was not sure when Lloyd and some of his investor friends from MCC got involved in investing in this land at the behest of those developers. It certainly isn't easy to figure out.

In this hand written indenture that was created on June 24, 1909, there were three "parties" to the contract:
1. The "party of the first part" was the Title and Trust Co.
2. The "party of the second part" was these five developers who were not any part of MCC.
3. The "party of the third part" was the Haverford Development Co. (HDC)

I am not at all clear what HDC's purpose was at that point. It could've been those five devolpers simply putting their individual real estate holdings into a corporate entity with their individual percentage breakdown for pay-in for maintenance purposes and payout for lease and sale purposes. This indenture also has a very detailed "metes and bounds" description that is the textual details of a land survey. Yerkes & Co was the surveyor and they are very much still in business as I dealt with them all the time when I sold real estate.

Or, HDC may very well have been formed at that point by Lloyd and his MCC investor friends who were acting at that point as financial facilitators for MCC's golf course move as well as their own real estate investment or purchase interests. We do know at some point in 1910, Lloyd appears to have either bought about half the interests of the developers through purchasing about 50% interest in HDC or else simply forming HDC himself and essentially capitalizing HDC into a stock subcription entity for both members of MCC and "others".

In a letter to the MCC membership signed by only Lloyd he does mention that HDC has been capitalized to the tune of a $300,000 stock offering of which about half had already been subscribed to by others than MCC members. My hunch is Lloyd may've taken control of all the land (338 acres) at that point by underwriting the developers with his stock offering. After-all, that's the kind of thing he did for a living as the managing "partner" at that time for Drexel & Company, one of the most powerful "financing" (underwriting) firms in the country.

If Lloyd had not done the foregoing, I can't really imagine what else could've been going on as I doubt those developers had created a stock offering out of HDC which is very clear to see from Lloyd's letter to the membership in November 1910 is exactly what HDC was at that time and basically for the benefit of MCC members. The stock being offered for subscription to MCC member is HDC!

In a financial breakdown structure in another post I'll show you how I think Lloyd and/or those developers basically did that to benefit everyone.
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 9
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: Massachusetts 1927
on: July 21, 2008, 09:05:58 pm
Started by Tom MacWood, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 39.3%
""TE
If you don't consider newspaper and magazine reports solid or factual in comparison to a supposed scrapbook which apparently consisted of newspaper and magazine clippings, a supposed scrapbook that has been lost for 25 years or more, and no one living has ever seen, than you are right I have nothing."



Tom MacWood;

The Leed's "scrapbook" was his own personal record of his years to do with Myopia. There are a ton of people who saw it.


"TE
If Myopia is interested they can contact me directly."



I know it's probably maddening to you but neither Myopia or any of these clubs like Merion are going to get in touch with you. And It's probably even more maddening that you will have to go through me. You and Moriarty can complain about that on here or anywhere else you want to but that's pretty much the way it is and will be.

So, if you have ANYTHING solid on Willie Campbell, put it on here where both I and the rest of the contributors can see it. Failing that you really ought to just stay out of trying to analyze the histories of these clubs and courses you, admittedly, don't know much about.


And let's not forget, the world of golf architectural interested parties and analysts are still waiting for you or Moriarty to produce something solid from Macdonald or Barker on Merion East to back up your heretofore speculations and conjectures!  Wink

We've been waiting and waiting and waiting! Where is this information that you led us to expect? Are any of us ever going to get it from either of you? Wink

[DMoriarty]

Cut off again.  Another 20,000 character limit.


 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 10
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: "The Early Architectects--Beyond Old Tom"
on: June 08, 2008, 08:58:41 pm
Started by TEPaul, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 36.8%
"Usually, historic accuracy and research go hand in hand. Have you discovered another method?"


Not at all, to me research is really huge---the basis of all analytical reasoning and determination, in fact. Sometimes it seems like you think you're the only one who does it or does it well, which frankly, Tom MacWood, most everyone on this website who means anything really does see through at this point.

No, I believe in-depth research is great, it's essential but in fact it only serves another and higher purpose---eg the analysis of what it really means in an historical context.

As I've said a lot over the years I do think you are an excellent raw researcher and I admire you for that facility even if I do understand what most all of your research resource is. Mike Hurzdan and his collections and personal resource asset is something and he's been great with us.

I just don't think you do that well at the next and more important and basically ultimate step---and as you know that's how to deduce the meaning of research material. I don't blame you for that as I don't think you get around enough to even have a chance to do that well---I don't think anyone could the way you do it.

You can't take an in-depth analysis of a Merion or Aronimink or a Pine Valley all that far, which you've tried to do, Tom, unless you really can get involved with it and its ethos which means not just going there but taking the time necessary to really catch the essence of it all. It would be like me trying to understand Mackenzie's Ohio State work without ever going there. I can't do that---no one can.

You know, Tom, we've talked about this for years, if you want to understand the likes of Merion, Aronimink, Pine Valley etc, you pretty much have to go there and certainly a whole lot more than once. The fact is you haven't done that and it will always show.

For me, I'm still trying to understand this healthland thing and its historical significance. I have been to some of those courses but never with this kind of purpose I have now and I know if I'm ever going to understand the healthlands I'm going to have to put in the time there. I don't know whether I will do that but I hope I can, as I think that kind of thing is essentially. No one can truly understand these things without doing that and certainly not you no matter how much you avoid discussing or even considering that important point on here.

Book learning (your article and newspaper kind of research) can only take anyone so far---and I know you understand that. To really understand some of these things you have to pretty much live it right there with the subject. Your contribution to Moriarty's essay on Merion with H.H Barker (at least he gave you the credit for that contribution) is a perfect example. Few were aware of that and it's no wonder---eg some really in-depth research into everything else that happened at that time proves it meant just about zero to the actual subject of the essay which was the actual creation of Merion.

But don't worry I know you'll just come back with a once sentence deflective question as an answer Wink, as that's all you've ever done on here. But that doesn't work--it never has and it never will and the best I can hope for with you is that you do know that even if you may never be willing to admit it.
 
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies


 11
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
on: July 23, 2008, 02:28:57 pm
Started by Tom MacWood, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 35.8%
"TE
In 1894 The Country Club, Essex County and Myopia Hunt were all closely associated. It makes perfect sense that the first two would engage a world class expert on golf architecture (and arguably the best golfer in the world) to lay out their courses, while Myopia would instead turn to the master of the hounds."


Tom:

I know that, Believe me. I don't need you to point that out  to me. I went to school there for years and a ton of those people from those clubs are my friends from way back and now. Those clubs still are remarkably close in this way, and interestingly its basically a lot of the same old names that go back for generations. I hestitate to mention this to you or on here because when I do you seem to automatically want to mock me for my own live and times and the people and places I've always known. Again, I don't need you to point these things out to you as I've known them all probably before you were even born. Maybe you forget sometimes, I'm not exactly young anymore.  Wink

On another note, in my opinion, you have just got to stop throwing around some of the statements you have on here recently as if they are accurate and factual such as H.H. Barker and Willie Campbell were considered to be world class experts on golf course architecture.  That just was not the case back then at that time. To understand that better you are just going to have to develop a much better understanding of that time and those people, as well as golf and architecture. It was a very different time than the time most of your sensibilities seem to exist in.  Wink
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 12
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: Philadelphia 1922
on: June 14, 2008, 12:18:35 pm
Started by Tom MacWood, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 32.9%
"In addition to Ida Dixon who are the architects involved at Springhaven?"

Tom MacWalnut:

I think it may've been an architect who at least one, and perhaps two "expert researchers" think was likely the second best architect in America, right behind C.B. Macdonald. I think his name was something like J.J. Barker or A.A. Barker or something that sounds like that. They even say he may've routed and designed the great Merion East because novice Hugh Wilson and his four member novice amateur architect committee "CONSTRUCTED" the course to his design but that they were so novice-like and super-dense they were never really sure whose design it was.  Some say Horatio Gates Lloyd actually found it in his pocket in April, 1911 and just thought it was sort of a neatsy-keen routing and design.

On the other hand, some recently discovered MCC board meeting minutes apparently contradict that story and seem to suggest that the committee had a routing and design plan from Barker and another one from Macdonald/Whigam but neither was signed and so in one of American golf architecture's most significant moments, Chairman Hugh Wilson made an executive decision in his roll as chairman of the committee and simply went "eeeny, meeeny, miiiny, moe" and he picked one and that's what the great Merion is.

Personally, I know it was Barker's because I've seen some secret documentation but there is absolutely no chance at all I'm ever going to share it with you or Moriarty.

I mean, what would be the point of that? You two are so adverserial and illogical you'd probably try to claim that Wilson and his committee actually routed and designed the course themselves despite being super-dense rank novices but that they were so arrogant when C.B. Macdonald showed up with his sidekick H.J. Whigam to try to horn in on the action to make a name for themselves, that Wilson and committee told them to screw off and asked them who in the tar did they think they were trying to tell them what to do and ride their talented coat-tails.

Matter of fact, this story that Wilson and his committee went to NGLA for two days to be tutored in architecture by Macdonald is completely bogus. The truth is they drove to Boston and were tutored for three and a half days and nights by Myopia's Herbert Leeds who they felt was considered to be the "Great Uncle" of all American golf course architecture. They also preferred Leeds because they heard he was a complete misogynist and that appealed more to their "amateur/sportsmen" spirits.
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
13
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: Unsolved mysteries
on: June 11, 2008, 10:12:48 am
Started by T_MacWood, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 31.9%
Tom:

I do get a chuckle out of most of that stuff but in the end it is wasting time.

So let me ask you something, and I hope you can find some way to actually answer it, for a change, with something other than just another question response.

My question to you is this----you really do feel, don't you, that in the case of Hugh Wilson at Merion East and Crump at Pine Valley that they had to have been given far more help from a Colt or a Macdonald (or even the most improbable of all H.H. Barker Wink ) than the histories of either club have ever admitted?

I think that very thing has always been part of your dilemma and I think it is very much Moriarty's----ie you simply cannot imagine and consequently cannot believe that men like those two could have done all the things they've been given credit for doing. And because neither of you can understand that or believe it, you instinctively have to find someone who you think could have done it for them.

That is why I've called you that professor Loewen term----a "No-Can-Doist."
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 14
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: Herbert Fowler
on: July 17, 2008, 03:34:40 pm
Started by Bill_McBride, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 30.6%
Bill:

The so-called original "Philly School of Architecture" was basically based on collaboration. Over half of them were "amateurs" (they didn't take pay) anyway, they all knew each other really well and most of them played a lot of golf with one another at one time or another.

Fowler's wife's aunt was Barker's mother's first cousin once removed so that pretty much proves Barker and Fowler were really tight. Real estate developer Joseph Connell's great grandfather and Barker's great grandmother came from the same town in England in the late 18th century so that would explain why Connell hired Barker to look at land in Ardmore in 1910.
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 15
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: USGA Architectural Archive
on: June 21, 2008, 08:17:25 pm
Started by Tom MacWood, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 30.4%
"I am answering here because this has to do with your views on whether information that might go against the prevailing wisdom should be fully disclosed, or whether it should be misrepresented, ignored, and concealed.   You and Wayne have a well established pattern of the latter, and I think that is extremely relevant to what kind of an "Archives" the two of you envision for the USGA."

David Moriarty:

I have no problem at all with information that goes against the prevailing wisdom of some club's architectural record if it can be proven as relevent to a course's architectural history. You haven't done anything close to that with your idea of Macdonald's contribution to Merion East. As to Barker, I really don't know what your point in including him was other than as a footnote that an independent developer got him to do a stick routing that MCC obviously did not accept or use.




"A recent and benign example.   Despite your attempt below to soften this, both you and Wayne have indicated to me that you thought it was irresponsible and inappropriate for me to even include a mention of Barker's routing in my essay.  I find this to be outrageous, but typical of your long-time approaches to these documents."

Again, the Merion documented architectural record indicates Barker's stick routing provided to developer Connell was not relevent to the creation of Merion East.

"Can you please explain why you think I should have concealed the Barker routing?"

I never said a thing about you concealing Barker's routing. It's just not important to the creation of Merion East. It is an interesting footnote in the entire move to Ardmore but if it had never been mentioned it certainly wouldn't have had an effect on the accurate creation story of Merion East.

 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 

[DMoriarty]

Oh oh, this could take all day . . .

16
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: How would you route Merion? - A Challenge
on: June 12, 2008, 07:54:33 pm
Started by MikeCirba, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 29.7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Quote from: TEPaul on Today at 12:03:49 pm
Mike:

For my part and from my perspective, it would be virtually impossible for me to route that golf course better than it is now and that is precisely why I think it really is one of the best golf courses and some of the very best architecture in the world.

As you know I'm not a big fan of ranking golf courses but nevertheless, Merion East has always been in my top handful in the world and I don't see that changing any time soon."


David Moriarty said:

"Interesting.  Because in the past you have been quite critical of the original routing of Merion East. Why the change of heart.

By your logic, if Barker's routing was actually on the 117 acres instead of on only 100 acres, then you would have to conclude that his routing would have been about the same as what they ultimately came up with, wouldn't you?   Only with 14-16 shorter, and the addition of the land behind the clubhouse (that Macdonald wanted to add?) 

[Barker did not say that his routing was only on 100 acres.  Connell offered something like 100 acres or whatever it takes for a golf course.  Given the somewhat open wording of the Connell offer, and the timing of the various visits, it is quite possible that the Barker routing included the Dallas Estate property.  I will clarify this in the next draft.]"



David:

This just might be the most incredible post I've ever seen from you! Do you know anything about architecture, about history, about anything do to with this general subject, not even to mention Merion???

What in the hell do you mean Barker's routing?? What was it? Do you have any idea? Does anyone? The same routing on somewhat the same land??? Are you seriously asking that?? Do you know anything at all about the art of routing a golf course?? It certainly wouldn't seem so from you last post! What if Barker went backwards from the way Merion is??? Has that ever occured to you??

What am I missing here from you?? Please tell me? If not it's occuring to me you may know next to nothing about golf course architecture and such a thing as the art and science of routing. I think I already know you know next to nothing about logic and common sense in a rather general context.

My God, how much time have we all wasted playing some game with you and with your apparently rather comprehensive ignorance??? Belay that----eg lack of understanding?? Some time ago you said on one of these post you felt you had a lot to learn, at least about Merion and its architecture and history. I guess I had no idea then, how much!!


Oh yes, the first routing and architectural iteration of Merion East wasn't all that similar to the way it turned out to be over about twenty years. But the topic of our discussion with you is Merion in 1910-1911, nothing more.

But if, in the future, you want to know about the architectural design and evolution of Merion East from 1915-16 and in the 1920s on into the 1930s, then do everyone a favor and come to us UP-FRONT next time!!!  Wink
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 17
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: What did the early term "expert" mean?
on: June 23, 2008, 11:07:18 am
Started by TEPaul, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 28.9%
"Not to pull David into this thread, but I believe if anything the Merion threads showed me that you are wrong about this Tom.

One mistake I believe has been repeatedly made is discussing the creation of Merion but using the end product as the basis.  Mike Cirba has repeatedly made the case that Merion's initial iteration was so bad, or at least so far from its later acclaimed state, that half the holes were wholly redone.  He has also demonstrated that the routing, far from being a work of genius, was actually essentially pre-ordained based on the land, its configuration and its parameters.  I do understand Mike's reason for making these observations was to riddle the notion that CDM was responsible for the initial creation, but the same facts also lead to the obvious conclusion that Wilson didn't really know what he was doing at first.

Is it therefore wrong to say Wilson, when he began, was indeed too inexperienced and did not know enough to create what would later become Merion?"



ahughes:

One thing I have never done in these Merion debates is to use what you call the 'end product' as any basis at all in these debates with the likes of David Moriarty's and Tom MacWood's apparent belief that Macdonald was more involved in the original routing and design of Merion East than the club and us have given him credit for. The only timeframe I'm concerned with is between 1910 and 1911 when the course was initially routed and designed and constructed and then let grass-in for a year between Sept 1911 and Sept 1912.

Whether Mike Cirba or anyone else claims the course in 1912 (when it opened for play) was really bad is not at all the point either. The entire point is who routed and designed it in 1911 and was Macdonald's roll in that minimized by the club at that time.

We believe it was not. Apparently some such as Moriarty and MacWood believe it was. Hugh Wilson and his committee routed and designed the course in 1911 and they received advice and suggestions from Macdonald in that effort just as Merion's architectural record has always shown.

Macdonald approved one of Wilson's and committee's course plans stating that it contained the best last seven holes of any inland course in the world. That doesn't sound to me like Macdonald thought that first iteration was all that bad.  Wink

But again, the point isn't how bad or how good the course was at that time or even how inexperienced Wilson was in 1911. The only point is if it is historically accurate that Wilson and his committee should be given architectural attribution and credit for the routing and design and creation of Merion East in 1911, as the club has always said.

We believe Wilson and his committee should be given that architectural attribution and credit as Merion's record has always shown which has always included the advice Macdonald/Whigam provided in only two one day visits to Ardmore, and the advice they provided Wilson and his committee at NGLA during a two day visit there.

Furthermore, you can read in Moriarty's essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" that the club and its board when they said to the MCC membership in a letter in early Jan. 1911 that "experts are now at work on the course..." that the board's letter could not have been referring to Wilson and his committee simply because they had no previous experience in golf course architecture and that consequently the board must have been referring to Barker or Macdonald and Whigam.

We believe that assumption and that premise is completely wrong and that the board most certainly was referring to Wilson and his committee as those "experts" as many others did at that time simply because they were very good golfers.

Frankly, it makes no sense at all to say Barker was "at work" designing the course in 1911 because Barker hadn't been there since June 1910 and never returned and Macdonald and Whigam weren't there between June 1910 and April 6, 1911 during that one day visit when they went over the grounds and over various plans Wilson and committee had created in the winter and spring of 1911 and approved one of Wilson and committee's course plans.
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 18
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: A question for MacKenzie Fans...
on: July 01, 2008, 09:50:35 am
Started by Scott Macpherson, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 27.8%
"Didn't he build Merion?"


There is absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever! Nevertheless, it should certainly be considered very rude and inconsiderate of Merion to have heretofore not given him credit for at least routing Merion East. After-all some think they have found proof that there was no way super-novice Wilson and his committee of super novice-shmucks could've possibly done it, so at least H.H. Barker, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam must have. So why not Alister Mackenzie too? Matter of fact, I think Merion should give design credit to anyone who was an architect and within a mile of Ardmore in 1910 and 1911.

But you ask, what evidence do we have to prove this? That's not the point. The point is what evidence is there to prove they didn't do that!  Wink
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 19
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: The difficulty in identifying the pedigree
on: June 23, 2008, 02:14:02 pm
Started by Patrick_Mucci, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 27.2%
Pat:

If someone is trying to do a really comprehensive design evolution report across the entire age of a golf course as to who did what and why and how etc, of course it's really hard to track. Basically this  all just involves the extent and degree of the historical material one has available to him.

But if one is trying to figure out who routed and designed Merion East's first iteration (1911) it just isn't that hard given the documentary evidence Merion has. There was no routing and design before 1911 and between the beginning of January 1911 and April 1911 there wasn't anybody else there doing it but them, not Barker and not Macdonald/Whigam. This is basically a four months timespan. They did many plans between January 1911 and when they went to NGLA for that app 1 1/2 visit, they came home and honed it down to a few of their own plans, Macdonald/Whigam came down for a day to go over the grounds and over their plans and he said he and Whigam would approve one of them and that it included a last seven holes that would be the best of any inland course in the world. This is a timespan of about four months in the beginning of 1911 when they were the only ones there working on plans. Macdonald came for one day and went over them and selected one as the best. This is not rocket science, it's basically commonsense---eg four months vs one day---most anyone can figure out how that kind of thing played out. Did Macdonald/Whigam advise them and make suggestions? Of course he did and Whigam did and that's definitely what they said back then. Did he route and design Merion East FOR THEM? Well, that sure isn't what was reported to the board and the reason is pretty obvious----he just wasn't even there to do that, or there long enough to do that if it was even something anyone ever asked him to do or something he would've even agreed to do. Macdonald took a good amount of time doing the routing and design of NGLA, probably a couple of years. For someone to think he either could or would do one for Merion in a day or two is pretty preposterous to say the least. But what's really preposterous in the real world just doesn't seem preposterous to some on here apparently.  Roll Eyes

And now we seem to have another one of those inexperienced designers even earlier, H.C. and perhaps W.C Fownes (an MIT trained engineer, by the way) routing and designing there own course in 1903----Oakmont! So what should we do now, just consider them to be so inexperienced they couldn't have done it either?  Wink
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 20
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: I Just Thought It Worth While
on: June 04, 2008, 11:06:07 am
Started by Sean Arble, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 26.2%
David Moriarty said:

"It is possible Macdonald's falling out with the American golf community may have something to do with why he was not featured more prominently regarding his contributions Merion, but I have no direct concrete proof of this so I have not really pursued it."



Here we go again!!

Would you care to elaborate what you mean by 'Macdonald's falling out with the American golf community'?  Wink

Now you think that some Macdonald falling out with the American golf community which you haven't even bothered to attempt to explain may be another reason why you think Merion didn't feature his contribution to their new course---Merion East---more prominently??   Huh Roll Eyes

I would suggest you not bother to try to research that one because proof of that is not something your likely to find unless you just try to manufacture it again.

There is little question, and for a whole host of reasons not just to do with golf course architecture that Merion and their entire ethos was a whole lot more closely aligned with Macdonald's than they were with Walter Travis's. And that might explain why they seemingly didn't give George Connell's requested Merion routing by GCGC's H.H. Barker as much as a second look and why they turned immediately to Macdonald and Whigam.
 Reply Reply with quote Notify of replies
 21
 GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: Cobb's Creek Restoration Effort Article in today's "Philadelphia Inquirer"
on: April 27, 2008, 08:26:57 am
Started by MikeCirba, Message by TEPaul
Relevance: 24.5%
Good article Joe L, and thanks for your interest and your help to date and certainly with your help introducing FOCC to Barry Bessler.

I guess this kind of thing happens when we have a "Philadelphia Syndrome" in this town always trying to promote and glorify our local architects from the past.    Roll Eyes

Boys, I think our next step should be to bring those two world class "expert researcher/writers"  Wink  from California and Ohio in on this to conclusively prove that Charlie Macdonald and his son-in-law sidekick, Hank Whigam or the 'second best architect in America', GCGC's professional H.H. Barker or even England's great Harry Colt may've stopped in at Cobbs in 1914 or so for more than about twelve and a half minutes and did the routing and design of this course for Crump and Wilson and Friends because they were such novices they didn't know how to do it themselves.

If we could get them to conclusively prove that maybe we could take the fundraising campaign of FOCC national or even world-wide.



Whew.  I don't think that is all of them, but who has time for that!


Now, can anyone tell me ANYTHING NOVEL AND OF SUBSTANCE THAT TEPAUL HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE DISCUSSION OF H.H. BARKER?

[Thomas MacWood]

Even I am sorry to see the guy who wrote post #33 degenerate into something like that. It's not only sad it seems to be getting sort of scary.


“CAN ANYONE NAME ANYTHING NOVEL AND SUBSTANTIVE THAT TOM PAUL HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE DOZENS OF DISCUSSIONS ON MERION SINCE THE IMO WAS POSTED?”


I’d be glad to, AGAIN. However, not on this thread.

Isn’t it interesting how you hammer me for turning everything into another Merion thread and then you attempt to do that on this one? I’d be happy to explain what I contributed of substance on the years of 1910 and 1911 with the creation of Merion. Go dredge up an old thread dedicated to Merion and ask that question on it and I’ll gladly answer your question.

“And now he is doing the same thing with Myopia.”

I believe I offered on here what Myopia’s own history book said about the architectural history of Myopia. I know you’ve never seen it and I doubt Tom MacWood has even if he said he saw it some years ago. The point is he had no idea at this point what it said. 

I certainly hope you two nitwits have not actually reached the point in architecture analysis where you don’t even care what a club’s own history book  says about it’s own architectural history.   But if you have reached that point it would not surprise me at all.  It seems like you two are so far gone on this crap you call “independent research” (basically an excuse for the fact neither of you have much of anything from these clubs) you don’t even care what a club has to say about itself. My God what a ridiculous joke that is!


“If he has an issue with what we have written, he should quit griping about it and get out and do the research himself.  Wasn't that the plan?   A point-by-point counterpoint? “

Yes, I did have an issue with what you wrote about Merion but since so few seem to believe any of it any longer I don’t have much of an issue with it now. That was the plan a couple of months ago---eg to write a point by point “counterpoint” piece to yours, but after some consideration with some from Merion it doesn’t seem to be necessary any longer. To the people who I think matter the lack of logic and ridiculousness of your essay pretty much stands on its own.

Frankly, I don’t think many people even know what point you ever were trying to make in that essay you keep waffling so often. The supreme irony is even you probably agree what we’ve said all along about how Merion treated Macdonald/Whigam accurately in what they said about him and what he did for them way back then.

TE
The Myopia's history has holes (no pun intended). As I told you before you'd be better off dumping it and starting from scratch. I'd help you but I've pledged never to help you or anyone associated with you. Perhaps you can hire someone.

[DMoriarty]

TE
The Myopia's history has holes (no pun intended). As I told you before you'd be better off dumping it and starting from scratch. I'd help you but I've pledged never to help you or anyone associated with you. Perhaps you can hire someone.

Your views on helping TEPaul are shared by many, whether or not they state it publicly.   I feel bad for the USGA Archives, but they know him and therefore should know better.   

Who do you think will ultimately do more damage to the history of Golf Course Architecture in America?   Tom Paul or every clubhouse fire and flood in history? 

Seriously, I doubt he will have to hire someone.   Some panderer out there will do TEPaul's work for him in order to garner favor.  Then TEPaul can misinterpret it and march back up to Myopia pretend he actually accomplished something.   

[TEPaul]

David:

I'm going to try to ask you really nicely to stop with this constant and pretty much daily criticism of the USGA with me on that architecture archive or your daily criticism of me being on it. I realize the dynamics on this website can get pretty rough and tough sometimes by why don't we try to contain our histionics on this website to only the matters of this website, period, OK?

Some of us have put a lot of time and effort into that USGA Architecture Archive and it really has nothing to do with GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and its dynamics. That is something else altogether in my life and in the lives of others, some of which are on here, and there really is no reason at all for you to go after that.

How would you like someone on here to go after other aspects of your life for the things that go on with you on this website?

You need to stop saying what you did there for about the twentieth time---you really do.