News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


wsmorrison

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #25 on: August 15, 2008, 07:28:01 AM »
I've always thought Wayne and TE were way too hard on him, their complete focus was the apparent troubles he had with the drink at Merion and Seaview (according to one letter). They left you with the impression he was some kind of derelict, but Wilson engaged him after Merion at Seaview, and he was working and buiding golf courses in the years following those 'troubles'. Ironically he ended his career being the long time greenkeeper at Myopia Hunt. I presume they thought he had his act together.

I have long been on the record on this site and in our Flynn book that Pickering was a very important figure in the development of Merion's first course in Ardmore.  I mentioned that Pickering's experience outweighed that of Barker, Macdonald and Whigham combined.  Their Macdonald theory was based on the erroneous fact that Wilson and Committee did not have enough experience or ability at the time to design and develop Merion's first Ardmore course without relying on Macdonald and Whigham.  The Club did rely on M&W in exactly the manner they've always credited them with.  Not as routers and designers of the golf course as MacWood and what's his name would have everyone believe despite evidence to the contrary.  I suggested Pickering may have worked for the outside construction crew hired by Merion to build the golf course.  I have suggested in the past that the contractors had a lot to do with the look and design details of the golf courses they built.  I championed the role of Pickering for many years while Tom MacWood ignored him and sought to bring attribution credit to Barker, Macdonald and Whigham; basically everybody but the true participants in the design and build process, namely Wilson and Committee and Pickering.  We did cite reasons for Pickering's dismissal and later problems at Seaview.  Pickering may have gotten his act together down the road, we did not explore his work after Seaview, for it had no relevance to the book we wrote on FLYNN.  We DID NOT address Pickering's role in a way that besmirches him in any way.  We told the truth in a rather sympathetic way.  His actions opened the doors to Flynn's greater role on the West Course and launched his career.  Sadly at the expense of Pickering.

It was the two princes of besmirch, MacWood and he who shall go unnamed, that long-ignored Pickering.  Now, when they wish to discredit and embarrass Tom Paul and I using a 5-year old obsolete manuscript draft in their knit-picking quest for rewriting minute details when they consistently get the big ones wrong--like completely misrepresenting Macdonald and Whigham's role at Merion based on suppositions and minimizing and getting completely wrong Wilson's initial role, based on fact.  Interestingly, MacWood and he who shall go unnamed, to this day do not for a minute think they just might be wrong and consider that evidence we have obtained may just upset their shaky house of cards model.  They see our withholding facts from THEM as indications that we are purposefully hiding facts that support their claims and smash our own.  Once again they are WRONG.  We have shown a number of people, mostly at MGC and MCC, but select others, the raw material.  One of the viewers of the raw material is a golfing buddy of the California component of the disastrous duo.  We deny these two guys the material because of their conduct, their process and their conclusions.  Someday they will have access to it, perhaps via the USGA, they could always come to MGC or MCC at some future date and ask for permission or they can go to Mike Hurdzan as he will surely have a copy, and one day the book in his impressive collection.   

Rather than figuring out where they may have gone wrong with their work to date, they deflect from their mistakes and now accuse Flynn's daughter of memory failure and our inclusion of information related by her--all taken from an old draft manuscript.  By the way, MacWood, Flynn was born and raised a Catholic (until he himself decided against following that Church at age 12).   Flynn's daughter told us that his father's ancestors came from Cork and not Northern Ireland even though one document that she saw and we have access to has Northern Ireland on it.  Our opinion, aided by Flynn's daughter, is that Flynn's father left Queenstown for America.  Someone from Northern Ireland would not do that.  You may have time to exhaustively search out the truth, we were content with Flynn's daughter's account and as it wasn't pivotal to Flynn's work in golf, we presented it.  MacWood seeks the elusive influences (purely subjective and interpretive) and thinks this data important.  Well, we had a 1700 page book to write and we were hoping to get it done in our lifetime.  Tom MacWood and what's his name would have us abandon work (well, me in any case) and push back the process to publish in order to explore to the end of the road the many thousands of information pieces.  Does anyone think that is rubbish?  Why are they considering the 3-5 year old draft of a manuscript (a mere fraction of the content the current version is) when there are plenty of books out their that are published with serious mistakes in them, including one on their beloved Macdonald?  It isn't because they are intellectually curious about Flynn, that is a thinly veiled attempt to camouflage their true ambition, to bring disrepute to Tom and I.  That is their motivation and goal.  Make no mistake about it.

Look, the fact is, we came up with 1700 pages of detailed information on Flynn.  Are we 100% accurate about everything?  No.  We don't claim to be.  We offer our best efforts and sometimes, though clearly stated, our opinions while providing citations.  The readers can decide for themselves.  We did not write the book as if we were being cross examined in court and providing testimony, though it feels that is the process on this website from MacWood and he who still remains nameless.  We did extensive due diligence on everything relating to golf course architecture.  Forgive us for trusting Flynn's daughter for family facts.  She and her niece studied this and we used their information, not to perpetuate myths or build legends as two would accuse us in their broken record fashion.  We did not do deep due diligence on every fact she provided.  I guess we are a bit more trusting of people than MacWood.  He has never met her, so he is removed from the situation.  Perhaps that is good, perhaps not.  Before he continues his quest to discredit her and her representations, perhaps he ought to consider what it has to do with our primary interest, golf architecture.  Leave her alone.  Point the blame at Tom and I if you must, but have the decency to leave her out of your maniacal frenzies.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 08:27:04 AM by Wayne Morrison »

TEPaul

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #26 on: August 15, 2008, 07:53:57 AM »
"TE
Regarding Pickering its a matter of perspective, trying to keep everything in perspective."

Mr. MacWood:

Yes, it is a matter of perspective. You should both know, understand and appreciate that Wayne Morrison has mentioned the value of Pickering to Merion for years. It's all in threads on this website now in the far back pages but apparently you aren't aware of that.

You've mentioned on here you don't even bother to read posts that are more than a paragraph or two. Perhaps you should start reading them. Perhaps you should've started years ago and you might be amazed what you would know now. Pickering is just another example.

Wilson's letters to Piper and Oakley are actually a treasure trove of valuable information on the mindset, the problems and concerns of a man, Hugh Wilson, pretty much dedicated to the architectural and agronomic development of a great golf course and consistently from Feb. 1, 1911 until shortly before his sudden death at 45 in early 1925. Even though the subject is generally about golf agronomy, Wilson shared all kinds of concerns an interests with Piper and Oakley including the subject of architecture and in some cases the people who worke with him at Merion, includng Toomey, Flynn and Pickering and Valentine (At one point he even plied Piper's contacts for all available research on tarpon fishing)  8). His concern about Pickering was just one of many and its not hard to tell that Wilson valued Pickering although recognizing the guy obviously had a serious problem. But it's also pretty obvious it's hard to keep a good man down because Wilson did go back to him with Seaview.


"I have many of those letters, although none dealing with Pickering."

That's too bad because this thread is on Fred Pickering!  ;)
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 07:57:56 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #27 on: August 15, 2008, 09:56:05 AM »
PeterP

In your first few posts on this thread you asked some really good questions. I think anyone with a pretty fair understanding of this fascinating era (you use 1905-1925---I would use just before 1900-1925 or slightly later) would have to admit the answers to your questions are never going to be easy answers or all that exact for obvious reasons---eg it really was a general evolution even if one that seemed to get rolling like a spigot opening to full bore in both quantity and particularly quality and quality in concept as well as in sophisticated style actually on the ground.

So what was happening in this interesting era in the evolution of golf course architecture, particularly in America, that made for this explosion of ideas and styles and concepts and techniques and increasing specializations?

I think the answers and reasons are just so numerous it gets really hard to analyze any single one of them individually---in others words, they are all just so interrelated and intertwined. Things were just beginning to come together from so many perspectives all at the same time, but mostly the whole tapestry was motivated and driven by the fact that golf itself was expanding like wild-fire in America and the need and demand to think better and improve was the logical extension and the next logical evolutionary step.

I don't think we need to look much farther than at most all the very early real rudimentary courses of the late 19th and early 20th century and at the fact that they were clearly so bad that they collectively became totally unacceptable to the early practitioners and rapidly increasing participants in golf over here, a few of  which knew a little bit about how good golf with good NATURAL architecture abroad could be (primarily the linksland). In this particular case I'm not just talking about some of those early jack-of-all-trades immigrant Scots who came over here to help lay out and promote the game in America and in the meantime make a new life for themselves and their families they did not enjoy in their homelands. I'm most definitely talking about that type and even class like the Leedses, Emmets, Macdonalds, Fowneses, Crumps, Wilsons, Thomases, Hunters, Behrs et al who had the resources and opportunities to go abroad as most of them had for other things and other interests anyway.

I would not be averse to somewhat generalizing and calling this particular group "renaissance" men. The fact is they were all considered to be highly educated (most through the pinnacle institutions of the so-called Ivy League schools and colleges) for their times----they knew that and understood it and they really did feel they had abilities probably borne from curiosity and sophistication through exposure to mostly classical education of the finest order. In a word, they probably felt they were "The best and the brightest" in many things or even in most anything they tried and dedicated themselves too.

Somewhat oddly, because it seems sort of counter-intuitive but one of the burning interests of some of this group and type was sports and excellence in sports! And in many cases this was not just some single sport but often a few of them simultaneously. One just needs to look at some of them such as Herbert Leeds or H.C. Fownes or Max Behr or George Thomas to tell this. Their mindset and frankly their culture looked at sport in something of the classic Olympian model that denoted "amateurism"---a quest for excellence in sport simply for the love of the sport. This was considered to complete the cycle of what was considered to be the "well rounded" man---the sort of "renaissance gentleman"---in their mind a form of the ideal man.

Enter that so-called group referred to as the "amateur/sportsman" designer who all were pretty much that and generally considered, at that time, to be that.

You're right, Peter, they were the conceptualizers because they felt they could be better and do better than what they saw from those who came before them.

But was it only all about talent? Of course not. What they had that those of the Scottish immigrant group did not have at all is the time, and obviously they had that time because they also had the resources that created the opportunity to devote that time to these projects the other group never had.

There is more, lots more, but for later.

Certainly, as we've discussed before off-line the entire area of the rapid development in golf agronomy from theretofore almost complete lack of understanding was as important as architecture in this interesting time. But there is another reason that was clearly cultural that some today might feel both uncomfortable discussing or even considering despite how completely prevalent it really was back then.

Interestingly, the latter can probably be largely contained and explained in a single seemingly throw-away phrase that completely prevaded that time and class and social structure. It was called "working with your hands". This was something those people who considered themselves to be "gentlemen" and of a particular class simply did not do and if they ever did it was for the love of some endeavor and definitely not for money or financial remuneration. The word or term "tradesman" was fairly synonymous.

Some on here may laugh at this and dismiss it as fanciful or romantic but if they do that they do it at the risk of historic inaccuracy and of a very tall order.

Those guys hired people to get their hands dirty and carry out the "concepts" in architecture of that particular group.

And that is a lot of the engine of this entire fascinating time of the so-called "amateur/sportsman" designer who clearly felt the need to pick up the slack in the dearth of quality back then (maybe the end of the 19th century/1900 until just after WW1 when none of them began again those projects they had done earlier that became the famous American courses from that fascinating era they spent so much time on).

The fact that they never really began any of those types of projects after around WW1 just might be as important to understanding the whys and wherefores of this era as the fact that they began them, as they did, earlier!   ;)

And this is when, in my opinion, some of the most interesting things of all happened, and from both sides. This is when the first real "crossing-over" began from the particular classes and specialities and previous segregations. Those former gaps and cultural and actual segregations in golf and architecture and society and culture too within and without the sport. Great examples would be A.W. Tillinghast from the elite class and William Flynn from the "work with your hands" workingman world. This is one of the reasons Flynn has always fascinated me so much---eg he was a great example of a real "bridge" this way.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about all of this is it once again confirms that if one gets really good in most any area that has to do with golf---eg as a golfer, as an architect or as a agronomist et al, they will almost always find real democracy at the other end. In this way golf in the over-all just might be one of the greatest "levelers" we have ever known. Of course, as you know I feel and as I know you feel, always somewhere hanging around the edges of it all---eg golf---there is this mysterious thing we have come to call "The Spirit". Whatever it really is I think somehow it manages to tie it all together including anyone with which it had to do and who had to do really well with it. ;)
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 10:12:02 AM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #28 on: August 15, 2008, 10:30:52 AM »
This is what I wrote on the other thread (William Flynn Influences) this morning in answer to Adam Messix, but thought we should keep the Pickering stuff together;

"I'm now very curious about Pickering.

Besides Alex Findlay and perhaps Tom Bendelow there is no question that he had the most input into course creation in this country and was involved with various architects and high-profile projects.   

The fact he claimed to have over 300 courses worked on by 1905 is simply staggering.

I'm wondering where he was born...was he ever overseas...when did he die?

As far as Kilcare, if Findlay designed it, the aerials should give us a clue of that, I agree."


This is the snippet from the Waterloo (IA) Times-Tribune from September 1912;

"The Merion Golf Association has opened its new course which is 6245 yards in length, with enough space to make it 6,500 at any time it is deemed advisable to do so."

"The Construction Committee consisted of Hugh I. Wilson, H.G Lloyd, R.E. Griscom, R.S. Francis, and H. Toulmin.  Fred Pickering, who made Woolaston, Woodland, and Belmont, Mass., Lake Placid, NY, and Atlanta, GA, and other courses too numerous to mention, laid out the new Merion links.  His latest achievement far surpasses anything he has ever done in the construction of golf links."


One wonders if Pickering had a PR agent in mid-America. ;)

Interestingly, this is the only newspaper where I've seen this article copied, although I believe Joe Bausch found a copy somewhere as well, so it could have also been in one of the Philly papers.   Perhaps he can confirm?



 
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 10:33:48 AM by MikeCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #29 on: August 15, 2008, 10:37:53 AM »
Given the social pecking order of the time, and the way golf "professionals" were viewed, you have to wonder where a Fred Pickering would have been as what seems to be the Construction Foreman.   

It seems little wonder he didn't get much press.   

He also almost certainly had more agronomic, construction, and general golf course shaping knowledge than any man in America at the time he was brought to Merion.


Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #30 on: August 15, 2008, 10:44:43 AM »
And would a guy like Pickering be like a golf pro at the time - not even allowed into the clubhouse?  And, if so, that would explain a lot about why he would've been a bit of an afterthought to the members of that day and age.

Peter Pallotta

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #31 on: August 15, 2008, 10:55:59 AM »
Mike - thanks. And then 6 years later (1918) artist-golfer Joseph DeCamp, who'd worked with Pickering and Ross on Belmont, is chosen to head up the advisory committee to make changes to Wollaston. Interesting times.

TE - thanks. Partly I realize that the questions I tend to ask are almost un-answerable, but partly I think those questions are really worth asking, at least on a discussion board like this. Here's another one: I find it interesting that, if I asked fans of architecture nowadays to pin-point or suggest when the MODERN rennaissance started in golf course design, I'd probably get a pretty good sense of which one or two designers and which one or two of their courses were most responsible for bringing about a marked and dramatic change in that art-craft, and when.  But yet, when we look back at that earlier period of golf course architecture (say between 1900-1930), which itself seems to have been if not a "re-birth" then a "birth" of the art-craft in America, it gets so much harder to do (or am I wrong in this?) Why does there appear to be greater consensus about the designers, courses, and the factors involved in today's rennaissance than there is about yesterday's rennaissance? A year ago I would've imagined it was because the 'records' and 'media' and 'promotion' about architects and their courses is much more voluminous and avaliable today, but now it seems that there was a lot of coverage back then too.

Peter 
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 11:01:57 AM by Peter Pallotta »

TEPaul

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2008, 11:00:02 AM »
Mike Cirba:

Fred Pickering can definitely be considered Merion's construction foreman. Only problem was because of his unreliablity due to excessive drinking he got replaced in that capacity at Merion by Flynn and probably around 1914 or so.

But if you think Pickering is something of a forgotten man in the broad scheme of things at that time and in that place the one who has always been really mysterious to us is Howard Toomey. It's just real hard to put together a total picture of who he was, what he came up from and what-all he did.

We think he was a pretty sophisticated railroad construction engineer and we sure do know that the principles of MCC at that time were heavily connected to American railroads. But Toomey was apparently not considered to be some working class guy by that group because he not only belonged to Pine Valley back then, he was actually on its board for a time.

TEPaul

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #33 on: August 15, 2008, 11:13:09 AM »
"But yet, when we look back at that earlier period of golf course architecture (say between 1900-1930), which itself seems to have been if not a "re-birth" then a "birth" of the art-craft in America, it gets so much harder to do (or am I wrong in this?) Why does there appear to be greater consensus about the players and the factors involved in today's rennaissance than there is about yesterday's rennaissance? A year ago I would've imagined it was because the 'records' and 'media' and 'promotion' about architects and their courses is much more voluminous and avaliable today, but now it seems that there was a lot of coverage back then too."


Peter:

Even if you might not have realized it I think you answered your own question. As I tried to point out in the long post above that earlier era was a total "birth" in my opinion in American architecture. It was not a "rebirth" or renaissance in American architecture because there was absolutely nothing that preceded it in America to go back to.

I believe what those early practitioners looked to for their inspiration for the first good architecture in America which is arguably Myopia and GCGC was the linksland but particularly what was happening in the INLAND English heathlands. I think the immense divide between those two areas was so huge that most of us just don't really understand today what-all it meant to them back then.

The difference between the inspirations emanating out of the heathlands compared to the original linksland was those over here like Emmet and Leeds understood the vast, vast difference they were facing between what was the almost wholly natural topography of coastal golf (linksland) with its massive sand based atmosphere and make up and INLAND golf which had just about none of that.

They realized if they wanted great golf architecture INLAND there was a whole lot of stuff they would have to actually make, and further the problems of somehow making it look even semi-similar to the real thing in the linksland. In the case of Myopia, however, Leeds pretty much had some great natural topography (landforms) for golf. What he didn't have that the coastal linksland had naturally though, was sand, and all that meant to the entire architectural concept of bunkering and such.

As Max Behr said, if there was one really odd vestige of the original natural sandy linksland sites that hung on in golf architecture totally when in fact it didn't really have to inland it was the occurence of sand and sand bunkering. But it did hang on, we know that, and it hung on just about totally through the ages into today. It was something no golf architect ever really let go of. In the process it just might be the single biggest item and feature to seriously complicate the transition and evolution from original golf in the linksland to inland golf that began around the middle of the 19th century and filtered over to America in the last decade of the 19th century.

You know me, because we've talked about this off-line a lot----I think the future of golf really does need to begin to experiment with golf and golf architecture that just lets sand and sand bunkering go after over 150 years.

However, I do realize that in that opinion I am in a very serious minority. The one who probably disagrees with me most on that point is my old primary architecture mentor, Bill Coore.

I thought my other close mentor in architecture, Gil Hanse, would too and maybe he does but recently at a really cool dinner of lots of architecture types I asked him in front of everyone if there was one thing he would like to experiment with in architecture what would it be and he said: "Mounds." Maybe he meant sand mounds---I forgot to ask, but I hope he was thinking of grass mounds.  :)

On the other hand, we've been seriously considering recommending restoring one of the most amazing sand mounds you ever saw on the 10th hole at The Creek, even if the EPA may not allow such a thing today. The thing was probably about ten feet high and covered an area of maybe 5,000+ SF. It was right next to the beach.

My old friend George Holland (The Creek's historian) told me the other day he had to go down to the beach club at The Creek for a cocktail party and he definitely wasn't looking forward to it. So I told him to just fire down about 3-4 glasses of wine in rapid succession and then just walk about 150 yards over to where that amazing sand mound used to be on #10 and with his little bucket and shovel make me that amazing sand mound again. He said to do that with his little bucket and shovel might take a year. I told him he had to do it by the next morning, and if it got to be too hard through the night just go back to the beach club and fire down a few more glasses of wine and get back on the job.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 11:49:34 AM by TEPaul »

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #34 on: August 15, 2008, 02:31:09 PM »
Ran into this little tidbit from the Philly Inquirer in December of 1912:

@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Mike_Cirba

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #35 on: August 15, 2008, 02:35:18 PM »


Joe,

So...Pickering was a freakin' journalist, as well?!  Who knew?!?   :o

Although, I did find myself wishing to find his killer recipe for a good Rum punch instead.  ;)

« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 02:37:55 PM by MikeCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #36 on: August 15, 2008, 02:39:50 PM »
I amend what I said earlier. On the strength of that article Joe Bausch just posted it looks like Pickering must have been the greenkeeper Wilson mentioned to Oakley but didn't name.

Wayne:

Did we ever ask ConnieL about Pickering or about anything her dad ever said about him? The guy was her married uncle, right?

Thomas MacWood

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #37 on: August 15, 2008, 02:47:34 PM »
When did Pickering move to Philadelphia?

TEPaul

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #38 on: August 15, 2008, 02:59:03 PM »
"When did Pickering move to Philadelphia?"

Why can't you figure that one out for yourself, Mr, MacWood? Do you really think we should help you with everything to do with architecture in this city?   :o
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 03:02:29 PM by TEPaul »

Peter Pallotta

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #39 on: August 15, 2008, 03:04:15 PM »
TE, Joe - thanks; good stuff.

This will add nothing to the thread, but I've mentioned Mr. DeCamp twice on this thread and couldn't help wanting to find out a little more about the artist who is listed as being involved in Belmont (how, I wonder) with Ross and Pickering, and then later as leading the advisory board re: changes at Wollaston. So:

"Joseph Rodefer DeCamp (November 5, 1858 - February 11, 1923) was an American painter. Born in Cincinnati, Ohio, he studied with Frank Duveneck in that city. In the second half of the 1870s he went with Duveneck and fellow students to the Royal Academy of Munich, then spent time in Florence, Italy, returning to Boston in 1883.

He became known as a member of the Boston school led by Edmund Charles Tarbell, focusing on figure painting, and in the 1890s adopting the style of Tonalism. He was a founder of the Ten American Painters, a group of American Impressionists, in 1897. A 1904 fire in his Boston studio destroyed several hundred of his early paintings, including nearly all of his landscapes.

He died in Boca Grande, Florida."

I know this is the worst kind of speculation, but the thought struck me that the poor man, having lost HUNDREDS of his landscape paintings in a fire, maybe appreciated the chance to work and practice his art on landscapes of a more permanent nature.  (I believe he was a member at Wollaston as early as 1908, perhaps even earlier than that.)

Peter
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 03:31:50 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #40 on: August 15, 2008, 03:10:23 PM »
Joe

Do you have a copy of the writeup on Merion that Alex Findlay wrote, where Pickering is mentioned prominently?

I'm thinkin it might be timely to re-read in light of some of this new info.

Thanks

wsmorrison

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #41 on: August 15, 2008, 03:18:37 PM »

TEPaul

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #42 on: August 15, 2008, 05:17:05 PM »
PeterP:

If Joseph Rodefer DeCamp actually lived (in the winter) in Boca Grande he probably had some pretty tight connections with some pretty interesting bigtimers in that world back then. As far as I know, Boca Grande, or most of it is an island that was pretty much owned and controlled by a pretty famous family and to live there you kind of had to know them and their crowd. It was something like Hobe Sound, Florida used to be that way.

Mike_Cirba

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #43 on: August 15, 2008, 05:55:48 PM »
Wayne,

Thanks for that article.

It's interesting that the last paragraph is virtually word-for-word with the Waterloo IA news account, except the Hawkeye version says Pickering "laid out" the course, which seems a bit of hyperbole.

It does seem from the seeding, etc., that he must have been there pretty early in the build process...certainly by sometime in 1911. 

It's also interesting that Findlay, who would have had the inside skinny certainly from his relationshp with Pickering, mentions Hugh Wilson and his committee as having done the same thing as HC Leeds did for Myopia...created the best course in their state.

No mention of those other guys who some somehow still think were the designers.    Must be an oversight by Findlay, or perhaps he was lying.  ;)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #44 on: August 15, 2008, 11:17:56 PM »
Wayne,

Thanks for that article.

It's interesting that the last paragraph is virtually word-for-word with the Waterloo IA news account, except the Hawkeye version says Pickering "laid out" the course, which seems a bit of hyperbole.

It does seem from the seeding, etc., that he must have been there pretty early in the build process...certainly by sometime in 1911. 

It's also interesting that Findlay, who would have had the inside skinny certainly from his relationshp with Pickering, mentions Hugh Wilson and his committee as having done the same thing as HC Leeds did for Myopia...created the best course in their state.

No mention of those other guys who some somehow still think were the designers.    Must be an oversight by Findlay, or perhaps he was lying.  ;)

Mike, 

If I recall correctly, according to Wayne and TEPaul Pickering was not there when the course was planned.   Also, the article said that they "built" the best course in their state.    Not sure there has ever been an issue about who built Merion.

By the way Mike, this exact same information is in my draft essay. 

Also, keep in mind that Findlay and Pickering had a business relationship at this time.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #45 on: August 16, 2008, 09:17:54 AM »
I believe the real issue emanating from Mr. Moriarty's essay on Merion is not about who "built" Merion East but who "routed" and "designed" the course.

A house-keeping point that needs to be mentioned here, however, is back then just about noone referred to the routing process of a golf course as "routing". The term used back then which was synonymous to our description of "routing" or "designing" was "laying out" or "planning" (or "plans" or "courses"). Those are the terms and descriptions MCC used in their meeting minutes, although in one letter the MCC president, Allan Evans, used the term "laying up". ;)

It was a pretty different era from our own for sure!


"If I recall correctly, according to Wayne and TEPaul Pickering was not there when the course was planned."


Apparently not and that would explain why in April 1911 a committee report was presented to the Board explaining that the club did not have the "tools" or the manpower to construct the course and this is why the report recommended the hiring of Johnson Contractors. It even explained what they were to do.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 09:24:30 AM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #46 on: August 16, 2008, 03:57:54 PM »
I believe the real issue emanating from Mr. Moriarty's essay on Merion is not about who "built" Merion East but who "routed" and "designed" the course.

A house-keeping point that needs to be mentioned here, however, is back then just about noone referred to the routing process of a golf course as "routing". The term used back then which was synonymous to our description of "routing" or "designing" was "laying out" or "planning" (or "plans" or "courses"). Those are the terms and descriptions MCC used in their meeting minutes, although in one letter the MCC president, Allan Evans, used the term "laying up". ;)

With all due respect, this is inaccurate and is misleading. 

In my research, the phrase "laying out" almost always involved arranging the course on the ground as in "to lay the course out upon the ground."  While sometimes "laying out" and planning were overlapping (the 18 stakes on an afternoon method,)  oftentimes the "planning" or "advising" came before the "laying out" and was a separate step.   When a separate and distinct planning or advising stage took place, it was rarely if ever referred to as "laying out" the golf course.    I believe my draft essay explains this, but the next draft will clarify further.   

For example,  an "expert" (or experts) would be brought in to inspect the property and would "advise" the committee, "plan" a golf course or "plan the layout" or would "advise" as to the "plan" a golf course, then later the committee or someone else involved would "lay out" the golf course based upon that plan.   If at all, the "expert" was sometimes mentioned at the very early stages though he was sometimes not even identified by name!  Even when he was identified by name early in the process, he was often forgotten when it came to attribution for the course, in favor of whoever was in charge of laying out the course. 

This odd way of looking at the process may be as a result of a general disrespect for the professional at the time (especially the foreign professional, as almost all were) but may also have something to do with a changing understanding of what it meant to design and create a golf course. 

Either way, this odd (but common) habit of essentially ignoring the planner might go a long ways toward explaining why the supposed "amateur/sportsman" was so prevalent during this period. 

Tom Paul,

Your selective references to the MCC minutes provide very little clarity to the conversation, and may well be confusing or misleading.   I am sure the minutes would speak for themselves if you would let them.   Given that there is obviously no privacy issue (you discuss them daily and others such as Mike Cirba claim to have seen them!) I cannot understand a legitimate reason why you don't.   Thanks.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 04:00:18 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #47 on: August 16, 2008, 10:51:06 PM »
"With all due respect, this is inaccurate and is misleading. 

In my research, the phrase "laying out" almost always involved arranging the course on the ground as in "to lay the course out upon the ground."  While sometimes "laying out" and planning were overlapping (the 18 stakes on an afternoon method,)  oftentimes the "planning" or "advising" came before the "laying out" and was a separate step.   When a separate and distinct planning or advising stage took place, it was rarely if ever referred to as "laying out" the golf course.    I believe my draft essay explains this, but the next draft will clarify further.   

For example,  an "expert" (or experts) would be brought in to inspect the property and would "advise" the committee, "plan" a golf course or "plan the layout" or would "advise" as to the "plan" a golf course, then later the committee or someone else involved would "lay out" the golf course based upon that plan.   If at all, the "expert" was sometimes mentioned at the very early stages though he was sometimes not even identified by name!  Even when he was identified by name early in the process, he was often forgotten when it came to attribution for the course, in favor of whoever was in charge of laying out the course. 

This odd way of looking at the process may be as a result of a general disrespect for the professional at the time (especially the foreign professional, as almost all were) but may also have something to do with a changing understanding of what it meant to design and create a golf course. 

Either way, this odd (but common) habit of essentially ignoring the planner might go a long ways toward explaining why the supposed "amateur/sportsman" was so prevalent during this period."



The entire foregoing remarks by David Moriarty as to the routing and design of Merion East are completely wrong. Let me reiterate, they are completely wrong. The primary reason is the club's records explain comprehensively (and contemporaneously) who routed and designed Merion East. It wasn't Macdonad/Whigam, it was Hugh Wilson and his committee as Merion's history has always reported and explained.   If David Moriarty or anyone else thinks it was otherwise they are completely and entirely wrong historically. Moriarty, MacWood or anyone else can continue to dismiss, discount or rationalize the point and issue any way they want to but the fact is if they claim or imply that Wilson and his committee did not do the routing and design of Merion East they are completely and utterly wrong. That's just the way it is and the club's records, board and committee meeting minutes prove it!  ;)
« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 11:01:09 PM by TEPaul »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #48 on: August 17, 2008, 12:44:38 AM »
F.G. Pickering was in charge of the cricket grounds of the Boston Cricket Club at Franklin Fields when Willie Campbell laid out the links at the adjacent Franklin Park (1896). Does anyone know if Pickering was involved in the construction of the course or what impact, if any, it may have had upon his move from cricket to golf?
« Last Edit: August 17, 2008, 12:47:42 AM by Tom MacWood »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fred Pickering - the "King of All Golf Course Constructors"
« Reply #49 on: August 17, 2008, 12:45:53 AM »

The entire foregoing remarks by David Moriarty as to the routing and design of Merion East are completely wrong. Let me reiterate, they are completely wrong. The primary reason is the club's records explain comprehensively (and contemporaneously) who routed and designed Merion East. It wasn't Macdonad/Whigam, it was Hugh Wilson and his committee as Merion's history has always reported and explained.   If David Moriarty or anyone else thinks it was otherwise they are completely and entirely wrong historically. Moriarty, MacWood or anyone else can continue to dismiss, discount or rationalize the point and issue any way they want to but the fact is if they claim or imply that Wilson and his committee did not do the routing and design of Merion East they are completely and utterly wrong. That's just the way it is and the club's records, board and committee meeting minutes prove it!  ;)


Tom Paul.

My comments were general of nature and don't just apply to Merion East.   

As for the Merion Meeting Minutes, what the may prove or disprove remains to be seen.  One thing is for certain, they cannot possibly "prove" anything in this open forum until they are produced in the context within which they were written, so that those in this forum can make up their own mind.

That is what I did with my draft essay.  Not only did I present my interpretation and opinion,  I also provided quotes and citations, and made all of the supporting materials available for review and critique.  That is really the only acceptable path to take if one is really interested in getting to the truth of the matter.   I am sure Wayne agrees with me on this, because he told me so soon after my essay was posted.

Besides, your position in untenable even based on what you have said about the Minutes.    From what I have gleaned, at the very least the Meeting Minutes confirm that M&W extensively involved in the design process throughout and even chose the final routing.  Hardly sounds like the minutes justify cutting him out.   Perhaps the minutes clarify, but as it is I don't think your interpretation holds water.

But again, my comments were general in nature.   Can we return to the topic? 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back