Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I have access to both the Post and Tribune...it's very odd, though because my search can't find 8/8/1908, yet I see it available under Ancestry.com.

I'm reticent to join another news archive site when I've already joined two.

In either case, I'll agree with you that Barker designed Columbia originally in 1909, opening early 1911. 

So, in comparing Barker's career against other archies, I think we really have to look at when their courses opened, so let's say the period was 1910-15.   

I'll stack Merion East, Merion West, Seaview, Cobb's Creek, and a re-do of Philmont and North Hills up against Barker's courses any day of the week. 

Tom...Barker's routing of Merion was never used or even seriously considered, although he did draw a rough sketch of one for Joseph Connell, the head of the Haverford Development Company.   

[Thomas MacWood]

So, in comparing Barker's career against other archies, I think we really have to look at when their courses opened, so let's say the period was 1910-15.   

I'll stack Merion East, Merion West, Seaview, Cobb's Creek, and a re-do of Philmont and North Hills up against Barker's courses any day of the week. 
   

Who designed those courses?

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok Tom...I guess whatever productive discussion we were having has reached it's limits for the evening as we've come too close to your personal Kryptonite...the fact that non-professionals and others without direct ties to Scotland and England like Hugh Wilson quickly learned the art of design and practiced it on their own, which you still fail to acknowledge.

Thanks.

[Thomas MacWood]

Wilson
Merion East
Merion West
Seaview
Cobb's Creek
Philmont - R
North Hills - R

Barker
Garden City - R
Merion East
Mayfield
Columbia
Rumson
Waverly
CC of Virginia
Springhaven - R
Detroit - R
East Lake -R
CC of Ashville
Youngstown
Skokie - R
Newport - R
Raritan Valley
Arcola
Brookhaven - R
Druid Hills
Roebuck
Idle Hour
Palm Beach
Westhampton
Spokane

I'm just wondering why you don't judge Wilson by the same standard you subject Barker. I'm pretty sure your Wilson list came after June 1910.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Once again, we have a choice of quality over quantity.

How many of the purported Barker courses have you actually seen to judge the quality?

I can tell you that in terms of NJ course, Arcola, Rumson, and Raritan Valley are below the Top 50 in that state, Brookhaven is below the top 50 in the Philadelphia region, and it seems to me your list is stacked with some real dubious, or at least unknown work at some top clubs like Newport, Skokie, East Lake, and Detroit that was either completely built over or never was much to begin with.

Columbia is sure a fine course, although I don't know what is Barker's versus Travis and others, and I hear Mayfield is pretty good.   I think we already agreed that the changes at Garden City were Barker working to Travis's plans, so yes...I'll take Wilson's courses and twice on Sunday.

[Thomas MacWood]

Mike
Quality over quanity? Columbia hosted the 1921 US Open. Skokie hosted the 1922 US Open. Mayfield hosted the 1915 and 1923 Western Am and the 1919 Western Open. Detroit hosted the 1911 Western Am after a major redesign, as well as the 1919 Women's Western. Youngstown hosted the 1925 Western Open. Winnetka hosted the 1918 Western Women's. Waverly hosted the 1970 US Am. East Lake hosted the 1910 and 1915 Southern Am, and the 1919 and 1920 Southern Open. The redesigned GCGC hosted too many events to mention, and the same is true with Merion-East. Newport, Druid Hills, CC of Virginia, Grove Park Inn, Westhampton, Rumson and Arcola aren't too bad either. I see a lot of quality.

[Thomas MacWood]

I can tell you that in terms of NJ course, Arcola, Rumson, and Raritan Valley are below the Top 50 in that state,

There are fifty courses in NJ better than Arcola and Rumson?

[DMoriarty]

"That was followed in 1910 by Arcola, Spokane, Springhaven, Merion, Newport and Skokie."


This guy is still claiming Barker designed Merion East after we've proven MCC never even mentioned some stick routing again a developer trying to sell MCC land asked for??

Really unbelievable!!   

Tom Paul,

With all due respect, you have "proven" no such thing.   Proof requires an offer of evidence, and you have made no such offer.   All we have is your unsupported claim, but in the past similar claims have "proven" to be overblown and unsupportable.  For one example, remember when you claimed that Wayne had proven that Merion purchased the land for the golf course in Summer of 1909?  And like in this situation you refused to back up your claim?   It turned out that the transaction did not even involve MCC or any part of the golf course.

Your claims of proof are inappropriate and/or premature unless you are ready and willing to present your evidence for proper vetting.   Of what are you afraid?

And, by the way, I know you are mistaken and can prove it, but why bother when you won't offer any support whatsoever?

___________________________________________________________

What's the story with Columbia?

The clipping to which Tom MacWood refers:



Note that the article makes a clear distinction between planning the links (done by Barker) and "laying out the new links."   
Wouldn't you agree that in this article, "laying out" is not synonymous with planning?

A while back either you or Joe or both represented that you were compiling a database of articles mentioning laying out a course (and similar phrases) to figure out what they meant.    What did you guys find out?    I've done my own research and would love to know if it is consistent with yours. 

I believe that Columbia had a debacle or two when trying to build and grass the course, and this causes some delays.  According to Harban, they did not get it constructed and properly grown in until he took over.

With a glance at Columbia one can see how design attributions might have gotten messed up during this early period when the idea of a modern course architect was still developing.  According to early reports, Barker planned the course.   And while the course was reportedly "laid out" according to his plans, Barker may not have even involved in laying out the course.   Someone at the club, ultimately Harban was put in charge of building it.  (Harban was the green committee chairman, but sometimes a golf professional was put in charge.)

It seems the focus of attention often fell on the clubman in charge, after all he was the most visible figure during the process, the one actually there, the one actually in charge of building the course.   But he may not have planned it.  IMO, Barker was somewhat lucky at Columbia in that he actually sometimes gets credit.  It just as easily could have been Harban who was called the designer. 

By the way, I believe that Ross also tried for this job, but the reports I have seen indicate that they ultimately went with Barker's plan.  Travis reportedly visited the site a few months after Barker planned it, and expressed his approval for the plan.   

__________________________________

As for your comparison between who was better, Wilson or Barker, isn't this totally beside the point?   Surely you agree that Barker was designing some pretty good courses in 1910, and Wilson was not.

Besides, weren't a number of others involved at Cobb's?  Wasn't Seaview widely criticized when it opened, and didn't they bring in someone else to do the bunkering?  I'll stay away from Merion East, but your attribution is very suspect at this point without an offering of verifiable proof.   (Don't bother repeating what you think the MCC docs mean.  That is not an offering of proof.)

[wsmorrison]

There isn't a shred of proof that Barker's rough sketch (made on a single day) on a portion of the property that would eventually be Merion East was used in the ultimate routing of the golf course.  Likewise, there is no proof that anything of the rough sketch was not ultimately utilized in some way.  It is important to keep in mind that Barker provided that sketch, not for Merion, but for a development company prior to the purchase of the land by the club.  A short while after Barker's routing, Macdonald and Whigham were asked to come down by a Board Member to offer advice on the ground they were contemplating buying.

This is an excellent example where one group of isolated internet historians with one round of golf at Merion between them have, without any proof at all, included Merion East in a list of courses designed by Barker.  This is completely misleading and without merit.  And by the way, that list isn't at all definitive and should be open to discussion, lots of it.  Another group of collaborative historians with connections to the clubs and families of participants as well as knowing the courses through 1000 rounds of golf and nearly daily study, admit that they do not have sufficient information on hand to say anything more than Barker provided a rough sketch to a development group having nothing at all to do with the Club.

You decide which group is disingenuous.

[Thomas MacWood]

There isn't a shred of proof that Barker's rough sketch (made on a single day) on a portion of the property that would eventually be Merion East was used in the ultimate routing of the golf course.  Likewise, there is no proof that anything of the rough sketch was ultimately utilized.   It is important to keep in mind that Barker provided that sketch, not for Merion, but for a development company prior to the purchase of the land by the club.  A short while after Barker's routing, Macdonald and Whigham were asked to come down by a Board Member to offer advice on the ground they were contemplating buying.

This is an excellent example where one group of isolated internet historians with one round of golf at Merion, have without any proof at all, included Merion East in a list of courses designed by Barker.  This is completely misleading and without merit.  And by the way, that list isn't all definitive and open to discussion.  Another group of collaborative historians with connections to the clubs and families of participants as well as knowing the courses through 1000 rounds of golf and nearly daily study, admit that they do not have sufficient information on hand to say anything more than Barker provided a rough sketch to a development group having nothing at all to do with the Club.

You decide which group is disingenuous.

This is coming from a guy who completely ignored the evidence Barker initially did a routing, a guy who tried to bury Barker's name so deep no one would ever find it. If the evidence you discover doesn't fit your theory, you bury it.

There isn't a shred of proof Barker's routing wasn't used. In fact no one has seen Barker's routing. No one has seen the supposed five routings that came after it. No one knows which or any of those routings were ultimately chosen.

My guess is one of those five routings was Barkers, and the other four routings were all largely based on his routing with minor differences. Barker was a fabulous router; that is a given. I don't believe any of the members on the committee had ever routed a course in their lives; correct me if that is not true. It would have been human nature to use the Barker routing as a template, especially on such a narrow and cramped site.

[wsmorrison]

Now we see you as you really are, someone that guesses history rather than documents it.  Your guesses are based upon your overblown sense of being all-knowing.

Well guess what, we agree that no one knows what the Barker routing was or how much, if any, was ultimately used in the final plan.  However, because you think Barker was a master router of golf courses (and I don't believe you have any claim on truly understanding routing alternatives on a given site) in 1910, there is little proof of that, you now guess that one of the five routings at the end of the Merion design process was by Barker and the result of that guess is you list Merion as one of the courses Barker designed.  You go on to say that the other four routings were largely based on Barker's routing with minor differences.  How do you know that if you've never seen the Barker routing or the 5 proposed routings?  You've never even seen the raw data that discusses the 5 routings so you have no clue as to how much detail is known. 

You are exposed for the utter nonsense your spew!  And you call yourself an expert researcher.  You are nothing more than a poor guesser.  How can you not stand by a conservative statement such as Barker provided a rough sketch after a short time on site to the head of a development company that was interested in a community development with an adjacent golf course?  That is the truth as we know it (unless Fantasy Faces of Merion Part Deux has some revelations).  What you claim is a joke if it wasn't on the Internet and might be interpreted as fact.  It is FICTION and you ought to withdraw your wild claims.

I found the Barker reference years before your protege.  I was wrong in dismissing it completely, though in hindsight it wasn't a significant oversight.  He made a rough sketch in one day, not for the Club but for a development company.  Within a short time, a Board member asked Macdonald and Whigham to visit to offer advise.  It turns out most of that advice was agronomic as well as a general outline for a 6000 yard course, about 500 yards shorter than the limits of a course they wanted.  You are on a quest to minimize gentlemen amateur architects because in your head, that model cannot work.  Well guess what, it did and has stood the test of time.  Wilson had a talent that was just beginning to be mined, he had an outstanding committee of talented minds and probably the best construction guy in the world working for them.  Add their dedication and passion for creating THEIR course and you have a recipe for success.  Your journeyman professional model is unsupported and a stretch of your imagination.  Your supposition of Macdonald and Whigham as the driving forces of the design of the East Course is also unsupported fantasy.  By the way, which is it?  Barker as designer of the East Course as you now claim. Or Macdonald and Whigham as the only men in America capable of doing what was done, certainly not the rank amateurs at Merion.  Ignoring the same model at Oakmont, Pine Valley and Myopia Hunt.  You now have vacillated between your number one and number two designers in America as the designer of Merion East.  It seems like you cannot decide, except that it couldn't have been anyone at Merion.

[Thomas MacWood]

Wayne
Save your lectures for someone who buys your BS. You are the man who claimed it was a fact that William Flynn designed a golf course at age 19, three years before the course was even concieved. At least there is evidence of Barker was involved at Merion and produced a routing. There is no evidence Flynn was involved at Heartwellville, much less designed the course.

This is a discusion group. We discuss topics like who routed Merion. You would have everyone believe this is an open and shut case. The truth is no one knows who routed Merion, which leads those interested in the subject to speculate based on the facts that are known. If you are uncomfortable with that move on. At least we have the propriety to acknowledge ours is an educated guess unlike your Heartwellville BS.

[wsmorrison]

You are wrong.  We know who routed and designed Merion.  It wasn't Barker, Macdonald or Whigham.  You may not know who designed it, but you are out there promoting Barker as the router, when you aren't promoting Macdonald and Whigham as the routers.  The fact is, you don't have a clue.  I am far more comfortable presenting the information as we know it, not the wild guesses you come up with.  Your speculations are presented as fact when you list the courses designed by Barker and include Merion.  You know too little to produce that list.  I doubt you've studied the remaining courses with enough dedication to know those attributions as well.  You invent your own realities off of the internet that have little to no connection to the real world.

You choose to keep referencing the obsolete manuscript of ours that you have.  Keep up with the diversion tactics.  Better yet, send it back to me.  You don't deserve it considering how outdated it is and the manner in which you use it contrasted to the spirit in which it was sent to you.

[Mike_Cirba]

Look...this is complete and utter nonsense.   In fact, it is stupidity and total bullsh*t.

Had one of the five "plans" had been Barker's or some slight revision of Barker's the gentlemen on that committee would have clearly said so.   

These were gentlemen who clearly would have given Barker his due.

This is not only stupid, it's absolutely an insult to Hugh Wilson and his committee and every single "in the know" member of Merion at the time.

[Mike_Cirba]

There are fifty courses in NJ better than Arcola and Rumson?

Calling Matt Ward...

Yes, Tom....

You should come out here some time.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

Your claims of proof are inappropriate and/or premature unless you are ready and willing to present your evidence for proper vetting.   Of what are you afraid?

And, by the way, I know you are mistaken and can prove it, but why bother when you won't offer any support whatsoever?

David,

I guess you must have unlimited time and focus to argue this the rest of your life.

At some point about 2 years back these threads began to lose all value.

If you know that someone other than the Merion Committee "planned" Merion, then let's just put it out there and stop wasting everyone's valuable time.

You know what the Merion Committee minutes say.   Please don't act dumb as one of your best friends has seen them and all of us have told you essentially what they say.

Is arguing about the attribution of a golf course on the other side of the country every day on the Internet really what you want as your life's work?

If you and MacWood have more, then it's time to put up or shut up.

also...

I've been advised by concerned friends (not TePaul and Wayne)  NOT to send you the Cobb's Creek book as they are concerned that you will then spend the next 3 years parsing every word, twisting every fact, and turning it into another personal mission that we have neither time nor focus for.

These people are concerned that you have absolutely no concern for the truth here, but instead would even actually enjoy sinking a worthwhile project, or at least casting enough confusion around it to be a total distraction.

I have to tell you that I can understand where they are coming from.


So, in good faith I'll offer a trade....

You come forward today with how you "Know" that Merion was designed by someone other than Wilson and Committee and I'll send you the research book we created on Cobb's Creek.

and finally, David...

What are we to make of this?

"And, by the way, I know you are mistaken and can prove it, but why bother when you won't offer any support whatsoever?"


Is this a game?

You claim that this isn't a personal vendetta to make Tom and Wayne look foolish, but then you claim you KNOW that Wilson and Committee didn't design Merion but unless Tom throws his cards first, you won't tell everyone else here??

Is it no fun unless you can prove someone else wrong??

Do you have any respect or consideration for anyone here??

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike, Wayne, Tom -

this has probably been mentioned before, but it strikes me that the difference of opinion here may have much to do with comparing apples and oranges. That is, I think you are talking from different perspectives or viewing the question through different lenses. "Historically" speaking, there can be honest debate about, say, whether or to what extent Campbell was involved with Myopia or Barker with Merion. But "architecturally" speaking, can there be that same debate? What I mean is, say we were ranking for a major golf magazine the great golf courses of America and creating a one-sheet for each course - e.g. year established, type of grass, length, etc.  When it came to listing the "Architect", would anyone list Campbell or Barker as the architects of Myopia or Merion? Would anyone give them a "co-designed" credit?

I'm trying to understand what people really mean when they speak of someone "designing" a golf course. For me, if "architecturally" speaking I was asked to list the architects of the great courses for a major magazine, I wouldn't list Campbell or Barker -- for one, because it wouldn't seem in keeping with what has for the last few decades been understood by that term.

Peter

[TEPaul]

" When it came to listing the "Architect", would anyone list Campbell or Barker as the architects of Myopia or Merion? Would anyone give them a "co-designed" credit?"

Peter:

Of course not. No one would do that with the lack of evidence of it. There is not any lack of evidence that Wilson and his committee designed Merion East. It's not something that someone just reported either, it's from the administrative meeting records of the club when they were in the process of doing it.

And there is no lack of evidence that Appleton, Gardner and Merrill deigning and laid out the original nine holes of Myopia. It is from the same kind of administrative records of the club when it was doing it.

I suppose these two guys are from some new school of history that maintains if someone repeats something enough or long enough people might believe it no matter how unsupportable it is.


One of these guys is even maintaining on here that this cannot be attributed unless and until he's allowed to vet this information. That too is preposterous. He must think that almost one hundred years of close observers from the club and others are all idiots or all lying. We can probably add the other guy to that thought as well. Their approach seems to be if they can't see this information it should be completely ignored or dismissed. As Wayne said earlier, that shows some very bad analytical skills.

Furthermore, with the way those two carry on with the histories of a number of these types of clubs (perhaps the ones who have famous architects such as Leeds and Wilson) I have little doubt if and when they ever do see this material they will probably somehow try to say it doesn't really say what it obviously does say.    

It's my feeling that serious historians and histories really don't and shouldn't have time for people like that.

And the proof of it is that there is no question at all from Merion or us that the discovery that Wilson went abroad in 1912 was a very good one and appreciated by all. But that is all to date that's been offered of any consequence whatsoever from those two in over five years.

[Bradley Anderson]

Look...this is complete and utter nonsense.   In fact, it is stupidity and total bullsh*t.

Had one of the five "plans" had been Barker's or some slight revision of Barker's the gentlemen on that committee would have clearly said so.   

These were gentlemen who clearly would have given Barker his due.

This is not only stupid, it's absolutely an insult to Hugh Wilson and his committee and every single "in the know" member of Merion at the time.

I agree totally with what you are saying here Mike.  

[wsmorrison]

Peter, one of the problems with lists is that MacWood lists Merion East on a list of Wilson's courses and on a list of Barker's courses.  Would he put Merion East on a list of Macdonald courses?  Of Whigham?  How does he regard Flynn and Merion East?  We already know his protege doesn't consider anything to do with Merion's design or redesign with Flynn.  That is not true and the proof exists.

So lists are not all that helpful unless the process and definitions are clear and consistent.  They are not with MacWood and his protege.

It is far better to say that Barker provided a rough sketch of holes to a developer not associated with the Club on a limited portion of the larger property that would eventually be Merion East.   And further, that we don't know the nature of the routing and if any was incorporated in the final plans.  That is the truth.  It has little resemblance to what MacWood would have us believe.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

Regarding your post #472 to DM, have you ever heard of the expression, "hoisting oneself on his own petard"?

In the opinions of everyone I'm aware of here and elsewhere who cares about Merion's architectural history he's already done that and quite some time ago.

Another irony is these two guys continue to cast those who argue with their take on Merion's architectural history and the reputation of Wilson as something that is driven by defensiveness and the concern about preserving a "legend." I can guarantee you that months ago all the people around here and from this club who read that essay and these discussion see it as comedy, nothing more.

If that's the way these two want to see their credibility and reputations go, well, far be it from me to disabuse them. 

[TEPaul]

" The truth is no one knows who routed Merion, which leads those interested in the subject to speculate based on the facts that are known."


Mr. MacWood:

Really? It seems to me the men who were on the board and on the committees of MCC who were in the process of routing and designing and CREATING their new golf course, Merion East, in Ardmore knew perfectly well who was doing it.

Are you, a man who has never even been to this club or seen these board and committee meeting records, really trying to tell us that you believe they were ALL mistaken???

Why is that exactly, Mr. MacWood?   

I find it really comical that you could do such a thing as that on here and expect almost anyone to ever take you seriously again about anything to do with your architectural research and analysis----at least of a somewhat logical and intellegent kind. Even if I've never met you there have been times in the past I certainly have worried for your mental health. Unfortunately, that time is here again.

[Kyle Harris]

I routed Merion.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I routed Merion.

I feel a Spartacus moment coming on. 

[TEPaul]

Way to go KyleH and JimK:

It has been my feeling for a few years now that on threads, and particularly these Merion threads on which these two self-proclaimed "independent, expert" researchers participate, that humor is a most necessary element.

Thank you,