Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

If we weren't all so caught up in this years long saga of Merion, Macdonald, Whigam, Barker and Myopia and Campbell, it would be so much more obvious to see how completely silly this kind of approach by Tom MacWood really is. As a truly bad historical golf architecture analyst he is pretty much off-the-charts. I still haven't been able to figure out why anyone would try to broach, promote and then continue to defend against all evidence to the contrary this kind of silliness.

[Thomas MacWood]

Wayne
Come on. If you are so confident about who routed Merion, why continue the Barker & Macdonald onslaught? There is only one reasonable explanation. It is pattern you three have followed for a few years now - protect the local legend by denigrating anyone or anybody you see as a potential threat to the legend. This strategy also includes disregarding evidence that may alter the story.

Here is a good example of how it works. You begin with a legend: William Flynn's first design was Heartwellville in 1909 at the age of 19.

The research phase begins:
You become aware of Flynn's NY Times obituary in 1945. The obit claims Flynn built his first golf course at the age of 19 at Heartwellville. It also says he designed Seaview CC in Boca Raton, Fla; Philadelphia CC; Merion GC and Tarrytown CC. You may or may not have noticed the distinction between built and designed, but you certainly noticed there were issues the courses listed. Seaview is in NJ. Saying Flynn designed Merion may be an overreach and there was no Tarrytown CC, no doubt they were referring to Pocantico Hills the private course for Rockefeller. Conclusion the person who came up with the info for the obit did not have all the details right, but you can live with that.

You then interview Flynn's daughter. She tells you Flynn married in August 1909 and they moved to Heartwellville where he laid out the new private course for textile mogul WB Plunkett. Flynn was 19 in 1909. Her story seems to match the obit, which matches the legend. All is well. The only real issue at this point is why Plunkett would chose a 19 year old with absolutely no experience. You speculate Flynn had competed with Plunkett's son in amateur events. Even if they had competed why chose a complete novice. And Flynn was competing in high school events in Boston during this time, and Plunkett's son was seven years older and based in western Mass. Evidently you chose not confirm the date of the mariage. It actually took place October 1910.

You then discover a local newspaper article from May 1913 that states construction on the course began in 1912 and that work was being pushed in hopes to complete the course soon. The article stated Fred Pickering, Flynn's brother-in-law and an experienced builder, was in charge of construction. There is no mention of Flynn. You conclude 59 year old Pickering oversaw the construction of the ninteen year old's design...actually he is 22 in 1912. You also make note that Flynn followed Pickering to Merion around this time, although at Merion is appears Flynn is subordinate to the older man.

You also find in the American Golf Guide from that period that Heartwellville was founded in 1912, which is consistant with contemporaneous newspaper report.

You discover a newspaper article from 1917 that there will be an invitational tournament at Heartwellville. The article states Alex Findlay is organizing the tournament for Plunkett. Its unclear if you missed Findlay's name or chose to ignore it, because you also have information that Pickering and Findlay had collaborated often. You discovered this in your Merion research. If you had followed up the Findlay connection you would have learned AF designed Plunkett's home course North Adams CC and had been a guest at Plunkett's home on more than one occasion. Either you couldn't figure this out or you chose to bury it.

The analytical stage begins:
You've gathered the information, time to anlayze it and make some reasonable conclusions. The one fact that it is clear: Heartwellville was founded in 1912 and not 1909. This is confirmed by your contemporaneous article and your findings in the American Golf Guide. The only Flynn connection to Hearwellville you've been able to independently discover is the obit 33 years after the project, confirmed by Flynn's daughter eighty plus years after the fact. You know Pickering was involved. You know Findlay and Pickering worked together. You have not been able to discover a Flynn-Plunkett connection. You have not been able to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why a totally inexperienced 19-year old (or 22-year old) would be chosen. Your conclusion is found in article you published last summer.

"At the last minute Flynn declined the offer [a college scholarship]. Instead he decided to marrry Lillian Gardner, a member of an august Boston family, on August 3, 1909 and the two newlyweds moved to the small town of Heartwellville, Vermont. It was here at the age of nineteen that Flynn was asked to design his first golf course, the Kilkare Golf Club, for Mr. William Plunkett, the owner of the nearby Berkshire Cotton Mills. After his work was complete at Kilkare, Flynn accepted a position to work with his brother-in-law on the construction crew at the nw course being built for the Merion Cricket Club in Ardmore , PA."

You completely ignored the evidence you had gathered that the course was built in 1912-13 and all the other evidence (or lack of evidence) that created significant doubt and chose to go with the legend. It is obvious your intent was to preserve the legend at all costs, and in the process distorted the Merion history by having Flynn arrive on the scene a year or two early.

[wsmorrison]

 

[Thomas MacWood]

Mr. MacWood:

I've never discredited Barker for anything and certainly not Macdonald. Merely explaining they did not route or design Merion East because others did is not discrediting either of them. And explaining that Willie Campbell did not design the original nine at Myopia because others did is not discrediting Campbell either.

You, Wayne and Mike tried to cast doubt on his involvement at Mayfield, Columbia, Skokie, Newport, Arcola, East Lake etc. You buried the information on Barker's early routing at Merion. You wrote off the Verdant Green's article as a typical inaccurate newspaper report. There was an attempt to discredit Barker with the Springhaven photos (unsuccessful I may add). And he is referred to as an 18 stakes on sunday afternoon architect.

That constant line of reasoning on your part has never worked on here. You should know that. When some factually explain someone was not much involved with a club, for you to constantly respond by claiming they're being defensive and discrediting the subject is a bit suspect and perhaps immature, don't you think?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom

Barker had nothing built on the ground in June 1910,

The way you + David portayed him in David's paper was knowingly misleading and disengenuous.

I've simply pointed out the reality.

[wsmorrison]

Stop exaggerating, Tom MacWood.  You do that in your analysis and your recounting of events.  Where did I discount Barker's involvement at Mayfield, Skokie, Newport, Arcola, East Lake, etc.?  I asked a simple question about Harban's work at Columbia.  There are reports that he did more than you attribute to him.  I'd say the extent of his work is subject to some question.  Forgive us all for not taking everything you say as the gospel truth.  You may think you merit blind followers, I assure you, you do not.

A 1927 article:



So, what did Barker do at Columbia?  What did Harban do?  What did Travis alter?

Speaking of 1927, how many courses did Flynn have open that year?

As for the posting photographs of Springhaven, how does that discredit Barker?  You are off your rocker.  It shows a lot more clearly the nature of his work than your nominal posting declaring him the second best architect in America at that time.  The photos weren't doctored.  I think we know Barker's work, while popular for a time, did not meet the test of time in some regards.  As to what I was successful or unsuccessful at in posting those photographs, it is not for you to say, it is for the members of this site to decide for themselves.  They can believe your words or their eyes.

[Thomas MacWood]

Wayne
That is an appropriate emoticon. You've been sticking your tongue out at the truth and those who prefer truth over mythology for a while now. From burying Barker's involvement at Merion to trying to portrait Barker as some kind of hack at Springhaven to browbeating the poor guy in Merchantville to ignoring all the evidence at Heartwellville to personally attacking and mocking David to ignoring CB Macdonald's involvement at Merion to desecrating his grave. Keep up the good work.

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom

Barker had nothing built on the ground in June 1910,

The way you + David portayed him in David's paper was knowingly misleading and disengenuous.

I've simply pointed out the reality.

You sound like a broken record. You know what projects he was involved with between 1908 and 1910. You know what new designs and redesigns were completed in 1910. You know he was engaged at Merion to produce a layout. Based upon all the projects, either completed or in process, and the stature of those projects (like GCGC, Columbia and Mayfield), are you still convinced those who engaged him at Merion were a bunch of dumbasses? I don't believe the Merion group were dumbasses, I believe they were wise to engage both Barker and Macdonald & Whigham, but you are entitled to your opinion.

[wsmorrison]

Merion Cricket Club did not engage Barker. He was never hired by the Club.  As to everything else,

[DMoriarty]

Perhaps the only thing you need to understand and appreciate when it comes to the two of us and Merion is you're the one seemingly claiming entitlement to and virtually demanding access to the club records of Merion Golf and MCC, not me!

I've never claimed entitlement to their club records.  If they want to play along while you guys make a mockery of Merion's impressive history, that is certainly their prerogative.   Personally, I'd like to put this all behind us, but you guys seem intent on dragging this out indefinitely.  I hope we are not still having this discussion in 2013.

I've never discredited Barker for anything and certainly not Macdonald. Merely explaining they did not route or design Merion East because others did is not discrediting either of them. And explaining that Willie Campbell did not design the original nine at Myopia because others did is not discrediting Campbell either.

In fact, you have no idea whether any of Barker's routing was used by Merion.  And you have no idea whether Campbell did any design work for Myopia, Merion, or anywhere else.  Why do you state in absolutes things which you only hope are true?

When some factually explain someone was not much involved with a club, for you to constantly respond by claiming they're being defensive and discrediting the subject is a bit suspect and perhaps immature, don't you think?

You have not "factually" responded.  You have offered your opinion but refuse to back it up with facts.   Your obfuscation of the facts provides a pretty good indication that even you know that your opinion is worthless.
__________________________________

Mike Cirba,

Yesterday I asked a simple question about Seaview, and you not only rebuked my question, you flipped out and resurrected your rant about my intentions. 

Naturally, this made me a bit curious about why you were so sensitive about Seaview.  I spent a few minutes looking at the issue tonight, and it seems to be the consensus that at least the fairway bunkering was not done by Wilson.   So why did you flip out at my suggestion that this was the case?  One might think you had an agenda or that you weren't interested in the truth.

Also, there were criticism levied at the course, much more than usually appear in reviews of the early course.

Also, Ross (and possibly another) were brought in to bunker the course within a couple months after the course officially opened (they had unoffiically been golfing on the course before.)   Their professional may have been involved with these early changes as well.   

You have repeatedly claimed that Wilson was not further involved because he was tired and he did not want to be involved.   Do you have any direct support for this or are you speculating? 

Here is some of what you wrote most recently:

By the end of 1914, Wilson was exhausted.

On what basis are you saying this?   

At the end of 1914, he resigned as chairman of the Green Committee at Merion to devote more time to business and family.   There is no doubt that at that point he turned down other work, until Robert Lesley a year later put him on a committee to design Cobb's Creek, and then in the following year he made significant changes to Merion East for the 1916 amateur.

"No doubt that . . . he turned down other work?"  Really?  What other jobs was he offered?   When?   Or is this just wishful thinking?

And wasn't he still involved with the Green Committee beyond 1914? 

...................................

The way you + David portayed him in David's paper was knowingly misleading and disengenuous.

I've simply pointed out the reality.

Mike,  You continue to throw around these insults and accusations way to lightly and without any basis in reality.

You are wrong.   The description of Barker in my IMO attaches no particular significance on the 1910 date, nor do I make any claims about Barker's accomplishment's or reputation by this date.  I have no idea where you come up with this stuff, but I will again ask you to at least get your facts straight before you question my character.

And to think that your friends fear that I am the one who is trying to manipulate the record!

_____________________________________________

involvement at Mayfield, Skokie, Newport, Arcola, East Lake, etc.?  I asked a simple question about Harban's work at Columbia.  There are reports that he did more than you attribute to him.  I'd say the extent of his work is subject to some question. . . . 

A 1927 article:



So what did Barker do at Columbia?  What did Harban do?  . . .

According to a number of sources, Barker planned Columbia.  According to Harban, after some miscues, Harban took charge of the laying it out and constructing the course.  But it had already been planned.   He wrote about his involvement and never mentioned anything I am aware of about planning the course.

 Again, as was the norm for the era, "to lay out" is not necessarily the same thing as "to plan."  The former must only be done on the ground, while the latter can be done on the ground or on paper.   Barker planned Columbia, then Harban took those plans and laid out and built the course. 

............................

Forgive us all for not taking everything you say as the gospel truth.  You may think you merit blind followers, I assure you, you do not.

Isn't this exactly what you ask us to do with much of what you say?     You may have a few blind followers, but I have faith that even they will eventually see the light. 

.............................

As for Springhaven, you think the photos depict inferior design, and try to diminish Barker by claiming that the photos depicted his design work.  But the photos may not depict his work at all.   
1) Barker staked bunker locations but did not build the bunkers;
2) The photos were taken something like 16 years after Barker staked locations for the bunkers, and multiple designers/professionals changed the course during that time. 

So you have little or no basis for assuming that the photos even depict Barker's work, yet you are still claiming that they do. 

How is this not a blatant attempt to diminish his work??

..........................................

Merion Cricket Club did not engage Barker. He was never hired by the Club.

This was covered in my essay, but I think you misunderstand the significance of this.  It does not mean what you think it means.  After all, it is not as if Merion was not aware of Barker's routing.

[Thomas MacWood]

Merion Cricket Club did not engage Barker. He was never hired by the Club.  As to everything else,

Wayne
How many times are you going to bring this up? Everything that was done in 1910 at that site relating to golf was done for the benefit of the Merion Cricket Club. They weren't doing it for the Philadelphia Cricket C or the Philadelphia CC or some other entity. And by the way Merion Cricket didn't hire Macdonald & Whigham either.

I've already anwered many of your questions about Columbia and Harban. Harban was appointed chairman of the green committee at Columbia in 1912. He was credited for dramatically improving the condition of the course shortly after that. In 1917, prior to the 1921 US Open, Travis was hired to redesign the course. He lengthened the course by 300 yards, a new bunkering scheme was employed, the greens were resurfaced, and the short par-4 4th hole was converted into a long par-3, and the par-5 5th was lengthened by about 100 yards. The work was carried out over a 3 or 4 year period and was supervised by Harban. I've seen where Harban was given credit for the massive bunker complex at #5 as well. During this period Harban and Travis also collaborated on East Potomac, the reversible public golf course.

Why the continued attempts to discredit Barker? I thought the legend was secure.

[wsmorrison]

How many times are you going to bring this up?

As often as you demonstrate your ignorance in continuing to put Merion East on a list of Barker courses.  Show us Barker's routing or desist.  Your uneducated guesswork leaves a lot to be desired as do the resulting essays.

Again, we are not trying to discredit Barker, Macdonald or Whigham.   We simply will not let you get away with your faulty conclusions and revisionist histories where there is clear evidence that contradicts you.

[TEPaul]

“I've never claimed entitlement to their club records.  If they want to play along while you guys make a mockery of Merion's impressive history, that is certainly their prerogative.

In fact, you have no idea whether any of Barker's routing was used by Merion.  And you have no idea whether Campbell did any design work for Myopia, Merion, or anywhere else.  Why do you state in absolutes things which you only hope are true?”


Mr. Moriarty:

When the reports of the committees of golf clubs in the process of creating a golf course for their club are formally entered into the Board meetings of the club, as is the case with both Myopia in 1894 and MCC in 1911, and those reports explain in some detail who it was who is in the process of designing and then who it was who designed those courses, I take that as an indication of fact.

Perhaps both you and Mr. MacWood, neither of whom have ever seen this material, think that kind of thing is some fabrication of the truth or a lie on the part of those clubs but I don’t. I’ve been on a number of boards and it’s perfect lunacy, in my opinion, for someone such as yourselves to suggest these kinds of people sit there at these administrative BOARD meetings and blatantly lie to one another about what they are all trying to do and have done for their clubs when they are all in the process of creating a golf course for their club. Why in the world do either of you two think they would all blatantly lie to one another in situations such as these? What in the world would be the point of seemingly honorable men doing something like that when they are all sitting there together most all of them being aware of what the facts of these matters are? These kinds of board meeting minutes are the attempt of these clubs to accurately record for the future what they are doing and did do.

Mr. MacWood has stated on here the board meetings that explain how and whom designed Myopia’s original nine should be thrown away and the club should start from scratch today recording their architectural history of that time, and you essentially are apparently indicating the same thing in the case of Merion!

When the two of you who call yourselves golf architectural analysts or historians do and say something like that, apparently in some continuous attempt to support your unsupportable notions of some architectural involvement of a Barker at Merion or a Campbell at Myopia, I rather think it is the two of you who are trying to make a mockery of the architectural histories of these important golf clubs and of the goings-on of the men involved with them at that time long ago.

I will never cease to point this out to you whether it is today or in 2013 and beyond!

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

When it came to MCC's involvement with H.H. Barker, the Search Committee's report to the board of MCC in June/July 1910 made it very clear that it was not MCC's Search Committee or MCC that solicited an opinion from Barker for his 'rough drawing' of a course or hired him or paid his fee (Barker did charge a fee since he was a professional and of course neither Macdonald nor Whigam ever charged a fee for anything they did in their entire career regarding golf architecture).

Furthermore, Joseph Connell had nothing to do with the creation of a golf course for MCC nor did he have any connection to MCC. Connell was a real estate developer whose business was selling land---in this case to MCC.

The MCC Search Committee's report specifically states that Barker was engaged by Connell and that Barker's fee was on Connell's account and not MCC's.

It's too bad you apparenly neither read nor understood that and what it means. It is not what we said on here, it was what that MCC committee wrote in their report to the board in 1910.

Barker's name was never again mentioned by MCC in any context following that MCC Search Committee report to the MCC board of directors in June/July 1910.

Perhaps that doesn't mean anything to someone like you but it certainly does to us and Merion G.C. and particularly when the club's own administrative records in the following year state very clearly who it was who designed Merion East. If it had anything at all to do with Barker or the "rough drawing' he produced for someone else not connected to MCC, we feel there is little question MCC's administrative record would have reflected that, as it did the "advice" Macdonald/Whigam provided the MCC Search Committee in 1910 and Wilson's Committee in 1911.

We just cannot understand why you and the other fellow continue to try to make something important out of virtually nothing with Barker and Merion. One of the two of you said on here the other day: "Well, but isn't it POSSIBLE that Barker had something to do with Merion East's design?"

Well, yes, I suppose it is possible somehow. It's also possible somehow that the Duke of Windsor had somethng to do with Merion East's design somehow but we are quite sure he didn't as we are quite sure Barker didn't either. It's all pretty much as simple as that! 

This is not denigrating Barker in any way, as you constantly suggest on here. It's just that it's highly unlikely that his 'rough drawing' was ever considered again (we don't even believe it was much considered in 1910 or one wonders why MCC immediately turned to Macdonald/Whgam instead of Barker) given that Wilson and his committee did so many of them on their own as the club's administrative records from that time point out.

As long as you continue to contend on here or anywhere else that H.H. Barker should be credited with the design of Merion East we will continue to contend that is not the case, and that it is historically inaccurate. For my part, I will continue to do the same thing if you continue to contend that Willie Campbell designed the original nine of Myopia unless and until you actually produce something to that effect.

[Jeff_Brauer]

To the esteemed Mr. Paul,

If its possible, please refresh our memories as to if there is any chance that MCC will allow you to post the relevant sections of those meetings, or at least paraphrase them here, so this argument can peacefully end in advance of 2013.  If its possible, wouldn't that sort of end the argument once and for all? (........or would it? )

Even with the documents available now, I think its pretty clear that Barker did a routing on slightly different land.  At best, MCC could have used some similar holes, since they had to have it available to them, so some of Barkers ideas might have worked their way into the final routing.  Even if they did, it would be a stretch to say that Barker routed Merion.  As pointed out, what project doesn't have some early routings by other people? They don't get credit, and neither should Barker. 

A lot of people were involved somehow, and MCC is entitled to credit Mickey Mouse with their routing if they want to.  DM and TMac can't change that.   At the same time, it would be fascinating to know if Barker found the same holes on portions of the property that were in his routing that were eventually used by MCC.  Let's give Tom and David the credit for just wanting to know that (and other) little tidbits out of a love for gca history, and move on.

Is it possible to find the Barker routing, just out of curiosity?  While MCC doesn't have it, I wonder if anyone has checked any other sources, like descendants (personal or corporate) of the Haverford Land Company, Barker, or McConnell, etc.?

Yours truly,

Jeffrey D. Brauer, conceptualizer of (but not implementor of....) the turd drop hazard.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

Yesterday I asked a simple question about Seaview, and you not only rebuked my question, you flipped out and resurrected your rant about my intentions. 

Naturally, this made me a bit curious about why you were so sensitive about Seaview.  I spent a few minutes looking at the issue tonight, and it seems to be the consensus that at least the fairway bunkering was not done by Wilson.   So why did you flip out at my suggestion that this was the case?  One might think you had an agenda or that you weren't interested in the truth.

Also, there were criticism levied at the course, much more than usually appear in reviews of the early course.

Also, Ross (and possibly another) were brought in to bunker the course within a couple months after the course officially opened (they had unoffiically been golfing on the course before.)   Their professional may have been involved with these early changes as well.   

You have repeatedly claimed that Wilson was not further involved because he was tired and he did not want to be involved.   Do you have any direct support for this or are you speculating? 

Here is some of what you wrote most recently:

By the end of 1914, Wilson was exhausted.

On what basis are you saying this?   

At the end of 1914, he resigned as chairman of the Green Committee at Merion to devote more time to business and family.   There is no doubt that at that point he turned down other work, until Robert Lesley a year later put him on a committee to design Cobb's Creek, and then in the following year he made significant changes to Merion East for the 1916 amateur.

"No doubt that . . . he turned down other work?"  Really?  What other jobs was he offered?   When?   Or is this just wishful thinking?

And wasn't he still involved with the Green Committee beyond 1914? 

David,

In your messianic zeal to destroy the "legend" of Hugh Wilson, you aren't even recognizing your own total hypocrisy and inconsistencies.

The irony of all of this is that the course Hugh Wilson designed at Seaview sounds very much like a course you constantly defend here against criticisms by better players that it is too "easy"...Rustic Canyon.

Listen to this description of the course and tell me if it sounds familiar?

October 1914 – Philadelphia Inquirer

“Mr. Geist is a great believer in the future of Atlantic City, as shown by his investment of fixed capital there, and he has long seen the need for a club catering to non-residents, who spend more or less time at the resort every year either as cottagers or guests of leading citizens.   The Seaview, as one of the three most important golf projects undertaken in America, occupies a niche quite its own.   It was not intended to be like the National Links, the most severe test ever offered in this country, nor was it designed to cater almost entirely to the closest students of the sport, like Pine Valley.   Seaview occpies a middle ground, being planned for thinking players of both sexes with plenty of hazards, which call for the placing of exact shots without undue penalization.   It is doubtful if a course has yet been built on this side with such a variety of surface on the putting greens.   Those who received a jolt when hammocks were introduced on several greens at Garden City would be speechless over the variety of boundary humps that render every one of the Absecon greens distinctive.”

The article then goes on to describe each hole.   As examples;

“HOLE FIVE, 300 yards, par 4 – Following the tee shot a high mashie pitch to the punchbowl green is the proper caper.  The green is guarded in front by sand traps and by mounds at the back to penalize overplay.”

“HOLE ELEVEN, 195 yards, par 3 – It is a full shot to the green on the side hill, with deep sand traps at each corner and mounds at the rear to punish overplay.”

“HOLE THIRTEEN, 110 yards, par 3 – It is a mashie pitch to the fine undulating green encircled by sand pits and troublesome mounds designed for the overstrong.”

“HOLE SIXTEEN, 500 yards, par 5 – A long tee shot is imperative if the sand traps are to be carried on the second.   The third is a short pitch.   Banking should be noted on the green at the left. “


It’s interesting that the writer indicates both greenside and fairway bunkering being in place, and it’s clear he has already seen the course based on his descriptions of the greens. 

In the short time since he was appointed head of the Design Committee at Merion in early 1911, "amateur architect" Hugh Wilson has designed and opened Merion East, followed in short order with another full course at Merion West which opened May 1914, followed in short order with another full course at Seaview  which opened in the fall of 1914, along with doing extensive changes as well as new holes at Philmont with Herman Strouse, as well as working on Robert Lesley's committee charged with finding a site for a public course in Philadelphia.

It is reported in October 1913, 9 months before Merion West opened for play;

"Hugh I. Wilson, chairman of the Green Committee of the Merion Cricket Club and who is responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line, has been Mr. Geist's right-hand man and has laid out the Seaview course.   Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new Merion course was constructed, visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect.   Those who have visited the new course (Seaview) have warmly commented on its construction.   The new clubhouse and course will be opened on May 30."

By December of 1914, it is reported;

"Hugh I. WIlson, for a number of years the chairman of the Green Committee has resigned.   He personally constructed the two courses at Merion, and before the first one was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country.   He also laid out the new course at Seaview.  Pressure of business compels him to give up the chairmanship."

Despite that, at the January 1915 GAP meeting President Robert Lesley names Hugh Wilson to the committee charged with designing and building the first public course in Philadelphia.   Reports indicate the Hugh Wilson spent six months on the project.

In that same month, Seaview has an "opening tournament" with Chick Evans and other top amateurs playing. 

Tillinghast writes the following account;

January 1915 – American Golfer – AW Tillinghast

“Now the visitor had not only an eye for the beautiful, but the critical, analytical eye of the golfer too, and as he joined the gallery at the first teeing ground, he prepared himself not only to observe the mid-winter form of some of America’s leading amateurs, but the new course as well.   Like a sensible gentleman, he knew that the course was much too young to analyze too closely, for it is not bunkered as yet and he resolved to reserve his opinion until the future had developed the links to completion.   The greens were surprisingly good, not only in quality, but in contours, although it must be admitted that Mr. Stymie, resorting to the privilege of personal opinion, made several exceptions – notably the punch bowl green of Number 5, where it seemed to him that not a great deal was demanded of the mashie pitch into the bowl.”


By April of 1915, with Hugh Wilson resigned from the head of the Merion Green Committee, but now working on the brand new course at Cobb's Creek, Tillinghast reports the following in American Golfer.

April 1915 – American Golfer – AW Tillinghast

“Seaview has called in Donald Ross to build traps, and his ideas, together with those of Wilfrid Reid, (who had just been hired as pro in March) should stiffen the Absecon course considerably.”

“So might be mentioned the conditions everywhere, - genuine progress and improvement of courses generally.   A gradual approach to perfection seems to be the one thought.”

“Work has started on the new public course by Cobb’s Creek, and another course will be constructed at Torresdale.”


Another irony is Tom MacWood's account of Barker's work at Columbia above.   While trying to hoist Barker undeservedly into the pantheon of great architects, you fault Wilson for being too busy to continue work at Seaview yet don't raise an eyebrow when Walter Travis is brought in to make wholesale changes, rebunkering, and redoing of greens at Columbia just a few years after opening.

The other irony is that if Tom Fazio were brought into Rustic Canyon to "toughen it" after opening, in reaction to the comments of better players, you'd be the first one screaming bloody murder.   


{EDIT}  It's interesting to note the inconsistencies between the hole by hole descriptions in the Oct 1914 account and Tillinghast description of the tournament a few months later where he claims that "it is not bunkered as yet".    The descriptions of the bunker on the holes are very much the same today, such as the diagonal hells half acre cross bunker on the sixteenth, or the deep fronting bunkers on the 5th, or the short par three encircled by bunkers.   These all exist today.

So, either these were there and Tillnghast was simply pointing out that more bunkering was going to be done, or perhaps Ross simply built to Wilson's planned bunkering scheme.

http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Absecon&state=NJ#a/maps/l:::Absecon:NJ::US:39.428299:-74.496101:city:Atlantic+County/m:hyb:11:39.445868:-74.47:0::/io:0:::::f:EN:M:/e

[Thomas MacWood]

How many times are you going to bring this up?

As often as you demonstrate your ignorance in continuing to put Merion East on a list of Barker courses.  Show us Barker's routing or desist.  Your uneducated guesswork leaves a lot to be desired as do the resulting essays.

Again, we are not trying to discredit Barker, Macdonald or Whigham.   We simply will not let you get away with your faulty conclusions and revisionist histories where there is clear evidence that contradicts you.

Wayne
Unfortunatey the Barker routing of Merion has been lost (unless of course you are sitting on it, and the your track record...). Unfortunately the other eledged routings have been lost as well. So no one has seen any of the routings which leads us to speculate who did what.

Back to Columbia and its routing. I am fascinated by Barkers use of the deep hollow at #16 and #17. He was able to incorporate this natural feature as the major design element of two holes. Three holes if you count the 18th. The tee shot at 18 plays over the edge of the depression.

It is interesting to compare Barker's use of this natural depression with the way the quarry is utilized at Merion.  The approach at the par-4 16th plays directly over the quarry. Although considerably shorter, the par-4 17th at Columbia is played directly over the depression if you chose to drive the green (about 230-240 yard carry) or down and up if you choose to lay up. It is also worth noting originally the 16th at Merion was considerably shorter according to Francis, that is before securing additional land which allowed them to lengthen 15 and 16.

Another similarity the 17th at Merion plays from the edge of the precipice down to the green. The par-3 16th at Columbua plays from the edge of precipice down to the green.

At both courses the 18th holes are long par-4s with the tee shot being played over the edge of the previous depression.

[TEPaul]

My Dear Mr. Jeffrey Brauer:

May I say, in preface, that you look awfully smart in that Donald Ross tartan blazer in that little photo on your posts.

Yes, wouldn't we all like to see what Barker described himself as a 'rough drawing' of a layout for MCC on land that we are not even sure is the same land that MCC used for the East course? We do know that Barker's available land was less acreage (100 acres).

But his "rough drawing" has never been found again, perhaps even after the month of June, 1910 and the details of it were not even mentioned in MCC's Search Committee's report of July 1, 1910 to the MCC board. What Macdonald/Whigam had to say about the land was mentioned in that report, however, including about half or more of it on the subject of agronomy, not architecture. I would therefore assume that since it was never put into the MCC record as Macdonald/Whigam's thoughts were that Barker's "rough drawing" was never considered after June 1910.

The actual drawing that was approved by the Board in May of 1911 has not been found either but that board meeting did record that a plan was approved and it was then immediately taken into construction as we do know, so that fact that it must be the one that became the course is pretty obvious since no other plan was ever mentioned by the Board or the club after that May, 1911 board meeting. We also know that the MCC board minutes record that the plan that was approved was attached to the Wilson committee report that was made part of MCC's board records, and which we now have, when the report was submitted in that particular MCC board meeting in May 1911.

What the MCC board meeting minutes say via the Wilson Committee report and other minutes of the meeting about who designed the course, the number of plans generated by Wilson and his committee, the visit to NGLA and then the honing down to five plans and the approval of the one taken to construction has been paraphrased on this website a number of time, and it's a pretty exact paraphrasing too, but apparently that is not good enough for these two fellows who are attempting to massively revise the actual events of 1910 and 1911 at Merion in Ardmore, Pennsylvania.

Perhaps the paraphrasing is good enough for you, though, my esteemed Mr. Jeffrey Brauer who looks so smart in his Donald Ross ASGCA red tartan jacket----and I sincerely hope that is the case. So, I hope those two revisionistic birds can find a way to accept the paraphrasing of the MCC meeting minutes, as you, who is such an esteemed gentleman, have, because the fact is that's all their gonna get!! If they whaaaaanna see the actual documents I'd say they are just flat outta friggin' luck unless they want to come to Philadelphia and take the time and effort to deal with Merion G.C. and MCC as we do and have been doing now for, oh, nigh on to the maximum life span of a Shetland pony who possesses the best genes the "World-Wide Association of Shetland Ponies" has ever heard of.  

If they did that, at this point, however, what might happen might be something of a Kerfuffle! If you would like me to elaborate on that I would be sincerely happy to do so, My Esteemed Mr. Jeffrey Brauer who looks so smart in his red tartan......Oh never mind about that again, I've already been through that, have I not?

Savy?

[Thomas MacWood]

Mr. MacWood:

When it came to MCC's involvement with H.H. Barker, the Search Committee's report to the board of MCC in June/July 1910 made it very clear that it was not MCC's Search Committee or MCC that solicited an opinion from Barker for his 'rough drawing' of a course or hired him or paid his fee (Barker did charge a fee since he was a professional and of course neither Macdonald nor Whigam ever charged a fee for anything they did in their entire career regarding golf architecture).

Furthermore, Joseph Connell had nothing to do with the creation of a golf course for MCC nor did he have any connection to MCC. Connell was a real estate developer whose business was selling land---in this case to MCC.

The MCC Search Committee's report specifically states that Barker was engaged by Connell and that Barker's fee was on Connell's account and not MCC's.

It's too bad you apparenly neither read nor understood that and what it means. It is not what we said on here, it was what that MCC committee wrote in their report to the board in 1910.

Barker's name was never again mentioned by MCC in any context following that MCC Search Committee report to the MCC board of directors in June/July 1910.

Perhaps that doesn't mean anything to someone like you but it certainly does to us and Merion G.C. and particularly when the club's own administrative records in the following year state very clearly who it was who designed Merion East. If it had anything at all to do with Barker or the "rough drawing' he produced for someone else not connected to MCC, we feel there is little question MCC's administrative record would have reflected that, as it did the "advice" Macdonald/Whigam provided the MCC Search Committee in 1910 and Wilson's Committee in 1911.

We just cannot understand why you and the other fellow continue to try to make something important out of virtually nothing with Barker and Merion. One of the two of you said on here the other day: "Well, but isn't it POSSIBLE that Barker had something to do with Merion East's design?"

Well, yes, I suppose it is possible somehow. It's also possible somehow that the Duke of Windsor had somethng to do with Merion East's design somehow but we are quite sure he didn't as we are quite sure Barker didn't either. It's all pretty much as simple as that! 

This is not denigrating Barker in any way, as you constantly suggest on here. It's just that it's highly unlikely that his 'rough drawing' was ever considered again (we don't even believe it was much considered in 1910 or one wonders why MCC immediately turned to Macdonald/Whgam instead of Barker) given that Wilson and his committee did so many of them on their own as the club's administrative records from that time point out.

As long as you continue to contend on here or anywhere else that H.H. Barker should be credited with the design of Merion East we will continue to contend that is not the case, and that it is historically inaccurate. For my part, I will continue to do the same thing if you continue to contend that Willie Campbell designed the original nine of Myopia unless and until you actually produce something to that effect.

TE
When it was announced in the Philadelphia Inquirer that Merion Cricket C had purchased their current property the article said that Horatio Lloyd had Barker (and M&W) examine the site.

"Horatio G. Lloyd, of Drexel & Company, a governor of the club, has been the prime factor in bringing about this transaction in behalf of the club. Before the purchase of the ground, Mr. Lloyd had it examined by Charles B. Macdonald, HJ Whigham and HH Barker, the well-known golf players, all of whom have pronounced that the ground can be transformed into a golf course the equal of Myopia, Boston or Garden City, Long Island."

[TEPaul]

That's some mighty fascinating stuff there in your post #523 about Barker and Columbia, Mr. MacWood.

Perhaps you should write another "independent" and "expert" five part article on how all golf holes that play through a depression must have been massively influenced by H.H. Barker.

Never mind about all the holes like that which came before Barker----I see no reason at all we all can't just get together with you and with your preposterous speculations and just act like that didn't happen and that they didn't exist before the remarkable Mr. Barker.

[Jeff_Brauer]

To the esteemed Mr. Paul,

Many apologies for missing one of the thousands of posts on the "five routings."  I saw one reference and asked about it, but only got one private response.  I generally stopped reading the Merion threads, and will stop reading this one now that it has degenrated into the "Merion War 13 (or so)

It simply occurred to me that you have the info, having seen the archives, and yet some simply don't believe it and haven't seen it.  I can somewhat understand their frustration in that regard.  Seeing is, after all, believing, providing you aren't blinded by some bright red jacket........

I simply thought it might clear something up. However, I did allow that it might not! 

Sincerely,

Jeffrey D Brauer

PS - you are only the second person I have ever seen use the word "Kerfuffle."  The other was a crazy Canadian. I didn't know it was in the Philly jargon.

[TEPaul]

"TE
When it was announced in the Philadelphia Inquirer that Merion Cricket C had purchased their current property the article said that Horatio Lloyd had Barker (and M&W) examine the site.

"Horatio G. Lloyd, of Drexel & Company, a governor of the club, has been the prime factor in bringing about this transaction in behalf of the club. Before the purchase of the ground, Mr. Lloyd had it examined by Charles B. Macdonald, HJ Whigham and HH Barker, the well-known golf players, all of whom have pronounced that the ground can be transformed into a golf course the equal of Myopia, Boston or Garden City, Long Island."



Mr. MacWood:

Thank you so much for bringing that to our attention. That is one of the best examples to date that newspaper articles do not always get the facts reported accurately. What and who do you think is a better reflection of the accurate facts of what a club committee is doing----that committee's report to its club board by the men on that committee or some newspaper reporter and his report? Who was actually there and participating through all this, the committee or the reporter?

An honest and realistic answer to that question may be able to help you some with your logic and analytical skills both of which are in truth very seriously lacking! Unfortunately, an honest and realistic answer from you to questions put to you on here are also seriously lacking and always have been. 

[TEPaul]

My Dear Jeffrey:

If you would like me to prepare for you a really nice paraphrase of these incredibly important events I would be sincerely deeeeelighted to do it. But I would prefer to do it off this discussion board as these two revisionists have become so rude and arrogant and illogical I should do nothing in the future to help them in any of their campaigns to slay the "LEGENDS" of golf course architecture.

Don't forget, I am a dues-paying member in good standing of this "Philadelphia Syndrome" Mr. MacWood has coigned and believes infects this town which is dedicated to glorifying our own and minimizing and denigrating architects from outside the City of Brotherly Envy....I mean Love.

[TEPaul]

And, now, next in line, My Dear Jeffrey Brauer, we should expect the usual daily post from the revisionist from the west of this country telling us that he is acting in good faith and we are acting in bad faith.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & Tom MacWood,

I think one of the problems with researching is the quality/accuracy of newspaper accounts.

I think we can extend that problem to almost every written account, including autobiographies, which can be self serving.

Unfortunately, we sometimes have to rely on them in the face of an absence of information.

So, do we selectively accept and dismiss the written word ?

I think it's a dilema.

As to Board minutes, I've seen them sanitized and edited as well.
They don't always reflect what actually happened, but again, absent information to the contrary, we're left with them being the sole record of an event.

A course that I'm intimately familiar with that has been altered over the years, didn't leave a paper trail detailing each change.

Some, in fact many changes are undocumented.

Part of me thinks that identifying who did what is important.
And, part of me thinks that identifying what was done is more important.

Do I want to know what existed prior to an alteration ?   YES
Do I want to know what existed after the alteration ?      YES

Do I want to know who was responsible for that alteration ?  YES

However, I know that sometimes, even in these modern times, it's impossible to find any documentation of a change.

In the final analysis, it may be that pre and post aerials are THE most important document, with attribution a secondary, but important concern.