I have been asked to post the following comments:
I find it rather ironic that someone would confuse me as a person who
would give design credit for consulting on someone else’s plan. There
have certainly been others on GCA over the years who tried to assign
design credit to consultants brought in to “approve” others plans, but I
would certainly not be included among them.
Walter Travis being brought in by Columbia to go over the work over two
days and “approve” the proposed layout done by Barker and Ross, both who
were at early stages in their design careers with very little built yet
“on the ground”, is not surprising. After all, Barker was a protégé
of Travis, who had taken him under his wing at Garden City, and the
articles also point out that Travis had a strong interest in the new
course at Columbia. Similarly, Travis had worked with Ross in the
original design of Pinehurst #2 and had encouraged Ross to employ more
stringent and “scientific” bunkering there.
Not surprisingly, as Barker’s reputation grew he was also called in as a
consultant by some to “approve” proposed work planned by others. For
instance, at Atlanta Athletic Club’s East Lake course, partially in
reaction to the Southern Open in 1909 when Barker torched the course
with a then unheard of 69, Club President (and later head of the green
committee) and amateur-sportsman George Adair travelled around the best
courses in the country to study bunkering with the idea of making the
East Lake course more challenging. He put together a comprehensive
bunkering plan, some of which he implemented over the fall/winter of
1909-1910, but then brought in Barker to make additional suggestions,
but “there was not a trap added by Barker that he (Adair) had not
(already) planned one to be placed near the same spot. His idea had
been to catch the “nearly-good” shot of the good player…”.
More importantly, amateur sportsman Adair’s study of the course Tom
Bendelow originally designed for the East Lake club in 1906 led him to
the realization that it was rather deficient, particularly from a
routing and balance standpoint. In 1912 he announced a series of
proposed comprehensive changes that exists as the routing still in play
at the East Lake course today, which is often incorrectly credited to
Donald Ross. After drawing up plans for an extensive re-routing, of
which only 5 of the Bendelow holes was retained (today’s holes 9, 10-13)
but a number of existing greensites retained, Adair sent those plans to
Barker for his consultation.
In November 1912 it was reported; “His (Adair) ideas have been submitted
to H. H. Barker, who has gone over them thoroughly and has put the stamp
of approval on them, and it is most probable that work will begin on the
proposed changes within a short time.”
So, I think in this case, it would be fair and accurate to list Adair as
the designer, or “architect”, and Barker as the consultant. Barker
didn’t create the plans, he merely consulted on them. Similarly, in
the case of Columbia, Barker was the architect (and probably Donald Ross
to a lesser degree) while I think it’s certainly fair and accurate to
list Travis as the consultant.
Now, where have I hear all of this terminology before??
Have a great day, everyone!
Mide Crba