Just a note about Springhaven I had forgotten.
In 1913, just two years after Barker had been there, Alex Findlay and JH Limeburner did extensive changes to Springhaven, increasing the total distance from 5800 to 6200, building new greens, creating three new holes, building new greens and tees, and changing bunkering schemes.
An article in early 1914 notes;
"If you have not played over the course of the Springhaven Country Club within a year, you will have a hard time familiarizing yourself. The changes made have been of a most radical nature and now that they have planned, the natural inquiry is, "Why were they not made before?"
Who did the construction??
Fred Pickering.
Thanks for the clarification Mike. A few comments and questions:
1. As I said above, it was disingenuous and totally without support for Wayne to just to throw up a photo from 1924 and then try to use it to discredit a designer who staked out bunkers over a dozen years before. I believe you used the same photos to similarly try to discredit Barker, didn't you?
Anyway, you must now agree that the 1924 aerials of Springhaven that Wayne posted (and you reposted) may have little or nothing to do with Barker's style or skill as a designer, musn't you? The way you and Wayne used the drawings of Springhaven to bash Barker's reputation, each of you ought to specifically set the record straight.
In Wayne's case this is the obvious consequence of only digging far enough to support the point he wants to make, and going no further. This in a nutshell is the recurrent mistake in his logic and methodology. He only digs deep enough to make the argument he wants to make, and he forgets about, ignores, or conceals everything else. That is what he did here. That is what he apparently does by assuming that if Flynn drew it then Flynn designed it. That is what he had done for years and years regarding Merion's early history, and I have a sneaking suspicion that there are about 276,962 pages (excluding the added dvd of drawings) of similar flawed logic and methodology in the Flynn Manifesto.
I commend you for bringing this information forward, even though it entirely undercuts your previous points. It is one thing to draw conclusions based on limited information and to rethink the issue when more information comes forward. It is quite another to ignore, conceal, cover-up, forget-about, lie about, or allow others to lie about information that undercuts one's previous points. It is nice to see that you may have taken the first path, instead of following Wayne and Tom down the second.
2. According to the 1910 article, Barker was there in 1909, not 1911.
3. Your post seems to imply that the Findlay-Limeburner involvement at Springhaven somehow indicates that Barker's work was inadequate or poorly done. At least that is how TEPaul reads it. Could you clarify, because according to your paraphrase of the Findlay-Limeburner contribution, it seems like Findlay-Limeburner were concerned with different and more comprehensive issues, weren't they?
Therefore it would be a mischaracterization or at least unsupported speculation to think that Findlay-Limeburner were fixing Barker's flaws, wouldn't it? After all, according to the 1910 Hazard article, Barker only staked out bunkers, and was mostly placing bunkers to guard the approaches to greens, for example "at the left of the sixth and the right of the sixteenth."
4. I fail to grasp the significance is it that Pickering did the construction?
- Are you implying that Pickering was actually designing and not just constructing these courses during this period?
- Are you implying that Pickering was a geometric hack?
- What exacty are you implying?
- Are you implying that Pickering wasn't traveling to Europe or Argentina in 1913?
- What are you implying, if anything?
5. One more thing. I haven't reread your posts above but I seem to recall that your criticism of Springhaven pre-1924 was rather scathing. That was when you and Wayne were mistakenly assuming that Barker was responsible for what appeared in the photos. Now that it turns out that Barker may NOT have been responsible, you seem to be suggesting that the post-Barker changes might have greatly improved the course. Which is it? And why the change of heart? From my perspective it seems that your conclusions come and go based upon what side of the fence you think Barker is on. Are you now willing to draw the same conclusions about Findlay that you drew about Barker in your posts above? If not why not?
Thanks in advance for your responses to my questions.
________________________
TEPaul,
You have laughably gone from condemning Barker for doing the work in the photos, to apparently condemning him for not doing the work in the photos. Naturally.