From Mike Cirba:
Tom MacWood,
I'm not sure why you would object to the presentation of facts in lieu of continued speculation. It's interesting and informative to pose the November 22nd article and the July 1st letter side by side, and I think it explains much of the newspaper writer's confusion about the matter, don't you?
As regards Barker, there is no effort at "character assasination", but merely the presentation of historical realities. For instance, you've avoided the question for a long time now, but once again I'll ask exactly which 18 hole original designs of Barker's were open for play in June 1910 that would have inspired Merion to consider using him? You lay out a laundry list of courses, most recently throwing Philmont, Atlantic City, and Bedford Springs into the confused mix, but without any context about what work was done on these (previously existing) courses or the timeframes involved.
For instance, arguably his greatest work was Columbia, but that didn't open until 1911. Most other courses of his opened in the 1911 to 1913 timeframe, wouldn't you agree? Which were open for play by June 1910?
Your most recent idle speculation now involves Seaview and Whitemarsh Valley, all because of something you found (that you're seemingly uncertain about) that you believe might indicate Barker left from Philadelphia in April 1911. You might be interested to know that the planning for Seaview didn't occur until early 1913, and that Whitemarsh Valley was open for play well before 1911. Yet, you throw around these courses in some seeming attempt to find a problem to fit your predetermined solution.
I'd also ask this very pertinent question. Walter Travis, as Barker's mentor, used his position as editor of "American Golfer" to promote Barker as an architect, and basically gave his running itinerary of his comings and goings. If Barker indeed had anything to do with the routing of Merion East, wouldn't Travis have trumpeted that achievement in his magazine? Yet, he never saw fit to mention it, despite profiles on various courses by Barker in that magazine, stimulated by Travis's constant promotion of his friend.
All,
I find it interesting in the McCracken article above that along with the creation of 4 new holes and other changes in 1922, the 15th green had a "drastic reconstruction", which I find both timely given recent events, as well as historically interesting.
By my count by 1934 Merion had significantly altered or replaced 2/3 of the greens on the original course, most happening in the 1916 and 1922 timeframes. Those greens include 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17.
All of this to me begs the question...if one is intent on designing some "template" holes, does one need to consider that fact before routing a golf course?
I ask because to my surprise, David still seems to be insisting that the November 1910 Land Plan indicates that the course was fully routed by that time, due to the inclusion of something looking like a triangle north of the Haverford College boundary. I guess he still sees that as evidence that Richard Francis had his brainstorm that routed the five holes which completed the routing prior to November. I don't agree with him, but let's assume for discussion purposes that he's correct.
Well, by November 1910 Merion had precisely one visit from CB Macdonald, and not a single hint of communications between his generic June letter to the club and mid-November when the property was secured and if one believes that the course was routed prior to November 10th, it would have been without the benefit of CBM's involvement in that routing. If I'm missing something here, someone please point it out, because clearly the November mailing to membership would have mentioned CBM designing the course at that point if it had been the case. It doesn't; it only mentions his one day visit and doesn't publish his letter.
No, instead Hugh Wilson tells us that it wasn't until his early March visit to NGLA when Macdonald provided all of his information about the great holes abroad and showed them his sketches and the course at NGLA. It was that visit that the MCC Minutes tell us had the Committee go back and come up with "five different plans" subsequent to that visit, and FIVE MONTHS after the property was secured and supposedly after the routing was completed.
So, the question remains. Does one need to know in advance that a hole is going to be based on a template hole before routing it, or can one build virtually any routing and then create template holes after the fact, particularly based on bunkering schemes? Particularly if one assumes that the creation of bunkers and/or the re-building and re-desigining of greens is part of the equation, I think the answer is fairly self-evident.
Thanks,
Mike