News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Phil_the_Author

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #25 on: July 13, 2008, 08:55:33 PM »
Tom Paul,

You responded to Tom Macwood with, "I would like to see the wording of that but nevertheless, I think a far more reliable source about what actually happened with a Barker would be the actual committee reports themselves, their reports to the club's board and the club's board minutes. There certainly is no newspaper accounts that ever knew more about what actually happened then the people and the committees and boards that were actually involved in the search for and creation of those courses."

I must disagree with you. I am in the process of producing a course evolution history of a well-known Tillinghast course (I am not at liberty to reveal which in this forum until it is presented to them). In doing so I came across a reference to Perry Maxwell having redesigned and rebuilt all 18 greens in the late 1930's. This reference and several others that have corroborated it, was found in the local newspaper. The Board of Golvernors minutes, including those that directly dealt with this project by name, NEVER mentions the name of the architect and simply refer to him as the "Greens Architect".

There are occasions where the club's records are incomplete and even a newspaper gets it right...

TEPaul

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #26 on: July 13, 2008, 09:02:04 PM »
"There are occasions where the club's records are incomplete and even a newspaper gets it right..."

Philip:

I don't think you understand. The Merion minutes are very specific about who it was that routed and designed their two golf courses. They were not vague or incomplete about that at all. It was definitely not H.H. Barker, it was Hugh Wilson and his committee who had the suggestions and advice from C.B. Macdonald and W.J. Whigam that has always been reported in the Merion record.

Phil_the_Author

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #27 on: July 13, 2008, 09:11:52 PM »
Tom,

I am not saying that your statement in regards to Merion is wrong... but you didn't state that you were refering to Merion only or in specific. Look once more at what you wrote, "There certainly is no newspaper accounts that ever knew more about what actually happened then the people and the committees and boards that were actually involved in the search for and creation of those courses."

"Those courses"... PLURAL... this can't be interpreted as having been written about Merion. That is why I wrote my own experience with the club I am working for.


TEPaul

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #28 on: July 13, 2008, 09:32:55 PM »
"There certainly is no newspaper accounts that ever knew more about what actually happened then the people and the committees and boards that were actually involved in the search for and creation of those courses."

Philip:

For whatever reasons there certainly are committee reports or even board meeting minutes that are not that comprehensive. Perhaps occassionally clubs tell newspaper reporters more than they put in their committee reports and board meeting minutes, but I think I can pretty much guarantee that no newspaper reporter ever knew more about who was responsible for the architecture of a course than the club people involved in creating it.

Thomas MacWood

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #29 on: July 13, 2008, 09:39:20 PM »
"TE
Barker advertised he designed Mayfield. Greene gives him credit, as does Walter Travis. George Thomas lists the course as Barker & Way."


Tom MacWood:

Although it's pretty sketchy there seems like there is a sort of unmistakable connection between H.H. Barker, Bert Way and Willie Dunn Jr for a lot of interesting reasons to do with Long Island and some pretty powerful people such as W.K. Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller and others that sort of connected Way and Barker in Ohio possibly through Way's and Dunn's close friendship and those big timers. Way was the pro for the membership from Euclid G.C., Cleveland Ohio from 1900, a course Way apparently designed. The land was owned by Rockefeller. Previous to that Way had laid out some courses in Detroit after moving there from the pro job at Meadowbrook Hunt Club which is in Westbury L.I. which is not ten miles from GCGC. At this time Willie Dunn Jr was at Shinnecock. Way had worked for Dunn at Biarritz G.C. in France. Willie Dunn Jr must have been some interesting guy as it appears he had some really powerful friends including Rockefeller and Vanderbilt, Stewart Maiden, John L. Sullivan, Zane Grey, Teddy Roosevelt etc. It looks like Dunn made and lost a lot of money a couple of times which isn't exactly something one did as a pro, greenkeeper, designer in that day and age. Way was the pro for over fifty years for the Euclid/Mayfield GCs which was the same memberships which just moved the site of their course. If you ask me those three were close and buddies from the old country and through Long Island connections and they probably helped each other out and tried to share the wealth in what they did design-wise which had to be pretty part time since all of them were always club professionals somewhere throughout their extended careers in America.

It seems like that was a world that most of us today don't understand that well in how small and interconnected it was in various ways with guys like Barker, Dunn and Way. It was probably about as different from the world of professional golf course architects in our era as night and day. It looks to me like Way may've just brought Barker into Mayfield to help out a friend. Way had been with that membership for the previous ten years, designed them their first course (Euclid) and he would be with them as their professional for the next forty years at Mayfield. Way also taught John D. Rockefeller the game. I don't see the club bringing in Barker out of the blue from New York to Ohio where Barker had not previously been when Way had been there all along and he was a known designer previous to that and for the Euclid/Mayfield membership. It looks like Way arranged to bring him in maybe at the behest of his old friend Willie Dunn Jr and his powerful personal connections.   



TE
Your information looks to be taken verbatim from C&W. Relying exclusively on one resource in lue of independent research is the only explanation for such a mistake laden hypothesis.

When did you speak to Cornish about Willie Dunn?

To my knowledge you are the only person who disputes Barker's involvement at Mayfield. It appears you are trying to introduce questions about Barker at Mayfield as a response to the questioning of Wilson at Merion ~ apples and oranges. Barker's credentials are well documented - one of the advantages of having your mentor the editor of a golf magazine.

The only reason you are the least bit interested in Barker is because Moriarty introduced his involvement in his essay. You (and Wayne) had ignored him completely because he is not mentioned prominantly in C&W. IMO they (and you) missed the boat. His involvement at Merion, and the involvement of Macdonald & Whigham, prove to me how focused and astute Merion was in seeking the best talent available.

You seem to be on a futile mission to prove Barker was a nobody, and the Merion people were fools to be associated with him - ironically. Mike Cirba tried to do the same thing with M&W. It really is astonishing.

Who were the best architects in America in 1910-11 and what were their best designs?
« Last Edit: July 13, 2008, 10:13:09 PM by Tom MacWood »

Phil_the_Author

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #30 on: July 13, 2008, 09:52:23 PM »
Tom,

You said, "I think I can pretty much guarantee that no newspaper reporter ever knew more about who was responsible for the architecture of a course than the club people involved in creating it."

I totally and completely agree with this statement... absolutely.

The problem is that we aren't contemporaneous to the time of the examples that we are talking about. There is not a single member of the original design committee alive of the club I referred to nor any of those who wrote of it in the newspaper. Therefor one, in this case me, can only go on the actual reality of what happened regardless of where the information is derived. In this case it comes straight out of the newspaper rather than committee minutes.

In the case of Merion, there also is not a single member of the original design committee alive nor of any who wriote about it's creation in the newspapers & golf journals.

For that reason, simply because something is NOT mentioned in the minutes that was mentioned in a newspaper account does not, on its own, mean that the newspaper account was mistaken or inaccurate. It also doesn't give it automatic credibility either. It does mean that something at least needs looking into.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #31 on: July 13, 2008, 09:57:02 PM »
Barker designed Arcola CC which opened for play in 1911.   The original design was quite interesting. 

TEPaul

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #32 on: July 13, 2008, 10:24:49 PM »
Philip:

When I have the actual words of the people who were there involved in these projects or from the club who were on hand to see it practically every day such as we do with Merion and Pine Valley I tend not to automatically discount them by claiming they were engaging in hyperbole, overblown eulogy and other factual inaccuracies as others on here have and do. I think the only reason that is done on here is because they have agendas going into the discussion and the simply distort things to maintain their agendas.

Newspaper accounts are never as valuable to me as the direct and first hand accounts from those there were there at the time.

Phil_the_Author

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #33 on: July 13, 2008, 10:45:59 PM »
Tom,

Again, I completely agree with you. I am only referring to things NOT stated either for or against by those who were there and left personal records. in the case of barker at Merion I am in complete agreement that anything that he did suggested, drawn or written appears to have had nothing at all to do with what Wilson and his Committee designed and built.

Yet there can now be no question that Barker did submit something to someone at least peripherally involved involved at the time of the creation of the golf course.

Also, remember that my original post was a result of Tom Macwood stating, "The Phildelphia Inquirer reported that Lloyd sought the advice of Barker, Macdonald & Whigham."

You then stated that you would like to see that but would put more trust in the words contained in the club's minutes, etc... This included your remark, "There certainly is no newspaper accounts that ever knew more about what actually happened then the people and the committees and boards that were actually involved in the search for and creation of those courses..."

Though true, it doesn't take into account that many times a newspaper will report and record for posterity the truth of what actually happened where it isn't contained in a club's minutes...

The bottom line for me is that it doesn't matter who solicited Barker's advice, Lloyd or anyone else; it doesn't appear that he was listened to. The act of not listening to him doesn't negate the truth that his advice was solicited by someone...

All I said was that if it isn't mentioned in the minutes and is in a newspaper,

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #34 on: July 14, 2008, 02:52:33 AM »

The bottom line for me is that it doesn't matter who solicited Barker's advice, Lloyd or anyone else; it doesn't appear that he was listened to. The act of not listening to him doesn't negate the truth that his advice was solicited by someone...


How do you know he wasn't listened to?  Tom Paul states he was not listened to, but as usual he provides no evidence whatsoever to back up his claim.  It is a mistake to blindly accept that Barker's routing was ignored.   This is especially so given TEPaul's habit of misrepresenting the record and then refusing to produce it.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Phil_the_Author

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #35 on: July 14, 2008, 04:32:09 AM »
David,

You asked me how I know that Barker wasn't listened to?

Your own words say so. Didn't you write in your essay that, "Apparently not content with Barker’s routing plan, the Site Committee brought in two renowned amateur golfers and golf course designers, C.B. Macdonald and H.G Whigham, to inspect the site.[11]"

It sounds to me like you also didn't believe he was listened to.   

Thomas MacWood

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #36 on: July 14, 2008, 06:18:14 AM »
Phil
Its fairly common to ask for a second opinion, or third or fourth opinion. There are scores of examples during this periord in history. To my knowledge the only known routing produced was by Barker. We have no idea if Macdonald & Whigham told the club the Barker routing was good, bad or somewhere in between.

So how do you know his routing was not used?

TEPaul

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #37 on: July 14, 2008, 06:53:37 AM »
"The bottom line for me is that it doesn't matter who solicited Barker's advice, Lloyd or anyone else; it doesn't appear that he was listened to. The act of not listening to him doesn't negate the truth that his advice was solicited by someone..."

Phil:

For me it matters who solicited Barker's advice if one wants to get into some real detail about the creation of Merion East and who was responsible for the design of the course. Perhaps a newspaper report says that Lloyd of Merion solicited Barker's advice but the MCC Search Committee's report to the MCC board seems to indicate otherwise and fairly clearly.

That MCC report states:

"Mr. Connell, on his own account, obtained from H.H. Barker, the Garden City professional, a report, of which the following is a copy."

It seems to me that report is stating quite clearly who solicited Barker's opinion----eg George Connell, a developer who was not part of MCC. It seems to be confirmed by the fact that the same report states that Rodman Griscom, a member of the MCC Search Committee (and clearly a man who knew Macdonald from past Lesley Cups at least), solicited Macdonald's opinion of the Ardmore land being offered to MCC, and given the timeline it appears Griscom contacted Macdonald within days of Barker's report submitted to the MCC Search Committee by developer Connell.

On the other hand, Macdonald's letter to the MCC Search Committee that includes his, and Whigam's opinions of the Ardmore land is addressed to Horatio Gates Lloyd. This is understandable as it is very obvious that it was Lloyd who was in the process of actually managing the land acquistion for both the golf course and residential community for the interests of the club and its membership.


Matter of fact, this MCC report makes no mention of Barker's "rough layout" that his letter informs Connell that he did. The only thing from Barker that appears was included in the MCC Search Committee's report to the board is Barker's letter to Connell in which he mentions that he did a "rough layout". This letter has been in the MCC archives for almost a century but apparently Barker's "rough layout" was never included and that's may be why no one is able to produce it today----eg MCC never really considered it. That also would be understandable as MCC did not even begin to generate design plans for at least six more months (according to MCC committee and board minutes).
« Last Edit: July 14, 2008, 06:59:59 AM by TEPaul »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #38 on: July 14, 2008, 06:54:24 AM »
"Herbert Barker, who planned the Mayfield course at Cleveland, which just now disputes first honors with the Detroit Country Club and who has acted in an advistory capacity in the laying out and remodeling of at least three courses around Philadelphia, within a half dozen years, besides a host of others, has had enough of being a professional in what some people proudly call the 'Land of the Free'. He goes back to England soon, where it is assumed he will apply for reinstatement to the amateur ranks. That Yorkshireman, who less than a decade ago, won the Irish amateur title, fancied he could capitlaize his ability by coming to the States and turning professional. Garden City, which just then had a hankering for anything English, made him an offer and he accpeted. Mr. Barker, who is of sensative type, has always held his peace, but if he wished could write a volume upon being excluded from the company of gentlemen, so to speak. Barker never won a competition of note on this side, owing parly to poor health for a time, but soon developed striking ability as a links architect. Indeed, only one other man has laid out more courses in this country."

I highlighted parts of the paragraph because it tells me Greene was no casual acquaintance. The common story told of Barker's return to England was that he left becasue of the War. Greene gives us additional insight into why he left America. He also gives us insight into his personality, he apparently knew the man well becasue this a side of Barker has never been described before. What do we know about the Barker-Greene relationship and Barker's association to people in Philadelphia? Lastly Greene, who in addition to having a close relationship with Barker, was apparently very well connected to the Philadelphia golf scene, claims Barker was involved in three Philly projects. We know the general time frame 1909 to 1914 - what courses are the best candidates?

TEPaul

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #39 on: July 14, 2008, 06:56:51 AM »
"So how do you know his routing was not used?"

Because the meeting minutes from a board meeting in April 1911 explain in detail whose routing and design plan was approved and used and it was not Barker's.

Thomas MacWood

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #40 on: July 14, 2008, 07:11:04 AM »
"So how do you know his routing was not used?"

Because the meeting minutes from a board meeting in April 1911 explain in detail whose routing and design plan was approved and used and it was not Barker's.

TE
Have you seen the routing that was approved and compared it to the Barker routing?
« Last Edit: July 14, 2008, 07:12:35 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #41 on: July 14, 2008, 07:17:53 AM »
"What do we know about the Barker-Greene relationship and Barker's association to people in Philadelphia? Lastly Greene, who in addition to having a close relationship with Barker, was apparently very well connected to the Philadelphia golf scene, claims Barker was involved in three Philly projects. We know the general time frame 1909 to 1914 - what courses are the best candidates?"

It appears Greene probably interviewed Barker, but I don't exactly see where anyone could intuit that Greene had a 'close relationship' from that. ;)

Perhaps someone around here knows what those three clubs were but I don't. It should be noted that Greene did not say that Barker designed three courses in Philadelphia, only that he advised three clubs. Considering that Greene apparently also reported that Horatio Gates Lloyd solicited Barker's advice for the MCC course move to Ardmore, perhaps one of those three courses was Merion.

However, from the information contained in the MCC Search Committee report to the MCC board (in the post above) it is pretty clear it was not Lloyd who contacted Barker and solicited his advice but independent real estate developer, George Connell, who was not part of MCC.

To me, there is nothing egregious about Verdant Greene reporting in the newspaper that Lloyd contacted Barker but it does show me how and why newspaper reports are never as reliable as the written reports of what happened from the club itself and those involved in the project.

I realize there are some on this website who will continue to rationalize these facts away or continue to dismiss them somehow but it really doesn't matter---they are the facts and they come directly from the source.

Some on here may even imply, as they have in the past, that those men from MCC involved in the move of the MCC course from Haverford to Ardmore were all engaging in hyperbole or somehow lying to one another in their reports and board meetings but at this point I do hope that anyone reading these threads and posts will figure out how to take that for what it really is.   ;)

Thomas MacWood

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #42 on: July 14, 2008, 07:30:17 AM »
In 1913 Verdant Greene wrote this about Barker in the Philadlephia Inquirer (8/10/1913), the story related to Abe Mitchell possibly coming over to compete in the US Am:

"Although nothing has been heard for six weeks from the irrepressible Abe Mitchell, it is only fair to suppose that he is holding to his intention of visiting these shores and competing in the national amateur, although so far as can be leearned he has recieved no information that he would be invited. However, a generous policy obtains just now toward golfers form other shores, it is inconcievable that he would be barred. Depend upon it, Mitchell's hope is to make a showing that will land him a job here. Then in a trice he will turn professional, as he threatened to do some time ago, on the other side. It will merely be the case over here of Herbert Barker, ex-Irish champion from Yorkshire. And why not? As a former chaufuer and gardner, his lot at home is not a happy one in amateur ranks. He is not to blame for having been born next to golf links, just as some folks are opposite a cemetary. As a boy the game fairly got into his blood."

I have collected a lot information on Barker over the years, from sources on both sides of the Atlantic, I knew he grew up beside a golf course, but I had no idea he was a gardner and a chaufeur. I did some checking in the British census records and sure enough his father was a woodman/gardner.

Greene obviosuly was quite familar with Barker's story, including his design activities in Philly. As I said before we are talking about a relatively small window of opportunity or time-frame in Philadelphia. What three courses are the best candidates?
« Last Edit: July 14, 2008, 07:37:05 AM by Tom MacWood »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #43 on: July 14, 2008, 07:32:56 AM »
TE
Who was George Connell? Did he work for or was he associated with Lloyd?

TEPaul

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #44 on: July 14, 2008, 07:34:47 AM »
"TE
Have you seen the routing that was approved and compared it to the Barker routing?"

Tom:

In the future please try to read what I just wrote so I don't have to constantly repeat information I've already provided.

It appears quite clear from the MCC Search Committee report to the MCC board on July 1, 1910 that neither the committee nor the board even considered Barker's "rough layout" (that was Barker's description of what he did, by the way). The reason I say that is his "rough layout" is not part of MCC's records, but his letter mentioning that rough layout has been a part of the MCC record for close to a century.

This would lead a reasonable mind to assume that MCC never even considered Barker's rough layout or his advice. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that the same report indicates MCC did consider Macdonald's and Whigam's general advice on the Ardmore land because it is included in MCC's record and we certainly know MCC got together again with Macdonald/Whigam for app 8-9 months later for a day and a half at NGLA in the winter or early spring of 1911 and again with Macdonald/Whigam at Ardmore on April 6, 1911 during a one day visit. As far as anyone has ever been able to determine that was basically Macdonald/Whigam's last involvement with Merion (although I do have a letter from Macdonald to Wilson a year or so later, but it only talks about the preferable quanitities of fertilizer application on greens).

So, my point is it appears a Barker routing was never part of the Merion record or ever part of the design process for Merion East.

The design plan that was approved by the board has never been seen by me or anyone else I've ever heard of in modern times. Interestingly, however, it is apparently clear to see where it was actually attached to the handwritten board meeting minutes that mention it and also mention its submission to the board for approval (the meeting minutes indicate it was approved in that meeting).

In my opinion, that could probably be explained by the fact that after it was approved it was used for the next six months or more by Wilson and his committee as they constructed the golf course, and then somehow lost at some point, as, unfortunately, we know is not uncommon with some of these interesting assets.

The first actual architectural drawings available in the app twenty year creation of Merion East first appear around 1915 and on for the next 15-20 years and they are all from William Flynn. They are all part of the Merion record now (after Wayne Morrison found them all in a barn in Bucks County about 6-7 years ago).
« Last Edit: July 14, 2008, 07:48:34 AM by TEPaul »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #45 on: July 14, 2008, 07:39:32 AM »
"TE
Have you seen the routing that was approved and compared it to the Barker routing?"

It appears quite clear from the MCC Search Committee report to the MCC board on July 1, 1910 that neither the committee or the board even considered Barker's "rough layout" (that was Barker's description of what he did, by the way). The reason I say that is his "rough layout" is not part of MCC's records, but his letter mentioning that rough layout has been a part of the MCC record for close to a century.


TE
Is there any routing produced in 1911 or earlier that is part of MCC's record?

TEPaul

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #46 on: July 14, 2008, 07:51:47 AM »
"TE
Is there any routing produced in 1911 or earlier that is part of MCC's record?"


There certainly was and the MCC board minutes and committee reports indicate it very specifically. However, for its disposition today, see the end of the post above---eg I added to it.

wsmorrison

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #47 on: July 14, 2008, 08:20:32 AM »
Interesting that the same newspaper reporters who were either dismissed or ignored in a prior argument are now being used as evidence in another argument.  It is also apparent that the mentor of Barker, and detailed chronicler of his efforts, is not considered at all biased, but a brother and fellow members of another individual are deemed just so. 

Barker planned additional bunkers and mounds at Springhaven in 1909, which were implemented in the winter and spring of 1910.  "Hazard," writing in the January 1910 edition of American golfer said,

"The green committee at Springhaven is very active at present under the direction of its chairman, Mr. George L. Cutler; and while no radical changes are contemplated, the committee is determined to improve the course as much as possible during the winter and spring.  They have consulted with H.H. Barker, the Garden City pro, who staked out fifty pits which will be placed as rapidly as the weather will permit.  Most of the new hazards guard the approaches to the greens--for instance, at the left of the sixth and the right of the sixteenth."

According to Bob Labbance, who authored a 2004 history of the course,

"Barker's pits were distinctive, and as they were installed during the winter and spring of 1910 the playing characteristics of the Springhaven course began to change.  Many were rectangular with rounded off corners; and they were deep, with an accompanying mound to the greenward side of the sand field.  The ones that graced the fairways were often placed in pairs between parallel holes so that they performed double duty catching errant shots from either direction. 

...When they abutted nearly square greens, the geometrically placed bunkers often surrounded a good portion of the putting surface and snagged slightly under hit missives with regularity.  The smaller pits could be found anywhere on the layout and were ovoids--small ovals that also grew in pairs at spots frequently visited by the better players."


Here are some photographs of Springhaven from 1924, a period when the club was considering moving with Flynn hired to design the new course.  While the design was approved, the club never did move, but Flynn eventually was hired to redesign the bunker scheme and alter a few greens with a limited amount of additional land.  Flynn's work to eradicate the geometric nature of the bunkering and green outlines commenced after the following photos were taken, thus showing Barker's work for all to judge for themselves rather than taking the word of two expert historians.

Springhaven 1924





« Last Edit: July 14, 2008, 11:30:02 AM by Wayne Morrison »

TEPaul

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #48 on: July 14, 2008, 08:26:07 AM »
PISSBOY IS BACK. PISSBOY IS BACK!!!!

GO SHOUT IT FROM THE MOUNTAIN TOPS!!

"HALLA--FRICKIN'---LEULAH!!"

TEPaul

Re: Herbert Barker
« Reply #49 on: July 14, 2008, 08:34:20 AM »
"The smaller pits could be found anywhere on the layout and were ovoids--small ovals that also grew in pairs at spots frequently visited by the better players."


OVOIDS???

I just love that A.W. Tillinghast. Not only was he a great great golf course architect who got even better during the day as his flask got lighter but he was one cool wordsmith. I love that GUY!!

Let's be sure to add "OVOIDS" to are daily golf architecture lexicon!

PS:

Wayno:

Now that we might enter into the world of merchantizing and the filthy lucre, why don't you start charging MacWood for the answers you're providing him to his constant questions on here and the on-going education you're providing him with?  If he pays us enough what do we really care if he calls us Philadelphians defensive and frustrated or whatever to outside "expert researchers" such as himself?  ;)  Have you ever seen an "expert researcher" ask so many damn RESEARCH questions of the people he insults?   :o
« Last Edit: July 14, 2008, 08:43:46 AM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back