[Thomas MacWood]

TE
The two courses: Merion and Springhaven. Wow.

[TEPaul]

"TE
The sketches and plans legend came from Wilson when describing his visit to the NGLA."


Really?!?    

Is NGLA considered to be "abroad"? Is NGLA considered to be in GB? I didn't know that. But if you can prove that his visit to NGLA is where the story that Wilson came home from abroad with lots of sketches, plans, drawings and surveyor's maps, I'm sure that we and Merion would be more than happy to make it part of their accurate historical architecture record!    



NOW, back to BARKER!   

[TEPaul]

"TE
The two courses: Merion and Springhaven. Wow."


How about Pine Valley? It had some of that alpinization early on too.  Would you like to now try to conclude that Barker actually designed Pine Valley? If you do how are you going to reconcile your fixation with Harry Colt and how he was minimized at Pine Valley in another one of those early "Philadelphia Syndrome" attempts by that club to eulogize and glorify Crump at Colt's expense?? 

[Thomas MacWood]

"TE
The sketches and plans legend came from Wilson when describing his visit to the NGLA."


Really?!?    

Is NGLA considered to be "abroad"? Is NGLA considered to be in GB? I didn't know that. But if you can prove that his visit to NGLA is where the story that Wilson came home from abroad with lots of sketches, plans, drawings and surveyor's maps, I'm sure that we and Merion would be more than happy to make it part of their accurate historical architecture record!    



NOW, back to BARKER!   

TE
No one said it was logical. Some how the fellow who first wrote about Merion's history read Wilson's comments about the sketches he was shown at NGLA, that were exactly what he saw later when he traveled overseas, and thought be meant he went to the UK in 1910 and brought back sketches. Clear and logical thinking it often absent when you dig below the surface of these legends.

Speaking of trip abroad Barker travelled to the UK in 1910 with a group of American pros. They played an exhibition at Walton Heath, and I believe some other courses. The trip was sponsored by George Riddel, who owned Country Life magazine. I think the idea was to create a Ryder Cup event. Walton Heath has very simply shaped bunkers, rectangular-like.

[TEPaul]

"Who were some of Barker's contemporaires during that time frame and what were their best designs?"


Tom:

It's a very good question indeed.

Matter of fact, that is just the question I've been basically fixated on for over five years. What were Barker's contemporaries doing anyway in that early era say from 1910 and earlier and was any of it any good not just to use but some of those guys back then?

 And not just what were they doing, who were they? Could you consider men like Leeds, or the Fownses or Macdonald or Crump or Wilson or Travis or Emmet to be the same apples to apples ilk as say Barker or Way or Findlay or Bendelow or even young Ross? In other words, could you consider that group of so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects to be in the same ballpark as the peripatetic journeymen club professionals who did architecture on the side and did it rapidly and did it in quantity?

The fact is that's the way that particular era really was and whose pallettes at that time in America were the very best stuff coming off of? What was really getting the attention in America before say 1910 or 1913? Wasn't it those so-called "amateur/sportsmen" who were doing basically one or a few courses and taking loads of time on them? Courses like Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont, NGLA, Merion East, Pine Valley?

This is an era and question that totally fascinates me, fixates me actually. I'd like to get to the bottom of it someday.

We know that previous to NGLA, Macdonald did say there were only three good courses in America---Chicago G.C., GCGC and Myopia.

Was that the truth and if so why?

If it was the truth it seems like some of those amateur/sportsmen architects felt like most everything else they saw before that, particularly from those journeymen professionals was crap and it was therefore up to them to do something to break through that geometric malaise or even the first awful attempts at curvilinearality that Macdonald said "made the very soul of golf shriek".

I don't know that they thought that those early professionals like Findlay or Benelow or Barker or Way or some of the others of their ilk were bad exactly it was just impossible to slow them down for long enough for them to take the time to do something really good.

So those famous amateur/sportsmen architects took the time and did it themselves. 

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

At this point the story of Wilson coming back from abroad with sketches and drawings and plans and surveyor's maps isn't much more than a curiosity as to where it came from. When the story of the trip abroad in 1910 first emanated is also a curiosity, at this point. The part about the plans and drawings and sketches and such probably came from someone who read either Hugh Wilson's 1916 report which mentioned Macdonald's NGLA plans and sketches from abroad or even the MCC board meeting minutes in which the same thing was mentioned at NGLA.

But I think the part about the 1910 trip abroad came from a misinterpretation of Alan Wilson's 1926 report on the history of the courses when he reported in writing to William Philler; "The land was FOUND in 1910 and as a first step Mr. Wilson went abroad to study the famous courses of England and Scotland."

The other part about seven months is more bizarre. That may've been a misunderstanding of someone hearing he was over there for close to "several months" in 1912. In reality that 1912 trip was probably not longer than 3-6 weeks given our proven timelines.

But the most interesting thing of all about that 1910 trip story and its details (plans and drawings and seven months) is even if that story did not begin until up to a half century AFTER the creation of Merion East it has lead all kinds of people TO ASSUME that Hugh Wilson HAD TO HAVE DONE THAT in 1910 or there would be no way he and his committee could ever have known how to route and design Merion East and probably more so to actually pull it all off.

Apparently the last victims to fall for that shaky logic hook, line and sinker are David Moriarty and you.  And that is apparently why, still today, you keep searching and searching for SOMEBODY who basically had to do it for Wilson and his committee.

Enter Moriarty's conclusion that it must have been Macdonald and Whigam or apparently the one you now seem to be beating to death that it must have been Barker too.

The truth is they did it themselves with some help and advice from Macdonald and Whigam----EXACTLY as the Merion record has always said! 

[TEPaul]

The Ryder Cup was probably just a logical professional event that began in 1926 between GB and the USA due to the Walker Cup that essentially began in 1920.

They say the format for both came from the intense arguing over what the format should be for the immensely watched Lesley Cup that began in 1905 at GCGC between Massachusetts, New York and Philadelphia.

The Philadelpia team was expanded to Pennsylvania in 1909, they say to essentially grab W.C. Fownse of Pittsburgh.

Later Quebec was added which is the four teams the Lesley Cup is today. Lesley, of course, is the same Robert Lesley who was the head of the MCC Search Committee in 1910, the MCC golf chairman, eventually the president of MCC and the long time president of the Golf Association of Philadelphia.

The man that essentially runs the Lesley Cup is called "The Ghost" (the ghost of Robert Lesley). Currently that would be Jim Patton from New York---Billy Joe Patton's brother.

There's another interesting old annual "Cup" tournament around here that has been going on since the 1920s that is of the same format but only for a day and annually called the Baily Cup. That's named in honor of Frederick Baily who was on Hugh Wilson's committee and who was killed by lightening on a green at Merion East in the 1920s. The Baily Cup is between Merion, Pine Valley, Huntingdon Valley and Gulph Mills.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
Most of your amateur/sportsmen were inexperienced and needed help from professionals or  more experienced amateurs. Merion is a good example.

I don't believe you answered the question who were the best golf architects operation in 1910 or 1911, and their best designs. Are you saying you are uncertain or are you saying there weren't any good architects in 1910 (accept for Macdonald, Leeds or Travis).

1910 there were two new cutting edge designs in America, both well publicized - the redesigned GCGC and the new NGLA. If you were interested in a design along the lines of the NGLA, Macdonald and Whigham were your men. If you interested in going the GCGC route, Barker was your man.

Other architects operating at that time were JD Dunn, Findlay, Emmet, Bendelow, Watson, Strong, Mackie, Foulis, O'Neil, Low, Pryde, Ross, Tillinghast, and I'm sure many others I'm not remembering.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Most of your amateur/sportsmen were inexperienced and needed help from professionals or  more experienced amateurs. Merion is a good example.

I don't believe you answered the question who were the best golf architects operation in 1910 or 1911, and their best designs. Are you saying you are uncertain or are you saying there weren't any good architects in 1910 (accept for Macdonald, Leeds or Travis).

1910 there were two new cutting edge designs in America, both well publicized - the redesigned GCGC and the new NGLA. If you were interested in a design along the lines of the NGLA, Macdonald and Whigham were your men. If you interested in going the GCGC route, Barker was your man.

Other architects operating at that time were JD Dunn, Findlay, Emmet, Bendelow, Watson, Strong, Mackie, Foulis, O'Neil, Low, Pryde, Ross, Tillinghast, and I'm sure many others I'm not remembering."



Tom:

While I do not really agree with what you're saying there, I think this is a really good post on your part----a really, really good post because it goes right to the meat and reality of this particular fascinating time and era and some of its modus operandi between those two vastly distinct types of architects of that time---eg the "amateur/sportsman" who took so much time on few projects compared to the rather peripatetic quantity-driven early club pro or professional architect who never really took enough necessary time on projects.

Can we stick with what has been said on that post and that subject and what I said in my post of 2:25:28 of today on this thread?

I believe if we can stick to this subject and not get diverted or antagonistic we can together really come up with quite the discussion that should be most edifying, elucidating and educational.   

[TEPaul]

"I don't believe you answered the question who were the best golf architects operation in 1910 or 1911, and their best designs. Are you saying you are uncertain or are you saying there weren't any good architects in 1910 (accept for Macdonald, Leeds or Travis)."


What I'm saying is I do not believe that men like Macdonald or Crump or Wilson felt that there was any really good golf course architecture in America off the pallettes of any of the professional architects of that time (previous to 1910). If there was I don't think I know what it was and I sure don't think they did either?

I think that is precisely why they tended to do what they did----eg those unusual "amateur/sportsmen" designers like Leeds, Emmet, Fownse, Macdonald, Travis, Crump, Wilson et al who clearly produced (perhaps eventually) some of the greatest architecture in American history! Can you deny that?

I do not necessarily think that the likes of Findlay, Bendelow, Barker, Way, White, even young Ross before 1910 were untalented. I just think they had to get out of their club pro shops and other jobs and get a whole lot more organized in the complex business of creating quality architecture. They had to begin to stop treating golf architecture as part-time on-the-fly profession (18 stakes on a Sunday Afternoon/offer a simple stick routing layout/spend less than a week at a project etc) and really get into it with the time required as those so-called amateur/sportsmen were doing with THEIR projects without a professional.

Were those "amateur/sportsmen" inexperienced when they first started? Of course they were but they were all smart guys and they were learning fast OJT on the generally single projects they were concentrating on solely. Sure, they made mistakes in the beginning but they took the time to fix them and go on and on and make their courses better and better and eventually hugely respected and famous to this day. It took them a minimum of some years and in most cases decades!

I think if you don't understand these two intersecting dynamics from that time, Tom, you are just never going to really understand what was going on back then and how it evolved. In a fast phrase you won't be able to truly understand the golf architecture of that particular time (about 1900 to the mid teens). Isn't it interesting that after about the mid teens we really don't see those interesting "amateur/sportsmen"designers BEGINNING new projects that way??  They mostly all came earlier!

Was Macdonald right that before NGLA that there were only three good courses in America? I think he was and I know he felt he was. And what were they----Chicago Golf, GCGC and Myopia----created by those "amateur/sportsmen" all.

[Sean_A]

Walton Heath has very simply shaped bunkers, rectangular-like.

Tommy Mac

Its comments like this which make me wonder where you get your ideas.  WH has some rectangular looking bunkers, but for the most they are not so different from other heathland courses - which is to say not terribly rectangular.  And, there are some bunkers which are somewhat intricate.  Not in the same manner of Dr Mac's California stuff, but detailed and attractive. 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"If you were interested in a design along the lines of the NGLA, Macdonald and Whigham were your men. If you interested in going the GCGC route, Barker was your man."

Tom:

I don't think this will work. Basically, I just don't think you get it. You just don't have a feel for that era, and I don't think you have any feel at all for what men like Leeds, Fownse, Macdonald, Crump or Wilson and Merion were really like.

If you were interested in a design process along the lines of NGLA in 1910 and you were a club that had the extreme "amateur/sportsman" ethos and mentality LIKE MERION CRICKET CLUB and like Macdonald/Whigam did, damn right you got in touch with Charlie as Merion did even if they were probably the first to do so as it was still early in his career of fame.

If you were of that kind of club or principles and you wanted a GCGC type design you got in touch with Travis or Emmet and not the goddamn golf professional for their club that did golf architecture in his spare time for other clubs.

I'm not saying Barker didn't have talent in architecture just that he obviously had to change his ways business and time-wise. Whatever the 20 or so clubs Barker said he "laid out" courses for in that letter to Connell previous to June 1910 were, they (or his architectural contribution to them) were apparently so forgettable noone can even remember anymore what they are! I guess that's why you incessantly ask us and others on this website NOW! Don't you think you might consider asking yourself why that is?? 

Basically, a guy like Barker in 1910 just didn't offer some self described "rough layout" on a club with the ethos of MCC through the real estate developer they were trying to BUY their land FROM and expect to get their undivided attention to use you.

It is completely logical to me that when MCC saw that (Barker and his Connell generated "rough layout") the very first thing that occured to them was to turn to Charlie because he was doing it in a way at NGLA that they could appreciate!

[TEPaul]

"Its comments like this which make me wonder where you get your ideas."


Sean:

Isn't that what I've been saying for years??

The man is trying to cram a square peg into a round hole or a round peg into a square hole. When are you going to truly figure this out, Sean? It's only been going on for about six years on here and it seems to be getting worse as time goes on! 

And David Moriarty!?! Oh MY GOD. Somebody sent me the link to an old thread where Moriarty went on and on and on and on in a single post with all this convoluted stuff about general premises and specific premises and the arcane extrapolations of logic or whatever----I think the gist of it being (or attempting to be) why he needed to keep questioning us and Merion about Macdonald's roll. I mean it was just an unbelievable post---something like some freshman training---rote, rote, rote---to be a "Logic" teacher. And at the end of his post of about 30,000 convoluted words, the next post was from JES!! (Sully) that said in one single sentence:

"That's about the biggest load of crap that has ever been laid on this website."

It was one of the funniest things I've ever seen on here in nine years. 

[Thomas MacWood]

I think that is precisely why they tended to do what they did----eg those unusual "amateur/sportsmen" designers like Leeds, Emmet, Fownse, Macdonald, Travis, Crump, Wilson et al who clearly produced (perhaps eventually) some of the greatest architecture in American history! Can you deny that?

Its not useful lump all these guys together. For one thing they were operating in different eras, the architectural landscape was not the same in the 1890s as it was in the 1900s, and the 1910s were quite different than either. You also have tendency to distort what these men did, and ignore the talented professionals who assisted them. You continue to perpetuate a myth.

And you continue to list the same old names over and over again. What about the other amateur architects from that era not emphasized in C&W?

To answer your question in a round-a-bout way if I was overseeing a new project in 1910, the only two people on your list of 'amateurs' I would consider would be Emmet and Macdonald, assuming Travis was not interested in offering his services at the time, and even his experience was limited to redesign. It took Leeds a decade or more to perfect Myopia, and he did not lay it out. Likewise with Oakmont; years to perfect. I'm not looking for redesign specialist - I want something that is going to be good now. Crump and Wilson I wouldn't even consider in 1910.

And calling Emmet and Macdonald amatuer architects is misleading. Emmet got paid, and Macdonald was an amateur in name only. He was more expeienced than most professionals and studied the art harder and longer than anyone. As far as I'm concerned this is an artifical subject, and I'm not interested in correcting your misconceptions on an ongoing basis.

[Thomas MacWood]

If you were of that kind of club or principles and you wanted a GCGC type design you got in touch with Travis or Emmet and not the goddamn golf professional for their club that did golf architecture in his spare time for other clubs.

Emmet was not involved in the redesign of GCGC (they were basically eradicating his mistakes), and at this point Travis was not interested in becoming an architect. Barker was your only choice if you were going for GCGC. Here is an example of the comments you often read with Barker, this comes from East Lake after he redesigned their course, "This course is one of the most difficult and best in America, 6400 yards in length, it has been modelled as far as possible after the famous Garden City course, which means that it is trapped and bunkered in the most proved style."

I'm not saying Barker didn't have talent in architecture just that he obviously had to change his ways business and time-wise. Whatever the 20 or so clubs Barker said he "laid out" courses for in that letter to Connell previous to June 1910 were, they (or his architectural contribution to them) were apparently so forgettable noone can even remember anymore what they are! I guess that's why you incessantly ask us and others on this website NOW! Don't you think you might consider asking yourself why that is?? 

I guess what you are trying to say is Lloyd was an idiot. IMO being involved in the design/redesign of GCGC, Columbia, Merion, Newport, Mayfield, Detroit, Skokie, Waverly, Druid Hills and East Lake is a pretty impressive resume. Especially when you consider the brief time frame. He was a hot commodity. Columbia and Mayfield are two personal favorites. I would take them today over most courses, classic or modern. Druid Hills is also interesting.

Basically, a guy like Barker in 1910 just didn't offer some self described "rough layout" on a club with the ethos of MCC through the real estate developer they were trying to BUY their land FROM and expect to get their undivided attention to use you.

It is completely logical to me that when MCC saw that (Barker and his Connell generated "rough layout") the very first thing that occured to them was to turn to Charlie because he was doing it in a way at NGLA that they could appreciate!

Have you been drinking?

[TEPaul]

No, I haven't been drinking and the fact is the first thing MCC's Search Committee did after receiving Barker's letter to Connell is turn to Macdonald. Barker's name or his letter and "rough draft" to Connell was never mentioned again by MCC. And again, it was not Lloyd who contacted Barker, it was Connell. And it was Connell who paid him and not MCC. But if you want to believe Barker was involved in the design of Merion East who's to stop you? You're just completely wrong, that's all, you seem to be making a habit of that lately----it sure isn't the first time for you or the second, or the third, or the.....

[TEPaul]

"And you continue to list the same old names over and over again. What about the other amateur architects from that era not emphasized in C&W?"


Cornish and Whitten have nothing to do with this. These are the men who produced what was considered back then to be the finest golf course architecture in America and it still is today, but maybe you've missed that too all these years. There were plenty of other amateur architects through the years but as Tom Doak says most of them didn't hit the level of excellence that those guys did. I'm not continuing to list the same old names over and over again for no reason. They happen to be the ones who deserved their reputations for what they did.

If you want to continue to try to make a name for yourself as a researcher by exaggerating the architectural excellence of those who don't really deserve it then I guess noone can stop you. I'd just like to see others not believe you because you're distorting American architectural history.

[Thomas MacWood]

No, I haven't been drinking and the fact is the first thing MCC's Search Committee did after receiving Barker's letter to Connell is turn to Macdonald. Barker's name or his letter and "rough draft" to Connell was never mentioned again by MCC. And again, it was not Lloyd who contacted Barker, it was Connell. And it was Connell who paid him and not MCC. But if you want to believe Barker was involved in the design of Merion East who's to stop you? You're just completely wrong, that's all, you seem to be making a habit of that lately----it sure isn't the first time for you or the second, or the third, or the.....

TE
They couldn't go wrong with either choice...they were both top shelf. Now go fix yourself a drink.

PS: I'm sorry for the confusion regarding Barker's involvement, I was influenced by Mr. Verdant Greene's comments from the beginning of this thread.

[TEPaul]

"And calling Emmet and Macdonald amatuer architects is misleading. Emmet got paid, and Macdonald was an amateur in name only. He was more expeienced than most professionals and studied the art harder and longer than anyone. As far as I'm concerned this is an artifical subject, and I'm not interested in correcting your misconceptions on an ongoing basis."


And so ends the discussion of a really good subject with you. In my opinion, you do not understand this subject or this era or the men that lived and worked in it. You're way off the mark but that's just the way it will be I guess. Some get it and some don't and you clearly don't. Maybe one just has to sort of live with it to get it and you've never done that and it doesn't look like you ever will.

[Thomas MacWood]

"And you continue to list the same old names over and over again. What about the other amateur architects from that era not emphasized in C&W?"


Cornish and Whitten have nothing to do with this. These are the men who produced what was considered back then to be the finest golf course architecture in America and it still is today, but maybe you've missed that too all these years. There were plenty of other amateur architects through the years but as Tom Doak says most of them didn't hit the level of excellence that those guys did. I'm not continuing to list the same old names over and over again for no reason. They happen to be the ones who deserved their reputations for what they did.

If you want to continue to try to make a name for yourself as a researcher by exaggerating the architectural excellence of those who don't really deserve it then I guess noone can stop you. I'd just like to see others not believe you because you're distorting American architectural history.

What about George Adair, HJ Tweedie, Jack Neville, HJ Whigham and HG Windheler to name some others?

[TEPaul]

"PS: I'm sorry for the confusion regarding Barker's involvement, I was influenced by Mr. Verdant Greene's comments from the beginning of this thread."


I think I can see that but no problem. If Verdant Greene said Lloyd contacted and paid Barker for MCC he was wrong. It wasn't Lloyd, it was George Connell. The MCC Search Committee (which Lloyd was on) report to the MCC Board made that very clear. Too bad you never read that. I think David Moriarty had that documentation all along but maybe he forgot to use it as it may not have fit into the trumped up agenda of his essay or something. You should have gone to the source in the first place but you never have. We've been telling you that for years now. I guess you never will listen. Verdant Greene probably was something of an insider around here but in this case his article was not as accurate as the source---eg the MCC Search Committee and the MCC board. After-all they weren't the ones writing newspaper articles, they were the ones who were actually directly involved in the creation of Merion East.

[DMoriarty]

Who was George Connell?

[TEPaul]

"What about George Adair, HJ Tweedie, Jack Neville, HJ Whigham and HG Windheler to name some others?"

If they took American architecture to the rank and fame Leeds did Myopia, the Fownses did Oakmont, Macdonald did NGLA, Wilson did Merion and Crump did Pine Valley then by all means they too deserve the fame that those others got and deserve.  
 
 
 

[TEPaul]

"Who was George Connell?"

George Connell is a former club champion at GMGC and his father, a pretty big hitter in the financial world around here is George Connell too.

Joseph Connell was a real estate developer, one time mayor of Philly and the lead guy originally in the Haverford Development Company which MCC bought land from (actually Horatio Gates Lloyd bought the Merion East land for MCC from HDC) and the land for the real estate development to the west and north of Merion East that Lloyd engineered.

(Joseph Connell is also one George Connell's grandfather and the other George Connell's great grandfather)

[DMoriarty]

"Who was George Connell?"

George Connell is a former club champion at GMGC and his father, a pretty big hitter in the financial world around here is George Connell too.

Joseph Connell was a real estate developer, one time mayor of Philly and the lead guy originally in the Haverford Development Company which MCC bought land from (actually Horatio Gates Lloyd bought the Merion East land for MCC) and the land for the real estate development to the west and north of Merion East that Lloyd engineered.

So when you were previously scolding Tom MacWood for not knowing who George Connell was, you were the one who was confused?   

I just wanted to check and make sure we were talking about the same Connell.  As I recall, you were absolutely sure that Joseph Connell and Haverford Development Company must have been in Lloyd's pocket, with Lloyd the puppet-master behind the entire property deal from the beginning.  Remember?  You even falsely claimed you had proof that Merion purchased the golf club property in 1909!  It is kind of funny that now you are scrambling to distance Lloyd from Connell.  Kind of a tightrope, don't you think?

I am also entertained by the lengths you will travel to try and discredit or disparage anyone who might have had anything to do with Merion, other than your favored few.   Your suggestion that Barker did not design Mayfield is not only unsupported, it is an absolute joke and entirely contrary to the record.   

How many words do you think you have posted to this thread?   Can you identify a single substantive contribution you have made to the topic?   Do you know anything about Barker, other than what you have learned from Tom MacWood?
_______________________

By the way, if anyone cares, George Connell was Joseph Connell's brother and his sometime partner in real estate deals.  He was also a prominent local politician and I believe was even the acting Mayor of Philadelphia at one time. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()