[TEPaul]

TE
I explained why in that post.


Tom MacWood:

This is the way you explained it on that post:

“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.”

So is it safe to say you don’t think a Hugh Wilson and his committee of amateur members were capable of routing and designing Merion East in 1911 as the board meeting minutes said they did?

I will remind you both the board meeting minutes and other reports from that time have always given Macdonald and Whigam----“two kindly “amateur/sportsmen”---thanks for the advice and help they provided in a span of approximately four days over a period of a year.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Its not my fault that you are an idiot."


You know Tom, as my dislike for you continues to grow stronger daily, to be honest, I'm quite enjoying these kinds of insults from you directed at me pretty much daily these days. After all the screaming and crying and caterwalling you and your "trainee" Moriarty have done in the last five years over how rude we've been to the both of you, it shows just what little hypocrites you two really are. 

[Kirk Gill]

This thread has gone on for five pages now, you've thrown out a lot of questions and a few unsupported theories, but its not clear where you stand on the issue of H.H. Barker. What exactly is the point (or points) you are trying to make about the man.

Could you please clearly and succinctly outline your point or points about him as an architect....perhaps in bullet-point form?

Tom M., here's my question, and forgive me if this fits into the "already asked and answered" category.

On what existing evidence does anyone take a stand on the issue of H. H. Barker? The article you quoted mentioned that he was involved with three Philadelphia courses, but the identity of those courses can't be concretely determined. Of the courses that it was KNOWN that he did design, how much of that work is still extant? He had a great reputation back in 1915, based on what you mentioned earlier, but the same could be said for a lot of artists and writers and architects that have subsequently faded into obscurity.

If we're looking at this man, what do we do to make him something other than just a name, a person who did some work here or there, who became a professional and then regretted it, who came from Britain and then returned there? From the perspective of a guy like me, who maybe hasn't accessed the records you have or played the courses you have, how do I put meat on the bones of H.H. Barker's architectural record?

Or are we both just asking the same question, only I'm using a lot more words?

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

"And calling Emmet and Macdonald amatuer architects is misleading."


Tom MacWood:

How is that misleading? What does the term "amateur" (as used back then--eg "amateur/sportsman" architect) mean to you? What do you think it meant back then?

I think he explained it, TE.  Emmet took money.  I think that takes the status of "amateur" out of the discussion either then or now.

It raises the question for me about CBM, and maybe George Bahto should answer....but at least after he brought Raynor on, I presume that CBM at least charged for Raynor, didn't he?  It might have been an owner paying Rayor directly, but I can't imagine CB not only designing for free, but also paying out of pocket for those wealthy clubs to have Raynor survey, etc.

Now, it may very well be that in 1910-11 CBM brought his son in law Whigham over and they merely consulted at Merion on a friendly "sportsman/amateur" level. But around that time, he brought on Raynor and developed an ongoing professional gca practice even if the fee structure didn't pay him anything.  I mean, if you design dozens of courses, you are in essence a professional gca, not an amateur fumbling around as Wilson professed to be in his letters.

I also gotta say that until his last post, Tom MacWood was very restrained in his comments, trying very hard to keep it on gca topic of the career of Barker.  You?  Not so much.

[DMoriarty]

Tom M - thanks.

David -

my post referred to the COURSES that were built around WW1 and that flourished long after that (and thus helped sustain the reputations of their designers).  It seems to me that courses/designers like Myopia (Leeds), NGLA, Lido (Macdonald), PVGC (Crump), Oakmont (Fownes), Engineers (Strong) and several others qualify on both counts, especially if we don't put a very specific "by 1915" deadline in place.  I was responding to Tom M's notion that gca "blew up" in America after that war by suggesting that the shift didn't seem to sweep ALL of the "history" away. I'm sure the reasons WHY that was are, as you say, "pretty complicated".

You and I have different ideas on what it meant to be a practicing architect during this period.

Gca in America did blow up.  And much of the history was either lost or swept under the rug.   Or we didn't do a very good job of characterizing what really happened.   How golf courses were created changed, as did the way we understand the process.   

During this time period clubs would often bring in an "expert" to inspect the property and to "plan" or "design" or "stake out" or (sometimes) to "lay out" the course.   Often this only took a day or two.  Often the club would then lay out and/or build the course later, under the supervision of their professional, or the chairman of their green committee or sometimes under the supervision of a nearby professional or member of another club with experience.

So who deserved credit?  Sometimes the expert was credited, sometimes the local professional, sometimes the committee member.  Sometimes it doesn't look like they thought about it much, if at all, and attribution did not come along until later, in retrospect.   

Sometimes the "expert" who planned or would plan the course is not even named in the reports!


___________________________________

So is it safe to say you don’t think a Hugh Wilson and his committee of amateur members were capable of routing and designing Merion East in 1911 as the board meeting minutes said they did?

I will remind you both the board meeting minutes and other reports from that time have always given Macdonald and Whigam----“two kindly “amateur/sportsmen”---thanks for the advice and help they provided in a span of approximately four days over a period of a year.

Jeez Tom, give it a rest.  You are ruining the website with your bizarre fixation on Merion. 

You've heard of the Boy who Cried Wolf . . . You've become The Boor Who Cried Wilson.

[DMoriarty]

On what existing evidence does anyone take a stand on the issue of H. H. Barker? The article you quoted mentioned that he was involved with three Philadelphia courses, but the identity of those courses can't be concretely determined. Of the courses that it was KNOWN that he did design, how much of that work is still extant? He had a great reputation back in 1915, based on what you mentioned earlier, but the same could be said for a lot of artists and writers and architects that have subsequently faded into obscurity.

If we're looking at this man, what do we do to make him something other than just a name, a person who did some work here or there, who became a professional and then regretted it, who came from Britain and then returned there? From the perspective of a guy like me, who maybe hasn't accessed the records you have or played the courses you have, how do I put meat on the bones of H.H. Barker's architectural record?

Or are we both just asking the same question, only I'm using a lot more words?

 

I think you two are asking the same questions.   One thing we can do is look at what we know about the courses a guy like Barker planned.  This is tough because Barker was pretty early, and it is harder to find photographs and detailed descriptions for this era.  Plus, he may not have been properly credited for some of his work. 

One point.   You compare Barker to writers and artists who became obscure over time.   I am not sure this is an apt comparison, for the reason that the "art" of golf course architecture was really just getting going, and people had trouble even classifying, explaining, or understanding the role of a guy like Barker then.  I think it was only over time that we gained an appreciation for the "art" of this whole process and started rightfully crediting those who did the planning. 

A more apt comparison might be to an artist or author who had some success commercially but was working in a genre or medium that was  under-appreciated medium or genre, and died unrecognized only to become appreciated after his death.   

Or, as Verdant Greene implies, maybe he just did not have the good sense to have been borne into a situation where he too could be an "Amateur" and therefor praised and remembered for his talent and contributions.

____________________________________________________________


Here is a clipping from the Washington Post, August 8, 1909, about Columbia:




Note that while Barker had already "planned" the course in 1909, it his not yet been laid out and/or built.   

Wasn't Columbia eventually build under the direction of Harban? 

[Thomas MacWood]

This thread has gone on for five pages now, you've thrown out a lot of questions and a few unsupported theories, but its not clear where you stand on the issue of H.H. Barker. What exactly is the point (or points) you are trying to make about the man.

Could you please clearly and succinctly outline your point or points about him as an architect....perhaps in bullet-point form?

Tom M., here's my question, and forgive me if this fits into the "already asked and answered" category.

On what existing evidence does anyone take a stand on the issue of H. H. Barker? The article you quoted mentioned that he was involved with three Philadelphia courses, but the identity of those courses can't be concretely determined. Of the courses that it was KNOWN that he did design, how much of that work is still extant? He had a great reputation back in 1915, based on what you mentioned earlier, but the same could be said for a lot of artists and writers and architects that have subsequently faded into obscurity.

If we're looking at this man, what do we do to make him something other than just a name, a person who did some work here or there, who became a professional and then regretted it, who came from Britain and then returned there? From the perspective of a guy like me, who maybe hasn't accessed the records you have or played the courses you have, how do I put meat on the bones of H.H. Barker's architectural record?

Or are we both just asking the same question, only I'm using a lot more words
 

Typically how do you put meat on the bones of any golf architect's architectural record? And I'm not sure I understand why your opinion of him as architect today is important, the question we are debating is how was he percieved in 1910-11.

This thread came to be because TE (and Wayne and Mike) objected to this line in David's essay: "Prior to that, he may have been the best-known professional golf course architect regularly practicing in America, and was probably second only to C.B. Macdonald among both amateurs and professionals." IMO the primary reason they objected to this line was embarassment. They were embarassed they ignored the information they had that Barker was involved early on in the project. They thought he was a no one. They also have illogical fear that pumping up a Macdonald or Barker is the same as cutting down Wilson. But that is neither here nor there...its a fair question to debate.

They attempted to hijack a few unrelated threads because they wanted to debate the accuracy of that statement, so I gave them their forum. Five pages into this tread where are we? I've answered all of their questions, I've introduced quite a bit of information on Barker's design career, including information on his redesigns. I've explained why he was so highly sought - the GCGC connection. IMO I've made a good case that he was at least the second hotest architect in America in 1910-11, if not the hotest.

On the other side, those who have objected to that statement have asked a lot of questions, have introduced a couple of implausible theories that have been shot down. They have not been able to make the case that he wasn't an elite architect in 1910-11. And if Macdonald and Barker were not the highest profile architects in 1910-11, who was? They haven't come up with anyone. The best they can come up with is you are wrong.

Where do they stand?

[TEPaul]

"A more apt comparison might be to an artist or author who had some success commercially but was working in a genre or medium that was  under-appreciated medium or genre, and died unrecognized only to become appreciated after his death.  

Or, as Verdant Greene implies, maybe he just did not have the good sense to have been borne into a situation where he too could be an "Amateur" and therefor praised and remembered for his talent and contributions."




Perhaps the more apt question AND comparison is why were those few "amateur/sportsmen" architects of that relatively early time---eg Leeds, Emmet, Fownes, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump so praised not only in their own times but afterwards and today?

It also may be helpful to appreciate that those so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects did not really begin new projects of the type that made them famous much after WW1. Is that coincidental or is there something important to take from that and learn from that?

I, for one, certainly think there is---eg they felt at the time they began those remarkable early projects that took them all so long to do that there was a need for what they set out to do because there basically was no evidence of quality architecture extant at that time in America. I think they felt they could fill that vacuum. It seems to me following approximately WW1 those original "amateur/sportsmen architects began to feel there was no real reason to continue doing what they once did as the professional ranks were beginning to come on stream then with more full-time professional architects who devoted their time only to golf course architecture and who were more organized and far more comprehensive in their products than the former so-called journeymen golf club professional/part-time golf architects who preceeded them.

Perhaps the best and earliest example of this new mold of full-time "comprehensive product" professional architect was Donald Ross. My own golf club, begun in 1916, spoke of him in their first founding/incorporation meetings as the best and best known professional architect in America.

It's hard to say where an architect like Barker fits in here. One question about him compared to say even early Ross (teens) is did Barker produce comprehensive course and hole plans the way Ross did at that time (with my club 1916 in Philadelpia)? If Barker did that has anyone anywhere ever seen them.

And let's not have another couple of pages where there is endless arguing over something like----"Well, just because no one has ever seen Barker plans doesn't mean they didn't exist." 

I've never even seen photos from back then of what a Barker course looked like---other than those photos produced on here the other day of Springhaven by Wayne Morrison.

I wasn't very impressed with the look of some of that architecture but in fairness to Barker a lot of what we were looking at in those early Springhaven photos could have been from the original Springhaven architect, Ida Dixon.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I can't see how anyone could have a problem with Tom Mac doing historical research on a lesser known gca.  What is this site for if not to discuss architecture and architects?



IMHO, the historical works of gca's have been taken on roughly in order of general interest and commercial potential, even if they mostly by their biggest fans, i.e. descendants of Tillie and Mac being involved, Klein for Ross, Clouser for Maxwell and Morrison for Flynn (we hope that one will get done)

Just as in real history, lesser subjects are hot right now, with the theory being that we don't need yet another treastise on Lincoln.  Many historians are focusing on old garbage dumps to get clues as to how average Americans live.

I am not quite sure why Tom Mac's interest in Barker should be given the cold shoulder, insults, etc. that it gets from TEPaul.  If you disagree with his second hottest gca statement, then so be it.  I have my doubts, but there is no real reason he can't be studied.  But, it doesn't naturally follow that if Barker was a professional golfer, Wilson couldnt' design a course, as you seem to write about in every post. 

I think all Tom is trying to suggest is that Barker was well enough known for the developer portion of Merion (however that was structured) to think to call him for a preliminary stick routing to get the land allocation process going.

I also don't quite get why we have to question his research methods and capabilities.  Who among us is anything other than an amateur/sportsman gca historian? 

[TEPaul]

"Wasn't Columbia eventually build under the direction of Harban?"

Walter Harban was to Columbia G.C. about as close to what Hugh Wilson was to Merion as I've ever seen particularly AFTER Columbia's Barker course came into play. Basically Harban worked on Columbia endlessly and for years and Harban was very much the counterpart agronomy expert in D.C. to Hugh and Alan Wilson in Philadelphia. 

[Kirk Gill]

Typically how do you put meat on the bones of any golf architect's architectural record? And I'm not sure I understand why your opinion of him as architect today is important, the question we are debating is how was he percieved in 1910-11.

I don't know that my opinion about him is of any importance whatsoever. Any opinion I would have of him would be uninformed. You're presenting some information on him, which I certainly appreciate. And as to how he was perceived at the time, there's a couple of obvious ways to at least get a feeling for it. Was he working? From what you've said before, taken at face value he was obviously getting some work, so that would tend to indicate that he had a decent reputation, regardless of how many (or few) others were vying for those jobs. Secondly, what did the prominent writers and thinkers of the time think of his work? You've presented at least one writer who thought quite a lot of him. Case made, he was prominent.

So the next step is, why is he so little-known today? This is the genesis of my original question. One comment that Jeff Brauer made early on in this thread kind of sticks with me, as far as having a good idea of how he might have been perceived in 1911, and what might have happened subsequently. Commenting about the photographs of Springhaven posted by Wayne Morrison, Jeff said "Really, I wonder why those old guys couldn't see how bad their work really was!" It's an interesting comment, because one would suppose that the designer and the people who hired him certainly liked that course, and liked that style of architecture, and yet today it is virtually unknown. I think that the people that liked that sort of course had opinions every bit as valid as those who didn't, and don't. And yet, for whatever reason, that style fell out of favor, and those who worked in it stopped getting jobs, and either caught on with the newer style, or did something else with themselves.

It doesn't say anything about the worthiness of H.H. Barker, architect, so much as it says something about the times in which he lived and worked.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kirk,

Well good to know someone is reading my posts!  Forgetting Barker for a second, the naturalistic appearance of the old course, other scottish links, etc. was well established, and Barker came from the UK.  As you say, the Americans - golfers and architects alike - seemed to find favor in a stiff, geometric style even though something better was obviously out there.

I just don't get it.....then, or now, when I see a lot of gca's repeating the same stuff even though it looks kinda crappy.  Some have "low maintenance" budgets to contend with, but I doubt that was an issue then.  I think it had something to do with city planning or maybe just lack of creativity - like greens chairmen who continue to plant evenly spaced, perfectly straight lines of trees now.  It was and is a pretty rigid society I guess.

Where I agree with TePaul is that those deep thinkers who made up the Philly school (and were amateur sportsmen) certainly seemed to have sat around and given the subject some deep thought, whereas Bendelow, Barker, and other early designers didn't do it as much.  The geometrics fell out of favor, IMHO, because someone took the lead and showed how it could be done better. 

And, in that sense, old CB was kind of a transitional figure, even if labeled the father of American Golf Architecture.  The fact that Barker and others were practising at the same time just shows that the most famous get the leadership label - just as RTJ is the father of the modern profession, and Pete Dye might be the father of the next wave, etc. 

Maybe that says that the public at large must christen someone as the head of a movement, era, or whatever.  But, thats PR and publishing.  There is a need for the Tom Macs of the world to dig deeper into the gca's of other eras to get a complete picture of what was going on.  It usually tends to be surprising and not as romantic as the glossed over versions would have us believe after 100 years or so.

[Thomas MacWood]

Kirk
I should have added why your opinion OR MY OPINION of him today is important to the debate.

As far as why he isn't better known. I said before timing was a major factor. A short career followed by oblivion and he worked during developing period. Golf architecture in America really did not take of until the 20s when he was long gone by then.

For many years Mayfield claimed their course was designed by Donald Ross - I think the Ross Society still lists it that way. Columbia is known as a Travis course today (after his redesign). CC of Virginia, Grove Park Inn and Youngstown claim Ross designed their courses. Westhampton is now a Raynor course (Barker designed it and Raynor built it). Spokane claims Jim Barnes designed their course, that would be his only known design. Until recently I don't think Idle Hour claimed Barker. Ironically Winnetka (Inidan Hills) actaully gives Barker equal billing with Colt. But those others are among his most highly acclaimed courses, and having someone elses name associated with them doesn't help, especially when you aren't a household name to start.

From what I understand his NJ courses are all very good and sporty but obviously they get overshadowed by more famous neighbors. I've played Mayfield, Columbia and Druid Hills, I really enjoyed them all, the first two are outstanding....if you get a chance to play either course I highly recommed them both. They are both a blast. If there is one word to describe his courses it would be sporty.

PS: And of course the jury is still out on Merion and the unknown third course in Philly.

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

I think your post #161 is really on the money. I think you pretty much nailed all your points perfectly (except the last one) and that's pretty much the way I've looked at those real differences in architecture back then at that particular fascinating time and the reasons why they were that way, the reason why things began to evolve in different directions and who was at the forefront of pioneering them.

And of course I think Kirk Gill made some very good observations and points along with some great questions, as he basically always does.

[Thomas MacWood]

Where I agree with TePaul is that those deep thinkers who made up the Philly school (and were amateur sportsmen) certainly seemed to have sat around and given the subject some deep thought, whereas Bendelow, Barker, and other early designers didn't do it as much.  The geometrics fell out of favor, IMHO, because someone took the lead and showed how it could be done better. 

Jeff
I beg to differ...at that time the deep thinkers in America were in NY. There is a reason why Merion turned to Macdonald, Whigham and Barker. And what Travis was doing at GCGC with Barker in 1908-1910 was just a step below the NGLA, but right on the cutting edge. As a result Barker became the first coast to coast, north to south, golf architect.

Philadelphia did not have a lot going for it prior to WWI....they needed outside help. Crump was smart enough to bring in perhaps the most talented fellow in the world. Colt probably deserves as much credit as anyone for shifting American design to more natural look. Tillinghast's first effort at Shawnee was very crude. His career did not take off until he moved to NY (in partnership with George Low and Peter Lees). And from 1915 until 1922 Ross dominated the Philly architectural scene.

Did Crump, Wilson and Tilly actually sit around a table discussing golf architecture? I think we've all learned in the last year or so (thanks to Mike and Joe) the real Philadlephia school included names like Smith, Perrin, Heebner, Klauder and Meehan...not quite as glamorous but probably equally interesting, if not more so. But sadly they don't make it into essays written on the subject.

PS:If you have seen any old photos of Mayfield and Columbia you wouldn't be throwing poor Barker under the bus of geomtric architects. I wouldn't judge a man's career by pictures of one course he redesigned.

[TEPaul]

"PS:If you have seen any old photos of Mayfield and Columbia you wouldn't be throwing poor Barker under the bus of geomtric architects. I wouldn't judge a man's career by pictures of one course he redesigned."


Tom MacWood:

Have you ever been to the Columbia GC? If so what did you do there and what did you learn about Barker?

Have you ever been to Arcola? If so what did you do there and what did you learn about Barker while there?

Is there any particular reason you totally discount what the Board of Governors of MCC and the committees and their charimen (including Robert Lesley) charged with moving the Merion course from Haverford to Ardmore said, in their meetings and in their reports, during the move and during the planning, designing and construction of their own golf course? Could it just be you discount all that simply because you've never seen any of it? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

"PS:If you have seen any old photos of Mayfield and Columbia you wouldn't be throwing poor Barker under the bus of geomtric architects. I wouldn't judge a man's career by pictures of one course he redesigned."


Tom MacWood:

Have you ever been to the Columbia GC? If so what did you do there and what did you learn about Barker?

Have you ever been to Arcola? If so what did you do there and what did you learn about Barker while there?

TEPaul,

I've been to both.

What did I learn ?

I learned not to drink too much and cavort with a drum majorette the night before.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
At Columbia, Mayfield and Druid Hills I learned Barker was a genius at routing.

[TEPaul]

"TE
At Columbia, Mayfield and Druid Hills I learned Barker was a genius at routing."

That's interesting. I've never seen Mayfield or Druid Hills but I have been to Columbia a couple of times and it is a sporty course and routing, as you say. What you and I saw is not exactly what-all Barker did. There were a number of changes made over the years for various reasons some of them probably not for the better. A road on one hole and a railroad easment on another hole or two messed things up some and then there were other alterations, some probably improvements and some not. 

By the way, Tom, your sort of broad brush take on the Philadelphia golf scene prior to WW1 is about the biggest bunch of crap I've ever seen on this website. It's so preposterous there really isn't any reason to even dispute you or answer you any longer.

If people on this website actually want to believe the things you said, then I will guarantee them all that's their problem!

If anybody out there in GOLFCLUBATLAS.com INTENET LAND around the world really wants to accept the wild and frankly hilarious exaggerations of TOM MACWOOD'S golf architectural learning curve then be our guests! 

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
The routing did not change.

[TEPaul]

"TE
The routing did not change."

Did I say it did? Some of the holes got compromised in my opinion and some of the greens were redesigned, some probably for the better and some not.


"And if Macdonald and Barker were not the highest profile architects in 1910-11, who was? They haven't come up with anyone."

What does "highest profile" mean to you? 

I guess another logical question to ask about Barker, is, if he was the second highest profile architect in America in 1910-11, as you suggest, what do you suppose he went back home for good for in 1914?? Do you think he was suffering from terminal shyness and sensitivity or perhaps morbidly hurt feelings that someone did not ask him into a clubhouse or something? 

"Hey, Boy, we hear you're the second best golf course architect in America and we hear you can design us a better golf course than the great Myopia. Would you do that for us but would you mind going out there behind the caddieshack and doing it because we really don't want to be seen in the clubhouse with your kind?"

You're suggesting that H.H. Barker was considered to be the second best architect in America in 1910-11 and three years later he goes home for good and never practices again because he feels like some kind of pariah over here?!? Jeeesus Christ, Tom MacWood, how dense are you really?

[DMoriarty]

"Wasn't Columbia eventually build under the direction of Harban?"

Walter Harban was to Columbia G.C. about as close to what Hugh Wilson was to Merion as I've ever seen particularly AFTER Columbia's Barker course came into play. Basically Harban worked on Columbia endlessly and for years and Harban was very much the counterpart agronomy expert in D.C. to Hugh and Alan Wilson in Philadelphia. 

Harban did author an essay in the Piper and Oakley Book, and wrote that while the course had been "laid out" in 1910, getting it properly built and growing was a mess and that it went on for years.  (This was accurate, I think.  Barker had planned the course in the fall of 1909, and it was laid out the next year.)   

What do we know about Barker's contribution at Columbia that we do not know about Barker's contribution at Merion?   

And please no more nonsense about the Minutes.  What you say the Minutes say is probably a pretty good indication of the opposite.   

Plus, if the Minutes established anything close to what you are pretending they establish, we'd have seen them long ago.   

[TEPaul]

Did I just hear somebody fart again on here?

Well, no matter, I suppose they can't help it, although I think a new pill came out recently from Barker Labs for excessive flatulance.

[Thomas MacWood]

"TE
The routing did not change."

Did I say it did? Some of the holes got compromised in my opinion and some of the greens were redesigned, some probably for the better and some not.


"And if Macdonald and Barker were not the highest profile architects in 1910-11, who was? They haven't come up with anyone."

What does "highest profile" mean to you? 

I guess another logical question to ask about Barker, is, if he was the second highest profile architect in America in 1910-11, as you suggest, what do you suppose he went back home for good for in 1914?? Do you think he was suffering from terminal shyness and sensitivity or perhaps morbidly hurt feelings that someone did not ask him into a clubhouse or something? 

"Hey, Boy, we hear you're the second best golf course architect in America and we hear you can design us a better golf course than the great Myopia. Would you do that for us but would you mind going out there behind the caddieshack and doing it because we really don't want to be seen in the clubhouse with your kind?"

You're suggesting that H.H. Barker was considered to be the second best architect in America in 1910-11 and three years later he goes home for good and never practices again because he feels like some kind of pariah over here?!? Jeeesus Christ, Tom MacWood, how dense are you really?

TE
Interesting response.

People do strange things. Its difficult to say precisely why Barker left. Was it the war, which was reported at the time. Was it because he was unhappy being treated as a second class citizen. Was there another unrelated reason. Hard to say. Some reports claim he told friends he would return after the war, but he never did. My impression is something happened to him during the war. He died a young man in 1924, 39 years old. Its difficult to say for sure. Why did Crump kill himself. People do strange things.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Interesting response.
People do strange things. Its difficult to say precisely why Barker left. Was it the war, which was reported at the time. Was it because he was unhappy being treated as a second class citizen. Was there another unrelated reason. Hard to say. Some reports claim he told friends he would return after the war, but he never did. My impression is something happened to him during the war. He died a young man in 1924, 39 years old. Its difficult to say for sure. Why did Crump kill himself. People do strange things."


Oh, Gee Whiz---don't they ever?! But when you came over here from GB to make it and then leave America for good and decide to never practice architecture again when you're considered to be the second best architect in this country just might be the strangest one of all, don't you think, Tom? 

Yes, it was an interesting response, wasn't it? 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()