[TEPaul]

.....if these men from that fascinating era of very early American golf course architecture really were great in some way I'd like to know about it, and of course why and how.

If those men did more than they've ever been given credit for, I, for one, would certainly like to know about it.

If they were responsible for even conceptual ideas in architecture or even day to day construction techniques that translated into great or even interesting early architecture I would like to know about it. But I'd like to see a lot more than just speculation and conjecture passed off on here as fact.

In other words, I'd like to see more than just some newspaper articles, if, in fact, even those ever existed.

That really was a most interesting time and both it and the ones responsible for it should be treated accurately and justly today, even if they may not have been back then.

My sense is that what we don't need to do on here is just start out considering that in that time those who compiled those histories back then always got it wrong to protect their own or whatever. That seemingly prevalent ASSUMPTION by a few on here is really getting old, in my opinion, and if it's an assumption that's supportable they need to do a whole lot better job of supporting it.

[JESII]

Tommy, my friend, are you serious with this thread?

One thing I have always been able to do; is, when I know I am in the right, I can pretty quickly dismiss opposing views. If you are actually looking for input from anyone with valuable information about either of those guys I might suggest a different opening...

[mark chalfant]

Tom P. 

Ive always been curious about Alex Nipper Campbell. The course he did in Dayton, Moraine CC, is fabulous. The rouitng , greens and variety of holes are a joy to play on

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Yes, I am serious and I'm not sure what you're suggesting. If either of those two emigrant early architects are way more significant than most everyone on here realizes I'd like to figure out how and why. If they were, I'd like to see the guy who's suggesting they are come up with something solid as to why other than some unproduced newspaper article and his speculation.

On the other hand, if they weren't, I think a guy like MacWood should be exposed for trying to make them look like they were.

This is not me going after MacWood again. I'm just asking him to back up his speculation and conjecture with some of this so-called "independent research" of his that he passes off as significant or fact. I just want to see him produce something solid and factual. His "opinion" sans some factual support is neither solid nor factual, particularly on Willie Campbell, Myopia and TCC. These are significant American golf courses and architecture and everyone wants to be accurate about their architectural evolutions and histories!

[DMoriarty]

.....if these men from that fascinating era of very early American golf course architecture really were great in some way I'd like to know about it, and of course why and how.

If those men did more than they've ever been given credit for, I, for one, would certainly like to know about it.

If they were responsible for even conceptual ideas in architecture or even day to day construction techniques that translated into great or even interesting early architecture I would like to know about it. But I'd like to see a lot more than just speculation and conjecture passed off on here as fact.

In other words, I'd like to see more than just some newspaper articles, if, in fact, even those ever existed.

That really was a most interesting time and both it and the ones responsible for it should be treated accurately and justly today, even if they may not have been back then.

My sense is that what we don't need to do on here is just start out considering that in that time those who compiled those histories back then always got it wrong to protect their own or whatever. That seemingly prevalent ASSUMPTION by a few on here is really getting old, in my opinion, and if it's an assumption that's supportable they need to do a whole lot better job of supporting it.

Sully:

Yes, I am serious and I'm not sure what you're suggesting. If either of those two emigrant early architects are way more significant than most everyone on here realizes I'd like to figure out how and why. If they were, I'd like to see the guy who's suggesting they are come up with something solid as to why other than some unproduced newspaper article and his speculation.

On the other hand, if they weren't, I think a guy like MacWood should be exposed for trying to make them look like they were.

This is not me going after MacWood again. I'm just asking him to back up his speculation and conjecture with some of this so-called "independent research" of his that he passes off as significant or fact. I just want to see him produce something solid and factual. His "opinion" sans some factual support is neither solid nor factual, particularly on Willie Campbell, Myopia and TCC. These are significant American golf courses and architecture and everyone wants to be accurate about their architectural evolutions and histories!

You want to know about Barker and Campbell?  Then do the damn research yourself, you pathetic and pompous jerk.

[TEPaul]

"You want to know about Barker and Campbell?  Then do the damn research yourself, you pathetic and pompous jerk.
 
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 11:51:49 pm by DMoriarty »"



Hmmm, and this is the same person who constantly rails on here about insults!?    



MelvynM:

Thanks for the info on Campbell. Most of it I have seen although I can't find any evidence from Myopia that he designed that course. The club believes the first holes were laid out by members Appleton, Merrill and Gardner (and they seem to have a fairly specific account of that event) and following that Herbert Leeds took over at the club with the architecture and controlled it for the next thirty years or so. It has  also been stated on here that Willie Campbell taught Herbert Leeds how to play golf and was his golf architecture mentor. I can't find any evidence of that either. Is there some newspaper account of that or is it just conjecture? I have no problem with considering what it might meant if two people were at some club at the same time but I can't see that means one was the others teacher and architectural mentor simply because they were at a club at the same time.

I would just like to know and so would the club. At Myopia, just as at Merion, no one has any problem with additional information even if it contradicts a previous history in some way. What they don't embrace however is conjecture that offers no support. Again, I'm not one to automatically assume that club records and histories are bogus as some on here seem to automatically assume.
 
On the other hand, in the Myopia club history written about eighty years after the beginning of golf there, there is an inclusion of the general effect that the so-called immigrant golf pros had on the very early golf of that time. I'll include that sentence on here.

[Mark_Fine]

I researched Herbert Barker for our Master Plan for Arcola CC (a 1909 Barker design).  All I will say is that he was a very interesting individual and he had more talent then some give him credit for. 

[JESII]

Tom,

I was suggesting that another thread dedicated to you guys going after each other is probably not necessary...it's gotten old, even for me and I enjoy a little dust up when the time is right.

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine:

It seems like some on here are beginning to try to equate the lack of knowledge (of some) about particular architects (in this case Barker or Campbell) with some attempt to disrespect or minimize them. If anyone thinks about that for about a half a second it really doesn't make any sense at all, does it?

What ends up happening with that kind of bullshit implication on here is the discussion begins to devolve down to researchers themselves and away from the architect in question and his architecture.

If you have some reasons to believe that Barker and his architecture was better than you think most realize it probably would be a good thing to explain why you think that.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

I believed that Willie worked at Myopia CC not designed the course, however he may have helped develop it, but he was there for less than a year.

I really do not have that much info on Willie as my only contact with him relates to the Machrie course on Islay. Some thought that is was by Old Tom because the close proximity to Old Toms Course at Uisguintuie.

David M

I’m sure that you don’t really mean that, but meant to say that you are just to busy to assist.

I’m sure that there are times when we all fall into that category or at least qualify for that crown to be placed upon our heads once within our life span. However pathetic and pompous we sometimes appear, we may still need the help and assistance of others. I certainly am not perfect.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I'd like to know more about some of those old architects like Barker and Campbell particularly since they've been mentioned ON HERE in connection with some pretty important courses (TCC, Myopia and Merion) with which I have something to do. Maybe some on here think any old information will do even if it directly contradicts the architectural histories of some clubs and their contemporaneous record and even if its speculation. I guess I'm just a bit more naturally skeptical of some information on here than that, particularly if no support is offered on the information provided.  I hear this info on Campbell and Myopia is contained in some old newspaper article or whatever. I'd simply like to see it, that's all. That doesn't seem like much to ask, don't you think?

I have no interest at all in seeing this thread devolve into another argument with MacWood and Moriarty. Matter of fact, if both of them would just stay off this thread it probaby would be a good thing unless they have something actual to offer about Barker or Campbell. With the latter fella, I can't see he's offered a thing about Campbell or anything Campbell contributed anywhere. Whatever he's offered on these threads is pretty much about me and I don't believe I need some education on myself exactly---certainly not by someone like him.  

[JESII]

Sounds good to me...

For what it's worth, I don't know crap about either of those guys...

As far as Merion and Barker, I would assume DMoriarty put everything he had on Barker in that essay...wouldn't you?   After all, that was the mindblowing new piece of information in the lead up to his posting it...didn't he also contend that the Barker "routing" was basically ignored?

[Thomas MacWood]

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35535.0.html

A couple of weeks ago there was an interesting thread on Barker (as is the case with too many threads, in the end it devolved into a Merion thread). If that thread slipped your mind I've included a link. It was six pages and there was quite a bit of info on Barker's background and accomplishments. The thread began with a quote from Verdant Green from the Phila Inquirer. Here is an exceprt:

"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'."

TE/JES
If you are honestly interested in Barker, perhaps you could start by searching in your own backyard, and follow up on Green's claim about the three Philly courses. We have a pretty good idea on the first two (Springhaven and Merion). What is the third golf course?
:

[TEPaul]

"After all, that was the mindblowing new piece of information in the lead up to his posting it...didn't he also contend that the Barker "routing" was basically ignored?"


Sully:

I have no real idea what some "mindblowing new piece of information" was or was supposed to be. I'm also not sure he contended that Barker's "routing" was basically ignored----my recollection is that perhaps it wasn't ignored by Merion and that perhaps it was actually used by Merion for what they did on the East. I think it would by pretty danged hard to tell if anyone's routing was ignored or not if no one seems to know that the hell that routing was in the first place! Wouldn't you agree?

It seems like the basic gist of that whole Merion/Macdonald/Whigan/Barker thing was that "tautologically" one cannot discount Barker's routing even without being aware of what the hell it was.

I guess that could have some use in a vacuum of documentation but that's not the case with Merion East. The  club's contemporaneous records are pretty specific on who did what and when and they aren't that sketchy either. The fact that there isn't a single word about Barker once they got started with routing and designing and constructing the course says a lot to me but apparently not to others into this new concept of "tautology".      (And don't get on me for bringing up this concept of tautology. It wasn't me, it was just guess who?    ).

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I remember that info on Barker by Verdant Greene. It was interesting info and it is too bad what Greene meant by that is not easy to track.

Frankly, I've never been as big a fan of some of these newspaper articles as some are and how much  stock is placed on them and their accuracy. Certainly you seem to put a lot of stock in some of them particularly when they seem to support your particular thesis (when they don't you tend to discount them).

For my part, I tend to put real stock in them particularly if and when they are corroborated by something directly from contemporaneous records from the golf club itself as Tillinghast's words were in one of his articles about Merion East (some of the words he used in one article were the exact same wording contained in board meeting minutes).

Greene seems like a pretty solid and closely connected reporter but I can't help but notice his article you just quoted again was about four years after the fact of the indirect Barker event at Merion, if, in fact, Greene even meant to imply that Barker had something to do with Merion East. I think that's your construct and perhaps not necessarily Verdant Greene's.

As such it still falls into the category of speculation and conjecture, in my book. Maybe you do but I do not view direct contemporaneous meeting minutes from a club's committee and board of directors as information that is speculative and conjectural about the architectural history of a golf course. To me that basically constitutes info directly from the "Horse's Mouth." I realize some of you dismiss it as automatic hyperbole or lying but I'm not falling into that kind of rationalization to make some unsupportable point about a golf course.


With Myopia and Campbell I'm not denying what you've said is true----I'm only waiting to see what you're basing what you're saying on.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
If you don't put stock in newspaper and magazine articles what do you put stock in? Club histories written several decades later?

Verdant Green's claim is supported by other newspaper and magazine articles reporting Barker's involvement at Springhaven and Merion. The third course remains a mystery.

[Mike_Cirba]

The courses I've seen listed as designed by Willie Campbell, all nine holers, as of 1900 are;

Franklin Park (MA)
Winchester (MA)
Tatnuck (MA)
Beaver Meadow (NH)
Wannamoissett (RI)
Moorestown Field Club (NJ)
Huntingdon Valley (PA)

Also, in 1899 the greenkeeper at Merion Cricket Club was Willie Campbell.   I'm not sure if there's any connection there.

As far as Herbert Barker, there was a very informative thread as was pointed out by Tom MacWood.

Still left in question however, was how that relates to Merion in any way, or what courses Barker had build "on the ground" that established an architectural reputation of any sort by June 1910.  It appears that all of the courses he designed of any repute didn't open until sometime after that.

[wsmorrison]

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35535.0.html
TE/JES
If you are honestly interested in Barker, perhaps you could start by searching in your own backyard, and follow up on Green's claim about the three Philly courses. We have a pretty good idea on the first two (Springhaven and Merion). What is the third golf course?

Tom MacWood,

You use newspaper articles that support your claims and disregard others that do not.  You have a disturbing pattern of ignoring information that counters your arguments and overreach the implications of other articles that you deem supports your arguments.  Consider some of your reactions to newspaper articles attributing the design of Merion East to Wilson and his committee.  You and your protoge rejected them yet you threw overwhelming support to a eulogy 30 years after the fact.  You guys are moving targets when it comes to research methods.

I mentioned in the other Barker thread that I've seen a written account that Barker was involved at Atlantic City CC.  I am not interested enough to research this, but Tom MacWood might start with ACCC as the suspected third course.   Of course, there is no evidence that Barker had anything at all to do with Merion.  For now, all we know is that Barker created a rough draft of a course on some of the land that was eventually used for Merion's East Course and not for the Club but for land developers that would later sell the property to the Club.  We are starting to have some idea about Barker's work at Springhaven.  It doesn't appear that it lasted very long as a different design theory and aesthetic subordinated and erased Barker's work within a decade or so.

Just how much of an original architect's work remains and how much reworking was done over time by other architects is not any easy task on any golf course.  The majority of our Flynn book looks at the architectural evolution of the courses he was involved in.  The Merion chapter alone is 200 pages.  Shinnecock Hills, The Country Club, Indian Creek, Cascades, Lancaster, Boca Raton, Philadelphia Country and Huntingdon Valley all get extensive coverage.  In redesign work, Flynn's method of utilizing a survey of the existing course, preliminary plans overlaid on that survey and subsequent design iterations combined with ground and serial aerial photographs (along with some extensive Photoshop overlays by Craig Disher) were used to figure out what existed prior to Flynn, what design process he took to come up with a final plan, how the final plan was adopted and what changes were made over time enabled us to put together comprehensive design evolution reports together.  This is not only useful in recording the history of the architecture, but also helpful in restoration efforts.  Flynn drew to scale (it was inked and enhanced by WS Nichols).  This critical factor enabled our anlaysis process to work.

If an "expert researcher" makes certain claims about the standing or specific attributions of an architect, there should be substance to such claims.  With MacWood and Moriarty, there are fewer facts and a great deal more fiction based upon their methods and biases.

[Thomas MacWood]

The courses I've seen listed as designed by Willie Campbell, all nine holers, as of 1900 are;

Franklin Park (MA)
Winchester (MA)
Tatnuck (MA)
Beaver Meadow (NH)
Wannamoissett (RI)
Moorestown Field Club (NJ)
Huntingdon Valley (PA)

Also, in 1899 the greenkeeper at Merion Cricket Club was Willie Campbell.   I'm not sure if there's any connection there.

Mike
Willie Campbell did not do anything in NJ or PA. That was another Campbell.

[Mike_Cirba]

The courses I've seen listed as designed by Willie Campbell, all nine holers, as of 1900 are;

Franklin Park (MA)
Winchester (MA)
Tatnuck (MA)
Beaver Meadow (NH)
Wannamoissett (RI)
Moorestown Field Club (NJ)
Huntingdon Valley (PA)

Also, in 1899 the greenkeeper at Merion Cricket Club was Willie Campbell.   I'm not sure if there's any connection there.

Mike
Willie Campbell did not do anything in NJ or PA. That was another Campbell.

Thanks Tom...that answers that. 

I wasn't sure, and Campbell is obviously a common Scottish emigree name.

[TEPaul]

"TE
If you don't put stock in newspaper and magazine articles what do you put stock in? Club histories written several decades later?"


Tom:

Of course I put stock in newspaper and magazine articles but to me they are nowhere near as valuable as are contemporaneous records of something like committee and board meeting minutes of a golf club about what they are in the process of doing. If newspaper and magazine articles can be corroborated by the latter I would take that info in the newspaper and magazine articles to the bank, period.

To me club history books written years later are prone to inaccuracies and misinterpretations of all kinds (even if totally innocently as is often the case) and that's precisely why I look very carefully at the exact wording in those history books. If it can be tracked right back to similar wording in contemporaneous meeting minutes and/or direct contemporaneous remarks and materials from the people working on those courses I would take that kind of information to the bank too.

What I really don't do that you seem to almost automatically do on some of these subjects and discussions is dismiss or discount direct contemporaneous meeting minutes of committees and boards or the words of people later who were very much connected thoughout as hyperbole, bogus or glorified. If one thinks about that for even a half second clearly that kind of interpretation, assumption and conclusion is ridiculous. I've been on club and association boards and committees and the one thing they never do is sit there and lie to one another about what they've done or are trying to do. It has most certainly not escaped my notice that you seem to include even that kind of valuable information as suspect. You probably tend to look at it that way and treat it that way simply because it's something you probably never get to analyze directly. I think that's exactly why you tend to put all your stock in old newspaper and magazine articles.

If that is ever the suggestion on here (that such things as contemporaneous board and committee meeting minutes are automatically suspect ) by anyone including you and Moriarty you can always expect me to come on here and comment on the ridiculousness of that kind of contention.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE/Wayne
Information is king. When you have it you are king, when you don't have it you resort to attacking and discrediting the person with it.

IMO you both would be better served putting your energies toward getting more info as opposed to spending your time being consumed with me.

[Joe Bausch]

Not to continue with info on this other Willie Campbell, but I assume this is the case.  This is an article from May of 1896 where the Belmont Golf Links is discussed (Belmont soon becomes Aronimink).



I've read the history of Aronimink from here:

http://www.aronimink.org/tour/tours.cfm?tourid=4597

and no mention of a Willie Campbell designing Belmont is there.

[TEPaul]

"TE/Wayne
Information is king. When you have it you are king, when you don't have it you resort to attacking and discrediting the person with it.

IMO you both would be better served putting your energies toward getting more info as opposed to spending your time being consumed with me."


Tom:

Neither of us is in any way consumed by you, that's for sure. We are only concerned with historical accuracy to do with golf course architecture. We certainly do realize that the regular and perhaps only defense or response you and certainly Moriarty ever have is to devolve all this down to something that is a personal attack by some of us here on you two.  I think it's always been pretty clear to all that this was the reason for you to label both us and frankly these clubs and people here part of this thing you labeled "The Philadelphia Syndrome"! A dumber and more inaccurate label could hardly be used of found by anyone including you. It has been that way with you and somewhat later Moriarty for over five years now particularly over Merion. It was the same way with you and me with Pine Valley and it seems to be devolving into the same thing over Myopia now.

We don't even know either of you so it sure isn't personal in that way----it's just that we think your interpretations and deductions of information used is way off-base, illogical and probably thesis and agenda driven.

We would have been more than happy during most of these years to have tried to collaborate on information interpretation with either of you but that has always been something neither of you ever wanted to do. At this point I doubt anyone on this website wonders why that was.

Now, it's apparently too late to ever consider doing something like that. I offered to do that up until maybe a month or two ago but that's an offer that will never be on the table again.

Always and henceforth it's only about the information and the interpretation of it that interests us. We have no real interest in making any of this personal with anyone on this website or elsewhere but again, of course it's convenient for you and that other fella to always claim that is what all this is about. It isn't, period.

[TEPaul]

""TE/Wayne
Information is king. When you have it you are king,"


Tom MacW:

Information is hugely important but I wouldn't call raw information king, at least not ultimately. Analyzing and interpreting what it means is basically KING, and to do that well and correctly one pretty much needs the entire story and the rest of the information on a club and course. That is the problem you had when you implied that Crump was being glorified at the expense of Colt and it's the problem both you and Moriarty continue to have with Merion and now you apparently have with Myopia.

This is not to suggest this it's your fault because it isn't at all. It's just a reality in the process of research, information and analysis.

Don't for a minute think we don't understand why the two of you constantly discount and dismiss information that's contemporaneous to a club and course's creation that emanates directly from it. This is the kind of information neither of you seem to have or be interested in getting for whatever your reasons at least not directly on your own.

Your recent contention on here that Myopia could call you and get from you whatever you think you have on their history is the latest example of that. In the real world it very rarely works that way and the reasons are remarkably logical and commonsensical. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()