Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Ran Morrissett on October 29, 2014, 12:44:31 PM
-
I received an email from STEP (Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners) in the UK this morning that referenced plagiarism in Phil’s October In My Opinion piece.
This much is clear: The 21 page preliminary brief that purportedly was commissioned by the Scott-Taylor family – and that was the primary source for Phil’s October In My Opinion piece - was in fact derived from a 2010 report published by STEP on an unrelated matter.
Ian told me on the phone this morning that he lifted the language.
I hung up in rage. My disappointment and angry far outweighed the excitement in my original post this summer when I assumed all this to be genuine. Phil is similarly outraged.
Both related In My Opinion articles will be removed from the web site at 4:00pm EST. The threads will remain.
This entire incident is regrettable on many levels and causes me to re-evaluate this web site’s policy for posting material.
Regards,
-
When Ran shared with me the email he received this morning I was beyond stunned. When Ian admitted to me that he had indeed faked the initial report I became both angry and sick over the fraud he perpetrated.
He still insists that the drawings and diaries are real. I want all to know that I told him, “Unfortunately what you did prevents anyone from even considering that possibility.”
It has been asked on here “Why has Phil been carrying the water for Ian on this?” It is a complicated story whose simple answer is that I believed that they were authentic. I’ve actually held the Tillinghast drawings and, as has been earlier alluded to, the MacKenzie sketches of Riviera and Augusta, in my hands. I was there in person when the paper on which the MacKennzie drawings were drawn were analyzed by an expert paper conservator who works for several world-class museums. The reports on these and also those done by others who had copies of all of the drawings sent to them for comment were also sent directly to me and arranged for their giving their opinions by me. In every case the results all pointed to everything being genuine.
Some who contended from the beginning that the drawings were forged believed that they were done so in order to profit from their sale. I, also, would have thought the same thing. Except that early last year an offer was made to the family to purchase several of the drawings for an incredible price. How do I know this was a real offer? Because I was contacted by the party and it was a person I knew personally and had previous contact with. Ian turned it down. That also convinced me that they must be genuine as what forger would turn down the big score they were hoping for?
That is why I was convinced they were genuine, fought so hard in arguing it and was willing to “carry the weight” for Ian.
All that preface to simply say how deeply sorry I am that this has occurred. As is Ran, I am beyond angry and sick at how I was used. I am even more upset and embarrassed for having involved those that supported me in what I wrote and for being the cause of this embarrassing episode on golfclubatlas.
My deepest apologies to all,
Phil Young
-
Well, I won't say we told you so...
... but we did.
-
No doubt there will be plenty of "I told you so's" and more piling on about the discoveries of facts by the relentless researchers that have been hammering at this for months. Yet, in my personal view, I am of two minds on the intensity of the pursuit of the true historical record. Of course I personally am grateful for the diligence and passion of these folks to set he accurate record straight and protect the community in general and the GCA.com community specifically from this fraud. But, I am also of the mind that it became obvious after about a week or two of the exposures and that it almost seemed a piling on or vicious campaign by parties on several sides and coming from tangential issues to natter and antagonize their enemies. I'm not going into the specifics of that. It should be patently clear who those parties are who used this for side attacks that brought no valid information, only innuendo and cast aspersions like a bully does in the school yard.
Thank you Ran for trying to get this right. I value a conversation we had on the phone about all this a few month ago already. I had confidence in you that you would let this play out and then make the right decision. I completely support your idea to kill the my opinion material and let the threads hopefully die the death of irrelevance. Not irrelevant in the sense that the truth was sought, but more so that beating a dead horse from here out is just an exercise in futility and overkill.
-
Ran and Phil,
it is always unfortunate when something like this occurs and innocent parties are duped. I would however urge you both to take this episode as part of life's ups and downs but not to let it colour your outlook if a similar situation should arise in the future. To me this does not reflect badly in anyway on either of you nor on the website.
People who look for the positive and are willing to explore new things are the ones who might achieve their potential in life and add to the quality of the community as a whole. Those who are negative looking only for reasons to put others down achieve nothing but making their lives small and miserable whether they realise it or not.
So as we Brits say 'chin up'
Jon
-
You'll get no gloating from me, despite the Redan drawing still being a crock.
Phil, welcome back.
As I said to another good friend of this site a few months ago: " Don't f#%& with the architecture geeks".
The right outcome, thankfully. Let's get back to sensible discourse on our favourite topic.
Cheers,
Martin.
-
Phil is anything but innocent. It bothers me greatly that any of you should believe any apology from him is anything but self-saving.
He was forewarned of the material's inauthenticity and he even posted here that he had no worries about how this would affect his reputation.
I was one of the many people warning Phil and he didn't take that advice. He makes an apology here without a pittance of shame. The only thing he needs to say was, "I'm no longer in the Golf Architecture History Business because I lied, plagiarized, others materials while trying to fabricate an less then elaborate ruse on all of you with my partner, Ian Scott-Taylor."
-
Phil is anything but innocent. It bothers me greatly that any of you should believe any apology from him is anything but self-saving.
He was forewarned of the material's inauthenticity and he even posted here that he had no worries about how this would affect his reputation.
I was one of the many people warning Phil and he didn't take that advice. He makes an apology here without a pittance of shame. The only thing he needs to say was, "I'm no longer in the Golf Architecture History Business because I lied, plagiarized, others materials while trying to fabricate an less then elaborate ruse on all of you with my partner, Ian Scott-Taylor."
Had to save this before the edit.
-
When Ran shared with me the email he received this morning I was beyond stunned. When Ian admitted to me that he had indeed faked the initial report I became both angry and sick over the fraud he perpetrated.
He still insists that the drawings and diaries are real. I want all to know that I told him, “Unfortunately what you did prevents anyone from even considering that possibility.”
It has been asked on here “Why has Phil been carrying the water for Ian on this?” It is a complicated story whose simple answer is that I believed that they were authentic. I’ve actually held the Tillinghast drawings and, as has been earlier alluded to, the MacKenzie sketches of Riviera and Augusta, in my hands. I was there in person when the paper on which the MacKennzie drawings were drawn were analyzed by an expert paper conservator who works for several world-class museums. The reports on these and also those done by others who had copies of all of the drawings sent to them for comment were also sent directly to me and arranged for their giving their opinions by me. In every case the results all pointed to everything being genuine.
Some who contended from the beginning that the drawings were forged believed that they were done so in order to profit from their sale. I, also, would have thought the same thing. Except that early last year an offer was made to the family to purchase several of the drawings for an incredible price. How do I know this was a real offer? Because I was contacted by the party and it was a person I knew personally and had previous contact with. Ian turned it down. That also convinced me that they must be genuine as what forger would turn down the big score they were hoping for?
That is why I was convinced they were genuine, fought so hard in arguing it and was willing to “carry the weight” for Ian.
All that preface to simply say how deeply sorry I am that this has occurred. As is Ran, I am beyond angry and sick at how I was used. I am even more upset and embarrassed for having involved those that supported me in what I wrote and for being the cause of this embarrassing episode on golfclubatlas.
My deepest apologies to all,
Phil Young
Phil
I am confused. The story is bogus, but the diaries and sketches are real? Please explain how this makes sense?
Naccers
You have proof that Phil was in cahoots with I S-T concerning the plagiarism?
Ciao
-
John,
You'll get no edits from me!
-
Sean, You need to go back and read Phil's entire apology.
-
Ran - moving forward, my two cents from the perspective simply as a reader (and sometime professional writer) and not as any kind of knowledgable poster about gca in general (and certainly not about this topic):
Too many words on this, and too many words way too early.
Too many essays, posted on line before they were anywhere close to ready (IMHO, as a reader and sometime writer) .
Too much of a rush, on every front, and by all the principles involved. I won't mention any potential rush to judgement, but because you raised it Ran I'd ask you and Phil what I've often wondered myself:
What was the urgency on this? Why rush the first essay, and even more so why rush the second? Why the premature 'stunning news' and premature 'falling on the sword' and the premature 'in your face'?
(An aside, and to be honest: I'm surprised that anyone needed confirmation that the "brief" in Phil's essay was actually simply boiler-plate content that was cut and pasted from somewhere else. I stopped reading it after two paragraphs, as this was clear to me immediately -- my only question being to Phil-the-writer as to why he would choose to bore and bamboozle us with it, and why he would rush to publish it).
The crazy thing is: I happen to believe that there are some genuinely authentic elements here (my guess: the diary is indeed an old dead man's diary from the period, and the drawings/sketches may well have been produced contemporaneously). But whatever is indeed authentic is so mixed up with confusions and exaggerations and sloppiness and flat out mistakes and even outright deceptions that it means at this point nothing at all.
In short - moving forward Ran I think your primary goal, if you want to publish at all, is to get it right, and to get it right the first time. Take the time to get it right. Share it with a few close and trusted friends and/or experts, hopefully including folks that know a bit about writing and that are not too invested in the content.
We are not saving lives or curing cancer or supporting positive social change or even making a freaking dime -- so it seems to me that (and my words/reminder to you are): anything and everything you can ever imagine posted on-line here at gca.com can wait.
-
Sean, You need to go back and read Phil's entire apology.
Naccers
Yes, it is apparent that Phil believes he was duped and you think he was complicit in the lie. I only asked for the evidence of complicity...that doesn't seem to be apparent in the apology.
I am +1 with Pietro; too much too quick.
Ciao
-
Ran and Phil,
it is always unfortunate when something like this occurs and innocent parties are duped. I would however urge you both to take this episode as part of life's ups and downs but not to let it colour your outlook if a similar situation should arise in the future. To me this does not reflect badly in anyway on either of you nor on the website.
People who look for the positive and are willing to explore new things are the ones who might achieve their potential in life and add to the quality of the community as a whole. Those who are negative looking only for reasons to put others down achieve nothing but making their lives small and miserable whether they realise it or not.
So as we Brits say 'chin up'
Jon
Having had no involvement in this I was looking for some general words to simply show my support for both of you and to encourage you to not let this episode taint your faith in the future.
I now don't need to as Jon has put it perfectly.
-
Ran - moving forward, my two cents from the perspective simply as a reader (and sometime professional writer) and not as any kind of knowledgable poster about gca in general (and certainly not about this topic):
Too many words on this, and too many words way too early.
Too many essays, posted on line before they were anywhere close to ready (IMHO, as a reader and sometime writer) .
Too much of a rush, on every front, and by all the principles involved. I won't mention any potential rush to judgement, but because you raised it Ran I'd ask you and Phil what I've often wondered myself:
What was the urgency on this? Why rush the first essay, and even more so why rush the second? Why the premature 'stunning news' and premature 'falling on the sword' and the premature 'in your face'?
(An aside, and to be honest: I'm surprised that anyone needed confirmation that the "brief" in Phil's essay was actually simply boiler-plate content that was cut and pasted from somewhere else. I stopped reading it after two paragraphs, as this was clear to me immediately -- my only question being to Phil-the-writer as to why he would choose to bore and bamboozle us with it, and why he would rush to publish it).
The crazy thing is: I happen to believe that there are some genuinely authentic elements here (my guess: the diary is indeed an old dead man's diary from the period, and the drawings/sketches may well have been produced contemporaneously). But whatever is indeed authentic is so mixed up with confusions and exaggerations and sloppiness and flat out mistakes and even outright deceptions that it means at this point nothing at all.
In short - moving forward Ran I think your primary goal, if you want to publish at all, is to get it right, and to get it right the first time. Take the time to get it right. Share it with a few close and trusted friends and/or experts, hopefully including folks that know a bit about writing and that are not too invested in the content.
We are not saving lives or curing cancer or supporting positive social change or even making a freaking dime -- so it seems to me that (and my words/reminder to you are): anything and everything you can ever imagine posted on-line here at gca.com can wait.
Bingo!
-
"Ian admitted to me that he had indeed faked the initial report"
These things did happen but to someone else?
The Taylor signature on the drawings are real but the story behind them is not?
-
Ran,
I'm sorry that you and your site got dragged into this. As others have said, please don't let this discourage you from continuing to provide this excellent facility, or from continuing to ask experts and others of interest to provide their views. I, for one, would be very sorry to see the In My Opinion page disappear because of this incident.
-
Phillip Young,
Given the controversy the topic had already created, why did you make no effort to establish the authenticity of the initial report. For anyone holding a copy of the report a few minutes on Google and a couple of phone calls would have established the authenticity of the report.
-
John,
You'll get no edits from me!
Classic, old-school gca. Love it.
-
It has been asked on here “Why has Phil been carrying the water for Ian on this?” It is a complicated story whose simple answer is that I believed that they were authentic. I’ve actually held the Tillinghast drawings and, as has been earlier alluded to, the MacKenzie sketches of Riviera and Augusta, in my hands. I was there in person when the paper on which the MacKennzie drawings were drawn were analyzed by an expert paper conservator who works for several world-class museums. The reports on these and also those done by others who had copies of all of the drawings sent to them for comment were also sent directly to me and arranged for their giving their opinions by me. In every case the results all pointed to everything being genuine.
Phil,
This doesn't reflect well, I'm afraid. It appears that, because of your conviction that the documents were genuine, you refused to consider the very many good points raised by many which pointed to the contrary. Rather than engage in a meaningful dialogue aimed at getting to the truth, you took your ball home on occasions and simply refused to engage properly with the naysayers.
-
Let us be honest about all this. The research that David Moriarty led and various other people, including Martin Bonnar, Niall Carlton, Tommy Naccarato and I helped with, proved these drawings were fake some time ago. We KNOW - because of Martin's find of the later surveyor's drawing of the Redan and the fact that the supposed 'Tillinghast' drawing of the hole, claimed to be a rough freehand sketch matched its proportions exactly - how Ian faked that drawing - he traced the sketch. We KNOW that the diary entries we have been shown cannot be genuine, because of the number of words and expressions used therein that DID NOT EXIST at the time they were claimed to have been written. We know the 'Scores Hotel' dinner CANNOT have happened, as the Scores Hotel DID NOT EXIST at the time.
It is very possible that some of the David Scott-Taylor documents are genuine. I strongly suspect that he did keep a diary, and it does exist, either in a solicitor's office in Wales or somewhere else. But it was NEVER shown that the pages of the diary that were claimed to authenticate the drawings actually came from those books.
Then the 'authentication report', claimed in Phil's third essay to have been drawn up by eminent researchers, but revealed some days ago to be in large measure plagiarised from STEP. Even apart from the flaws in it that were highlighted, NOTHING it contained was hard evidence for the legitimacy of the drawings. The paper was old? Old paper can be bought. So can old ink.
There are many distressing lessons to be learned. One man, intent on a criminal fraud - the sale of drawings that he himself had created, passing them off as by AW Tillinghast and Alistair MacKenzie - managed to draw in a number of fairly eminent people within our small world of golf course history. This does none of them any favours. Phil: we pointed out to you the many impossibilities in the story, yet you continued to defend it by simply making further assertions. History - indeed any academic discipline - works through peer review. That process has been proved a success here, but your assertions, obfuscations and periodic withdrawals have made it much harder. It has done your reputation untold damage; no professional historian would have behaved as you have. I am sorry to say that, but it is true. Others have also had their reputation tarnished.
-
I can't exactly say why, but the mention of David Moriarty and his potential reaction makes me think of the scene from The Godfather where Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) tells Solozzo that he won't be able to call off Luca Brasi.
-
If the opinion pieces are deleted and these threads stand then it will be impossible for Phil or Ran to defend themselves from these most recent accusations of being knowing participants in the ruse. At this point I don't see the value in deleting anything unless you delete everything.
-
If the opinion pieces are deleted and these threads stand then it will be impossible for Phil or Ran to defend themselves from these most recent accusations of being knowing participants in the ruse. At this point I don't see the value in deleting anything unless you delete everything.
You can't help yourself, can you? Where has anyone suggested anything about Ran being a knowing participant?
-
If the opinion pieces are deleted and these threads stand then it will be impossible for Phil or Ran to defend themselves from these most recent accusations of being knowing participants in the ruse. At this point I don't see the value in deleting anything unless you delete everything.
I personally make no such accusation. All I would say in respect of Phil is this: he was either complicit or he was a fool. He can tell us which.
-
For what little it may be worth, it has been my considered opinion from the start that Mr. Scott-Taylor fabricated this material not with an eye towards financial gain (which could potentially have resulted in extremely serious legal ramifications) but rather in attempts at boosting his profile/qualifications/aura as an architect.
And then the horse kind of got out of the barn a little bit.... :)
-
If the opinion pieces are deleted and these threads stand then it will be impossible for Phil or Ran to defend themselves from these most recent accusations of being knowing participants in the ruse. At this point I don't see the value in deleting anything unless you delete everything.
You can't help yourself, can you? Where has anyone suggested anything about Ran being a knowing participant?
The talk of "others" having their reputation tarnished...If not Ran, then who? People on this board will not call Ran out by name because he still holds something they want.
-
I think David Moriarty did great with this. He is owed an apology. He brought this up offline to no avail and has had Phil, Neil
Crafter and others ridicule him.
-
I received an email from STEP (Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners) in the UK this morning that referenced plagiarism in Phil’s October In My Opinion piece.
This much is clear: The 21 page preliminary brief that purportedly was commissioned by the Scott-Taylor family – and that was the primary source for Phil’s October In My Opinion piece - was in fact derived from a 2010 report published by STEP on an unrelated matter. Both related In My Opinion articles will be removed from the web site at 4:00pm EST. The threads will remain.
.........
This entire incident is regrettable on many levels and causes me to re-evaluate this web site’s policy for posting material.
Not an unexpected "conclusion", but I am confused. How did the plagiarized material come from a report on an unrelated matter? Were the "lifted" materials not pertinent to the DST documents and drawings?
While a review of the site's posting policies is probably a good idea, we should remember that this is not a newspaper of record. Much of the information here is opinion and interpretations of what might be factual material. Just like courtroom rules of evidence don't apply in the Discussion Group, it is unrealistic to require the level of due diligence associated with publishing the news, double sourcing, professional editing, legal review, etc.
I don't see a rush to publish as a problem of the site. However, the very occasional enthusiastic endorsement of a thread or opinion piece by its founder can be. This can be remedied easily by not prefacing these. Being found to be a fraud or a boor for making self-serving, uninteresting posts should be sufficient deterrent (though when self-policing doesn't work, the moderators can very easily terminate the posting privilege of the offender).
As to Phil's apology, I don't know how it can be more complete. The suggestion that he might commit seppuku is astoundingly unkind. Phil is hardly the first researcher/historian who has been duped. We could benefit from a little grace here.
I can't help but to feel sorry for Ian. Certainly his reputation has been badly tarnished, likely affecting his livelihood. Pretty sad, but maybe there is a good lesson here.
-
I think David Moriarty did great with this. He is owed an apology. He brought this up offline to no avail and has had Phil, Neil
Crafter and others ridicule him.
David would not want and will not be getting an apology from me. I 100% stand behind every statement I made to him or others about this concern.
-
If the opinion pieces are deleted and these threads stand then it will be impossible for Phil or Ran to defend themselves from these most recent accusations of being knowing participants in the ruse. At this point I don't see the value in deleting anything unless you delete everything.
You can't help yourself, can you? Where has anyone suggested anything about Ran being a knowing participant?
The talk of "others" having their reputation tarnished...If not Ran, then who? People on this board will not call Ran out by name because he still holds something they want.
If you had actually bothered to read the thread, rather than just abuse David Moriarty (and you're one who owes him an apology, too), you'd know the names of the others. I'm not going to repeat them here because I don't believe that they were complicit.
-
I think GCA worked great in this affair. Almost perfectly, in fact.
A well-respected (among many) long-time member of GCA came out with some sensational news. Almost immediately, a number of other members set out to verify it. They found one contradiction after another. In the end, it was revealed as a fraud.
I think this reflects very positively on Ran and this DG. I don't expect him to vet the opinion pieces or posts here. Instead, he has created a forum that does that. We have some real smart people on the board. Peer review at its finest.
Kudos to David Moriarty and the rest of you for showing the inconsistencies in the story.
-
Lou,
You are right to put "conclusion" in quotes and I would say the questions you raise in your first paragraph illustrate that if this were a baseball game we'd be in the 7th inning (or should be). More discovery needed.
I would make a distinction between the "stack" of In My Opinion pieces and the "flow" of the discussion board. An entry to the latter is chatter; a submission to the former is, or should be, solidly researched. This I believe is the implicit contract between author / poster and reader on this site. The bar should be higher for IMOs than for posts to the discussion board.
-
Not a time to gloat, I agree.
I think this is a good day for GCAtlas. This forum seems to stay ahead of the many others in golf.
Certainly livens up my afternoon with this announcement, wow.
-
No doubt there will be plenty of "I told you so's" and more piling on about the discoveries of facts by the relentless researchers that have been hammering at this for months. Yet, in my personal view, I am of two minds on the intensity of the pursuit of the true historical record. Of course I personally am grateful for the diligence and passion of these folks to set he accurate record straight and protect the community in general and the GCA.com community specifically from this fraud. But, I am also of the mind that it became obvious after about a week or two of the exposures and that it almost seemed a piling on or vicious campaign by parties on several sides and coming from tangential issues to natter and antagonize their enemies. I'm not going into the specifics of that. It should be patently clear who those parties are who used this for side attacks that brought no valid information, only innuendo and cast aspersions like a bully does in the school yard.
RJ
By not going "into the specifics" and by not naming names are you not also guilty of casting aspersions on most if not all who have participated in this debate ?
Niall
-
I think David Moriarty did great with this. He is owed an apology. He brought this up offline to no avail and has had Phil, Neil
Crafter and others ridicule him.
Ryan
David is more than capable of speaking for himself and no doubt will pass comment. However I'm not sure any of those named has ridiculed him........... strongly disagreed, yes... but ridicule ? I don't think so.
Niall
-
I think David Moriarty did great with this. He is owed an apology. He brought this up offline to no avail and has had Phil, Neil
Crafter and others ridicule him.
Ryan
David is more than capable of speaking for himself and no doubt will pass comment. However I'm not sure any of those named has ridiculed him........... strongly disagreed, yes... but ridicule ? I don't think so.
Niall
I beg to differ and believe there are numerous examples in the latest thread, if you care to read through. In hindsight it is excruciating reading back some of the comments.
He can of course speak for himself. But so can I and I believe he is owed a public apology.
Wonder if the crank call to the sister actually happened......
-
The crazy thing is: I happen to believe that there are some genuinely authentic elements here (my guess: the diary is indeed an old dead man's diary from the period, and the drawings/sketches may well have been produced contemporaneously). But whatever is indeed authentic is so mixed up with confusions and exaggerations and sloppiness and flat out mistakes and even outright deceptions that it means at this point nothing at all.
In short - moving forward Ran I think your primary goal, if you want to publish at all, is to get it right, and to get it right the first time. Take the time to get it right. Share it with a few close and trusted friends and/or experts, hopefully including folks that know a bit about writing and that are not too invested in the content.
Peter
It seems to me that in the first paragraph above you are somewhat denying reality given the mountain of evidence that this material is fake and then in the second you are holding yourself out as the sort of person (ie. writer) who should be in the inner circle to decide whether the essay is worth publishing. That seems to me to be quite a bizarre way of looking at things, and I do actually mean that with respect.
As Jim Nugent said elsewhere, we reached the bottom of this through the analysis and debate of the DG and not because of any filter group before the original essay was published. As others have said, I hope that Ran isn't put off by this experience.
Niall
-
I am delighted that this saga has been brought to a conclusion.
Two months ago I had never heard of Tillinghust, Phil Young, or Ian Scott-Taylor. My interest in this story centred solely around the alleged involvement of Alister MacKenzie, an involvement which I knew in my bones from the start must be false.
It is a mystery to me how and why leading authorities on MacKenzie were so quick and eager to hitch their wagons to this story; it just smelt so wrong.
Anyway - no gloating, no 'I told you so'. Let's just move on and be thankful that history has not been distorted.
-
I think GCA worked great in this affair. Almost perfectly, in fact.
A well-respected (among many) long-time member of GCA came out with some sensational news. Almost immediately, a number of other members set out to verify it. They found one contradiction after another. In the end, it was revealed as a fraud.
I think this reflects very positively on Ran and this DG. I don't expect him to vet the opinion pieces or posts here. Instead, he has created a forum that does that. We have some real smart people on the board. Peer review at its finest.
Not having followed the details of this story, and not having read the threads in question ...
This sounds right to me.
Crowdsourcing is a beautiful tool to build things up ... OR to knock them down.
Dan
-
Niall - well, I guess I'm a worse writer than I thought if you drew such conclusions, but at any rate let me clarify:
1. I would never "hold myself out as" nor do I have any desire to be part of nor do I have the experience/knowledge necessary to participate as a member of any inner circle. I was merely suggesting two types of folks for that might comprise that circle - a) interested and knowledgable gca types with time on their hands to help ask questions and check facts and b) people who like and are good at writing, just to try to ensure clarity and verve and directness of language.
2. I don't understand how holding the belief that possibly the diaries might be those of an actual old dead person who lived back in the day is outlandish. Granted, still thinking that the drawings might have come from the time is probably more of a stretch.
Jim is right, that's how it played out in this case. Do you think it better that it did so than if, say, David M had asked all the questions off line and the essays never saw the light of day?
At any rate, Ran asked (implicitly) how the process of posting In My Opinion pieces might work better in the future. My suggestion was that he take a lot more time before posting, as there will never be a "need" to get such an essay out in the world. That's all I was focusing on.
Peter
-
Niall - well, I guess I'm a worse writer than I thought if you drew such conclusions...
Peter --
You guess wrong.
Dan
-
I'm certainly glad I stayed out of this.
Lest too much beating up continue, let's all remember the Piltdown man. Not to mention all the fraudulent old Masters circulating in art circles.
Who knows what else is out there in the way of hoaxes.
But in the event some of you do feel compelled to pursue this, pitchforks and torches are probably available through Amazon.
-
"At any rate, Ran asked (implicitly) how the process of posting In My Opinion pieces might work better in the future."
If people will act in a civilized manner then the cost to one's reputation ought to be enough incentive to post credible IMO pieces.
-
I think GCA worked great in this affair. Almost perfectly, in fact.
A well-respected (among many) long-time member of GCA came out with some sensational news. Almost immediately, a number of other members set out to verify it. They found one contradiction after another. In the end, it was revealed as a fraud.
I think this reflects very positively on Ran and this DG. I don't expect him to vet the opinion pieces or posts here. Instead, he has created a forum that does that. We have some real smart people on the board. Peer review at its finest.
Kudos to David Moriarty and the rest of you for showing the inconsistencies in the story.
Well said, Jim!
-
Peter,
I wrote a piece on the Architectural Evolution of Stanley Thompson.
It was based upon a series of interviews with people who knew Stanley including Geoff Cornish, the judge who settled his estate and his step-daughter. While I carefully collected information for two years, at a certain point I have speculated on certain facts based upon the summary of what I collected. One of the key weaknesses is Stan barely wrote any architectural thoughts down.
It's not up to Ran to verify those facts.
It's up to me to be able to prove, share or justify the conclusions of my essay.
The section is called "In My Opinion" not in Ran's Opinion.
-
Peter,
I wrote a piece on the Architectural Evolution of Stanley Thompson.
It was based upon a series of interviews with people who knew Stanley including Geoff Cornish, the judge who settled his estate and his step-daughter. While I carefully collected information for two years, at a certain point I have speculated on certain facts based upon the summary of what I collected. One of the key weaknesses is Stan barely wrote any architectural thoughts down.
It's not up to Ran to verify those facts.
It's up to me to be able to prove, share or justify the conclusions of my essay.
The section is called "In My Opinion" not in Ran's Opinion.
Ian-
I generally agree. But in this particular instance, Ran wrote a Discussion Group post that read a lot like an endorsement of Phil's original "In My Opinion" piece.
-
Peter,
I wrote a piece on the Architectural Evolution of Stanley Thompson.
It was based upon a series of interviews with people who knew Stanley including Geoff Cornish, the judge who settled his estate and his step-daughter. While I carefully collected information for two years, at a certain point I have speculated on certain facts based upon the summary of what I collected. One of the key weaknesses is Stan barely wrote any architectural thoughts down.
It's not up to Ran to verify those facts.
It's up to me to be able to prove, share or justify the conclusions of my essay.
The section is called "In My Opinion" not in Ran's Opinion.
Ian, to be fair, the piece was not originally posted in the "in my opinion" section. It got moved there after the revelation that Tillinghast wasn't in Scotland as was initially purported. I think opinion pieces should just be introduced for discussion without endorsement as to their veracity.
Bart
-
As someone who didn't have a dog in this fight I found this whole matter to be very interesting and fascinating to follow. I learned many things about medical exams in Scotland, British military records, using web tools to find when certain words/terms came into popular usage, etc. Perhaps my (and others') interest was not unlike being unable to look away from an accident or a NASCAR crash so that may not say good things about my nature. As I posted in one of the threads this reminded me of Orson Welles' last movie F for Fake.
I think it would be interesting to archive the IMO pieces and threads in case they disappear. So far I have downloaded the following:
IMO piece by Phil from "Tillinghast, Student of..."
IMO piece by Phil from "Authenticating the Tillinghast..."
Thread titled "Two Tillinghast Treasures..."
Thread titled "Hubris and a Point of Honor"
Thread titled "Tillinghast, MacKenzie and the Problematic..."
Thread titled "Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update..."
Am I missing anything major?
p.s. It looks like Phil's two IMO pieces have been taken down.
-
Kudos to David Moriarty. He may not always be warm and fuzzy, but he was right on the money, and the integrity of the site is better because of it.
-
I always thought that the conclusions as presented in the report were overly positive about the findings. Here is an example:
"With respect ot the drawings, [Doctor] has concluded there is not question that all of the drawings submitted by the Scott-Taylor family are genuine and was authored by Mr. A. W. Tillinghast."
Do people in that line of business really provide that definitive an endorsement? Don't they typically say something like "the tests are consistent with paper and ink that were in use in 1901 and the handwriting is consistent with the style of Mr. Tillinghast". Would they really say they are genuine?
-
I think GCA worked great in this affair. Almost perfectly, in fact.
A well-respected (among many) long-time member of GCA came out with some sensational news. Almost immediately, a number of other members set out to verify it. They found one contradiction after another. In the end, it was revealed as a fraud.
I think this reflects very positively on Ran and this DG. I don't expect him to vet the opinion pieces or posts here. Instead, he has created a forum that does that. We have some real smart people on the board. Peer review at its finest.
Kudos to David Moriarty and the rest of you for showing the inconsistencies in the story.
+1
-
This seems to be a special case that might happen to any website, or maybe even the big news outlets (it has) or even the American public (with elected legislators later having been found to have fabricated resumes, degrees, etc.) So, it could happen to Ran and Golf Club Atlas, too.
I don't see the shame in it for Ran. If this site stays active for another 25 years, it will probably happen again at some point. I understand its his baby, and important to him, but just how much vetting should a moderator on this type of site do to counter a once in a blue moon attempt at historical forgery? I doubt there are any standards he has fallen below, even if he feels badly for what happened.
I hope it doesn't discourage further IMO pieces, even if not completely researched, but with honest intentions.
First, this isn't really a professional history site. As someone mentioned, its closer to crowd sourcing than old school historic research, even for all the time put in by guys like David Moriarty here in researching my professions history. Once again, kudos to all who do spend the time I wish I could, but can't. I hope the legit work finds an even better repository and audience than this site.
Second, Ron Whitten and other researchers have mentioned more than once that the greatest fear in publishing (especially in print) is that after it comes out, some new information will come out to alter the findings. It is sort of the nature of historic research, as far as I can tell.
Of course, this case is different from that. We can debate how much "shame" Phil ought to feel for being duped, and whether those documents should have ever passed his initial "historian" smell test, but I leave that to others. I don't sense that this is the definitive end to Phil's historical career, depending on how he handles it, but then again, I don't really know how these kinds of things play out.
The thing Ran is most right about is that it is a sad, sad conclusion.
-
I'd hate for this to amount to nothing for you, Ian.
So I'll sling you $20 each for the Road Hole and Redan sketches. Frauds as they are, they're still quite nice drawings.
-
If Notre Dame can get through the Manti Te'o scandal untarnished, this website can certainly survive the David Scott-Taylor fiasco.
If there's a lesson to take away from this, it is that sometimes we need to let the facts stand for themselves without rounding off the edges with our own conclusions. Smart people know what they don't know.
Sven
-
RJ
By not going "into the specifics" and by not naming names are you not also guilty of casting aspersions on most if not all who have participated in this debate ?
Niall
Niall, I choose not to name names for a few reasons. One is that for most of us, this isn't our first rodeo so to speak, when it comes to these sort of food fights. I for one have been around this web site for some 15 years and the previous one that many of us migrated from. We know where the vendetta and sharp knives are. It is unfortunate, but probably in all our human nature to associate with one tribe or the other. Some of the tribal warfare via pithy posts and one-upsmanship can be entertaining, and sometimes pedantic and tedious. When it crosses the negative lines it doesn't reflect well on our treehouse. And, I admit I get carried away from time to time as well. But, in this recent saga, we who have been around know the actors and are aware of the side issues that had nothing to do with these sketches authenticity and the detailed verification and fact checking that went into the last few months of discussion. Why do we need a further spectacle of more naming names, when if you are aware, bully for you, and if you aren't, you are free to read on and form your own opinions as you go.
Secondly, it seems to me after making the observations I did preceding the choosing not to name names, it insults the intelligence of anyone reading that they can't formulate their own ideas of who those folks are on the positive or negative side of the debate and issue.
Thirdly, I have had a meaningful conversation about all this privately with the one I most care about in terms of reputation and protecting his web site, Ran. I know he knows how I feel, and that is mostly what matters to me. He knows how I feel about the behavior and motives of some of the parties to this, because I felt the long term relationship on his website and respect that I have for Ran's remarkable forum was the only actual person with whom I cared to name names and help figure out the mystery behind all these revelations. My conversation was not to gossip or culumniate, but yes, to call attention to some of the past activities of some of the actors in this, where the veracity of certain statements were just too incredible and unsubstantiated to be believed.
-
Do people in that line of business really provide that definitive an endorsement?
Of course not. One of the many red flags that should have caused Phil or Neil or anyone ese with the report to do 10 minutes of research to ascertain its authenticity.
At the risk of plagarising, here is a quote from a real report.
In keeping with the practice of Forensic Science Laboratories around the world,
conclusions are expressed on a qualitative scale describing the strength of the evidence. The main
points on the scale are:
Positive
Conclusive evidence
Very strong evidence
Strong Evidence
Weak evidence
Inconclusive
Negative
Weak evidence
Strong evidence
Very strong evidence
Conclusive evidence
-
Do people in that line of business really provide that definitive an endorsement?
Of course not. One of the many red flags that should have caused Phil or Neil or anyone ese with the report to do 10 minutes of research to ascertain its authenticity.
At the risk of plagarising, here is a quote from a real report.
In keeping with the practice of Forensic Science Laboratories around the world,
conclusions are expressed on a qualitative scale describing the strength of the evidence. The main
points on the scale are:
Positive
Conclusive evidence
Very strong evidence
Strong Evidence
Weak evidence
Inconclusive
Negative
Weak evidence
Strong evidence
Very strong evidence
Conclusive evidence
Absolutely, David. This is the key lesson for my money. Don't get too excited at the prospect of a great discovery, test it properly, trust the peer review process. Don't take it personally and get defensive.
-
So I'll sling you $20 each for the Road Hole and Redan sketches. Frauds as they are, they're still quite nice drawings.
I would pay more than that. The story behind this saga arguably adds some value compared to other sketches/paintings that IST sells online - he wants $3500 for the original of Turnberry at War.
-
As one who has been supportive of Phil and Ian i am obviously disappointed and saddened to learn that the authentication report was not genuine and that Ian had written it. Naturally I am embarrassed by this and extend my apologies to all here for my part in this.
My involvement was originally in looking at a set of 18 hole plans apparently drawn by Mackenzie for Riviera. They certainly appeared genuine to me based upon the numerous Mac plans I have seen over the years, and I said so.
Obviously I am very disappointed, upset and saddened that Ian fabricated the report, which naturally casts a grim shadow over all this material, the Riviera drawings included. What material is genuine and what material is not is now mixed up in a murky soup. Sadly it's all tainted now.
While I find it difficult to believe that these Mac plans plus the two from Augusta that I have seen, are forged, and while that possibility has always been there, it is perhaps far more prominent now. Anyway, there will be more fall-out on this to come no doubt.
For my part, I have argued a case that I believed in, in good faith. For being wrong, well, mea culpa.
-
For my part, I have argued a case that I believed in, in good faith. For being wrong, well, mea culpa.
Neil,
If you don't mind me asking the same question I asked Phil. When you received the interim report, what led you to accepting it in good faith and not spending 10 minutes checking that it was legit?
-
sorry David, not sure how I was to check that it was "legit". I took it at face value.
-
I made a comment on the other thread that it reminded me of the cold-fusion incident circa 1988.
I was going to make another comment as it evolved that, to me, it began to resemble something from Phillip K. Dick.
'Change the narrative, and you change the reality.' (Paraphrased, as I understand it.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick
-
Neil,
Weren't you suspicious when some of us pointed out the very odd language used in the conclusions?
-
Ian told me on the phone this morning that he lifted the language.
Was there a reason why he did this? I haven't followed this that closely but I didn't see a monetary gain, at least enough to change his lifestyle?
It will be interesting to see how it effects his architectural business.
-
I've seen similar language in other reports and lifting language from other reports (or working with prefabricated blurbs) is not unusual, if the case is deemed to be similar. But what killed it for me was that the experts themselves wished to remain anonymous. That I have never seen before from any respectable expert. I believe Phil was out of his league in that part of the debate and possibly in others as well, but unfortunately failed to realise that.
Ulrich
-
As for financial gain: if Mr. Scott-Taylor could somehow convince a highly reputable museum to display his artifacts, then their worth would increase significantly. This is standard practice by collectors, dealers or even auction houses wishing to sell an important piece of art, they simply loan it for three or five years to, say, the National Gallery and then sell it for twice as much as they could have gotten before.
Ulrich
-
How does everyone feel about the IMOs having been removed? I think they should remain with a disclaimer on the top.
-
sorry David, not sure how I was to check that it was "legit". I took it at face value.
Neil,
Correct me if I am wrong but I would have thought that contacting the organisation or author that had its name on the report and asking them if they produced the report would be simple.
-
Please note that you could be asking Ran all these same questions. Tread carefully, you won, have some respect.
-
Tread carefully, you won
There are no winners and losers, JK. It's a discussion, not a game.
-
Tread carefully, you won
There are no winners and losers, JK. It's a discussion, not a game.
Sorry but it is much more than that. Read what Tommy wants from Phil, this is now about making people pay. How dare anyone make a mistake, apologies be damned. I said long ago to have patience, that the day Phil knew that this was a ruse he would come on here and admit he was wrong. He did, he was hurt, he is sorry, he was fooled. We have all been in his shoes, we should be compassionate not vengeful.
-
At the end of his posts, David Moriarty includes a quote from Tom MacWood:
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
David never seems to be out to make others look bad. He's just not willing to blindly accept everything as it's been presented. If he thinks a story doesn't make sense or there is another possible explanation, he asks questions. I've never understood why some are so upset by this. Anytime I read people's defensive responses to questions, it makes me wonder about the accuracy of the story they are promoting.
I'm too lazy to research, and haven't followed the entire Scott-Taylor saga. I decided very early on that the narrative didn't seem to stand up to basic scrutiny, so I'm not surprised at where we ended up. As Adam Lawrence put it, Phil was either complicit or a fool. ALL of this could have been avoided if he had listened rather than just defended a poorly vetted story.
If there's a lesson for the discussion group, it's that we need to be more supportive of the people that ask questions. Just because a "historian" thinks matters have been settled, we ought to not abandon common sense.
Those that expect to see David gloating will be disappointed.
-
Sorry but it is much more than that. Read what Tommy wants from Phil, this is now about making people pay. How dare anyone make a mistake, apologies be damned. I said long ago to have patience, that the day Phil knew that this was a ruse he would come on here and admit he was wrong. He did, he was hurt, he is sorry, he was fooled. We have all been in his shoes, we should be compassionate not vengeful.
There is always room for forgiveness and compassion, but at the same time, should not one who seemingly holds himself out as an expert on golf course architecture (or any topic depending on the situation) be held to a high standard? A true historian is supposed to base his conclusions on verifiable evidence, not make assumptions or assertions about the purported truth that are not supported by evidence.
-
Sorry but it is much more than that. Read what Tommy wants from Phil, this is now about making people pay. How dare anyone make a mistake, apologies be damned. I said long ago to have patience, that the day Phil knew that this was a ruse he would come on here and admit he was wrong. He did, he was hurt, he is sorry, he was fooled. We have all been in his shoes, we should be compassionate not vengeful.
There is always room for forgiveness and compassion, but at the same time, should not one who seemingly holds himself out as an expert on golf course architecture (or any topic depending on the situation) be held to a high standard? A true historian is supposed to base his conclusions on verifiable evidence, not make assumptions or assertions about the purported truth that are not supported by evidence.
What I wouldn't give to just once err on the side of compassion.
-
Sorry but it is much more than that. Read what Tommy wants from Phil, this is now about making people pay. How dare anyone make a mistake, apologies be damned. I said long ago to have patience, that the day Phil knew that this was a ruse he would come on here and admit he was wrong. He did, he was hurt, he is sorry, he was fooled. We have all been in his shoes, we should be compassionate not vengeful.
There is always room for forgiveness and compassion, but at the same time, should not one who seemingly holds himself out as an expert on golf course architecture (or any topic depending on the situation) be held to a high standard? A true historian is supposed to base his conclusions on verifiable evidence, not make assumptions or assertions about the purported truth that are not supported by evidence.
What I wouldn't give to just once err on the side of compassion.
Is that after you toss one of your proverbial molotov cocktails and then sit back and revel in the carnage?
-
We've all been duped in some small thing, or large, in our lives.
Phil was the unfortunate victim here, and it's Scott-Taylor whose reputation now suffers. Not Phil's, not Ran's.
Live and learn.
-
If there were ever a "major controversy" that had no real effect on anyone's life or legacy this would be it. So, the guy is a fraud? Outside of 10-20 people on here, does anyone really care?
Lesson learned. Ran - there is a great service being presented by this site - and if a bad apple or two seems to rot along the way, so be it. The treehouse is certainly capable enough to expose it and sort it all out.
-
Boy, my family got pretty crazy and dysfunctional at times.
But GCA??? Very impressively so!! ;D
As a watcher in this who read along the whole time, some were correct, some were not.
For one, I have zero problem with this site or Ran in this FWIW
-
We've all been duped in some small thing, or large, in our lives.
Phil was the unfortunate victim here, and it's Scott-Taylor whose reputation now suffers. Not Phil's, not Ran's.
Live and learn.
Tim-I can't imagine that Phil gets a pass. Despite a mountain of evidence contradicting his position from a number of sources he blindly soldiered on. He was way more than an unfortunate victim and at least in my world his reputation has suffered
-
We've all been duped in some small thing, or large, in our lives.
Phil was the unfortunate victim here, and it's Scott-Taylor whose reputation now suffers. Not Phil's, not Ran's.
Live and learn.
I strongly disagree that Phil's reputation did not suffer. As a fascinated by-stander, even I can see that Phil's (and Neil Crafter's) reputation is in close to ruins. It is hard to believe they were not active participants of this con. I don't care much about their apologies as their actions speak much louder.
Ran's reputation will depend on how he conducts himself/site after this mess. I suspect he will come out just fine as many a great men have been fooled by con-artists.
This is why science papers go through peer review and are replicated by other scientists. I think publishing papers like this is just fine as long as the corresponding research and supporting documentations are available on request. Without it, no essay should go further than "In My Opinion" section.
-
There is an elephant in the room. Didn't something similar happen before with a make believe article?
-
Phil was the unfortunate victim here, and it's Scott-Taylor whose reputation now suffers.
There may likely never be a 100% conclusive decision that the drawings are fake but it would have been easy to discover that the 'interim report' was fake by contacting the supposed contributors. Unfortunately those with access to the report (Phil, Neil etc) never bothered to make this check despite many red flags including:
-the claim that the authors wished to remain anonymous.
-the fact 1300 words was copied from an unrelated document available on the internet
-the blatantly ridiculous language used in the report.
-the claims that someone made a harassing phone call to Ian's sister.
It's been 4 weeks since Phil published excerpts of the report on here. But he only found out, to his shock, that the 'interim report' was fake when he took a phone call from Ran who received a call from STEP who received a phone call from one of their members, who received a phone call from an interested reader of this thread.
Phil could have short circuited a heap of the process by making 1 phone call 5 weeks ago and David Moriarty would have been able to spend a a heap more time with his kids.
-
As one who has been supportive of Phil and Ian i am obviously disappointed and saddened to learn that the authentication report was not genuine and that Ian had written it. Naturally I am embarrassed by this and extend my apologies to all here for my part in this.
My involvement was originally in looking at a set of 18 hole plans apparently drawn by Mackenzie for Riviera. They certainly appeared genuine to me based upon the numerous Mac plans I have seen over the years, and I said so.
Obviously I am very disappointed, upset and saddened that Ian fabricated the report, which naturally casts a grim shadow over all this material, the Riviera drawings included. What material is genuine and what material is not is now mixed up in a murky soup. Sadly it's all tainted now.
While I find it difficult to believe that these Mac plans plus the two from Augusta that I have seen, are forged, and while that possibility has always been there, it is perhaps far more prominent now. Anyway, there will be more fall-out on this to come no doubt.
For my part, I have argued a case that I believed in, in good faith. For being wrong, well, mea culpa.
Neil,
You, Phil and Ian Scott Taylor explicitly instructed those you shared the purported Alister MacKenzie Riviera drawings with to keep the sketches from being shown to me. Your lengthy authentication report was a key component of the attempt to sell these drawings and yet, knowing my background as author of books on Riviera and George Thomas, you conspired in the not-so-good-faith effort to not ask if I had thoughts on the authenticity of the drawings, or to provide some insight into who did renovation work at Riviera prior to the 1929 Los Angeles Open (it was not Alister MacKenzie, as you now hopefully know and something confirmed as not possible by your own MacKenzie timeline).
So do not suggest here this was a good faith effort on your part or Phil Young's. There was a concerted effort to deceive and conceal by both you and Young. This is not behavior consistent with how historians who truly love this art share information amongst themselves.
-
Clifford Irving made up an autobiography of Howard Hughes and fooled so many, including publisher McGraw-Hill, Hughes got on a conference call to say Irving was a liar, while lying himself about his obsessions. Irving went to prison for 17 months.
The German newsmagazine Stern was once fooled into publishing excerpts from "The Hitler Diaries," which turned out to be fakes authored by Konrad Kujau, a German forger. Kujau went to prison.
For those who believe Phil Young was in cahoots with Ian Scott-Taylor (an Irving or Kujau), rather than duped (a McGraw-Hill or Stern), you'd best have solid evidence presentable in a court of law.
I have neither a cat nor a dog in this chamber pot fight. As I wrote way back, nice drawings, no matter who drew them.
Best wishes to all.
-
At the end of his posts, David Moriarty includes a quote from Tom MacWood:
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
This is interesting to note and remember. TMac and David saw that many club histories were under researched and often wrong when it came to the golf courses themselves (while the results of the 1934 ladies C league tennis tournaments were probably stunningly accurate). So, they and a few others have taken it upon themselves to try to get more accurate histories of golf architecture than the mainstream press has done, and the clubs have done, etc.
It gets prickly, it upsets some establishments, and of course, given the assumption that many "legends" are wrong, also runs the risk of mistakes on their part as well. All of history is at least part opinion or point of view. Of course, Phil would consider himself as part of that movement as well, and perhaps his wanting to have a real find seems to have influenced this situation.
As for the ever more detailed study of gca, I am not sure how groundbreaking our researchers are, or the site that allows them to do it. But, it does seem like a bit of a historic change in ways things are done in our little area of historic interest. It probably has to happen this way, and it probably had to wait until recently to happen, given the relative ease of record searching on the net. In more mainstream history areas, historians figure we have enough Abe Lincoln tomes, and I have had to route courses to preserve 1800's trash dumps because some historian wants to study it someday to see how the real people of the 1800's lived. As time goes on, history goes to less well covered subjects, and gca is one of those.
I guess with the interest, it was only a matter of time before someone also tried forgeries for whatever reason. Fake gca history memorabilia. Whooda thunkit twenty years ago or so? Who would have even known? (the downside being how much good stuff probably got thrown out as "unimportant."
-
The Hitler Diaries comparison was made months ago in one of the earlier threads on this subject. By analogy, Phil and Neil are the Hugh Trevor-Ropers of this story, the experts who promoted the fake documents. Trevor-Roper's reputation as a historian never recovered from that.
I want to make one more point. Phil's first post in this thread explains how he witnessed Ian turn down a large offer for the drawings, and that convinced him they must be genuine. Leaving aside the possibility that he was holding out for a better offer (there is a bunch of hubris across this whole story), Phil says "That is why I was convinced they were genuine, fought so hard in arguing it and was willing to “carry the weight” for Ian."
The phrase that I want to pick up on is 'fought so hard in arguing it'.
Historical work is NOT an adversarial process. Why, Phil, were you 'fighting' for these documents? Because that is where it all started to go wrong. You engaged in a war, and you staked your reputation on it. Yet you brought no evidence of your own to the table, rather, you went back to Ian whenever a clear hole in your story was demonstrated. When it was proved that Tillinghast could not have been at the alleged dinner at the Scores, you changed your story to say he mailed the drawing earlier - presumably at Ian's direction. When the Scores was shown not to have existed in 1901, you made the ridiculous claim that it was an informal name given by players who went there to tot up their cards. When it was shown to you that DST could not have been a Royal Navy officer in 1901, you simply asserted that he was (while changing your story to claim his commission was post the alleged Queen Victoria episode). If this was true you could have proved it by a few minutes online research with the Navy List. But you didn't. Instead, you continued to go back to Ian, who obligingly provided more diary material to support his stories. You failed to address any of the flaws clearly pointed out in the diaries and drawings. You should have been seeking the truth, as a proper historian would. Instead, you preferred to act as a promoter or advocate.
That, I am sorry to say, is why your reputation as a historian of golf lies in tatters today.
-
One thing for sure, it's a good thing we weren't paying David Moriarity for his research, not at those LA lawyer rates! I wonder how many hours he volunteered in his sleuthing in this fascinating case.
-
Boy, this sure seemed like it was going to be a train wreck from the very beginning.
It was very interesting to read the results of the great research by DM and the many others on this site and Tommy's Max's .
But then I see the last post #83 by Geoff S and read " So do not suggest here this was a good faith effort on your part or Phil Young's. There was a concerted effort to deceive and conceal by both you and Young. This is not behavior consistent with how historians who truly love this art share information amongst themselves. "
Realizing I will never know all of the back story, such statements are a bit alarming but mostly sad.
Nevertheless, agreeing with the many other testaments above, GCA is a wonderful site for many and varied reasons.
But, I do want to say one thing directly to Ran.
Ran,
Please cash my n-th check, now in the mail, in support of the site and your efforts, as soon as possible.
I need to know by checking balance going into Christmas.
Cheers !
John
-
"I guess you can take this site and those that manage it for what it is and maintain a willingness to overlook its weaknesses or you can revel in others mistakes and misfortunes and stir up hatred."
Those are not the only choices.
-
Yawn......
-
Come on guys....all of us have had the past month or longer to read this stuff and draw conclusions...at the end of the day this stuff is way down the list of what matters in the golf world and yet to a couple of guys here it probably feels like the world is caving in. What is the old saying" be careful what you say because everyone is fighting some kind of battle"....these guys know it was a screw up but in reality it did not affect the courses one single bit...you have to realize most of golf architectural history is entertainment and often revisionist anyway. Nothing to be gained kicking PY and others....cheers...
-
"you have to realize most of golf architectural history is entertainment and often revisionist anyway. Nothing to be gained kicking PY and others"
I get the impression that something was trying to be gained.
-
John and Kelly:
Thank you for reminding everyone about the disgusting incident that took place on this chat room in regards to the fake golf course rankings article. When the scam artists were brought to light they immediately defended themselves by placing blame on those who reproduced the work as if somehow trusting the integrity of the chat room was the real problem.
We now have a second incident of the site attempting to perpetuate a fraud, which means there is a pattern of deceit here.
From the very beginning there were problems with this tale of sketches, meetings and a rewriting of history. First, in my mind, a former newspaper reporter who investigated corruption and fraud, was why bring this “discovery” to light here on a chat room with marginal reputation for honesty? Had there been unequivocal proof that these documents were genuine, the likes of Golf Digest, the Guardian or the Smithsonian magazine would have been interested in revealing them to the golf world. Those involved knew this is not a place to hold the research up to legitimate and fair criticism, but it is a place where deception is embraced.
The fact is the people who run this chat room had an active and supportive role in perpetuating this swindle. Had it been pulled off and some of the fakes sold as genuine before the con came to life then certain individuals may have found themselves in court defending their actions. Claiming ignorance and/or stupidity is not the best defense for such actions. Claiming ignorance, though, is apparently a good way to get people to keep supporting you financially. Some people will always willingly drink the Kook-Aid. Dr. Oz is still in business even after duping hundreds of thousands with a tale of bogus weight loss pills.
Adam Lawrence and some others should be lauded for not only displaying a healthy skepticism and revealing the fraud, but also doing without the mean-spiritedness that is a hallmark of this chat room. He gave the dishonorable a chance to remove themselves from the scheme while still maintaining a bit of their honor. They chose not to. He is a gentleman for doing so.
There are many conclusion to be reached here but, for me, one stands out: this chat room is not a bastion of integrity (except for Joseph Bausch, Adam Lawrence and a scant few others) and, therefore, it is not a place for serious discussions of history, facts and truths. It is a place to bloviate, to deceive, it inflate one's ego. In other words, it is a barroom.
Those who wish to push aside this incident as if it is nothing but an unfortunate small error, fail to realize that this wretched episode has the potential to harm those of us who make a living striving to research and write golf course history while maintaining the highest standards of research that we can. When a supposedly bona fide historian is shown to be anything but, I fear others in the field will suffer.
I’m genuinely sorry that this incident happened and that many of you have seen the curtain pulled back on a hero or two, but I am not at all surprised.
Anthony
-
How many people actually "make a living" from researching golf course history?
Honest question.
-
Well this is certainly a First World problem. Talk of heroes being exposed; please don't tell this grown man Santa Claus isn't real. A little perspective perhaps?
-
disgusting incident that took place on this chat room in regards to the fake golf course rankings article. When the scam artists were brought to light
Do you consider the Ordnance Survey to be disgusting scam artists for including copyright traps on their maps and catching the Automobile Association red-handed?
-
We now have a second incident of the site attempting to perpetuate a fraud, which means there is a pattern of deceit here.
Anthony:
I think there is a marked difference between the Foulpointe Listing and the David Scott-Taylor Fiasco. Ran was complicit in the first one, and there is no excuse for having presented that course ranking as factual. In the more recent case, unless you know something the rest of us don't, I don't see him having been aware of the fraud and letting it continue.
You could say he should have had a better set of "fresh eyes" with regard to the material he was asked to present on his site, but I don't think that rises to the level of intentional deception.
I do agree with your points that the downfall of the discussion hereabouts lies in the interpretation. There is a bit of excitement in finding something new, and often that leads to presenter jumping to conclusions. Throw in an obvious bias when folks have tied themselves to particular figures in golf history, and its a recipe for disaster. It is often hard to remember (and to write in a way that clearly delineates) what is fact and what is conjecture.
Sven
-
The Foulpointe listing was a joke and I think a good one. I'd have done the same thing without hesitation in order to expose those stealing material from my site, while having a laugh. Grow a sense of humour, this is not a federal court, but a hobby place.
OTOH, the DST material wasn't meant as a light-hearted joke, but supposed to be actually genuine and valuable.
Ulrich
-
The Foulpointe listing was a joke and I think a good one. I'd have done the same thing without hesitation in order to expose those stealing material from my site, while having a laugh. Grow a sense of humour, this is not a federal court, but a hobby place.
OTOH, the DST material wasn't meant as a light-hearted joke, but supposed to be actually genuine and valuable.
Ulrich
Ulrich:
You need to revisit the Foulpointe story. The manner in which the "joke" was allowed to perpetuate was not above board.
Sven
-
disgusting incident that took place on this chat room in regards to the fake golf course rankings article. When the scam artists were brought to light
Do you consider the Ordnance Survey to be disgusting scam artists for including copyright traps on their maps and catching the Automobile Association red-handed?
I would if the Ordnance Survey had created purposely inaccurate maps for that purpose.
-
There are many conclusion to be reached here but, for me, one stands out: this chat room is not a bastion of integrity (except for Joseph Bausch, Adam Lawrence and a scant few others) and, therefore, it is not a place for serious discussions of history, facts and truths. It is a place to bloviate, to deceive, it inflate one's ego.
AP
This is well beyond the pale. One could comfortably steer clear of this latest mess or take a wait and see attitude without losing any sense of integrity. Fact is, most people couldn't care at all...even among wing nuts simply because this is small beer. A few people did care enough to investigate. So what? They cared about this situation and other did not. It has nothing to do with across the board integrity...but I will give you that some people bloviate...though I don't know why. Since you deem it fit to imply that I have no integrity, I will start by asking you.
Ciao
-
There are many conclusion to be reached here but, for me, one stands out: this chat room is not a bastion of integrity (except for Joseph Bausch, Adam Lawrence and a scant few others) and, therefore, it is not a place for serious discussions of history, facts and truths. It is a place to bloviate, to deceive, it inflate one's ego.
AP
This is well beyond the pale. One could comfortably steer clear of this latest mess or take a wait and see attitude without losing any sense of integrity. Fact is, most people couldn't care at all...even among wing nuts simply because this is small beer. A few people did care enough to investigate. So what? They cared about this situation and other did not. It has nothing to do with across the board integrity...but I will give you that some people bloviate...though I on't know why. Since you deem it fit to imply that I have no integrity, I will start by asking you.
Ciao
Well said, Sean.
Anthony, whilst you contemplate Sean's question you may want to explain to me why you feel free to question my integrity. For an author your use of the English language is astonishingly slack.
-
disgusting incident that took place on this chat room in regards to the fake golf course rankings article. When the scam artists were brought to light
Do you consider the Ordnance Survey to be disgusting scam artists for including copyright traps on their maps and catching the Automobile Association red-handed?
I would if the Ordnance Survey had created purposely inaccurate maps for that purpose.
Mark
It is my understanding that all map makers include small errors in their productions spsecifically to entrap violators of their copyright. This was told to me by a friend who was a professional map maker.
Rich
-
I don't see this as a sad ending at all. Ian, aided knowingly or unwittingly by Phil and Neil, tried to use golf club atlas to stir publicity about some fake memorabilia. Because we have a number of intelligent people who participate in these discussions, the fraud was exposed. I see it as positive.
-
There are many conclusion to be reached here but, for me, one stands out: this chat room is not a bastion of integrity (except for Joseph Bausch, Adam Lawrence and a scant few others) and, therefore, it is not a place for serious discussions of history, facts and truths. It is a place to bloviate, to deceive, it inflate one's ego. In other words, it is a barroom.
Anthony
Wow.
Bogey
-
Ally:
I don't have an answer to your question and I'm not sure who would. I do make some of my living that way, but it is an insignificant portion of my measly income in most years.
Best,
Anthony
-
It seems to me that the 'business of history' is big business if managed and manipulated as theater, drama, entertainment or infotainment. I for one have always enjoyed the work of Ken Burns, from "the Civil War", to perhaps my favorite, "Corps ofDiscovery" and of course other infotainment efforts with the popularization of elevating the heroic aspects of the American experience in WWII, with producers from Speilberg to Brokaw and the like. All of those producers used Stephen Ambrose extensively as an Historical Expert and commentator through ubiquitous vignettes of interviews with S.A., where S.A. would give dramatic oral explanation of historical events, and with great panache I might say.
But as the pursuit of monetizing and cashing in on the infotainment aspects of such historical productions seems to naturally lead, embellishments were made, and Mr Ambrose came under heavy scrutiny for 'plagiarism' and 'inaccuracies'. For a thumbnail overview one can scan the still under controversy material being continually revised on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_E._Ambrose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_E._Ambrose) Particularly what seems obvious as embellishment of his relationship with IKE, becomes very problematic about the credibility of S.A. This in my view is a pity in the sense that it detracts from the otherwise popularization of a new enthusiasm for History, so rich and yet so controversial at every turn. The showmanship aspects of S.A. are on full display in his many appearances in various media, and yet so vulnerable to the glare of 'authentication'.
RAN IS NO KEN BURNS! Ran runs a website many of us are in various ways attached to for entertainment, sharing information, and good fellowship connection We have some heady or interesting writing contributions from some pretty smart people from time to time. But I really don't think any of those 'fairly smart people' really look at this site with the view that it is a forum for serious academic 'historical' credentialed source material. Do any of you really think that? And, it is fairly obvious that a bit of promotional activities take place from time to time on Ran's GCA.com. Books are mentioned and interest is promoted in some commercial material from time to time. And as always, if you choose to buy a book or some other aspect of membership or patronize some golf course based on discussion here, Caveat Emptor. I for one do buy and patronize because I like the people or accept the merits of what is on offer, based on good will and enjoyment of the person or source of the offer. So, isn't it best to 'take it for what it is worth' in these cases where you choose to support something? I feel contributions to Ran's web site are well worth it. So I do because I want to. I see no aspect of fraud, just entertainment and connection to nice people and interesting situations.
PHIL YOUNG IS CERTAINLY A LIGHT YEAR FROM STEPHEN AMBROSE as credible or capable of presenting any truly academia rated or respected historical information. S.A. does have a large body of work, much of it leaning more towards a sort of commercial historical effort to sell books and his reputation as a great storyteller. He branded himself with great success. Phil may have a schtik as a infotainment writer of something as mundane as his look backs at Tillie, and whatever other stuff he has compiled in a few published compilations. But, let's face it. He seems to have no historian credentials of any widespread academic recognition. Does he even have an undergrad degree in any era or subject of "History"?
You pays yer money and takes yer chances...
-
It is my understanding that all map makers include small errors in their productions spsecifically to entrap violators of their copyright. This was told to me by a friend who was a professional map maker.
I have been told exactly the same thing -- and have found some of those errors over the years.
(It's much less well known, amongst the general public, that Rihc employs the same strategy -- "spsecifically" to entrap plagiarists.)
Dan Kelly (tm)
-
Most folks I know quite playing "dogpile on so-and-so" decades ago. In hindsight we know it was nothing but bullying. In this saga a few guys screwed up and a few other guys were smart enough not to trust them. No need to get out the broad brushes.
Bogey
-
disgusting incident that took place on this chat room in regards to the fake golf course rankings article. When the scam artists were brought to light
Do you consider the Ordnance Survey to be disgusting scam artists for including copyright traps on their maps and catching the Automobile Association red-handed?
I would if the Ordnance Survey had created purposely inaccurate maps for that purpose.
Mark
It is my understanding that all map makers include small errors in their productions spsecifically to entrap violators of their copyright. This was told to me by a friend who was a professional map maker.
Rich
Rich
I meant material errors rather than small tyops and should have posted as such. The Foulpointe fabrication was on another level entirely from an uppercase letter being used in the middle of a place name.
Mark
-
The Foulpointe fabrication was on another level entirely
What then was the disgusting scam? What did Tom MacWood gain from doing this?
-
disgusting incident that took place on this chat room in regards to the fake golf course rankings article. When the scam artists were brought to light
Do you consider the Ordnance Survey to be disgusting scam artists for including copyright traps on their maps and catching the Automobile Association red-handed?
I would if the Ordnance Survey had created purposely inaccurate maps for that purpose.
Mark
It is my understanding that all map makers include small errors in their productions spsecifically to entrap violators of their copyright. This was told to me by a friend who was a professional map maker.
Rich
Rich
I meant material errors rather than small tyops and should have posted as such. The Foulpointe fabrication was on another level entirely from an uppercase letter being used in the middle of a place name.
Mark
Mark
It isn't just tyops (tm). As I remember my conversation, the deception included putting in streets or adding churches that did not exist, etc. Kinda like "The Foulepointe Flummox" (as it is now known amongst the cognoscenti), come to think about it.....
Rhic
-
Rich, the analogue is not fake churches on a map, it is an entirely fabricated map.
Michael, you genuinely think it's acceptable to present material lies as facts? Really?
-
Rich, the analogue is not fake churches on a map, it is an entirely fabricated map.
Michael, you genuinely think it's acceptable to present material lies as facts? Really?
"Entirely?" Really? As complete as the Foulepointe Fake Flummox Fiasco? I doubt it, but I'm willing to be better informed.
-
As one who has been supportive of Phil and Ian i am obviously disappointed and saddened to learn that the authentication report was not genuine and that Ian had written it. Naturally I am embarrassed by this and extend my apologies to all here for my part in this.
My involvement was originally in looking at a set of 18 hole plans apparently drawn by Mackenzie for Riviera. They certainly appeared genuine to me based upon the numerous Mac plans I have seen over the years, and I said so.
Obviously I am very disappointed, upset and saddened that Ian fabricated the report, which naturally casts a grim shadow over all this material, the Riviera drawings included. What material is genuine and what material is not is now mixed up in a murky soup. Sadly it's all tainted now.
While I find it difficult to believe that these Mac plans plus the two from Augusta that I have seen, are forged, and while that possibility has always been there, it is perhaps far more prominent now. Anyway, there will be more fall-out on this to come no doubt.
For my part, I have argued a case that I believed in, in good faith. For being wrong, well, mea culpa.
Neil,
You, Phil and Ian Scott Taylor explicitly instructed those you shared the purported Alister MacKenzie Riviera drawings with to keep the sketches from being shown to me. Your lengthy authentication report was a key component of the attempt to sell these drawings and yet, knowing my background as author of books on Riviera and George Thomas, you conspired in the not-so-good-faith effort to not ask if I had thoughts on the authenticity of the drawings, or to provide some insight into who did renovation work at Riviera prior to the 1929 Los Angeles Open (it was not Alister MacKenzie, as you now hopefully know and something confirmed as not possible by your own MacKenzie timeline).
So do not suggest here this was a good faith effort on your part or Phil Young's. There was a concerted effort to deceive and conceal by both you and Young. This is not behavior consistent with how historians who truly love this art share information amongst themselves.
Sorry Geoff, but that just sounds like petulance on your part just because you weren't consulted on your pet subject. I've no idea who Neil (and Phil) shared information with but as I understand it they were instructed by IST as to who they could share info with. If they didn't share info with you because of IST's instructions then I suggest your beef is with him rather than Neil.
Niall
-
Rich
Are you taking the piss? The entire list was a fabrication, as was the article in which it supposedly appeared.
-
John and Kelly:
Thank you for reminding everyone about the disgusting incident that took place on this chat room in regards to the fake golf course rankings article. When the scam artists were brought to light they immediately defended themselves by placing blame on those who reproduced the work as if somehow trusting the integrity of the chat room was the real problem.
We now have a second incident of the site attempting to perpetuate a fraud, which means there is a pattern of deceit here.
From the very beginning there were problems with this tale of sketches, meetings and a rewriting of history. First, in my mind, a former newspaper reporter who investigated corruption and fraud, was why bring this “discovery” to light here on a chat room with marginal reputation for honesty? Had there been unequivocal proof that these documents were genuine, the likes of Golf Digest, the Guardian or the Smithsonian magazine would have been interested in revealing them to the golf world. Those involved knew this is not a place to hold the research up to legitimate and fair criticism, but it is a place where deception is embraced.
The fact is the people who run this chat room had an active and supportive role in perpetuating this swindle. Had it been pulled off and some of the fakes sold as genuine before the con came to life then certain individuals may have found themselves in court defending their actions. Claiming ignorance and/or stupidity is not the best defense for such actions. Claiming ignorance, though, is apparently a good way to get people to keep supporting you financially. Some people will always willingly drink the Kook-Aid. Dr. Oz is still in business even after duping hundreds of thousands with a tale of bogus weight loss pills.
Adam Lawrence and some others should be lauded for not only displaying a healthy skepticism and revealing the fraud, but also doing without the mean-spiritedness that is a hallmark of this chat room. He gave the dishonorable a chance to remove themselves from the scheme while still maintaining a bit of their honor. They chose not to. He is a gentleman for doing so.
There are many conclusion to be reached here but, for me, one stands out: this chat room is not a bastion of integrity (except for Joseph Bausch, Adam Lawrence and a scant few others) and, therefore, it is not a place for serious discussions of history, facts and truths. It is a place to bloviate, to deceive, it inflate one's ego. In other words, it is a barroom.
Those who wish to push aside this incident as if it is nothing but an unfortunate small error, fail to realize that this wretched episode has the potential to harm those of us who make a living striving to research and write golf course history while maintaining the highest standards of research that we can. When a supposedly bona fide historian is shown to be anything but, I fear others in the field will suffer.
I’m genuinely sorry that this incident happened and that many of you have seen the curtain pulled back on a hero or two, but I am not at all surprised.
Anthony
Anthony
I think you could do with turning down the pomposity level by a notch or two. ;)
Niall
-
How many people actually "make a living" from researching golf course history?
Honest question.
In the five years or so that I spent most of my non-leisure time researching and writing books, articles, and posting on GCA.com, I made probably more than 95%+ of GCA writers/researchers, but that was enough make a living if and only if one defined a "living" in Third World terms. "Beer money" was probably a more descriptive term in regard to my "income," but because I can consume large quantities of beer, I never managed to reach the beer=income Nirvana sought by writers of any ilk.
-
It is my understanding that all map makers include small errors in their productions spsecifically to entrap violators of their copyright. This was told to me by a friend who was a professional map maker.
I finally understand why Apple Maps is so crappy.
-
It is my understanding that all map makers include small errors in their productions spsecifically to entrap violators of their copyright. This was told to me by a friend who was a professional map maker.
I finally understand why Apple Maps is so crappy.
If you think that's bad, try using their GPS on Long Island:)
-
Michael, you genuinely think it's acceptable to present material lies as facts? Really?
When you are being burgled, it's fine to say that you can't remember the combination to the safe.
-
Rich
Are you taking the piss? The entire list was a fabrication, as was the article in which it supposedly appeared.
I thought you were referring to the I S-T map/tablecloth/whatever from the Scores Hotel that is the subject of this thread rather than FFFF. Of course FFFF was entirely bogus.
-
There are many conclusion to be reached here but, for me, one stands out: this chat room is not a bastion of integrity (except for Joseph Bausch, Adam Lawrence and a scant few others) and, therefore, it is not a place for serious discussions of history, facts and truths. It is a place to bloviate, to deceive, it inflate one's ego.
AP
This is well beyond the pale. One could comfortably steer clear of this latest mess or take a wait and see attitude without losing any sense of integrity. Fact is, most people couldn't care at all...even among wing nuts simply because this is small beer. A few people did care enough to investigate. So what? They cared about this situation and other did not. It has nothing to do with across the board integrity...but I will give you that some people bloviate...though I don't know why. Since you deem it fit to imply that I have no integrity, I will start by asking you.
Ciao
+1
-
Can't get the chant out of my head:
''There's only one David Scott-Taylor.........''
Probably just me.
-
As usual, I am late to the party. Candidly, I am always skeptical of the historical revelations trumpeted on the board and only read the entire thread shortly before the retraction. I respectfully make the following observations;
1. The title of this thread is misleading and incorrect. The conclusion is not sad, it is a recognition that a fraud could no longer be perpetrated. The commencement of the thread was the "sad" event.
2. Equally sad was a significant portion of the discussion. Too much of it was an attempt to turn an extraordinary effort at fact checking by a careful examination of obscure historical sources into an attack on the motives of those who suspected that something was missing and were willing to spend the time, effort and talent to uncover it. It is no secret that certain of our members have no use for certain other members. That is unfortunate but true. In matters of opinion, while exhibitions of those personal feelings may add little to a discussion other than unpleasantness, they do little harm. But here, where there was an attempt to ascertain the validity of factual assertions, there is no room for those type of attacks. This was an analytical exercise and the identity of the proponents of either side was irrelevant. Personal attacks of that type distract from the discussion and may even , by design or otherwise, serve to dissuade those who have something to contribute to the dialogue from entering the fray. In this case, those who suffered the greatest personal attacks turned out to be correct. Yet few who attacked them have conceded that they should not have done so. We all owe a debt of gratitude to those who stayed the course and set the facts straight. I, for one, am proud of their work. On occasion, I have had the duty of exposing frauds as part of my work. I know the difficulties involved but at least I get paid for my efforts. Thus much of my admiration is borne out of personal experience.
3. We must be careful about the use of our site. As noted, this is the second time historical "data" was presented as being factual which later turned out to be knowingly false. The first time was justified as having been a joke gone astray or perhaps a way of exposing those who used this site as a source without acknowledgement. It was an admitted error and we all believe it will not be countenanced again. This time was different. We all can suspect the motives, but this was a knowing fraud and when questioned, the principal moving party continually added to his misrepresentations until he could go no further and confessed. In the future, if threads such as these are to be permitted, they should not be trumpeted as important findings unless we are prepared to expose them to preliminary screening. Alternatively, they should be issued with a warning, suggesting that no verification has been undertaken and that the reader should be skeptical
4. This is a wonderful site for the most part. Many of us have made good friends here. A lot of us, myself included, have learned about courses, architecture, maintenance, construction, club governance and the like from those more experienced. It is a wonderful place to compare opinions and discuss, even argue, the merits of all of these subjects. But there are limitations. When we delve into the area of real historical research it is no longer "fun and games"; there are accepted standards pertaining to accuracy in force. So if we are to venture into these areas, we should understand that the rules change and we should act accordingly. Otherwise, we risk the loss of credibility in all areas.
5. A final note and I apologize if I sound like a scold. The ad hominem attacks that I criticized in connection with this thread pervade too many other discussions. While they may not be as destructive in other contexts, they are no more enlightening. It is possible to disagree with someone without calling him a jerk. Moreover, if you explain why you disagree, it may help your "opponent" and others understand your point of view and lead to a more interesting discussion which involves an actual exchange of ideas. When that occurs, we all have a chance to learn something. Moreover, the Board becomes a more pleasant place.
-
Well said, Shel, as always.
I wonder if #5 isn't a bit of an unattainable goal, but it is certainly an admirable one.
-
George and Shel - 5 isn't unattainable so long as you remember the Golden Rule: only say things you'd say if you were sitting across form the person at dinner in front of everyone.
-
Anthony,
Integrity is a tough word. It's never used when describing a middle ground. Seems it either describes one of great integrity or lack of integrity but never just average integrity. But with respect to those who enjoy writing golf architectural history I am sure there is plenty of integrity to go around. However, think of the entire business of golf design. It is a brutal business with architects insulting integrity of other architects all the time in subtle yet polite ways. Go to the average golf architect website who worked for one of the signatures and is now on his own. If they are an ASGCA member they probably used 5 of the courses of the signature as their sample of works. And most of the websites will have the work of the signatures listed as their works in their portfolios. It's almost like a caddy listing his player's tournament wins as his own. Does integrity fit here? There is so much more to golf design than just drawing or going to a site visit. Selling and finding the work is probably more important for survival. And that is always where integrity gets mentioned. Now going back to the ODG's .....why is DR such a big name today? Here is a guy who did not even go to some of the courses he is credited with designing and on some was only there for a day and the members of the clubs described in this sentence will be quick to tell you their course is a DR course. OK... might be but it depends on how one defines design. It works well for marketing but most archies know he could not have done it that way. I'm not sure there is much integrity n a membership promoting a course as a DR gem if he were never there. The truth is that in modern times no one needed to pay a marketing fee to DR as they would a signature and an entire segment of the design industry could market themselves as DR experts at the same time....the entire industry has integrity issues and most could care less about the truthful history if it gets in the way of branding...I just see a lot of infotainment in golf design history.....cheers...
-
Go to the average golf architect website who worked for one of the signatures and is now on his own. If they are an ASGCA member they probably used 5 of the courses of the signature as their sample of works. And most of the websites will have the work of the signatures listed as their works in their portfolios. It's almost like a caddy listing his player's tournament wins as his own.
That's not really a valid analogy. You don't have Bones hitting all of the shots through the tournament and then just have Phil show up to collect the trophy - but my understanding is that is how it can be with some GCAs.
-
Go to the average golf architect website who worked for one of the signatures and is now on his own. If they are an ASGCA member they probably used 5 of the courses of the signature as their sample of works. And most of the websites will have the work of the signatures listed as their works in their portfolios. It's almost like a caddy listing his player's tournament wins as his own.
That's not really a valid analogy. You don't have Bones hitting all of the shots through the tournament and then just have Phil show up to collect the trophy - but my understanding is that is how it can be with some GCAs.
Wayne,
It may be more valid than many think. It is not always the case but there are plenty of examples where an associate really has no clue how to get the product on the ground and is totally dependent on a good contractor. All you have to do is ask a few of the contractors off the record... ;D
-
Say what? A discussion on an obvious fraud gets turned to a broad based blast on ASGCA ethics?
Usually, (although not always, as I heard a vicious rumor today.....) if an ASGCA member has worked for another firm, he uses those projects in his resume with permission of the old boss, providing it is listed that he was with the firm at the time. And, to get into ASGCA, we have lots of members double check the associate well enough to know that he could finish a course by himself (herself) and has been involved in all aspects.
While every architect has a variety of strengths, in general, I will disagree with Mikes post. Although, I suspect I know who he may be talking about......the field has no rumor shortage, that is for sure.
-
As one who has been supportive of Phil and Ian i am obviously disappointed and saddened to learn that the authentication report was not genuine and that Ian had written it. Naturally I am embarrassed by this and extend my apologies to all here for my part in this.
My involvement was originally in looking at a set of 18 hole plans apparently drawn by Mackenzie for Riviera. They certainly appeared genuine to me based upon the numerous Mac plans I have seen over the years, and I said so.
Obviously I am very disappointed, upset and saddened that Ian fabricated the report, which naturally casts a grim shadow over all this material, the Riviera drawings included. What material is genuine and what material is not is now mixed up in a murky soup. Sadly it's all tainted now.
While I find it difficult to believe that these Mac plans plus the two from Augusta that I have seen, are forged, and while that possibility has always been there, it is perhaps far more prominent now. Anyway, there will be more fall-out on this to come no doubt.
For my part, I have argued a case that I believed in, in good faith. For being wrong, well, mea culpa.
Neil,
You, Phil and Ian Scott Taylor explicitly instructed those you shared the purported Alister MacKenzie Riviera drawings with to keep the sketches from being shown to me. Your lengthy authentication report was a key component of the attempt to sell these drawings and yet, knowing my background as author of books on Riviera and George Thomas, you conspired in the not-so-good-faith effort to not ask if I had thoughts on the authenticity of the drawings, or to provide some insight into who did renovation work at Riviera prior to the 1929 Los Angeles Open (it was not Alister MacKenzie, as you now hopefully know and something confirmed as not possible by your own MacKenzie timeline).
So do not suggest here this was a good faith effort on your part or Phil Young's. There was a concerted effort to deceive and conceal by both you and Young. This is not behavior consistent with how historians who truly love this art share information amongst themselves.
Sorry Geoff, but that just sounds like petulance on your part just because you weren't consulted on your pet subject. I've no idea who Neil (and Phil) shared information with but as I understand it they were instructed by IST as to who they could share info with. If they didn't share info with you because of IST's instructions then I suggest your beef is with him rather than Neil.
Niall
Niall,
In fairness, I think Geoff has earned being consulted on something like the reported Mackenzie Riviera sketch. I mean really, knowing Geoff's study of Riviera, Thomas and Mackenzie, why would someone who genuinely wanted to authenticate such a sketch, not have Geoff high on their list of people to call?
Were it me, I would call Geoff as soon as I was presented with the sketch and would be grateful for whatever time he took checking it out regardless of how the authenticifcation process turned out.
-
Say what? A discussion on an obvious fraud gets turned to a broad based blast on ASGCA ethics?
Usually, (although not always, as I heard a vicious rumor today.....) if an ASGCA member has worked for another firm, he uses those projects in his resume with permission of the old boss, providing it is listed that he was with the firm at the time. And, to get into ASGCA, we have lots of members double check the associate well enough to know that he could finish a course by himself (herself) and has been involved in all aspects.
While every architect has a variety of strengths, in general, I will disagree with Mikes post. Although, I suspect I know who he may be talking about......the field has no rumor shortage, that is for sure.
Jeff,
Sorry but did not mean for it to sound like a question of ASGCA ethics and I wasn't speaking of any particular one. Let me try it this way. Having the permission of a principal to use their courses as ones work examples for ASGCA application may be totally acceptable for the ASGCA. However, the golf world accept those projects as the work of the principal and it is the principal that goes on record as having designed the courses. When you see a particular website of an architect and all of the course shown are from a past employer and it does not specifically say so then that can be a little misleading. That can be whether one is ASGCA or not....did not mean for it to sound as though it was ASGCA specific...
-
One must consider the possibility that the reason Geoff was not consulted was because he would've flushed out the ruse and the gig would've been up.
-
One must also consider the possibility that Geoff considered that possibility when he made his post.
-
Some people seek protection from a handgun, some the police, some seek a god, others simply hide; me, I will always want a damn good lawyer in my corner because of their training, persistence, experiences, ability to manipulate facts and truth to your benefit, and lack of compassion for those who oppose them; real street fighters without the weapons.
This is a fantastic quote. I'd like to hang it on my wall.
-
Is this the ugliest thread ever on GCA?
Only one person has been caught doing anything wrong Ian Scott Taylor, yet we have endless posts knifing our fellow posters and even the whole group! NO one is innocent unless they can prove it. Nonsense.
Not one person has expressed a wish to find out more about how the deception was carried out or the exact roles that each party played, instead we all happy to express our opinion in the absence of facts.
If you believe you have never been taken in by a deliberate deception, then more fool you. Potentially there’s a very interesting back story here and I count myself lucky that I was never invited into a little group to see a few morsels of this amazing new find…
-
Only one person has been caught doing anything wrong Ian Scott Taylor, yet we have endless posts knifing our fellow posters and even the whole group! NO one is innocent unless they can prove it. Nonsense.
If you believe you have never been taken in by a deliberate deception, then more fool you. Potentially there’s a very interesting back story here and I count myself lucky that I was never invited into a little group to see a few morsels of this amazing new find…
Tony,
I am happy to knife others :) - because I feel like a fool for being sucked in by Neil Crafter's and Phillip Young's deception.
When I first expressed the possibility that the authentication report was a fake, Neil wrote
David E
I can assure you that the report is not a fake, and was contributed to by a host of different specialists in their fields from across Britain's top institutions.
Given Neil's strong standing as a researcher and his more intimate knowledge of the report, I was happy to take his word that the report was real.
So forgive my shock when yesterday I find out that Neil is "not sure how [he] was to check that [the report] was legit" and that he simply "took it at face value." It turns out that his intitial post, which I gave strong weight to, (and the condescending nature of the rest of his intial post) was nothing but bluff.
It's easy to give a pass to Neil and Phil for being sucked in. But no way do they deserve a pass for sucking me (and others) in by giving me and others an assurance that the authentication report was genuine when they had no direct knowledge and (deliberately?) made no direct inquiries as to the reports authenticity.
In all honesty, it pisses me off, and not just because I feel like a fool for believing Neil and Phil were thorough researchers.
-
I don't mind the initial IMO post, even if it was not fully vetted. It was entertaining and exciting.
Soon, there was so much additional information presented that a rational person would question the veracity of the IST material. Ardent resistance to gaping holes in the narrative should be the thing to be embarrassed by.
-
I am not a professional researcher or writer. My one very limited effort was trying to investigate a rumor that Hackensack GC was routed by Raynor, then built by Banks after Raynor died. (Even Dan Wexler's book still lists HGC as a Raynor.) I spent a few days in the Hackensack City Public Library and many hours reading through all the old documents in our club's basement. The result was that I definitively proved that HGC was 100% Banks; Raynor had died six months before we acquired the land where the current course sits.
Looking back, I still feel guilty because when I set out to do my research I was privately hoping to prove Raynor's involvement. I thought Raynor's name was a bit more prestigeous than Banks' and I wanted to be the one who proved this. It taught me a valuable lesson: a good researcher can't root for a certain outcome. He can only find all possible facts so that the conclusion "writes itself."
It seems obvious to me that while Phil may be a prolific Tillinghast researcher, his problem is that he is also a huge Tillinghast fan. He rooted for an outcome and set aside sound professional research procedures. He knows this and I can only imagine how this is tearing him up now. No words written on this site can hurt him as much as this knowledge. There is no need to pile on; no need to analyze the sincerity of Phil's written apology. We can just learn that if you are researching something and have a bias towards a certain outcome, alarm bells should be going off in your head. You are at risk of making big mistakes. We all have biases. A good researcher must recognize his biases and redouble his efforts to find true facts and not allow his biases to enter into his conclusions.
-
As one who has been supportive of Phil and Ian i am obviously disappointed and saddened to learn that the authentication report was not genuine and that Ian had written it. Naturally I am embarrassed by this and extend my apologies to all here for my part in this.
My involvement was originally in looking at a set of 18 hole plans apparently drawn by Mackenzie for Riviera. They certainly appeared genuine to me based upon the numerous Mac plans I have seen over the years, and I said so.
Obviously I am very disappointed, upset and saddened that Ian fabricated the report, which naturally casts a grim shadow over all this material, the Riviera drawings included. What material is genuine and what material is not is now mixed up in a murky soup. Sadly it's all tainted now.
While I find it difficult to believe that these Mac plans plus the two from Augusta that I have seen, are forged, and while that possibility has always been there, it is perhaps far more prominent now. Anyway, there will be more fall-out on this to come no doubt.
For my part, I have argued a case that I believed in, in good faith. For being wrong, well, mea culpa.
Neil,
You, Phil and Ian Scott Taylor explicitly instructed those you shared the purported Alister MacKenzie Riviera drawings with to keep the sketches from being shown to me. Your lengthy authentication report was a key component of the attempt to sell these drawings and yet, knowing my background as author of books on Riviera and George Thomas, you conspired in the not-so-good-faith effort to not ask if I had thoughts on the authenticity of the drawings, or to provide some insight into who did renovation work at Riviera prior to the 1929 Los Angeles Open (it was not Alister MacKenzie, as you now hopefully know and something confirmed as not possible by your own MacKenzie timeline).
So do not suggest here this was a good faith effort on your part or Phil Young's. There was a concerted effort to deceive and conceal by both you and Young. This is not behavior consistent with how historians who truly love this art share information amongst themselves.
Sorry Geoff, but that just sounds like petulance on your part just because you weren't consulted on your pet subject. I've no idea who Neil (and Phil) shared information with but as I understand it they were instructed by IST as to who they could share info with. If they didn't share info with you because of IST's instructions then I suggest your beef is with him rather than Neil.
Niall
Niall,
In fairness, I think Geoff has earned being consulted on something like the reported Mackenzie Riviera sketch. I mean really, knowing Geoff's study of Riviera, Thomas and Mackenzie, why would someone who genuinely wanted to authenticate such a sketch, not have Geoff high on their list of people to call?
Were it me, I would call Geoff as soon as I was presented with the sketch and would be grateful for whatever time he took checking it out regardless of how the authenticifcation process turned out.
Tim
Really ? So if someone gave you something in confidence on the understanding that you specifically not share it with someone else, you would share it any way ? The word integrity has been used a lot on this thread, and while Neil was wrong about IST and consequently the material IST was peddling, I don't think you can accuse him of not acting with integrity.
Niall
-
I am happy to knife others :) - because I feel like a fool for being sucked in by Neil Crafter's and Phillip Young's deception.
Possibly the ugliest thing I've read on GCA. To accuse Neil and Phil of being knowingly complicit in the fraud is a nonsense. As for the assertion that the first thing you should do when handed a professional report is assume it might be fake and therefore test it accordingly........well that's just as ludicrious as accusing Neil Crafter of wilfully taking part in a fraud.
Niall
-
Niall,
In fairness, I think Geoff has earned being consulted on something like the reported Mackenzie Riviera sketch. I mean really, knowing Geoff's study of Riviera, Thomas and Mackenzie, why would someone who genuinely wanted to authenticate such a sketch, not have Geoff high on their list of people to call?
Were it me, I would call Geoff as soon as I was presented with the sketch and would be grateful for whatever time he took checking it out regardless of how the authenticifcation process turned out.
Tim,
I question if this is how it works! As alluded to by RJ, the study of history is also a business. I wouldn't call in TD or MY if I got a great commission just to "make sure it was right." (wouldn't feel I had to)
Perhaps a better analogy is news. A newspaper reporter with a scoop isn't going to share it with a rival paper just to triple check the facts. The goal is to get the scoop, but there is the strong professional creed (and need to avoid embarrassment) of getting it right, as well as getting it fast. Given both Phil and Geoff are in the business of golf history, I think this is a practical consideration, and the reason why Geoff wasn't consulted. And frankly, I wonder if the tables were turned, if he would consider it necessary to consult Phil.
A couple of other points already made here - Phil Young (really most golf architecture history researchers) are no Steven Ambrose or Ken Burns! None that I know of has been trained as a researcher, they are merely fans, smart men, and have the time/personal situation to pursue those kinds of things, so they do. So, the professional standard may not be as high as other fields yet (and maybe rightly so. In truth, there is little damage to a course being attributed wrongly...although again, this is a special case of, I think, intentional fraud which might have some damage financially.)
Lastly, it occurs to me that yes, Phil is a Tilly fan, which clouded his judgment, but then, isn't that the case with most sportswriters and their subjects? In the past, sort of the glossy treatments were just sort of the norm. It wasn't particularly thought of as integrity to point out Babe Ruth's or even Dick Wilson's drinking habits.
In general, it is now. And, for whatever reason, standards in gca history seem to be rising (oddly, in some cases by lowering the standards of good taste in the name of accuracy). It may be just because we frequent here, but it seems some of our participants are right in the middle of that. So, while ugly, maybe in the big picture, this really is a positive development for golf club atlas!
-
Tim,
I question if this is how it works! As alluded to by RJ, the study of history is also a business. I wouldn't call in TD or MY if I got a great commission just to "make sure it was right." (wouldn't feel I had to)
But Jeff, think about all of the INTEGRITY that would be oozing from a project where the three of us made sure it was "right" ;D ;D
-
Ironically, I read these quotes just yesterday while sitting on the beach and knocking down a cold one:
"If you would be a real seeker of truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
- Rene Descartes
and
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
- Soren Kierkegard
Fwiw.
Bogey
-
Ironically, I read these quotes just yesterday while sitting on the beach and knocking down a cold one:
"If you would be a real seeker of truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
- Rene Descartes
and
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
- Soren Kierkegard
Fwiw.
Bogey
Wow, Descartes and Kierkegard while relaxing on the beach, a real renaissance man!
Bogey
[/quote]
-
Ironically, I read these quotes just yesterday while sitting on the beach and knocking down a cold one:
"If you would be a real seeker of truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
- Rene Descartes
and
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
- Soren Kierkegard
Fwiw.
Bogey
Just capturing this before you try and edit it! ;)
Nice post I hope the other Hillbillies like it too Bogey. Descartes and Kierkegard wow! Reminds me of the episode of Frasier where Martin asks Daphne where the dustpan and brush are, as the boys have started competitive name dropping again!
Edit Great minds Joey.
-
Bibo ergo sum
-
Bibo ergo sum
My Latin is dodgy but I believe that translates to "I have a copy of Bartlett's, therefore I quote".
P.S. On second thought, maybe it's "I drink, then I post". Nah, that sounds like Barney not Bogey.
-
The question of Phil's involvement in this affair seems to hinge on statements like this excerpt from his "hubris" apology:
I have been involved with a series of ongoing research projects for the Scott-Taylor family separate from the Tillinghast drawings. I am currently not at liberty to reveal what they involve and will not do so. They involve information found throughout many different volumes of the journals of Dr. Scott-Taylor and in each case I actually did see photographs of the relevant pages from them. They were exactly correct in backing up what the family had told me about the things they had me researching.
To me that seems to say that there are a number of things "checking out" about the diaries and he has done all the necessary research work, but isn't allowed to reveal it. He called Ian Scott-Taylor "my friend". But now that his trust was betrayed, I suppose he doesn't feel bound by this friendship anymore. Therefore it would be good to hear the entire story from him, what exactly he has researched and established about the materials.
Ulrich
-
And how about this quote from Ran Morrissett:
What I can speak directly to is that I have personally seen with my own eyes proof positive that the paper/journals have been in the care of the lawyers and stored by their firm at their offices since the death of David Scott-Taylor in 1933. To me, that means we are looking at material of age.
Sorry, if I ruffle some feathers, but perhaps this affair should be cleared up in its entirety.
Ulrich
-
Bibo ergo sum
I drink therefore I am.
-
Kelly, thanks for bringing Michael's reply up, I had missed it.
Michael, the analogy is not valid as it ignores the primary party (readers of GCA.com) and only addresses an issue with a third party. I am not sure the analogy could be stretched; the question would be something like, is it acceptable to cheat on your wife, or to betray a friend's trust, to catch someone stealing something from your safe? Further, if the question really is a utilitarian one, I've asking whether ends justify the means, then it probably should be expanded note that the safe is either empty or contains not much of value - meaning specifically here that the monetary damages to GCA.com would appear nil to small.
-
Jeff Brauer,
Good post. Honestly, I really haven't given the business side of this much thought. My assumption was that ownership of the materials was not in dispute, just the authenticity. So, when the time came for any potential financial gain, the party to receive such gain was not in dispute. The task was just to authenticate and for that I believe Geoff Shackelford would have been an appropriate source to contribute to the process.
As for GolfClubAtlas, overall I believe it has been to the benefit of the site. Honestly, I am amazed people like David Moriarty put so much time and effort into the issue, but that is to their credit and, I think, to the credit of this website for bringing us all together.
A couple thoughts about Ran in all of this:
I strongly believe Ran has secured a place for himself in the history of writing and commentary about golf architecture. I won't say that my golf architecture library is world class, but it is about 350 books, including most of the most well known for golf architecture junkies like ourselves. Based in that, I think I can say that Ran's course review writing is as good as anything that has been produced and arguably the very best.
Then, of course, there is the sometimes maligned discussion group. Not perfect. Could be better. But, in the grand scheme, it is something really great which I think we should all cherish. Just my opinion.
So, I was a little shocked to learn just recently about the Foulpointe story. What I think this Scott Taylor thing demonstrates, is that a Foulpointe like action should just be avoided. Ran has a huge bank of good will for those of us who just love golf architecture and that should be protected, not depleted. Please note that I am not suggesting the Scott Taylor thing is exactly the same as Foulpointe, just that it does offer a lesson.
All that aside, I very much appreciate your contributions to this site. Really nice that we have a balance of professionals and hobbyists.
-
Ironically, I read these quotes just yesterday while sitting on the beach and knocking down a cold one:
"If you would be a real seeker of truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
- Rene Descartes
and
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
- Soren Kierkegard
Fwiw.
Bogey
Wow! No wonder he considers Game of Thrones cookbook "so last year" :):) Happily I will solve that problem:):)
-
I am happy to knife others :) - because I feel like a fool for being sucked in by Neil Crafter's and Phillip Young's deception.
Possibly the ugliest thing I've read on GCA. To accuse Neil and Phil of being knowingly complicit in the fraud is a nonsense. As for the assertion that the first thing you should do when handed a professional report is assume it might be fake and therefore test it accordingly........well that's just as ludicrious as accusing Neil Crafter of wilfully taking part in a fraud.
Niall
"Trust but Verify" is the rule of thumb for anyone seeking the truth. When you are not willing to do even the easiest and simplest fact checking, and not only that, but to vehemently denounce others who do so, you are exposed as a fool - because you are. There is nothing ugly about it, it is just a statement of fact.
-
From Merriam-Webster - "deception, fraud, double-dealing, subterfuge, trickery mean the acts or practices of one who deliberately deceives."
Richard
See above. David was asserting that Neil and Phil had willfully set out to deceive. I suspect he's the only one on here who thinks that, or at least I hope he is. While he might be disappointed in the stance they took, accusing them of deception is a nonsense and really quite ugly, to borrow a phrase from Tony.
With regards to how you treat "professional" reports, let me suggest that as Neil/Phil believed IST was genuine, and lets face it the guy comes across as very plausible given his gca background etc, then I don't think it unreasonable not to question whether the report is a fake. Indeed in 30 odd years in business where I've dealt with professional reports on a daily basis, I've never even thought if checking if the report is for real, even when I strongly disagree with its contents or think it poorly written. I suspect most people on here would agree with that.
It appears that IST seems to have built his deceipt on the validity of these reports. While the naysayers were able to pick holes in the various material, they had the great benefit of not having been taken in by these reports or of having been charmed by IST, and therefore approached the issue with perhaps a more open mind.
Niall
-
Jeff Brauer,
Good post. Honestly, I really haven't given the business side of this much thought. My assumption was that ownership of the materials was not in dispute, just the authenticity. So, when the time came for any potential financial gain, the party to receive such gain was not in dispute. The task was just to authenticate and for that I believe Geoff Shackelford would have been an appropriate source to contribute to the process..........
All that aside, I very much appreciate your contributions to this site. Really nice that we have a balance of professionals and hobbyists.
Tim,
I agree the ownership is clearly IST and family. And, if he/they were truly trying to authenticate old materials, it would have been his call to bring in a second and third opinion. And, they did, (although maybe it took some prodding from this site) and thought that the handwriting, ink and paper experts were the proper ones to authenticate the materials, rather than a Geoff Shack type (who basically is in the same arena as Phil) to bring a differing perspective to the process. And if they got around to the supposed Riviera sketches, then Geoff would be a more proper expert as author of the club history than anyone else, of course. There really would be nothing wrong about calling him in on any Mac stuff. As you say, it would make sense to have the foremost Mac guys look at it, just as it made sense for Phil to look at the Tilly stuff. Credentials do matter, I suspect.
I feel as if Phil felt he would be good enough, and wanted to be the only one historian involved, to get the scoop on a find under his special area of interest. Again, just a guess from Phil's perspective, since IST clearly didn't actually authenticate anything.
As you can tell, I am not ready to throw Phil under the bus as a co-conspirator on a public site, given how serious an accusation that is. Given what little I know, I am not even willing to call Phil really dumb, just because good con men can be so convincing.
-
Niall,
I don't think anyone is faulting Phil or Neil for getting duped by a con-artist. Ran certainly falls in to the same bucket, but he is not being denigrated here (at least not for this particular incident alone).
It is fine for somebody to believe what they have been told without double checking initially. However, when others point out the inconsistencies, factual errors, and other objectionable materials from the said material, you have an obligation to check the source material to see if it is in fact a genuine article. Especially, when you are the only ones with the relevant information. This is what I do whenever I am offered conflicting information in my line of work, I would certainly hope that you do as well.
The fact that Phil and Neil failed to do so, and worse yet, attacked others who did fact checking is what is going to ruin their reputations. Anyone can make honest mistakes, not everyone turns mistakes into bigger disasters.
-
Richard
I put the dictionary definition in there to show that what David Elvins was accusing Neil of was deliberate deception rather than being an unwitting participant in a decpetion. That is a huge difference and quite unwarranted. I'd like to think David will reflect on that and perhaps modify or clarify what exactly he means. Hugely disappointed he may be, but I would hope that he would still be able to make a considered judgement.
With regards to reports, I've never phoned up a consultant or professional firm and asked whether they actually produced a report just in case what I had been given was a fake. I've often phoned up to ask what their report actually means but that's a different matter. :) I take your point that many on here and presumably Max's were questioning this report. On the other hand they were doing so without having had sight of the report but on the evidence of the findings. On the other hand Ran/Phil/Neil were in the "privileged" position of having a copy of the report or at least having seen it (or at least I'm assuming they had). Putting myself in their position, having been sucked in by IST, who on the face of it seems to be very persuasive and plausible, I very much doubt I'd have questioned the authenticity of the report even if I didn't agree with the findings.
It appears to me that IST has been very clever in using Ran, Phil and Neil as a human shield and it is really him we should be directing our anger.
Niall
-
Richard
I put the dictionary definition in there to show that what David Elvins was accusing Neil of was deliberate deception rather than being an unwitting participant in a decpetion. That is a huge difference and quite unwarranted. I'd like to think David will reflect on that and perhaps modify or clarify what exactly he means. Hugely disappointed he may be, but I would hope that he would still be able to make a considered judgement.
With regards to reports, I've never phoned up a consultant or professional firm and asked whether they actually produced a report just in case what I had been given was a fake. I've often phoned up to ask what their report actually means but that's a different matter. :) I take your point that many on here and presumably Max's were questioning this report. On the other hand they were doing so without having had sight of the report but on the evidence of the findings. On the other hand Ran/Phil/Neil were in the "privileged" position of having a copy of the report or at least having seen it (or at least I'm assuming they had). Putting myself in their position, having been sucked in by IST, who on the face of it seems to be very persuasive and plausible, I very much doubt I'd have questioned the authenticity of the report even if I didn't agree with the findings.
It appears to me that IST has been very clever in using Ran, Phil and Neil as a human shield and it is really him we should be directing our anger.
Niall
Niall-The idea that Phil and Neil have no culpability in perpetuating the IST ruse is farcical. As Richard so aptly points out there was a myriad of conflicting information that these guys justly blindly ignored. Shouldn't the light have gone on at some point that there was a problem? I just don't see how you can stand behind Phil and Neil and act as if they didn't have some responsibility to substantiate the information in light of so many inconsistencies. It doesn't seem that any points are awarded in the research area for blind faith.
-
Seven pages? Everything that needed to be said on this topic was said back on page one.
Yawn....get over it.
-
Seven pages? Everything that needed to be said on this topic was said back on page one.
Yawn....get over it.
What's that saying?
"The thing speaks for itself."
Around here even the most obvious "thing" doesn't speak for itself, apparently. Not without being drowned out by the usual sectarian bullshit.
-
Tim
Well at least you accept it was an IST ruse as you put it, rather than a Ran/Phil/Neil/IST production, so I suppose that's something.
With regards to what part Phil and Neil (and indeed Ran) played in the IST story, only they can answer but this witch hunt of a couple of guys who do a hell of a lot more than most on this site with regards to uncovering the history of gca is becoming unsavoury in the extreme. This is after all a hobby site, that provides entertainment to those of a certain mind. What they have done is give an honest opinion, and that most on here would say they have been proved wrong in that opinion is neither here nor there, they shouldn't be receiving the level of criticism they are getting.
"Culpability" - you'd think they'd robbed a bank for fecks sake !
Niall
-
Tim
Well at least you accept it was an IST ruse as you put it, rather than a Ran/Phil/Neil/IST production, so I suppose that's something.
With regards to what part Phil and Neil (and indeed Ran) played in the IST story, only they can answer but this witch hunt of a couple of guys who do a hell of a lot more than most on this site with regards to uncovering the history of gca is becoming unsavoury in the extreme. This is after all a hobby site, that provides entertainment to those of a certain mind. What they have done is give an honest opinion, and that most on here would say they have been proved wrong in that opinion is neither here nor there, they shouldn't be receiving the level of criticism they are getting.
"Culpability" - you'd think they'd robbed a bank for fecks sake !
Niall
When you are a historian/researcher you certainly are "culpable" for the supposed factual information you stand behind especially when there are such glaring contradictions. I don't take an ounce of joy in the way this played out but to minimize their role is laughable. The analogy to them robbing a bank is even more so.
-
You don't take joy in it? Oh well that's all right then. What's laughable is someone like you who offers hee haw to the actual debate and then comes in at the end to start slinging mud. Actually I take that back, it's not laughable it's pathetic.
Niall
-
You don't take joy in it? Oh well that's all right then. What's laughable is someone like you who offers hee haw to the actual debate and then comes in at the end to start slinging mud. Actually I take that back, it's not laughable it's pathetic.
Niall
The only pathetic thing I see at this point is guy's like you wishing away their responsibility in the matter and half heartedly trying to give them a pass. Now that's laughable.
-
No idea what "giving them a pass" is meant to mean. Do I think they were wrong in thinking that the material was genuine ? Well obviously. I said so long before you decided to join in heaping abuse.
However what they did was offer their honest opinion no matter how misguided we now think that to be. As I said before, they offered an opinion, not commit a crime hence my comment on the language being used to criticise them.
Niall
-
No idea what "giving them a pass" is meant to mean. Do I think they were wrong in thinking that the material was genuine ? Well obviously. I said so long before you decided to join in heaping abuse.
However what they did was offer their honest opinion no matter how misguided we now think that to be. As I said before, they offered an opinion, not commit a crime hence my comment on the language being used to criticise them.
Niall
Niall,
Neil didn't give an opinion, he gave an assurance. I am surprised you can't see the difference, specifically what iis implied by an assurance.
Anyway, I don't want drag this out, I think I have expressed my disappointment adequately and I bear no ongoing ill will towards Neil and Phil.
-
It seems convenient to paint IST as the devil and all others as his victims. But the facts, as they are known right now, don't support that. The only thing IST has admitted to fabricate is the preliminary authentication report.
In other words, there is still a mountain of possibly genuine material out there including the full authentication report, the drawings and the diaries. Remember, Ran still hasn't retracted his claim that he has 100% positive proof that they are old. Phil still hasn't retracted his claim that according to his research, a lot of their content checks out.
Ulrich
-
Ulrich,
I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for the full authentication report. Surely Ian's fabrication of the interim report suggests that there never was any authentication process commissioned by him, his family, or their solicitors.
I can think of two very good possible reasons why this may be the case;
1. Ian knew that much of the material was false and so couldn't risk exposure.
2. Ian couldn't afford to pay for authentication. The cost would run into many thousands of dollars.
As for Ran and Phil's position; they appear to have dropped Ian completely and run for the hills. Hands will be wiped clean and all blame for the entire fiasco will be heaped on Ian Scott-Taylor in an attempt to save face. Ian's admission of falsifying the report has given them the opportunity they have been waiting for.
The irony is that I suspect that there may well be genuine items of historical interest among the artefacts. These could remain in a masonic chest for another 80 years before a future generation of golf historians 'discovers' them.
That is possibly the "Sad conclusion to the Scott-Taylor matter".
-
Ultimately, Ian's claim wouldn't have meant nearly as much without Ran, Phil & Neil's public backing. Their involvement mattered when these documents were supposed to be legitimate, so their involvement matters now that the whole thing is revealed as a con.
That doesn't make them complicit in the scam, but their reputations are undoubtedly hurt by this because their word meant something and their backing added significant credibility to the claim. Getting it wrong hurts the credibility that made their word mean so much in this case.
Perhaps as unsavoury as trying to con the world and revise history is Ian's seemingly calculated decision to damage three seemingly good men in the process. Still, they need to account for themselves once it started to unravel and they refused to modify their backing for the claim.
-
No idea what "giving them a pass" is meant to mean. Do I think they were wrong in thinking that the material was genuine ? Well obviously. I said so long before you decided to join in heaping abuse.
However what they did was offer their honest opinion no matter how misguided we now think that to be. As I said before, they offered an opinion, not commit a crime hence my comment on the language being used to criticise them.
Niall
Niall,
Neil didn't give an opinion, he gave an assurance. I am surprised you can't see the difference, specifically what iis implied by an assurance.
Anyway, I don't want drag this out, I think I have expressed my disappointment adequately and I bear no ongoing ill will towards Neil and Phil.
David
An assurance yes, but on what basis ? Did he intend to assure you that the material was genuine or that he'd seen a report that says it was genuine. I'm sure Neil will regret more than anyone that he was conned and how he worded his pronouncements on here but the real question to you is when you accused him of deception did you mean that Neil was knowingly party to a fraud ?
Niall
-
WEll, I won't comment again, because I think its all said.
However, the last few posts have me wondering if I am way off base on the self importance some attach to this website?
This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while. Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly. Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil. Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night. It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.
So, while I understand the anger, especially at IST, in general, I don't get the words like culpability, free pass, etc. Especially for Ran, who brings us a web site and content devoted to a little interest group, and acted to bring even more, potentially exciting material for our interest group, mostly at his cost, BTW, and made a mistake.
Fraud happens, maybe Ran and Phil have something to learn from this to make it a better web site, but really, IMHO, that's about it. Sounds like some of you are ready to press charges or hang someone from a tree, when in reality, you may be offended, but you haven't been damaged.
At least in my world, the anger level is far beyond what it really needs to be.
-
This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while. Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly. Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil. Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night. It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.
Jeff,
In the "golf" world this site is extremely relevant and the number of lurkers is exponentially greater than your estimate
-
This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while. Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly. Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil. Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night. It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.
Jeff,
In the "golf" world this site is extremely relevant and the number of lurkers is exponentially greater than your estimate
Patrick is right
-
This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while. Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly. Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil. Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night. It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.
Jeff,
In the "golf" world this site is extremely relevant and the number of lurkers is exponentially greater than your estimate
An honest question Pat: How did you arrive at the conclusion that the site is "extremely relevant"? I don't have a scientific poll, but in my observation the average golfer is completely unaware of this site, and I include both professionals and amateurs. Maybe its because I live in a foreign country and don't talk to English speaking golfers every day. Most superintendents I talk to, including many Americans and Brits (via the internet), don't know about it either, though golf architects I meet are much more likely to post/lurk.
Do you have any figures on the number of lurkers on this site? Jeff guesses there may be 3,000, but if, as you say, it is "exponentially greater" than that, it would be, what, 30,000 lurkers?
I would be pleased if this site were influential in the golfing world, but I've got my doubts.
-
This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while. Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly. Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil. Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night. It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.
Jeff,
In the "golf" world this site is extremely relevant and the number of lurkers is exponentially greater than your estimate
An honest question Pat: How did you arrive at the conclusion that the site is "extremely relevant"?
I don't have a scientific poll, but in my observation the average golfer is completely unaware of this site, and I include both professionals and amateurs.
Steve, you've chosen a specific subset, one that predisposes your opinion, the "average golfer"
The awareness of the site, by serious golfers, and more importantly, serious afficianados of golf course architecture, is quite pronounced.
Maybe its because I live in a foreign country and don't talk to English speaking golfers every day.
Could be.
Most superintendents I talk to, including many Americans and Brits (via the internet), don't know about it either, though golf architects I meet are much more likely to post/lurk.
I've never met a superintendent who wasn't aware of the site.
Do you have any figures on the number of lurkers on this site?
I would imagine that those IT folks who constructed and maintain the site would be able to quantify that, precisely, for you.
Jeff guesses there may be 3,000, but if, as you say, it is "exponentially greater" than that, it would be, what, 30,000 lurkers?
Take your choice, 6,000, 9,000, 12,000, 15,000, 18,000, 21,000, 24,000, 27,000 or 30,000, all exponentially greater than Jeff's guestimate.
I would be pleased if this site were influential in the golfing world, but I've got my doubts.
If it wasn't influential, clubs wouldn't advise members/guests not to post items concerning the club on GCA.com.
If it wasn't influential clubs wouldn't restrict camera usage.
If it wasn't influential name architects wouldn't take exception to some of the postings.
Ditto Superintendents.
If it wasn't influential, ............ I'm sure that all of us can fill in the blanks.
When you consider that individuals, "prominent" in the world of golf, post and lurk on this site, how can you maintain that it's not influential ?
You're here, aren't you ?
-
Pat,
6,000 isn't actually exponential but I am with you on the point you're making. ;D
-
This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while. Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly. Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil. Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night. It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.
Jeff,
In the "golf" world this site is extremely relevant and the number of lurkers is exponentially greater than your estimate
An honest question Pat: How did you arrive at the conclusion that the site is "extremely relevant"?
I don't have a scientific poll, but in my observation the average golfer is completely unaware of this site, and I include both professionals and amateurs.
Steve, you've chosen a specific subset, one that predisposes your opinion, the "average golfer"
The awareness of the site, by serious golfers, and more importantly, serious afficianados of golf course architecture, is quite
pronounced.
But you have also chosen a specific subset, that predisposes your opinion, that of "serious" golfers and aficionados of golf architecture. Could you please elaborate on the word, "pronounced"?
Maybe its because I live in a foreign country and don't talk to English speaking golfers every day.
Could be.
Most superintendents I talk to, including many Americans and Brits (via the internet), don't know about it either, though golf architects I meet are much more likely to post/lurk.
I've never met a superintendent who wasn't aware of the site.
Well then, we're not talking to the same superintendents. We obviously move in different circles, and our respective perspectives reflect that. I'm speculating here, but I would guess the superintendents you talk to are mainly from top tier clubs. I associate with greenkeepers rom all over the place.
Do you have any figures on the number of lurkers on this site?
I would imagine that those IT folks who constructed and maintain the site would be able to quantify that, precisely, for you.
Jeff guesses there may be 3,000, but if, as you say, it is "exponentially greater" than that, it would be, what, 30,000 lurkers?
Take your choice, 6,000, 9,000, 12,000, 15,000, 18,000, 21,000, 24,000, 27,000 or 30,000, all exponentially greater than Jeff's guestimate.
What you are saying is that you don't have any better idea than I do of how many lurkers there actually are.
I would be pleased if this site were influential in the golfing world, but I've got my doubts.
If it wasn't influential, clubs wouldn't advise members/guests not to post items concerning the club on GCA.com.
If it wasn't influential clubs wouldn't restrict camera usage.
If it wasn't influential name architects wouldn't take exception to some of the postings.
Ditto Superintendents.
If it wasn't influential, ............ I'm sure that all of us can fill in the blanks.
When you consider that individuals, "prominent" in the world of golf, post and lurk on this site, how can you maintain that it's not influential ?
You're here, aren't you ?
Fair point, because so are you.
-
There's no anger level on my side and, I suspect, that is true for most, who followed this debate. I also wouldn't go so far as saying that reputations were destroyed. But I do think that the folks, who played a role in this debacle, should come clean and present the entire story as it unfolded for them. But that is just my opinion, of course anyone is free to do as he pleases.
Ulrich
-
There's no anger level on my side and, I suspect, that is true for most, who followed this debate. I also wouldn't go so far as saying that reputations were destroyed. But I do think that the folks, who played a role in this debacle, should come clean and present the entire story as it unfolded for them. But that is just my opinion, of course anyone is free to do as he pleases.
Ulrich
+1
I have a hard time believing that this was a total surprise to Ran, Phil or Neil, by the time the IST confession happened. They HAD to have some questions. I believe that is at least part of the reason that we didn't hear from any of them for a while.
-
There are some on here who feel qualified to judge what is an acceptable level of indignation from others. There are also those who feel that if you didn't add anything to the thread before IST confirmed that the report was a fake that you shouldn't get to weigh in now. That approach certainly doesn't foster "frank commentary".
-
Pat Mucci,
I can confirm that two clubs that are among the biggest names in American golf architecture and USGA national championships asked me not to post anything about them on GolfClubAtlas. Each of those incidents was about ten years ago. So, I believe this web site has been getting lots of attention in the world of golf architecture for quite some time.
-
I am with Steve, that few golfers really know about this site. I picked the 3000 number, knowing that other than a few select architecture books, that is about what the typical architecture book sells. ( I know Whitten says they sold well over 100K of architects of golf over many releases)
I also notice that there are fewer mentions of this site at industry conferences I attend. When I first started, I got a lot of "Way to go, nice post" comments, but its actually been a few years since non participants have even mentioned it to me. Not a valid sample size, to be sure, but one sample, and probably as representative as anyone else's examples/estimates.
Maybe the site has lost some of its buzz?
Also, there were no camera policies well before gca.com came along. And golf course architects were sure sensitive to criticism (first Confidential Guide testifies to that) before this site, etc. I could name others, but I don't think this site changed much, other than (like most internet sites) made it easier to wax eloquently (or not) on your favorite architect or least favorite hole.
Just telling my experiences. And, while I understand the need to make things right when there is a wrong, my guess is that Ran and Phil will go old school, admit it (they have) and then talk as little about it as possible, rather than many long drawn out expose type threads some are calling for. I guess I side with the classier old school treatment, but others may see it differently.
-
Anyone who thinks this site is important must therefore agree that I am important.
-
Anyone who thinks this site is important must therefore agree that I am important.
Yes. Because there is strength in numbers.
-
Pat,
6,000 isn't actually exponential but I am with you on the point you're making. ;D
Before this devolves into another sidetrack, "exponential" isn't really the right word to use. That term would describe a rate of growth (or decay) vs. linear or some other function. It's not really useful to compare 3,000 to another number, because every positive number is exponential to 3,000. 6,000 is exponential to 3,000 - by the exponent 1.086574, to be exact.
Carry on.
-
Pat,
6,000 isn't actually exponential but I am with you on the point you're making. ;D
Before this devolves into another sidetrack, "exponential" isn't really the right word to use. That term would describe a rate of growth (or decay) vs. linear or some other function. It's not really useful to compare 3,000 to another number, because every positive number is exponential to 3,000. 6,000 is exponential to 3,000 - by the exponent 1.086574, to be exact.
Carry on.
OK, I concede I was thinking in whole numbers. My bad.
-
David
An assurance yes, but on what basis ? Did he intend to assure you that the material was genuine or that he'd seen a report that says it was genuine. I'm sure Neil will regret more than anyone that he was conned and how he worded his pronouncements on here but the real question to you is when you accused him of deception did you mean that Neil was knowingly party to a fraud ?
Niall
Niall, Please read my post (Reply 141) in it's entirety. I think it clearly states my position and answers all your questions.
-
Pat,
6,000 isn't actually exponential but I am with you on the point you're making. ;D
Before this devolves into another sidetrack, "exponential" isn't really the right word to use. That term would describe a rate of growth (or decay) vs. linear or some other function. It's not really useful to compare 3,000 to another number, because every positive number is exponential to 3,000. 6,000 is exponential to 3,000 - by the exponent 1.086574, to be exact.
Carry on.
OK, I concede I was thinking in whole numbers. My bad.
Blame Mr. Mucci. HE, not YOU, was the one who brought the term into the thread!
-
Classy old school treatment is to admit only what has been conclusively proven and simply cannot be denied anymore? In German we call that the salami tactic: never give away the whole sausage, concede it slice by slice and let others do the cutting.
Ulrich
-
Steve Okula,
I enjoy having conversations with Superintendents, PGA Professionals, Staff, Green Chairman and Presidents of the clubs I visit.
Clubs like Pebble Beach, Spyglass, MPCC, CPC, Pasatiempo, Streamsong, Bandon.
In addition, when I can, I also like to have conversations with the same individuals at private clubs, so I don't think my interaction with folks is as narrow as you imagine.
-
Ironically, the same lack of verifiable identification of sources that was questioned in the DST report is what we must believe if we accept the purported level of influence of this site.
-
Ironically, the same lack of verifiable identification of sources that was questioned in the DST report is what we must believe if we accept the purported level of influence of this site.
yep :) :)
-
The difference of course is that Pat rendered an opinion based on personal experience. He did not try to pass it off as historical fact and did not try to suggest that documents that were not authenticated had been authenticated. Nor does Pat stand to gain from anyone accepting his conclusion. Otherwise, the circumstances are entirely analogous. The influence of this site may be overrated by some and I suspect, underrated by others. But let's not get ridiculous.
-
Ironically, the same lack of verifiable identification of sources that was questioned in the DST report is what we must believe if we accept the purported level of influence of this site.
Or we can look at what is on the ground today. We can note that the "pretty" geometric style of architecture that has fallen out of vogue, see Nicklaus altering his courses, take notice of the dramatic rise in minimalistic courses (and renovations.) Gil Hanse gets the Olympic job and Trump hires him rather than Fazio to redo Doral. C & C restores Pinehurst #2 to great acclaim and both US Opens are played there. We can also note that this all happens to coincide with gca.com's existance.
-
...
-
Ironically, the same lack of verifiable identification of sources that was questioned in the DST report is what we must believe if we accept the purported level of influence of this site.
Or we can look at what is on the ground today. We can note that the "pretty" geometric style of architecture that has fallen out of vogue, see Nicklaus altering his courses, take notice of the dramatic rise in minimalistic courses (and renovations.) Gil Hanse gets the Olympic job, and Trump hires him rather than Fazio to redo Doral. C & C restores Pinehurst #2 to great acclaim and both US Opens are played there. We can also note that this all happens to coincide with gca.com's existance.
BILL,
I think it would be fair to say that the combined membership of this site professes to know more about the ODG's and what they wanted to do with their projects and their strategies than the actual ODG's knew about themselves. They were not nearly as complicated as the site makes them out to be. IMHO ;D
-
Ironically, the same lack of verifiable identification of sources that was questioned in the DST report is what we must believe if we accept the purported level of influence of this site.
Or we can look at what is on the ground today. We can note that the "pretty" geometric style of architecture that has fallen out of vogue, see Nicklaus altering his courses, take notice of the dramatic rise in minimalistic courses (and renovations.) Gil Hanse gets the Olympic job, and Trump hires him rather than Fazio to redo Doral. C & C restores Pinehurst #2 to great acclaim and both US Opens are played there. We can also note that this all happens to coincide with gca.com's existance.
BILL,
I think it would be fair to say that the combined membership of this site professes to know more about the ODG's and what they wanted to do with their projects and their strategies than the actual ODG's knew about themselves. They were not nearly as complicated as the site makes them out to be. IMHO ;D
Oh yeah. Forget the combined membership. I probably have spent many more hours analyzing Banks' plans at my home course than he did building the holes. :)
-
I'm not posting to weigh in on the IST issue (although I thought it was bogus early and have text message evidence to prove it!) :)
I do want to weigh in on the popularity (not importance) of the website. I've had no fewer than 10 random members of little old Tavistock CC in New Jersey (none of whom knew I was even on this site) come up to me over the last two years to say they've seen my name on the discussion group postings.
Not sure what that stat means, but to me it means there's a lot of people who read this. Was a little creeped out by it honestly.
-
Was a little creeped out by it honestly.
I know what you mean, Jason.
Some guys from my club got back from a golf trip to Turkey a few weeks ago. At one course they were waiting on the first tee when a greenkeeper noticed the club crest on one of their shirts.
"Ah, Reddish Vale" he said. "MacKenzie course. Do you know Duncan Cheslett?"
Like you, I was a little spooked by the story, but my friends were highly impressed! ;D
-
I'll echo everyone's thoughts on the influence of the site While on my road trip a year and a half ago I had the pleasure of talking to superintendents from various clubs, ranging from very popular clubs on here to those talked about much less, and for that matter, architects who do not post on here but who use this as a reference.
But more importantly, since this stems from Golf Club Atlas' influence, I've noticed more and more on sites like Golf Digest and Golf Magazine (whether you agree or disagree with what they're currently publishing is one thing, but it is almost impossible to refute the impact and legitimacy that the two publications have on golf) things posted on here referenced. Surely this brings more traffic to the site and goes to show that in their eyes we are not only respected, but considered a more reputable source, especially when information is placed in the sections outside the discussion group.
Perhaps the best way to put it is this: I would have no problem (and have) used Golf Club Atlas as a source for papers in both high school and college. While they would never let me use the discussion group as a source (unless, say, I'm writing about Tom Doak and I use an entry of his) I have no problem arguing with teachers and professors that this is a respected site in this industry and can be trusted as a legitimate source for information. When something like these drawings is presented as fact in the IMO section, it challenges this site's integrity, and ultimately makes it more difficult to argue its legitimacy.
Maybe some of you don't think that this is important, but I certainly do. While I haven't had the privilege of meeting Ran yet, I'm sure he feels the same way.
As for how we should view those involved, I stayed out of the arguments prior to the most part, but I do think greater clarity to the issue, would do wonders for not only restoring integrity to the site, but satisfying those who feel like they've been duped. This thread makes me feel like I'm reading a tabloid. Interesting, sure, but it's doing nothing to make me feel better about the situation or that I feel like I've figured out what has happened. Greater clarity has to come from those involved .
-
Was a little creeped out by it honestly.
I know what you mean, Jason.
Some guys from my club got back from a golf trip to Turkey a few weeks ago. At one course they were waiting on the first tee when a greenkeeper noticed the club crest on one of their shirts.
"Ah, Reddish Vale" he said. "MacKenzie course. Do you know Duncan Cheslett?"
Like you, I was a little spooked by the story, but my friends were highly impressed! ;D
Could have been Ben Lovett, head GK at the Monty course there, and member of this site!
-
This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while. Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly. Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil. Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night. It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.
Jeff,
In the "golf" world this site is extremely relevant and the number of lurkers is exponentially greater than your estimate
The Golf Club Atlas Info Center says in the last hour 33 GCA forum members have been on the site... and 430 guests. Even if there is some double counting there, clearly GCA has a much wider audience than simply its members. It looks like the lurkers far, far outnumber members.
btw, that same page says we're up to 1689 members now.
-
David
An assurance yes, but on what basis ? Did he intend to assure you that the material was genuine or that he'd seen a report that says it was genuine. I'm sure Neil will regret more than anyone that he was conned and how he worded his pronouncements on here but the real question to you is when you accused him of deception did you mean that Neil was knowingly party to a fraud ?
Niall
Niall, Please read my post (Reply 141) in it's entirety. I think it clearly states my position and answers all your questions.
David
I've now reread your post and there is no ambiguity from what I can see, you do accuse Neil (and Phil) of knowingly deceiving you ie. they knew it was a fraud and played along with that. So the question is where's your proof to make such an allegation ?
Niall
-
There are some on here who feel qualified to judge what is an acceptable level of indignation from others. There are also those who feel that if you didn't add anything to the thread before IST confirmed that the report was a fake that you shouldn't get to weigh in now. That approach certainly doesn't foster "frank commentary".
Tim
I dare say your post refers to me. I think you'll find me the last person to restrict your free speech but equally I'm going to continue to point out that you added nothing to the debate and yet felt you knew enough to slag off honest men once the saga had reached some sort of outcome. So feel free to bump your gums in future but don't expect me not to comment.
Niall
-
WEll, I won't comment again, because I think its all said.
However, the last few posts have me wondering if I am way off base on the self importance some attach to this website?
This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while. Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly. Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil. Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night. It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.
So, while I understand the anger, especially at IST, in general, I don't get the words like culpability, free pass, etc. Especially for Ran, who brings us a web site and content devoted to a little interest group, and acted to bring even more, potentially exciting material for our interest group, mostly at his cost, BTW, and made a mistake.
Fraud happens, maybe Ran and Phil have something to learn from this to make it a better web site, but really, IMHO, that's about it. Sounds like some of you are ready to press charges or hang someone from a tree, when in reality, you may be offended, but you haven't been damaged.
At least in my world, the anger level is far beyond what it really needs to be.
Jeff
Well said, I agree totally. I'll now go off and attempt to lower my anger level by a notch or two !
Niall
-
This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while. Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly. Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil. Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night. It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.
Jeff,
In the "golf" world this site is extremely relevant and the number of lurkers is exponentially greater than your estimate
The Golf Club Atlas Info Center says in the last hour 33 GCA forum members have been on the site... and 430 guests. Even if there is some double counting there, clearly GCA has a much wider audience than simply its members. It looks like the lurkers far, far outnumber members.
btw, that same page says we're up to 1689 members now.
Guest visits can indeed be double counting and they might even be the same members going in prior to log in.
You can see a bit of demographics and relevance at the link below. There are 55,681 web sites in the US that are more popular. There are over 200,000 more popular web sites around the world.
There are estimations it received 115,000 visits las month (visits include multiple visits by the same person). In January of 2014 the number is much lower, about 20,000. These are estimates.
Another site estimates 2,877 daily unique visitors.
The demographics are more precise and interesting.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.golfclubatlas.com
http://www.trafficestimate.com/golfclubatlas.com
It is fairly easy to get this sight on Google Analytics and to get much better stats if the administrators wanted to share them.
M
-
Duncan,
It was me
-
Those stats are interesting. Among them is the leading search phrase that gets folks here is "Sand Hills Golf Club" and that 35.8% visit directly after visiting Google search engine.
To me, that partially confirms that those 2877 daily lurkers may comprise mostly of folks looking for golf courses, not engaging in these debates.
But then, stats can be used to prove just about anything, I know!
-
Jeff, the GCA stats also show what part of the site the guests visit. My eyeball estimate is that the biggest section is the forum.
I'll check again later today, and see how the numbers fall out. The past hour, e.g., shows 555 guests and 71 members/users.
You can look at the stats yourself. Go to the bottom of the page that lists the threads, and click on "GolfClubAtlas.com".
-
Ironically, the same lack of verifiable identification of sources that was questioned in the DST report is what we must believe if we accept the purported level of influence of this site.
Or we can look at what is on the ground today. We can note that the "pretty" geometric style of architecture that has fallen out of vogue, see Nicklaus altering his courses, take notice of the dramatic rise in minimalistic courses (and renovations.) Gil Hanse gets the Olympic job and Trump hires him rather than Fazio to redo Doral. C & C restores Pinehurst #2 to great acclaim and both US Opens are played there. We can also note that this all happens to coincide with gca.com's existance.
Or you could consider that Pete Dye in the '70's was selling a retro style that he observed in the British Isles, replete with railroad ties, scruffy bunkers, and waste areas. Or that Tom Doak, an early Dye disiciple, was doing his "minimalist" thing in the mid-'80's well before there even was an internet. Even if this site didn't exist, Doak would be doing the same work and his courses would be equally well received.
Fashions in golf architecture have been constantly evolving for a couple of centuries now, and it's delusional to think this site is instigating a pardigm shift. Perhaps Golf Club Atlas is to some small degree encouraging a style, but there is no evidence I can see of it influencing golfers' tastes in design and maintenance.
As to the cited stats, I mainly view the site without logging in, only doing so when I decide I have something to say, so I would be counted as a visitor more often than not.
-
Duncan,
It was me
Thanks for boosting my creds at the club, Ben! :)
-
David
I've now reread your post and there is no ambiguity from what I can see, you do accuse Neil (and Phil) of knowingly deceiving you ie. they knew it was a fraud and played along with that. So the question is where's your proof to make such an allegation ?
Niall
Sorry Niall, but if you have re-read the post and still don't understand it I am going to have to give you the Mucci treatment and call you a moron.
I never said that Phil and Neil knew it was a fraud, that is very unlikely imo. I said they were deceptive in the way they implied that they had intimate knowledge of the 'interim report' that allowed them to assure us it was genuine.
If they had either checked the origins of the interim report, or not overstated their knowledge of the report's origins, this whole matter would have been resolved weeks earlier.
-
David
What exactly is intimate knowledge when it comes to knowing a report ? If Neil had read all the contents and understood what the report was saying, irrespective of whether it was fake or not, would that not count as intimate knowledge. The fact is he thought it genuine. There was no deception on his part that I can see and you've certainly provided no proof. Even a moron could see that.
Niall
-
The fact is he thought it genuine. There was no deception on his part that I can see and you've certainly provided no proof. Even a moron could see that.
Niall
Sorry Niall. In my mind there is a big difference between someone saying "I think the report is genuine" or "I think the report has been contributed to by highly regarded experts" and someone saying "I assure you the report is genuine" and "I assure you the report has been written by highly regarded experts."
We aren't getting anywhere here, and it mainly due to your unwillingness to see the difference between a thought and an assurance. Let's just leave it at that. I don't want to blow it out of proportion. I was disappointed but obviously don't think Neil or Phil were involved with the production of fraufraudulent documents.
I don't think Neil and Phil are posting anymore but I would be interested to know which police jurisdiction they should report the matter to. Does anyone know? Is the fraud committed in Australia, America, England or Wales?
-
What fraud? The faked preliminary authentication report? Where is the victim that has been materially damaged or deprived?
Ulrich
-
What fraud? The faked preliminary authentication report? Where is the victim that has been materially damaged or deprived?
Ulrich
Neil? Phil? The Tillinghast Society? The MacKenzie Society? STEP? Just asking the question.
-
I am absolutely disgusted by the behavior of numerous members of GCA relative to this issue. The vicious attacks against Phil and Ran, who have contributed so much to this site and to golf course architecture in general, are distasteful and inappropriate. I know each of these men personally and they would never compromise their principles. Yes, mistakes were made. Human beings make mistakes. Unfortunately we live in a society where a public mistake must be punished regardless of the overall character and past contributions of the individuals involved.
There are a number of you that should be ashamed of yourselves. You are a discredit to the very principles of what gentleman and ladies in our game aspire to.
-
I think we are all eager to be familiar in a hands on way with the historical artifacts of our favorite sport. I know I was thrilled to hold what I was told was the hand drawn original plan of Alwoodley signed by the Good Doctor himself, when I visited Alwoodley. If I had later been told it was a fake I would have been crushed.
-
Bill,
I have told this story before, but when visiting Oakland Hills, I saw the fabled Ross plan for reconstruction for the US Open, the one he drew before his death, and before RTJ came up with a similar plan. Yes, it is a neat experience to actually see stuff like that. Across town at Franklin Hills, the super showed Jeff Mingay and I some of Ross' hand written field notes, which to me was even more spectacular.
I do believe there is a collectors market for gca memorabilia, but am not sure of the size. So, in that sense, this kind of fraud needs to be combatted. Of course, with any old finds, there would be some question of authenticity to consider. It always makes a nice story when someone "finds" something like Hitler diaries in an attic. Seems as if many of those most incredible ones do turn out to be fakes.
I have tried to get ASGCA members to donate similar things for auction to raise money for ASGCA, but so far, not much has been done. Not sure any living architects could sell their stuff, as its too new, and I am sure no one is willing to die as a career move in the memorabilia department.......
-
Human beings make mistakes.
Absolutely. It's what happens after the mistake that makes or breaks reputations. So far not much has happened on that front except putting the blame squarely on Ian Scott-Taylor.
Ulrich
-
The fact is he thought it genuine. There was no deception on his part that I can see and you've certainly provided no proof. Even a moron could see that.
Niall
Sorry Niall. In my mind there is a big difference between someone saying "I think the report is genuine" or "I think the report has been contributed to by highly regarded experts" and someone saying "I assure you the report is genuine" and "I assure you the report has been written by highly regarded experts."
We aren't getting anywhere here, and it mainly due to your unwillingness to see the difference between a thought and an assurance. Let's just leave it at that. I don't want to blow it out of proportion. I was disappointed but obviously don't think Neil or Phil were involved with the production of fraufraudulent documents.
I don't think Neil and Phil are posting anymore but I would be interested to know which police jurisdiction they should report the matter to. Does anyone know? Is the fraud committed in Australia, America, England or Wales?
David
I think I can readily tell the difference between an assurance and an opinion. Neil was wrong in giving an assurance without at least caveating that assurance, however nowhere is there evidence that he committed fraud either on his own or in conjunction with others as you basically said when accusing him of deception. A point you now seem to be willing to concede judging by your post above.
In arguing the toss over that I wasn’t blowing it out of proportion. It was blown out of proportion when you made your original comment. Neil made a mistake, a very public mistake, but there’s a big difference between that and committing fraud. I think we just need to be very careful what we say on this matter.
Niall
-
Niall,
Your continual twisting of my words is not really in the spiriti of the site and disrespectful to not only me but Neil as well.
To say that I accused Neil of fraud is way below the belt, to pompously add that "we need to be very careful what we say" as if your continual wild misrepresentations are the truth is pathetic, to be honest, and no credit to you.
You admit that Neil made a mistake. Take my word for it that I was deceived by his mistake. That is deception. simple, end of story, move on. That is all I wrote. I made no claim that Neil was involved in a fraud, I made no claim that Neil knew the drawings were fake, I made no claims that Neil was involved with IST. I made no claim that he even knowingly deceived anyone. Iwas sympathetic to Neil and Phil's plight.
Your continual misrepresentation of my comments is way out of line, and reflects badly on you, Neil, and the website.
-
As an observer, this sordid saga has raised serious issues which demand a serious discussion.
It is for this reason that you are completely out of line Niall. David's position is crystal clear to everyone it seems, except you. It doesn't help Neil, Phil Young or this website one bit to have you put words in his mouth.
-
David E,
I understand that you feel you were deceived by certain statements made by initial supporters of the material who had the wool pulled over their eyes in this matter. Nonetheless I 'umbly assert that you seem to be particularly upset and wonder that if this is the worst deceit that has been visited upon you then you are a lucky man!
For heavens sake can you not imagine how shitty Phil, Neil and Ran probably feel at this point in time? It would be a handsome gesture if you allowed them to lick their wounds and let this fade into the past. It is of interest to me that the main protagonists in this fiasco seem to have deemed it wise to stay silent. All that seems to be left are jackals sniffing and snuffling … not a good look in my opinion.
My problem with this post is that it will bring this awful thread back to the top of the pile.
Orra best Colin
-
David E,
I understand that you feel you were deceived by certain statements made by initial supporters of the material who had the wool pulled over their eyes in this matter. Nonetheless I 'umbly assert that you seem to be particularly upset and wonder that if this is the worst deceit that has been visited upon you then you are a lucky man!
For heavens sake can you not imagine how shitty Phil, Neil and Ran probably feel at this point in time? It would be a handsome gesture if you allowed them to lick their wounds and let this fade into the past. It is of interest to me that the main protagonists in this fiasco seem to have deemed it wise to stay silent. All that seems to be left are jackals sniffing and snuffling … not a good look in my opinion.
My problem with this post is that it will bring this awful thread back to the top of the pile.
Orra best Colin
Colin
Thanks for the response, unfortunately I reckon you are talking to the wrong man. I really wish I could let this rest but after one (1) single initial post expressing my disappointment, (along with my sympathy and my wish to hold no grudges and move on) I have faced an increasingly bizarre series of accusations from Niall Carlton. Each time I try to hose down the issue and explain myself he responds with an even more outlandish claim. It won't be long before Niall claims that I have accused Neil and Phil of doing the drawings themselves whilst inventing Ebola.
Everyone on here understands that Neil and Phil are good people with a lot of credits in the bank who deserve sympathy. For Niall to insinuate otherwise does no-one any favours, IMO.
I have often found that a good rule of thumb is to not type anything on golfclubatlas that you would not say to someone's face. If I was talking to you in person I would say that Niall is being a bit of a cunt. The only consolation is that these personal attacks have been a common feature of GolfClubAtlas, in particular from the Ian Scott-Taylor and his friends. I am not the first to get this sort of treatment and I won't be the last. It's a pity it sucked me you and others in but c'est la vie.
-
Hardball is one tough game. I think Niall should be banned form the site for life!
-
Hardball is one tough game. I think Niall should be banned form the site for life!
Might be a bit overboard. I would be happy with 1 year suspension and a 1,000 word essay on the faults of Alister Mackenzie.
-
Niall,
Your continual twisting of my words is not really in the spiriti of the site and disrespectful to not only me but Neil as well.
To say that I accused Neil of fraud is way below the belt, to pompously add that "we need to be very careful what we say" as if your continual wild misrepresentations are the truth is pathetic, to be honest, and no credit to you.
You admit that Neil made a mistake. Take my word for it that I was deceived by his mistake. That is deception. simple, end of story, move on. That is all I wrote. I made no claim that Neil was involved in a fraud, I made no claim that Neil knew the drawings were fake, I made no claims that Neil was involved with IST. I made no claim that he even knowingly deceived anyone. Iwas sympathetic to Neil and Phil's plight.
Your continual misrepresentation of my comments is way out of line, and reflects badly on you, Neil, and the website.
David
I was disrespectful to Neil ! Are you having a laugh. It was you who accused him of deception. Do you know what that means ? Can I suggest you get your new copy of the Confidential Guide that you trade it in for a dictionary. That way you might learn the meaning of deceit.
Considering I've been one of the few who have been trying to keep this into some kind of proportion then your last line above is staggering. Go back and read your own posts and what you've said about Neil and how you've expressed yourself, and then tell me you've acted in the spirit of this site.
Niall
-
Looks like we are at a stalemate here, Niall. Let's agree to disagree and sort this out in private? Apologies for not suggesting this yesterday.
-
All I want to know is where can I get copies of all of these. Fake or real I could care less. They would probably look great framed. Ian Scott Taylor is a talented artist. I would love to have copies, if anyone knows how I could ahold of some please pm me!
-
Bump.