Ouimet, Vardon, Mackenzie, Gaston and Muirfield

[Dan King]

I just started reading The Greatest Game Ever Played: Harry Vardon, Francis Ouimet, and the Birth of Modern Golf by Mark Frost and I'm either finding huge factual errors, or Frost is privy to some information I've never heard.

The first thing that bugs me is for turn of the century tournaments (The earlier turn, not the latest) he talks a lot about birdies, pars and bogies. These terms wouldn't have been used in late 19th century golf tournaments. But that ends up being a trivial problem:

Page 23:
In early 1896 Harry climbed another step up the professional ladder and accepted a job at a club in Ganton, Yorkshire. Ganton's five-year-old course, a future Ryder Cup site, had been recently redesigned by Dr. Alister Mackenzie, a surgeon on the British army during the Boer War who would go on to create...

If Frost has some information to support Mackenzie's work in architecture prior to 1896, he should share it. Mackenzie says he didn't get interested in architecture until after the Boer War 1899-1902. Far as I've read, Mackenzie had nothing to do with Ganton until the 1920s.

He also says on Page 25:
The Hounorable Company bought a sodden pasture that housed a primitive eighteenth-century links and almost overnight transformed it into one of the world's classic tests.

Huh? I've never heard anything about a course existing at Muirfield prior to The Hounorable Company, and most didn't consider Muirfield one of the world's classic tests for many years.

Did I miss some new discoveries since my hiatus from golf reading or is just a simple case of lazy research by Mr. Frost?  I'm only up to page 25, and I'm thinking I'll stop reading now before I blow a gasket.

Dan King

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx

[18 hole sudden death]

Sounds like good questions to ask Mr. Frost himself. Any way to go straight to the horse's mouth and see where he got his information?

[nels]

Dan,
Nice going.  You're right.  MacKenzie returned from the Boer War in 1900.  His first design effort was Alwoodley in Leeds, where in was able to convince H. S. Colt to take him on as sort of a project manager.  While Colt went off to France, MacKenzie re-designed much of the layout during construction.  Colt liked it when he returned, and they became uneasy associates.  It was 1904.  MacKenzie was Green Chair of Alwoodley, which has a minutes book written in the good Dr's hand.  Allwoodley will, by the way host the English Amateur this year, the highest level that would be awarded to an inland course.  Moortown, only a stones throw away from Alwoodley was completed in 1905 and was MacKenzie's first solo design.

[ForkaB]

Dabn

I just picked up a copy of a UK golf magazine which included a feature article on golfing in Yorkshire.  In the text, and excerpted as the main bold headline, was the statement:  "This sandy moorland north of Leeds, was the happy stomping ground of Dr Alister MacKenzie, designer of such famous courses as Augusta National and Pebble Beach."

The good Dr.'s portfolio seems to be increasing by leaps and bounds posthomously.  Perhaps there really is a God.

[THuckaby2]

Dan:  re factual errors concerning design of courses, well... what the hell.. Frost isn't exactly a golf writer.  That is pretty shoddy work, but we can excuse him, I think.

Re bogeys/pars/etc., he explains in pretty good detail how things were different then, why he chooses to use the modern terms.  Perhaps you skimmed through that part of the book?

TH

[bakerg (Guest)]

As far as Pebble Beach goes, McKenzie obviously did not do that course, but didn't he touch up a few holes?  I thought I had heard that.

[C.B. MacDonald]

"Colonel Bogey became quite popular by 1900 in the United States and the United States Golf Association was prevailed upon to make rules for bogey competitions..."

"It was not until 1912 that St. Andrews succumbed to the universal demand throughout the golfing world and issued rules for bogey play. They adopted the same rules as those which prevailed in the United States."

C.B. MacDonald, SCOTLAND'S GIFT--GOLF

Is the author (Frost) simply using those terms (birdies, etc.) as a short hand in describing the golf action or is there something more sinister at work?

[THuckaby2]

There is NOTHING sinister.  Dan just hadn't gotten to the part where Frost goes into a lengthy explanation of the rise and fall of Colonel Bogey and explains why he uses the terms as he does....

I loved the book.

But I guess this book is not gonna be the cup of tea for writers and historians like Dan.  I really didn't care what facts he got wrong about attribution of golf courses, as that doesn't matter for squat in the story at hand... it is lazy research, and yeah, he should have gotten it right, but it didn't bother me at all.  Re use of the terms, Dan just needed a bit more patience!

TH

[C.B. MacDonald]

Tom,

I am sure there was nothing sinister at work. I was being melodramatic for effect.

[Paul_Turner]

Ganton has a complicated evolution which I hope I can unravel sometime.  I have some minutes from the club:

Mackenzie's first visit to Ganton is in 1912, Colt's was in 1907.  They weren't partners at the time although there was obviously the Alwoodley colaboration.

His next visit was in 1920 when he was a partner of Colt's.

Mr Frost has been pretty lax!

(Moortown was in 1909)

[THuckaby2]

Paul:  Mr. Frost was lax for sure, but please realize these are really throwaway lines that could easily have been left out of the book entirely and not been missed!  So let's call it shoddy editing as much as shoddy research.

It's still one hell of a great read.

TH

[Dan King]

The problem is that the claim is this book is non-fiction. Sometimes history is dry, but that isn't sufficient reason to make up facts. I'd have no problem if Mr. Frost wrote a story about a fictitious tournament in 1913, loosely based on reality. But he is selling this as non-fiction and therefore has some responsibility for what he wrote. It's not like these are difficult facts to verify.

If I find such glaring errors early in the book, anything I discover that I didn't know already is suspect.

I've read Ouimet's autobiography. I don't remember anything about finding a Vardon Flyer ball when he was young. Where would Frost have gotten this information? Since he made up other facts isn't it possible this little tidbit is also made up.

I did send email to Frost. I mentioned my concerns early in the book. He responded to me only about the Mackenzie issue, saying:

This will corrected in a later edition: MacKenzie supervised a redesign a few years later than stated.

Just from reading the first few chapters, I'd put this book on par with Anne Kinsman Fisher's The Legend of Tommy Morris which is claimed to be "based on the true story of golf's greatest champion" but she never bothered even doing the most basic research.

But the good news for those that like this sort of fiction disguised as non-fiction, the story has been optioned to Hollywood. They could probably get Mel Gibson to be in the movie since he has done such a wonderful job with other historical epics.

Dan King

"In recommending a book to a friend the less said the better. The moment you praise a book too highly you awaken resistance in your listener."
 --Henry Miller

[wsmorrison]

My guess is that Frost took many liberties with the story.  Many of the intimate conversations and thoughts he attributes to the characters seem to have been given a great deal of literary license and it is also curious to note that he does not cite any references for these meaningful interplays.

He seemed to get the hole progressions wrong as well, I forget which but I am pretty certain he got the 10th and 11th out of progression.  I'll check my notes at home later.  I found that the book was already Hollywood-ized and not to be viewed as an historical account down to the smallest details.  Nonetheless it was a fun read about an extraordinary and profound event.  

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

If you read the entire book and the dust cover, you'll find that Frost explains his intentions quite well, I think.  Perhaps his research is poor in places and maybe he got things wrong (like the course attributions) but as for Ouimet's thoughts and childhood, he explains how he arrived at that... Given Ouimet was by all accounts very quiet and VERY modest, I actually enjoyed Frost's story more than I think I would Ouimet's autobiography!

I think the book was never intended to be anything but what it is:  an attempt at a behind the scenes view into what is arguably the most important golf tournament in American golf history.  Yes, there are factual accounts.. but you said it yourself, those are dry.  I enjoyed Frost's version.  And yep, I believe I'd enjoy the movie.  

To each his own, once again.  

TH

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
Given Ouimet was by all accounts very quiet and VERY modest, I actually enjoyed Frost's story more than I think I would Ouimet's autobiography!

I enjoy Kinky Friedman detective novels. But I understand the difference between fact and fiction. If I'm in need of a detective I'm not about to call the Kinkster. I'm better of contacting real-world detectives.

What bothers me about Frost's book is that it is being marketed as non-fiction when it is only based on real events.

I think the book was never intended to be anything but what it is:  an attempt at a behind the scenes view into what is arguably the most important golf tournament in American golf history.

Regardless of the facts. Why would you want to learn about the 1913 U.S. Open from a ficticious book when there are numerous books that use facts?

All these interesting new facts you found out about the 1913 Open, aren't you in the least bit concerned that they might be made up?

Dan King

"I'd often felt that a man without a woman was like a neck without a pain."
--Kinky Friedman Greenwich Killing Time

[DKSmith]

Regarding Harry Vardon's 1900 American visit...

"He took part in eighty-eight matches during his American tour and he lost exactly once, 2 and 1, to a pro in Miami named Alex Findlay."  -- The Greatest Game Ever Played, Mark Frost, Pg 39

"...and when I mention the fact that I lost only thirteen games out of the eighty-eight throughout my tour..."  -- Harry Vardon, My Golfing Life, Pg 93


Or.....

"Designed by OldTom Morris, the links at Prestwick served as the Open's original home for its first NINE (??) years in the 1860's..."  -- The Greatest Game Ever Played, Pg 72

Definitely written to Hollywood standards...

[Dan Kelly]

I'd read about half of the book, before all of that holiday stuff intruded -- and concluded, early on, that this book should be called "historical fiction" or "fiction nonfiction" or ... what did Capote call "In Cold Blood"?

Yeah, that's right: "a non-fiction novel."

That's what this book is -- and Dan King is right that it should advertise itself as such.

Yes, it makes a difference.

It's an entertaining book, as far as I've gone -- but please don't ask me to believe that Mark Frost knows which exact words (they're inside quotation marks!) Francis said to little Eddie as they walked across the fairway toward the Ouimet house. And don't ask me to believe that Mark Frost KNOWS that Mr. Ouimet had NEVER finished reading an entire story about his son until midway through that U.S. Open. (How in the hell could he POSSIBLY know that?) Etc., etc., etc.

In literature as in golf course architecture as in so many other human pursuits, God is in the details. So's the devil, if you don't keep him out.

(Thanks, Dan King, for that wonderful Henry Miller quotation. [I can NEVER read any book or see any movie that either of my sisters has recommended, because they ALWAYS over-recommend! Puts me on my guard, and wrecks what I might have liked.] Truer words have never graced this Web site -- including these!)

[THuckaby2]

Shit guys, I haven't seen any advertising for the book, nor do I care to.  I got it as a Christmas present, read it, enjoyed it.  Crucify me.

Now that you killjoys have made it clear this is an artificial story, hell yes I'm eager to know more, and know what is the "real" story... I just told a good friend that Ouimet is my new golf hero.

So I guess I do need the truth.  Any recommendations on books I can read - books that actually exist and are obtainable for me?

TH

ps - re your lovely Henry Miller quote, rest assured, you will get no further recommendations from me, Dan.  This has been an interesting learning experience, plumbing the depths of cynicism.

[Dan Kelly]

Shit guys, I haven't seen any advertising for the book, nor do I care to.  I got it as a Christmas present, read it, enjoyed it.  Crucify me.

Tom IV --

Crucify you? Why would we want to crucify you? For enjoying the book?

This discussion is about the book, not about you!

Here's what Mr. Frost told my newspaper (according to our reporter):

"When I decided to get into this, the big question was whether enough material existed to tell the entire story. But what I found was that the U.S. Golf Association library in Far Hills, N.J., has a massive archive of material. There were something like 20 newspapers covering the 1913 Open from the start, with more reporters showing up as the drama between Ouimet and Vardon built to its climax. Beyond that, I was truly surprised how many magazines covered it. So there was a lot of material.

"In the end, I was able to source 90 percent of the dialogue. But none of the scenes was invented out of whole cloth."

Of course, it's the last 10 percent that we're talking about here.

Not to mention the fact that one's ability to "source" a quotation does not mean, and never did mean, that the quotation was accurately transcribed in the first place (reporters being imperfect creatures, of course -- Bernard Darwin excepted).

But you're right: At least as far as I've gone, it's an enjoyable (if not necessarily letter-perfect) book.

Bottom line (to coin a cliche): I don't think that finding the flaws in this book makes me or Mr. King a killjoy -- any more than finding a flaw in any golf course we might be discussing makes any of us a killjoy.

[THuckaby2]

Dan Kelly:

Dan King's posts after his first were all directed to me.  I don't see how else I should take them.  To me, they were a killjoy assassination of a book I told him privately I really liked and hoped he would too.  Your agreement with him caused me to make the killjoy term plural.  My apologies.  This is about the book, not about me.

I still really liked it!

To Dan's credit, in the private emails he said he was dubious about whether he'd like the book, given his extensive knowledge of the events of 1913 as it is.  I should have expected this.  It just bummed me out, and then with JakaB's questioning of my integrity re handicaps, well....

I over-reacted and I apologize, to both of you.

Now I'm getting the hell out of this thread!

TH

[Dan Kelly]

Tom IV --

Apology accepted.

Dan

[Eddie]

Everyone should read the A NOTE ON THE WRITING on page 479. Frost freely admits to using "a dramatist's license" in an attempt to get at the spirit of the proceedings. That tells you right there that it is a historical novel. Enough cynical condemnation. Geez. Can't we just enjoy golf on this website for once?!!!!!

By the way, all of written history ("factual" or otherwise) is biased and slanted and we must take it with a grain of salt.

Now enjoy the game!!! Please. For your own sakes, enjoy the game.

[Dan King]

Eddie writes:
Everyone should read the A NOTE ON THE WRITING on page 479. Frost freely admits to using "a dramatist's license" in an attempt to get at the spirit of the proceedings.

You are right, I skipped ahead to page 479, and sure enough, he says he is making things up. Generally I read from front to back, so assuming I were to continue reading this book -- which I won't -- I wouldn't have gotten that note until the very end.

By the way, all of written history ("factual" or otherwise) is biased and slanted and we must take it with a grain of salt.

Again, you are right. But I would think most would understand the difference of slanting history and making it up.

I created this thread because I believed it got a few issues wrong very early in the book that were related to golf courses and their architecture. I thought it was possible Mr.Frost was right and I was wrong. I thought we might have a nice discussion on these facts. I'm surprised we are instead having a discussion on if history should include facts.

It bothers me that such shoddy research is going to be rewarded. The few items I mentioned could have been fixed with no more than a few minutes of research. It wasn't done, and now they are selling this book to Hollywood. It bothers me that lazy research is being rewarded. But then I'm a whiner.

Dan King

"History never looks like history when you are living through it. It always looks confusing and messy, and it always feels uncomfortable."
 --John W. Gardner

[Bob_Huntley]

Dan King:

I was always taught that history is written by the winners.

[Paul_Turner]

But the good news for those that like this sort of fiction disguised as non-fiction, the story has been optioned to Hollywood. They could probably get Mel Gibson to be in the movie since he has done such a wonderful job with other historical epics.

Dan King

Yeah! Gibson would have Vardon as a psychopath or homosexual  

(I just saw "The Patriot" and I'm now convinced he has something against us!  Perhaps he should do a film on aboriginal land rights in Australia/America to balance the books   )