[TEPaul]

"TE Paul
It's not only how we perceive history that's important but what's really interesting is who is writing the history that we are looking at."


Jim:

In THAT vein I subscribe to Winston Churchill's philosophy about the recording of history when he answered someone's question to him of how he thought history would treat him.

His response was; "I think history will treat me very well since I PLAN TO WRITE IT!"


I suppose Churchill liked to be involved in every facet of the history he participated in and perhaps even in the history he knew he may not participate in. Did you know that Churchill planned his own funeral in meticulous detail and he even labeled it with a name as he had some of his massive military operations. He called it "Operation Hope Not!"


Jim, do you know what the actual operational name was for the largest planned military operation in military history that most of us have come to call "D-Day" or "The Invasion of Europe?"

[TEPaul]

Philip:

Your #17 is completely seminal and hugely important, in my mind. THAT is essentially the very thing I asked you to try to articulate a year or more ago.

In my opinion, that post should be cut and pasted onto the front of this website as a form of a working criteria for all to aspire to and follow who really want to get involved with this website, its "In My Opinion" section and its Discussion Group (DG).

Good job; well done; congratulations!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Some need to know where they have come from in the hope that they can find a place they want to go.

History in the first stepping stone to learning, not opinions as that is what corrupts the history.

If you do not want to know who you are or where you are going, let alone have some control over your life, ignore history.

History is equivalent to the memory chips in our computers, if they are empty it will be nearly impossible for the computers to function correctly, let alone give you the answers you seek.

Without history we will never learn so progress if any will be very slow. Opinions should walk 10 steps behind History to avoid contamination


Melvyn   
 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

Why wasn't it documented that the reasons they hired Raynor over others?  Was it fear of harrassment suits?  Oh wait, that came later......

BTW, when Whitten and Cornish were doing their original book, I know they also spent a lot of time tracking down descendants of the architects themselves, who occaisonally had old plans, etc. I know he has the original Flynn drawing for Indian Hill (Creek?) in Florida, for example (I recall because it ripped a bit while I was holding it, thereby nearly ending our friendship.....)  But I digress.  Their could be some problems with that. I know my files have some drawings that were proposals only, and not final jobs I did get the commission, and that could throw you off the trail.

I know that historians in other fields are now looking at any old garbage dumps they find, to try and find more about day to day life way back when.  I wonder if an untapped source might be any old superintendents records that are different from the main records of the clubs, or maybe even suppliers, like Toro, or irrigation designers, etc. to figure out when they  did certain things to the course without an architect.

The point it, research now is easier than ever.  But with more stuff, the job of tying it together becomes more difficult, too.

[TEPaul]

Melvyn:

Unfortunately history is not just some event or person from the past encapsulated in time; it is also our interpretations (viz. opinions) of it or of him.

[JC Urbina]

Jim:

In THAT vein I subscribe to Winston Churchill's philosophy about the recording of history when he answered someone's question to him of how he thought history would treat him.

His response was; "I think history will treat me very well since I PLAN TO WRITE IT!"





That was perfect TE Paul.

I will leave it at that.

Happy Holidays

ps.   I don't know the actual name of the invasion,  only what I HAVE READ.  "D- Day"

[Melvyn Morrow]

No Tom  That is you modern take on it, history is a record of our past. By all means have an opinion just do not do a USSR and try to re write it to your ends.

Melvyn

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ralph, Phil,

I didn't think you were disagreeing, just having a little fun with your attribution skills.  

Before power drills there were brace and bits. Before 'the internets' you had to go to the library, et al. Do you think someone like Ron Whitten would have foregone using online digitized information if it was available to him when he was writing The Golf Course with Geoffrey Cornish? I don't think so.

Access to club records is not important for me, I'm not writing a book. I like history in general and it is fun mucking around in the material that's available online. This site is chock full of information that's been gleaned from those sources, and anyone who has a published work, or one in the works, has probably used a great deal of information from outside sources.

....and as for the 'unprofessional' behavior that's having a negative effect on access to club records:  It's not the 'amateur' sleuths on this site that are causing clubs to shut their doors.  

[Lou_Duran]

TE Paul

It's not only how we perceive history that's important but what's really interesting is who is writing the history that we are looking at.

I have observed your debates with others on this board about the history of golf design and I always find it interesting that your discussions center on written text like it's the gospel when in fact we don't know how factual that written history really is.

Truer words could not have been spoken.  As human beings seeking validation of our worldview and self-worth, we instintinctively tend to pick and choose which data and "interpretations" best support our underlying life thesis.  Historians are no different and that is at least in part why one can choose many subjects and find impressively credentialed "experts" arriving at and eloquently supporting diametrically different conclusions after seemingly exhaustive examination.

I read history with great interest and much suspicion.  It is typically easy to detect the writer's personal perspectives even when presenting "facts".  And when motivations for actions are provided as a given- even if they are in the subject's own words, they deserve analyis- my skepticism increases.

I wonder how often sophisticated design intent involving strategy is attributed by a writer to a gca when all he was trying to do is get from point A to point B to complete the routing; or when a gca writes or gives interviews he simply rationalizes in retrospect for things that he did which had little consideration of that sort while doing it.  Don't we sometimes have the tendency to dress-up what we do or at least turn down the lights?  

[Phil_the_Author]

Jim,

"....and as for the 'unprofessional' behavior that's having a negative effect on access to club records:  It's not the 'amateur' sleuths on this site that are causing clubs to shut their doors..."

I only partly agree with that statement. It is a combination of researchers and historians who should know better and talented amateurs whose combined unprofessional behavior has caused this problem. And yes, I accept my own levels of responsibility in that.

You also stated that you "like history in general and it is fun mucking around in the material that's available online." The problem with your statement is that for all of the good and relevant historical information one can find online there is almost as much nonsense. For example, I can show you an article written in the 1928 Atlanta Constitution newspaper in which the writer states unequivocally that Tilly designed Olympia Fields. Now one who is simply "mucking around in the material" might read that and believe that it is true. He may be motivated to write about Tilly designing it on his blog which then gets picked up by someone else and in the miracle of internet speed suddenly it is accepted that Tilly designed Olympia Fields and as proof are all these internet sources backed up by a "contemporaneous" newspaper account.

The problem is not only didn’t Tilly design anything at Olympia Fields, from all of my research on what he did, when and where and creating a timeline of his life work, I can’t even show him as ever even visiting the club!

Another example. In my opinion, for as great a concept as Wikipedia is, it is an even larger failure due to its many years of allowing anyone to post information and even make changes to existing information without vetting the veracity of it in any way. This is a major problem because young people today view Wikipedia as an equal or superior to any and all of the standard long-time research encyclopedias; and yet the information simply cannot be accepted as properly researched. A good example is the references to A.W. Tillinghast and the many mistakes that can be found in the article.

Not everyone can do large-scale or high-level research into or write major histories regarding golf course architecture. Understanding that it is an important field that is growing more so with every day is the first step toward seeing it become recognized and allowing those who are attempting to do either on a professional level the ability to do so. In this way all, even those who simply want to “muck around” in the information, will have an ability to do it at whatever level they do with the confidence that what they are learning is true.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I wonder how often sophisticated design intent involving strategy is attributed by a writer to a gca when all he was trying to do is get from point A to point B to complete the routing; or when a gca writes or gives interviews he simply rationalizes in retrospect for things that he did which had little consideration of that sort while doing it.  Don't we sometimes have the tendency to dress-up what we do or at least turn down the lights?  

This is one of the unspoken truths isn't it?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Phil,

Amateurs are just that, amateurs, whether or not they have any talent. Those who consider themselves professionals should rise above the fray.

 When I “muck around” and find a bit of information on a subject that interests me I don’t stop there, I continue to look for other bits of info that prove or disprove the find, and if I post it to this site I don’t represent it as gospel. The presence of online nonsense doesn’t preclude the presence of value. I’d imagine that you’ve used online resources for your work, and you have posted articles to this site that you found online. Were you posting nonsense or sense? As you said, “Not everyone can do large-scale or high-level research into or write major histories regarding golf course architecture”, but I prefer not to sit around for two weeks or ten years waiting for someone to tell me what they know, I have fun doing it for myself in the interim.

As for the myhtical blogger: I don’t think that someone who blogs about GCA is going to have a group of followers who will blindly believe anything they read, true or not. His audience isn't going to be much different than this one.

Anyway, there isn’t much help for someone who actually believes the first thing they read.

[Phil_the_Author]

JIm,

I understand all of that. My point is that the greatest strength of the internet is also its greatest weakness for those who are seeking historical truth. Don't discount the import of what is posted on gca.com. There have been an occasion as I do a search for specific information on golf architecture that the first page of "hits" on google and other search engines references a discussion on gca.com.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Phil,
It's not a weakness if you're after the unvarnished truth, and I don't discount the value of GCA.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()