[Tom MacWood]

Tom, assuming you are being truthful now and that this thread isn't an April Fools joke, then I think you have made a serious mistake.  I will likely continue to read your posts.  But I doubt I will ever view them the same way again.  Going forward, there will always be doubt as to whether your research is on the up and up.  Quite frankly, that probably holds true even if it turns out that this thread is the joke and the 1939 list is real.  And I will be far less receptive to cries that others are less than truthful or forthcoming.  I would have thought that there are few (if any) things more important to someone claiming to be a serious historical researcher than credibility.  Once damaged, it is not easily restored.  

PS - I feel particularly bad for Ran, who routinely refers to the now fictional 1939 list when introducing new course profiles or IMO pieces.  He's been duped.  

Ed
I think you are being a little over dramatic, but so be it. That IMO piece had nothing to do with inaccurate research, it was reproduction of a complete article that never existed. It was a hoax. It has nothing to do with credible research, but if you think the damage is done...

[Tom MacWood]

Tom:

I am saddened by this almost unbelievable development.  What a sham.  I, for one, don't believe that simply placing a disclaimer on the piece is adequate.  Lying and fraudulent research must be condemned as such.  Period.  I don't care in the least how much research went into the lie.  

Your lie discredits you, this website, the people who care about golf course architecture and the many people who quoted your "research" as fact.

“Liars begin by imposing upon others, but end deceiving themselves”.

Bart

Fraudulent research? What research was fraudulent? I'm not happy about those who quoted the piece as fact, but on the other hand I think they bear some responsibility for not trying to confirm it. What do you think?

[Sean Leary]

Tom:

I am saddened by this almost unbelievable development.  What a sham.  I, for one, don't believe that simply placing a disclaimer on the piece is adequate.  Lying and fraudulent research must be condemned as such.  Period.  I don't care in the least how much research went into the lie.  

Your lie discredits you, this website, the people who care about golf course architecture and the many people who quoted your "research" as fact.

“Liars begin by imposing upon others, but end deceiving themselves”.

Bart

Fraudulent research? What research was fraudulent? I'm not happy about those who quoted the piece as fact, but on the other hand I think they bear some responsibility for not trying to confirm it. What do you think?

I love that you are getting all indignant. Seriously?

Somehow I missed why you waited so long to come clean?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom:

I am saddened by this almost unbelievable development.  What a sham.  I, for one, don't believe that simply placing a disclaimer on the piece is adequate.  Lying and fraudulent research must be condemned as such.  Period.  I don't care in the least how much research went into the lie.  

Your lie discredits you, this website, the people who care about golf course architecture and the many people who quoted your "research" as fact.

“Liars begin by imposing upon others, but end deceiving themselves”.

Bart

Fraudulent research? What research was fraudulent? I'm not happy about those who quoted the piece as fact, but on the other hand I think they bear some responsibility for not trying to confirm it. What do you think?

I love that you are getting all indignant. Seriously?

Somehow I missed why you waited so long to come clean?

Indignant?

[Ed Oden]

Tom, assuming you are being truthful now and that this thread isn't an April Fools joke, then I think you have made a serious mistake.  I will likely continue to read your posts.  But I doubt I will ever view them the same way again.  Going forward, there will always be doubt as to whether your research is on the up and up.  Quite frankly, that probably holds true even if it turns out that this thread is the joke and the 1939 list is real.  And I will be far less receptive to cries that others are less than truthful or forthcoming.  I would have thought that there are few (if any) things more important to someone claiming to be a serious historical researcher than credibility.  Once damaged, it is not easily restored.  

PS - I feel particularly bad for Ran, who routinely refers to the now fictional 1939 list when introducing new course profiles or IMO pieces.  He's been duped.  

Ed
I think you are being a little over dramatic, but so be it. That IMO piece had nothing to do with inaccurate research, it was reproduction of a complete article that never existed. It was a hoax. It has nothing to do with credible research, but if you think the damage is done...

Tom, I never said your research wasn't accurate.  I said your credibility has taken a hit in my eyes.  The next time you post "research", how do I know that it isn't another hoax?

[Sean Leary]

Tom:

I am saddened by this almost unbelievable development.  What a sham.  I, for one, don't believe that simply placing a disclaimer on the piece is adequate.  Lying and fraudulent research must be condemned as such.  Period.  I don't care in the least how much research went into the lie.  

Your lie discredits you, this website, the people who care about golf course architecture and the many people who quoted your "research" as fact.

“Liars begin by imposing upon others, but end deceiving themselves”.

Bart

Fraudulent research? What research was fraudulent? I'm not happy about those who quoted the piece as fact, but on the other hand I think they bear some responsibility for not trying to confirm it. What do you think?

I love that you are getting all indignant. Seriously?

Somehow I missed why you waited so long to come clean?

Indignant?

Yes.

Why did you wait so long to come clean?

[JC Jones]

This calls into question everything Tom MacWood has ever posted on this website.  I find it interesting, in light of this admission, that Tom MacWood has almost never produced any material to support his often outrageous assertions.  Many people have reached out to Tom MacWood for help in their research endeavors only to have their efforts thwarted.  No wonder, perhaps no such source material ever existed.  I can't believe that Dr. Hurdzan would open up his library to someone so willing to defraud the golf course architecture community.

I also find it rather disheartening that we have lost Tom Paul, a credible researcher and historian, because Tom MacWood remains on this website.  I think the disclaimer that Ran put on the IMO piece is wholly inadequate.  I think the IMO piece should be removed from the website and possibly Tom MacWood as well.  If not, I'm afraid, as Bart Bradley put it, this website will be and has been, discredited.

[Tom MacWood]

This calls into question everything Tom MacWood has ever posted on this website.  I find it interesting, in light of this admission, that Tom MacWood has almost never produced and material to support his often outrageous assertions. 

Could you be more specific? What outrageous assertions?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom:

I am saddened by this almost unbelievable development.  What a sham.  I, for one, don't believe that simply placing a disclaimer on the piece is adequate.  Lying and fraudulent research must be condemned as such.  Period.  I don't care in the least how much research went into the lie.  

Your lie discredits you, this website, the people who care about golf course architecture and the many people who quoted your "research" as fact.

“Liars begin by imposing upon others, but end deceiving themselves”.

Bart

Fraudulent research? What research was fraudulent? I'm not happy about those who quoted the piece as fact, but on the other hand I think they bear some responsibility for not trying to confirm it. What do you think?

I love that you are getting all indignant. Seriously?

Somehow I missed why you waited so long to come clean?

Indignant?

Yes.

Why did you wait so long to come clean?

What did I write that was indignant?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

For what its worth, I think you showing a bit of a humorous side is always a good thing. Perhaps you should have let us in on the joke a bit earlier, but I wouldn't beat anyone up for that.  Once it passed the initial threshold without detection, you probably felt you were in a tricky situation, never anticipating that someone in this astute group wouldn't have caught on.  And really, is there any evidence that anyone used it for any "real history" and was damaged by the non revelation?

That's the good news.  The bad news is that most of my nonchalance about this is derived by the fact that I already look at your posts with some skepticism.  All but casual readers know why!  However, I have always appreciated your ability to dig up old and interesting stuff and know I have been enlightened by it.


I don't view this as a all or nothing, black or white revelation about you. Overall, the reaction seems like too big a deal to me, perhaps stirred by an inflated sense on the part of many as to what this discussion group really is.

[John_Cullum]

You all should have known it was fiction when you saw Royal Worlington on the list

[Tom MacWood]

You all should have known it was fiction when you saw Royal Worlington on the list

Why do you say that?

[Sean_A]

Tommy Mac

I must admit that I wondered about this list for some time, but because you produced it I didn't question it.  I thought a few things very strange.  First thing I noticed was Worlington and Prarie Dunes tied for 100 - both nine holers - very odd that.  Second was a course in Indochina.  I couldn't believe there was that well regarded a course in a French colony that I never heard any discussion of on this board - it just seems too interesting not to be known about.  The same goes for Laksers and Foulpointe.  These two a rated so high that I wondered why only The Lido was getting all the attention as a lost Atlantis. 

Why did you want play a hoax for so long?  Some people have actually cited this piece and now they must feel dopey and a bit miffed with you. 

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

Having two nine holers tied for 100 was a bit odd, not because they both weren't worthy courses, they were considered the best holers on their respective continents, but having them somehow tied for 100 bordered on too good to be true. Though I did say the final list was arranged by Rice, Richardson and Darwin, so I can see them doing something like that. By the way the part about Prairie Dunes being profiled in the magazine the year before was true. I'm still curious why John Collum does not hold Worlington in high regard. If I remember correctly Doak gave it a nine. John?

Ville de Delat was a course designed by Colt connected to an upscale British resort in that French Colony (now Vietnam), and was highly regarded. I've seen a schematic for the course and it looked fairly interesting - a well bunkered course that also ran along a lake. I'm not sure it was worthy of the top 100 in the world, but it was definitely one of the best courses in that part of the world. From what I understand there are some building still around (a very interesting tutor architecture) including I believe the clubhouse, and there is a golf course, although I don't believe its the same one. Ben Cowan-Dewar has played it.

Laskers was real, the private course of AD Laskers designed by Flynn. It was considered by many experts (who had the opportunity to play it) to be among the best courses in the country. Johnny Farrell rated it #12 and Tony Penna had it in his top six. The estate was called Mill Road Farm and was given to University of Chicago after Lasker died. It is NLE. Foulpointe was completely concocted. By 1939 Lido was on the decline. It had been hit by a storm that compromised some of its holes, it was one its second or third ownership group who are not very stable, the Depression didn't help that, and as a result was not being maintained in the same way.

I said in the first post it was not our original intention to have the hoax go on this long. If you shoot Ran or myself an email or IM we will explain it to you. I'm sure some are miffed, on the other hand don't they bear some responsibility for citing an article they did not read, see or confirm ever existed, or ask this site for permission to use?

[Tom MacWood]

This calls into question everything Tom MacWood has ever posted on this website.  I find it interesting, in light of this admission, that Tom MacWood has almost never produced and material to support his often outrageous assertions. 

JC
Could you be more specific? What outrageous assertions?

[Tom MacWood]

Many people have reached out to Tom MacWood for help in their research endeavors only to have their efforts thwarted.  

JC
Many people? Did I thwart your research efforts? Please explain.

[Sean Leary]

So Ran was in on the and approved of the hoax the whole time?

[John_Cullum]

So Ran was in on the and approved of the hoax the whole time?

Man I would love to think so

[John_Cullum]

Unlike most who wax poetically about Royal Worlington, I actually went out of my way to play it.

It offers very little. The first is nothing special.

the second is an overly long par 3, with really no recallable feature other than length.

The third is a bog. A rather challenging driving hole, but short enough you can play conservatively and still have an easy shot to a rather flattish green.

The fourth is nothing special other than it parallells the 6th and shares some bunkers in the drive zone. Not exactly an original concept in the UK.

5 is the one that made it famous because Darwin liked it. It is a very difficult par 3 with features that most of the GCA crowd hate. After one go at it, any sort of golfer would figure out the way to play the hole is to miss left and chip up for your par.

6 see above at 4

7 is nothing great, a flat midlength par 3

nor is 8. It has an elevated green with a deep bunker left. The cross bunkers are not that great of a challenge. I would say its the  best hole on the course,

and 9 is a lousy hole, A dogleg right across a ditch and hedgerow, then you play the approach over the public road to a flat green.

While the course has some width, there are not meaningful options for those of you who love that sort of stuff.

It is relatively flat save for the gentle ridge in the drive zone of 4 and 6. Half the course stays wet.

I think Tom Doak admired the fact that they got 9 holes wedged into the property and Darwin wrote nice of it.

I believe Darwin was largely being polite, and really only liked the demanding 5th.

Royal Worlington is a beard pullers delight. While most of the GCA crowd will speak of it lovingly, they will spend their time at other venues.

[John_Cullum]

RW does have a great logo though

[Peter Pallotta]

deleted - I was lecturing.

Peter

[Sean_A]

Having two nine holers tied for 100 was a bit odd, not because they both weren't worthy courses, they were considered the best holers on their respective continents, but having them somehow tied for 100 bordered on too good to be true. Though I did say the final list was arranged by Rice, Richardson and Darwin, so I can see them doing something like that. By the way the part about Prairie Dunes being profiled in the magazine the year before was true. I'm still curious why John Collum does not hold Worlington in high regard. If I remember correctly Doak gave it a nine. John?

Ville de Delat was a course designed by Colt connected to an upscale British resort in that French Colony (now Vietnam), and was highly regarded. I've seen a schematic for the course and it looked fairly interesting - a well bunkered course that also ran along a lake. I'm not sure it was worthy of the top 100 in the world, but it was definitely one of the best courses in that part of the world. From what I understand there are some building still around (a very interesting tutor architecture) including I believe the clubhouse, and there is a golf course, although I don't believe its the same one. Ben Cowan-Dewar has played it.

Laskers was real, the private course of AD Laskers designed by Flynn. It was considered by many experts (who had the opportunity to play it) to be among the best courses in the country. Johnny Farrell rated it #12 and Tony Penna had it in his top six. The estate was called Mill Road Farm and was given to University of Chicago after Lasker died. It is NLE. Foulpointe was completely concocted. By 1939 Lido was on the decline. It had been hit by a storm that compromised some of its holes, it was one its second or third ownership group who are not very stable, the Depression didn't help that, and as a result was not being maintained in the same way.

I said in the first post it was not our original intention to have the hoax go on this long. If you shoot Ran or myself an email or IM we will explain it to you. I'm sure some are miffed, on the other hand don't they bear some responsibility for citing an article they did not read, see or confirm ever existed, or ask this site for permission to use?

Tommy Mac

You are splitting hairs when you know you are wrong.  Nobody needs to ask your permission to cite your piece.  Nobody should feel as though they need to confirm with you that your piece wasn't a fabrication before citing your piece when just conversing on this site or any such blog etc.  If you think folks should then there is a serious disconnect between you and me about what GCA.com is about.  I understand you were having a laugh, but folks should then be laughing no?  The first time you saw or heard of this piece being used in any serious way you should have revisited the issue and perhaps offered a few more clues or let the cat outta the bag.  You would have felt a real schmuck if someone had cited your piece in a proper magazine with paying subscribers so consider yourself lucky.  

I completely understood that the courses I raised mention of existed (I even thought Foulpointe did - why wouldn't I?), but I was skeptical about any sort of concensus which would place Lasker or Foulpointe so high.  As for the Indochina course, it still doesn't seem in the least credible except for your name and the the names you easedropped attached the conversation.

Ciao

[Ed Oden]

I recently re-read the 1939 ranking which Tom MacWood produced a while back ... it has been reprinted in "A Disorderly Compendium of Golf", by Lorne Rubenstein and Jeff Neuman, now in bookstores everywhere. 

[Ed Oden]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000759131230357.html

[Sean_A]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000759131230357.html

Ouch!!!!  Well, lets hope that author has learned a good lesson because I think Tommy Mac is right that guys writing for a living need to check and recheck facts.  Still, this whole scenario is nasty.   

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()