An Open Letter to Ian Scott-Taylor

[Joshua Pettit]

An Open Letter to Ian Scott-Taylor
Re: The “Lost Drawings of Augusta National”

http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/the-lost-drawings-of-augusta-national


Dear Mr. Scott-Taylor,

I don’t know you on a personal level, but on a professional level you are a disgrace.

I refrained from involving myself the first go around, but I can’t in good conscience stay silent this time.

It's hard to put into words how much I resent you for this hoax that you and Phil Young have perpetrated.  People like you give researchers like me a bad name.  And invoking the legacy of Dr. MacKenzie in a profiteering scam deeply offends me both personally and professionally.  That’s two strikes.

You’re only recourse now is to come clean before this gets any more serious than it already is. 

I surely wouldn’t want to be in your shoes if someone purchases your drawings from the auction and then finds out they’ve been had.  I’m no lawyer (proudly) but I can imagine the potential for serious legal ramifications, not just for you but others involved as well.

Do the right thing. 

Regards,

Josh

[David Harshbarger]

Speaking of Roberts, Scott-Taylor wrote that MacKenzie thought him “a ‘right pain in the arse’ who was far more in control than Bob Jones was.

Pain in the arse is not a phrase used in 1931:


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6VfI8kT3-pLeXVDTTFlSEotZHc/view?usp=sharing

[Ken Fry]

Josh,

You mention in another thread you "can guarantee with 100% certainty this material is fraudulent."

I'm curious if you can elaborate on your certainty?

Thanks.

Ken

[Jeff_Brauer]

I haven't followed closely enough to have an opinion on authenticity of the documents, etc.  I do hope, for Phil's sake personally, that he does know what he's doing.

I am architecturally curious, after reading the Links linked article, if Mac would really have designed what was then 5 yards short the max length par 4, with a forced creek carry?  I can't recall him doing any other hole like it, much less calling it the best par 4 he has ever designed.

Perhaps those who know more about Mac's design tendencies than me can offer a reasonable opinion.  Thanks.

[Carl Rogers]

Why is this thread and the various re-actions and the other re-actions to the re-actions such a big deal?
Some of you are making out like a Tillie or Mac sketch real or fake is the equivalent to a Monet, Rembrandt or Michelangelo.  They are not.  They are just a step in the process that were reviewed, modified and probably discarded at some point.

[Niall C]

Carl


Read Jeff's post above your own to find out why it is worth disputing the validity of this material if you have any interest at all in the history of golf course design. Besides what makes Rembrandt or Michelangelo so important ?


Niall

[Jim Nugent]

I am architecturally curious, after reading the Links linked article, if Mac would really have designed what was then 5 yards short the max length par 4, with a forced creek carry?  I can't recall him doing any other hole like it, much less calling it the best par 4 he has ever designed.

Perhaps those who know more about Mac's design tendencies than me can offer a reasonable opinion.  Thanks.

Jeff, according to Mac's booklet on ANGC, the 440 yard distance was from the championship tees.   Regular tees were 420.  Long, but well within the range for par 4 holes. 

Second, in some key ways #13 as a par 4 would be similar to another very famous hole Mac designed: #16 at CPC. 

Both holes are long for their par, but still within the upper bounds of the day.  Both holes require a heroic shot over water to reach the green in regulation.  Both holes offer a safer, easier bailout, that still gives golfers a chance at par, if they can get up and down in two from pitching range.

Actually, given Mac's booklet (we had a thread about it, see http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51827.0.html), I think he probably did design it as a par 4.  Would he call a 420 yard hole a par 5 (or 440 yards for the pro's)?  In his booklet, he clearly identifies the other par 5s at ANGC as 3-shot holes.  He doesn't whisper a word about that for #13. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Thanks for doing my research for me.

I did note that the booklet also called the course a par 72.  Which other hole might have been the necessary par 5?  The only one length wise would be 14, now 5 making for unbalanced nines.  Also, that was modeled after the Road Hole. Not sure what par was there in 1932.

For that matter, the prize winning hole was really a par 5, was it not?  At least, most of those theoretical play lines show three shots, only a few show 2.

[Pete Lavallee]

The booklet shows 14 as 440 from the regular tees and 470 from the Championship, so clearly a par 5 in 1931.

[Jim Nugent]

Pretty sure the Road Hole was a par 5 back then.