Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Will Thrasher on October 15, 2024, 02:25:57 PM
-
If it's of interest, sharing my mapping of Raynor Courses for fellow Google Maps nerds. Feedback welcome for anything I missed.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1qck4iEWNhbyqNWkUWu5ptbyvhZ8rjTs&usp=sharing (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1qck4iEWNhbyqNWkUWu5ptbyvhZ8rjTs&usp=sharing)
Also working on a second map of the growing 147 Custodians List
-
If it's of interest, sharing my mapping of Raynor Courses for fellow Google Maps nerds. Feedback welcome for anything I missed.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1qck4iEWNhbyqNWkUWu5ptbyvhZ8rjTs&usp=sharing (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1qck4iEWNhbyqNWkUWu5ptbyvhZ8rjTs&usp=sharing)
Also working on a second map of the growing 147 Custodians List
I hope I can help you here, as I've already developed software to do this automatically with the wiki. E.g. here is an automatically generated map of Seth Raynor courses: https://golfcourse.wiki/architect/Seth%20Raynor/map (https://golfcourse.wiki/architect/Seth%20Raynor/map). Definitely some issues of not having enough data, but certainly hoping that improves over the years. I may need to add additional other affiliations to a course, like course construction for mid ocean club, but yea, building and improving this sort of thing my hobby project for years.
These maps are accessible through the architects page: https://golfcourse.wiki/architects (https://golfcourse.wiki/architects)
---
Edit: if there is anything I can do to make that data more accessible to your needs, definitely let me know.
-
Matt, this is fantastic. Appreciate it!
-
Matt, this is fantastic. Appreciate it!
Again, if there is any way I can deliver the data to you for some other use (like making your own maps), definitely let me know so I can build an API for that.
-
Matt and Will--
Wonderful work by both of you. I sense the complete list can be build by merging both of your efforts, as each of you have a few courses not on the other's list. I compared your two lists and here are the "mismatches":
On Will's list but not on Matt's:
Mid Ocean-Bermuda
Blind Brook-NY
Elkridge-MD (Will...you list this 2x)
Everglades-FL
Brookville--NY
Wanumetonomy-RI
Knollwood-NY
On Matt's but not on Will's:
Greenbriar-Greenbriar-WV
Monterey Peninsula-Dunes-CA
Sunningdale-NY
Mr Prospect-IL
Sleepy Hollow-Lower-NY
Minn Valley-MN
Lido NY (NLE at this site)
Oakland NY (NLE)
I also have a list (which was missing some of both of yours) but includes the following not on either of your lists:
Deepdale-Original -NY
Exmoor (Front Nine)-IL
Oswentsia-IL
Palm Beach Winter GC (now North Palm Beach CC)-FL
Ocean Links (NLE)-RI
Chicago Golf Club (original...now Downers Grove)-IL
and potentially Cypress Point (Routing)-CA
Me thinks a merger of our three lists would total 55 courses:
Blue Mound-WI
Camargo-OH
Chicago (current)-IL
Chicago Golf Club (original...now Downers Grove)-IL
CC Charleston -SC
CC Fairfield-CT
Dedham--MA
Essex Cty-NJ
Fishers Island-NY
Fox Chapel-PA
Greenbriar-Greenbriar-WV
Greenbriar-Old White-WV
Greenwich-CT
Hotchkiss-CT
Lookout Mtn-GA
Monterey Peninsula-Dunes-CA
Morris Cty-NJ
Mntn Lake-FL
NGLA-NY
North Shore-NY
Piping Rock-NY
Shoreacres-IL
Sleepy-Upper-NY
Sleepy-Lower-NY
Somerset-MN
Southhampton-NY
St Louis CC-MO
Sunningdale-NY
Yale-CT
The Creek-NY
Waialae-HI
Westhampton-NY
Yeamans-SC
Lido-NY (NLE)
Gibson Island-MD
Metarie-LA
Mt Prospect-IL
Oakland-NY (NLE)
Rock Spring-NJ
Midland Hills-MN
Minnesota Valley-MN
Mid Ocean-Bermuda
Blind Brook-NY
Elkridge-MD
Everglades-FL
Brookville-NY
Wanumetonomy-RI
Knollwood-NY
Deepdale (original)-NY
Exmoor (Front Nine)-IL
Oswentsia-IL
Palm Beach Winter GC (now North Palm Beach CC)-FL
Ocean Links (NLE)-RI
and potentially Cypress Point (Routing)-CA
-
Okay, I have updated (https://golfcourse.wiki/architect/Seth Raynor/map) what I can, but I have a few questions Paul:
Can anyone give me a citation that puts Seth Raynor at either the Onwentsia Club or Bellmont/Downers Grove? They are both associated with C.B. Macdonald, but I can't find anything that puts Raynor there.
Exmoor appears to be Donald Ross, and I cannot find anything that associates Raynor with the front nine there either.
Special thanks to Peter Flory for this thread (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,69172.msg1660307.html#msg1660307) that showed me the exact location Ocean Links, and Josh Pettit in this thread (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,71991.msg1731181.html#msg1731181) for confirming an existing Raynor routing at Cypress Point.
-
There wasn't any Raynor input at any of the pre-NGLA projects. About 1909 was his introduction to golf. The Macdonald projects prior to that:
Camp Douglas (August, 1875) [I consider it his first layout even if it lasted for a day.]
Farwell Estate "Fairlawn" (Spring 1892)
Chicago Golf, Downer's Grove (July, 1892 and spring 1893)
Chicago Golf, Wheaton (1894).
These were followed by a few of partial or inconclusive input:
Lake Forest Golf Club "McCormick Farm" (1894)
Washington Park Club (1895)
Onwentsia/Henry Ives Cobb Estate (1896)
Exmoor (1896 with edits in 1898).
I don't know if he had any role in the McCormick Farm.
-
Matt,
Raynor was credited with nine holes at Mid Pacific on the east coast of Oahu.
-
Colin and Matt--
Thanks for input. It is my sense (I think consistent w what Colin wrote above) that Raynor knew very little if anything about golf before he first met CBM at a lunch after CBM agreed to design NGLA. But I also believe that Raynor was at minimum the "builder" for all of CBM's projects starting w NGLA until Raynor's untimely passing in 1926. Therefore, if CBM did any substantive work at Onwentsia, Exmoor, or Downers Grove after 1912 I would be very very surprised if Raynor was NOT involved. If CBM only was there prior to 1909 for sure Raynor was NOT involved.
Best
Paul
-
When you merge lists and no one edits the merger, you end up with junk in there that shouldn’t be, like Mt. Prospect in Illinois or the William D. Clark designed Minnesota Valley. No need to reinvent the wheel. There is already a comprehensive list of Seth Raynor courses put together. See the link below:
http://theaposition.com/anthonypioppi/golf/2492/definitive-list-of-courses-designed-renovated-and-built-by-seth-raynor-and-the-ones-where-he-wasnt-involved (http://theaposition.com/anthonypioppi/golf/2492/definitive-list-of-courses-designed-renovated-and-built-by-seth-raynor-and-the-ones-where-he-wasnt-involved)
If anyone uses this list in their history books, maps or publications, it’s only common courtesy to credit those who put it together. The same can be said for the Ross List or any other architects list. If we don’t know where you are getting your information from, it’s hard to justify its validity. Just my two cents.
-
When you merge lists and no one edits the merger, you end up with junk in there that shouldn’t be, like Mt. Prospect in Illinois or the William D. Clark designed Minnesota Valley. No need to reinvent the wheel. There is already a comprehensive list of Seth Raynor courses put together. See the link below:
http://theaposition.com/anthonypioppi/golf/2492/definitive-list-of-courses-designed-renovated-and-built-by-seth-raynor-and-the-ones-where-he-wasnt-involved (http://theaposition.com/anthonypioppi/golf/2492/definitive-list-of-courses-designed-renovated-and-built-by-seth-raynor-and-the-ones-where-he-wasnt-involved)
I'm confused by the portion of your post that says "When you merge lists and no one edits the merger, you end up with junk in there that shouldn’t be, like...William D. Clark designed Minnesota Valley.", but then add "There is already a comprehensive list of Seth Raynor courses put together. See the link below"
The "definitive" list at the link to the AP site says that Minnesota Valley was "Designed by W.C. (Bill) Clark". Is the Clark attribution "junk" or did he design Minnesota Valley? The MV website and the members I know attribute the design to Raynor and credit Clark as the construction superintendent. I understand that Clark was credited as having designed a few courses in MN.. Did any of them look as Raynor influenced as MV? Curious to understand what evidence there is on this one way or the other.
-
When you merge lists and no one edits the merger, you end up with junk in there that shouldn’t be, like Mt. Prospect in Illinois or the William D. Clark designed Minnesota Valley. No need to reinvent the wheel. There is already a comprehensive list of Seth Raynor courses put together. See the link below:
http://theaposition.com/anthonypioppi/golf/2492/definitive-list-of-courses-designed-renovated-and-built-by-seth-raynor-and-the-ones-where-he-wasnt-involved (http://theaposition.com/anthonypioppi/golf/2492/definitive-list-of-courses-designed-renovated-and-built-by-seth-raynor-and-the-ones-where-he-wasnt-involved)
If anyone uses this list in their history books, maps or publications, it’s only common courtesy to credit those who put it together. The same can be said for the Ross List or any other architects list. If we don’t know where you are getting your information from, it’s hard to justify its validity. Just my two cents.
I appreciate the input. I was verifying the merge, but my list seems to have significant errors which I can easily correct. This is the nature of a wiki. One of the reasons I think a golf course wiki will be helpful, is simple that citations only to those who already know about them. Once the citation system I'm building is functioning, it will be very easy for folks to compare and reference citations. As much as I appreciate the compiled list you've made Nigel and Anthony, and I'm glad it's updated regularly, but there aren't exactly citations there either.
Citations on a definitive list would be very helpful in the face of, say, Minnesota Valley insisting... at some length... (https://www.mvccgolf.com/the-golf-course/our-history-2/) that they are a Seth Raynor course. They may be wrong, but again, without a citation, it's difficult for someone who hasn't done the research to just trust a blog post, even if I do have a lot of respect for you and Pioppi.
-
Stewart,
I am sorry for the confusion. I meant to say: I don’t know why you would include a William D. Clark designed golf course in a Map of Seth Raynor courses.
If Minnesota Valley wants to believe they are a Seth Raynor course that is their right and I have no problem with that, but if you want to make an honest map of Seth Raynor courses, I don’t think you should include it.
If Minnesota Valley is a Seth Raynor course, all the club needs to do is provide one piece of hard evidence that Raynor ever visited the course. It’s a very simple solution to the most controversial entry on the list. However, I have yet to see any information suggesting Seth Raynor was there and the 1937 aerial doesn’t exactly scream Seth Raynor design to me. I can understand peoples apprehension about this information. If you don’t want to put your faith in us, I understand, but don’t put your faith in anyone else either. Do the research yourself and see what you find. We even encourage members to take a trip to their local library and search the information for themselves.
I have no skin in the game. I am a huge Seth Raynor fan who has been researching his work for several years along with Nigel and Anthony. Our first priority is the truth. We want there to be more Seth Raynor courses, but if they aren’t a Raynor design we also feel it’s our obligation to call that out. Whether that gets received well or not is up to the club. The bottom line with Minnesota Valley is there are two stories. I just want readers to be open to that idea so they can make their own informed decisions.
Matt,
I appreciate all the work you’re doing for your free site, but you’re asking for a lot! The time that has gone into research to make these lists as complete as possible is absurd. Much like the Donald Ross list at the Tufts Archives we do not list our sources, because it takes up a lot of space. Anthony encouraged anyone with questions to contact him by email. Anyone truly interested in this information has the means to access it. This list was really directed to Will so he could make an accurate Raynor map on Google Maps which sounds really interesting to me.
Bret
-
Bret, I obviously don't want this to be taken the wrong way, because I mean this with full respect to any researcher.
I'm a bit perplexed at the "well you can just contact me" that I hear from course historians, why add that friction and just generally publish with "trust me" as the default? I promise you this isn't the first time I've seen that as a response. I do know that I'm asking a lot, but I think it's worth asking when people are making strong claims about Truth with a capital "t".
I understand that research hard work that is too often unappreciated and rarely results in any compensation, but again, I find the whole dynamic is very confusing. Perhaps it's a holdover from a previous era of publication.
At the end of the day, it's just golf, so I'm not really worried about it too much. I just really feel like a fish out of water every since golf history became a more significant part of my life.
-
Matt,
Maybe it’s because the stories for these clubs are complicated and can’t be identified by one particular source? Courses like Essex County or Knollwood which both had Tillinghast there before Raynor and Banks can’t always be explained with one story. I think we have been fair sharing our information on Seth Raynor (sometimes you just need to know where to look). Sven Nilsen put together a wonderful thread several years ago that included the sources for so many of these courses (with more detailed explanations).
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67551.0.html (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67551.0.html)
There have been more articles, layouts, pictures, old scorecards and aerials uncovered since this thread, but they don’t always make it to GCA these days, so this thread is likely due for an update, but I think it’s a great starting point for anyone who wants to see contemporaneous evidence showing why these courses are listed as they are.
Bret
-
As for William D. Clark….if there were a Society of Underappreciated golf architects, he would be at the head of the class.
The Minneapolis Tribune reported on June 13, 1924:
“A report on the progress in construction of the new Bloomington course will be made to members at a dinner at The Automobile Club, Bloomington at 7 p. m. today.
W. D. Clark, who planned the course and is superintending the work will lead an inspection hike over the course preceding the dinner.”
Back in November 21, 1923, The Minneapolis Star reported that: “Bill Clark has retired as Pro at Superior Club. The article states: “Bill Clark has retired from the active teaching of golf and will do nothing but devote his time to architectural work.”
The Minneapolis Tribune on September 27, 1940 reported that Bill Clark is back in Minnesota to look over expanding Oak Ridge to 18 holes. “It was Clark who laid out the original nine-hole course. He is rated one of the finest architects in the business, having shown marked ability as designer and builder of the Minneapolis Golf Club, Superior, Oak Ridge and Minnesota Valley, then known as the Automobile club. He also rearranged the early local public courses and laid out Armour and Meadowbrook.”
These are the articles I have on Minnesota Valley along with a few more W. D. Clark articles. His daughter was an exceptional golfer and Clark is a member of the Minnesota Golf Hall of Fame. William D. Clark also built courses in Florida, which have been mistaken for Ross courses. Ryan Book wrote a nice article about it a few years back. Here is a link:
https://bethpageblackmetal.com/2020/02/10/debatably-donald-the-damage-done-w-d-clark-and-the-architects-forgotten-at-faux-ross-courses/ (https://bethpageblackmetal.com/2020/02/10/debatably-donald-the-damage-done-w-d-clark-and-the-architects-forgotten-at-faux-ross-courses/)
-
Bret, thank you for taking the time to share all this. I very much appreciate it.
I have confirmed the first citation (https://startribune.newspapers.com/article/star-tribune-wd-clark-planned-and-supe/129847169/) (though I would note the Minnesota Star Tribune cites it as coming from "The Minneapolis Star" Page 16, June 13, 1924) as well as a second related clipping (https://startribune.newspapers.com/article/the-minneapolis-star-clark-to-inspect-ne/129908940/) from the same day in the Minnesota Daily Star (thanks to jmlawls7 (https://startribune.newspapers.com/profile/jmlawls7/) for clipping effectively every significant golf article so we can view them for free).
(https://i.imgur.com/ULcraB5.png)
I find your argument here persuasive, especially so in the absence of any parallel documentation supporting Raynor as the architect. It will make for a very interesting addition to the wiki. Again, I hang on to a strong, if only academic, skepticism by default, and am very thankful when someone is willing to educate me, so, again, thanks for taking the time.
---
I would add to anyone reading, that the article shared is certainly worth pursuing:
Debatably Donald & The Damage Done: W.D. Clark and The Architects Forgotten at Faux Ross Courses (https://bethpageblackmetal.com/2020/02/10/debatably-donald-the-damage-done-w-d-clark-and-the-architects-forgotten-at-faux-ross-courses/)
I think, and the end of the day, I have a very different view from the Ryan, but he makes a strong argument. I think a discussion of that article as a whole would be a very interesting GCA thread, though I presume it already was one before I was invited to the site.
-
Matt,
You’re welcome! Happy we could help.
I have no problem with people being skeptical about our work, which is why we ask people for updates, corrections, etc. However, I find it very ironic that people don’t take the same approach with the stories they have been holding onto since the 1990’s or early 2000’s.
You have to understand that a lot of history books written prior to 2015 were full of speculation, sprinkled with facts to match that speculation. Prior to 2000, historians didn’t think this information that is available now would ever become available, so they were very comfortable telling us whatever story they wanted to. Some historians did better with the facts than others, but the end result was a lot of poorly written histories, full of speculation, which eventually turned into errors once the contemporaneous information became available. I wish every history book could be written like Chicago Golf Club’s latest work by John Moran and Rand Jerris…and hopefully that is the direction history books start to take. There is a reason why they never cited their previous history books for information. They started from scratch and the end result is phenomenal!
I became a golf history researcher, because I wasn’t believing the stories I was reading. I didn’t want to read a made-up story, I wanted to know what really happened. I personally have no issues with the truth getting in the way of a good story and when I find that information I like to share it with others (who care) so they are aware of it too. Whether someone wants to believe the old tale or the new information is not up to me, but I feel like as long as I get that information out there, I have done everything I can to satisfy my goals as a researcher. I don’t consider myself a historian, because I don’t write histories or stories, but I do have opinions based on the information I have read, just like anybody else.
Bret
-
Okay, I've updated the wiki entry for Minnesota Valley CC (https://golfcourse.wiki/course/minnesota_valley_country_club-bloomington). I'll explain what I have done and why, and if anyone has a notable comment, let me know.
First, obviously, I've noted the citations.
Second, while I find it implausible that Raynor was the designer, I do not believe that it can be certainly known right now that he was not (depending on your view of certainty, of course, but I would warn anyone about to throw around some "common knowledge" meanings that I do have a degree in philosophy and I'm ready and willing to use it without prejudice). Thus, what I do have positive knowledge of is that this claim is highly contested. So that is exactly what I've added to the wiki.
Minnesota Valley will continue to show up on the Seth Raynor list of courses, but when it does, it will be noted as contested on those lists and that map.
I hope this is a reasonable position to take given how adamant the club is, while at the same time, how improbable it may seem given multiple citations that suggest the contrary. I'm just trying to do right by the golf community here.
-
Hi Matt, not knowing a thing about Minnesota Valley CC and its original course designer or any other part oc its history, why would a club being adamant to a belief be any proof or viewed as such. Let me give you an example.
About 15 years ago I was contacted by a club that had just undergone a restoration of its Tillinghast course by a "well-respected golf course architect who was a Tillinghast expert." They wanted to have me visit the club, tour the course and do a series of local media interviews for the club touting how great the restoration of this Tillinghast course was.
I politely turned them down, telling them that I was "the last person they would want to speak on their behalf about their course because "it wasn't designed by Tilly." I explained that "their original golf course was designed by him, but then the club moved to the other side of the city in the early 1930's. Tilly never set foot on their current course that this "Tillinghast exxpert restored."
I provided them with a number of contemporaneous newspaper articles that told the entire series of events behind the club relocating to the other side of town and selling their original site including their "Tillinghast golf course." To this day they claim that their course was designed by Tilly on their website. They are adamant about it.
A club being adamant is proof of nothing historically, even when it might actually be correct.
-
Minnesota Valley will continue to show up on the Seth Raynor list of courses, but when it does, it will be noted as contested on those lists and that map.
I hope this is a reasonable position to take given how adamant the club is, while at the same time, how improbable it may seem given multiple citations that suggest the contrary. I'm just trying to do right by the golf community here.
Matt-It seems anything but reasonable to me. I don’t think you are “trying to do right” by the golf community here by propagating what in my mind is a false narrative.
-
In classic Raynor style, the foundation of our course is a compelling collection of par 3 designs named; Redan, Eden, Biarritz, Short. The revered Raynor routing builds on this foundation with a diversity of iconic Par 4 template holes named; Alps, Narrows, Valley, Knoll, Plateau, Prize Dogleg, Leven, Cape and five Par 5’s including a Long template.
If all these types of holes are at MV, who is responsible? If Clark, did he come up with all of them himself?
-
Part of the reason we don’t like to share our information on GCA these days is because of threads like this. I have shared with you some of our most valuable information and all anyone wants to talk about is the integrity of the list and Minnesota Valley, which is by far the most controversial entry on the list. We are 20 replies deep and not one person said: “Holy Crap Bret! Seth Raynor was reported at Swope Park in Kansas City before Tillinghast ever worked there?” I thought that was a pretty interesting addition to the list. Phil, if you’re reading this, have you ever seen any mention of Raynor at Swope Park prior to Tillinghast?
As for the free wiki, I think that is a great project, but I hate to see every thread about an architect morphed into a discussion about the free wiki. Someone like me who has done lots of research will not put faith in this list. To me, it’s just another list that needs editing and I don’t have the time these days to edit the list for you. You would need guys like Sven Nilsen, Mike Cirba, Joe Bausch, Phil Young, Jim Kennedy, Anthony Pioppi, Nigel Islam, Brad Klein to comb through this list to make it as accurate as possible, and even then there would be disputes and discrepancies.
When I said it’s a lot of work, I meant it’s a lot of work on the people you are asking the information from, because you are kind of asking us to do the work for you. And yes, it’s work we have already done, but it’s not necessarily in the format that you desire. Some of the names I listed above make a living as historians and I doubt they want to just give away their livelihood to someone who is going to make the final call with their information. The bottom line is do we really need another list? So much of this information is available on GCA or the internet, it’s already been discussed. As the builder of this list, I would make it your responsibility to go through all of these old threads on the architects and read before you start typing. Compare them to the lists you use and then make your list. I appreciate what you are trying to do, but it’s a monumental task that will require a lot of leg work for you. I am just asking that you reanalyze your task. Asking questions is fine, but the approach you take to asking questions can be exhausting on a researcher like me and we have only discussed one course and we are 20 replies in. There are dozens of Minnesota Valley’s out there that need a similar discussion. If you are going to put together the kind of list you desire you are really going to have to do the research yourself and considering where you’re starting at, that will be a long road ahead. I do wish you luck, but please stop bringing up your free wiki in everyone’s threads. We know where to find that thread if we want to talk free wiki.
Bret
-
In classic Raynor style, the foundation of our course is a compelling collection of par 3 designs named; Redan, Eden, Biarritz, Short. The revered Raynor routing builds on this foundation with a diversity of iconic Par 4 template holes named; Alps, Narrows, Valley, Knoll, Plateau, Prize Dogleg, Leven, Cape and five Par 5’s including a Long template.
If all these types of holes are at MV, who is responsible? If Clark, did he come up with all of them himself?
Jim,
Have you ever looked at the 1937 aerial photograph of Minnesota Valley and compared it to the 1937 aerial photo of Somerset Country Club and Midland Hills? If you could point out the ideal holes on the 1937 aerial I would love to see what holes you are referencing. The reason Minnesota Valley looks more like a Raynor today is because of the work done by Bill Bergin. You have to understand the original tale with Minnesota Valley was that Seth Raynor designed it and Ralph Barton likely built it, because we didn’t have any information on the course or Barton, so that was the original assumption. Once it was discovered that Barton left Minnesota after Midland Hills to work for Raynor in Bermuda and Yale, it became apparent that Barton did not do the work at Minnesota Valley. Once the William D. Clark information was uncovered, the story changed to a Raynor design with Clark as the superintendent. So, that is the history of Minnesota Valley in a nutshell. The story has changed from the original, yet Seth Raynor is still attached to the club with out one iota of information that says he was ever there. For someone like me who remembers the original story, it’s sounds like b.s. to me, and I happily call that out when I see it. Again, simple solution to this problem everyone seems to be having: Show me proof Seth Raynor was at Minnesota Valley and we will change the entry on the list.
I gotta get up to Hotchkiss, how is the course this year?
Bret
-
Those words were not mine, they came right from the MV website.
We’re in fine shape this season, the course is playing firm everywhere and the greens are very smooth and quick. ‘Indian Summer’ is here for the next week or so, try and make it up. Andy Fenn, our superintendent, will be deep timing in early November.
-
Phil,
I hear you and completely agree with you about the nature of claims. My only concern is these private clubs may have private evidence that they, for one reason or another, choose not to share. I honestly have no idea why anyone would want to keep a private history, but you know better than I do that some choose to operate that way. I'm just doing things as best as I think I can as a non-expert in the area.
Bret,
If you're frustrated by this thread, I'm sorry. This is not my intention, and these threads do spiral a bit. I do understand that discussions of any point of controversy can be unnecessary and unpleasant, especially when that is instigated by someone else's apparent self-promotion. I can see that line in this thread, and I regret if that is the way this has gone. I'll try to discuss some of my reasoning in good-faith here, and if that is unwelcome or seen as patronizing, I'm sorry about that too.
The reason why I'm fairly obsessed with citations and verifiability basically goes back to my time studying philosophy of science. While it is entirely practical that we could have a single Raynor list that most people agree is correct, but when it comes the nature of Knowledge and Truth (with capital letters), the idea that there will ever be a single, definitive Raynor list, should ultimately run into the philosophical problem of induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction).
Two allusion I think illustrate this well is, on the straightforward side, the "debate" as to the spherical nature of the earth, and on the more complicated side is the "debate" as to the authorship of the works of Shakespeare:
To the first point, that flat-earthers exist is a testament that there will somehow be contrarians in the face of overwhelming, and readily available evidence. That contrarians exist, however, is fairly inconsequential as the evidence speaks for itself, and that these contrarians exist is more of a curiosity or novelty, rather than a problem, so long as they are not able to enforce their orthodoxy over others. In this situation, any serious discussion of the distinction between truth and Truth in regards to the earth being spherical, despite any technicality, becomes strained to the point of ridiculousness. And I understand that.
The debate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates) of the authorship of the works of Shakespeare is a bit more interesting. Here we have a significant amount of record such that it's arguable that it should be straightforward, however, it is still notable that there are other narratives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship) that even some academics seem to find the most plausible. However, the clear evidence speaks for itself for all practical purposes, and many-if-not-most of these dubious theories rely heavily on a lack of falsifiabliity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability).
Now, as you point out correctly, given the lack of evidence to back up the claims about Raynor at MV, we have a situation clearly illustrated by Russell's Teapot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot), and given the contravening evidence, for all practical purposes the claims should generally be dismissed, at least until new evidence is presented. Again, here we are talking about knowledge, and not Knowledge, because unseen evidence could exist. Again though, the evidence speaks for itself, and the lack of evidence speaks volumes.
As long as MV relies on generally unfalsifiable claims, by presenting no positive evidence, they should not be taken seriously. However it is easy to muddy the waters, such with the case of the Earl of Oxford, any suppression of these theories generally adds a narrative component to their lack of falsifiabliity. Ultimately, it seems that trying to turn perfectly reasonable knowledge into Knowledge is tilting at windmills, as there will be contrarians out there with the inclination (and monetary incentives) to present their version of Russell's Teapot to the community.
Here, I must point out, as respectfully as possible, that my understanding of these philosophical theories suggests that a definitive list, especially one presented without citation, is mostly only falsifiable to the author. That's all fair and good, and experts are respected because they have developed respected reputations. An open list of citation, however, presents an understanding that is falsifiable for everyone. This presents a form of powerful knowledge, even if does not hold the thrust of Knowledge.
Here, ultimately, I see no researcher should ever need to explain themselves for their view of the evidence they've presented. The evidence should speak for itself. The influence of the researchers exists as a guide to walk through the evidence to illustrate the argument/narrative that they've seen in it, which should be readily apparent to anyone looking at the evidence in good faith, even if it is not obvious. Here, I'm highly influenced by Spinoza (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/?app=true). Thus, I think it's appropriate to create and maintain entries for Oxfordian theories, despite how dubious they are, because, again, it is the evidence that should stand in the academic tradition, not any school of thought.
---
I apologize for any pedantry here, and for the wall-of-text nature of the way I write. In the next section I explain what I've done with my site and why I've done it. Obviously, feel free to skip this part if folks aren't interested (as I fully understand it could be seen as self-promotion), but I think it's relevant to this discussion. Again, I will apologize for my superfluousness, but it's really the only way I know how to engage in these discussions in good faith.
---
Now, there are plenty of ways to present open lists of citations. I have propose a few ways to do this in some private discussions with a few golf historians, and they have been generally rejected. The first is that clubs or institutions themselves organize an open format to share citations. That is to say, each club website simply has a subdomain, say, someclubwebsite.org/historical_citations.json, or similar, so that anyone looking for information to that club via navigating to that subdomain. While the club may not present the text of the citations, it may be privately owned or copyrighted, the citation itself is still valuable to any researcher. This is a perfectly straightforward decentralized way of doing things. I would prefer this. I, however, have no way of implementing such a thing aside from presenting it in a more academically minded forum, where researchers like yourself and authors like Phil hang out.
The other option is the publication of open academic journals on the subject, with a peer review system. If this system exists, I'm generally not aware of it. And with all respect and admiration of Adam's publication, it is not the type publication I'm talking about. I wish that type of publication existed, but I am in no position to create it.
What I do have in my power is to try and create a centralized resource of citation, and that is what I'm trying to do because I think it's worth doing. "You would need guys like Sven Nilsen, Mike Cirba, Joe Bausch, Phil Young, Jim Kennedy, Anthony Pioppi, Nigel Islam, Brad Klein to comb through this list to make it as accurate as possible, and even then there would be disputes and discrepancies." I completely agree with this assessment, and I also agree that it's implausible, and the project will likely fail, but the fact remains that as someone who is academically minded, this is the only path forward I see that I can execute, and I think it's something worth trying. The primary reason why I have pursued this is simply that it didn't exist, and the nature of open, centralized resources tend to create a virtuous circle dynamic at surprising rates. This means that if one historian engages with it, it becomes extremely more likely that another would. The more that do, the more everyone benefits. All I can do is put in a lot of work, and try to present myself as open and honestly as I can as a good faith actor in the project.
If anyone made it this far, thanks for hearing me out.
-
Hi Bret, this is the only one that I have found in my researches. On January 1, 1922, the Kansas City Star newspaper included a long column with the heading, “THE HIGH SPOTS IN GOLF. KANSAS CITY PLAYERS STARRED AND CLUBS PROSPERED IN 1921.” The last paragraph on the left hand side of the page stated the following:
“Through the efforts of the Kansas City Golf Association an exhibition match was arranged between the two British stars, Abe Mitchell and George Duncan, who were then touring the country, and ‘Chick’ Evans, an amateur champion, and Bob McDonald. The proceeds were turned over to Swope Park. ‘Chick’ Evans gladly gave his services when he learned of the cause and refused transportation. The idol of the caddies brought Seth Raynor, an architect, who suggested several improvements which could be made over the Swope Park course, which are being carried out. To show in part its appreciation the K.C.G.A. presented Evans with diamond studded cuff links.”
-
Stewart,
I am sorry for the confusion. I meant to say: I don’t know why you would include a William D. Clark designed golf course in a Map of Seth Raynor courses.
If Minnesota Valley wants to believe they are a Seth Raynor course that is their right and I have no problem with that, but if you want to make an honest map of Seth Raynor courses, I don’t think you should include it.
If Minnesota Valley is a Seth Raynor course, all the club needs to do is provide one piece of hard evidence that Raynor ever visited the course. It’s a very simple solution to the most controversial entry on the list. However, I have yet to see any information suggesting Seth Raynor was there and the 1937 aerial doesn’t exactly scream Seth Raynor design to me. I can understand peoples apprehension about this information. If you don’t want to put your faith in us, I understand, but don’t put your faith in anyone else either. Do the research yourself and see what you find. We even encourage members to take a trip to their local library and search the information for themselves.
I have no skin in the game. I am a huge Seth Raynor fan who has been researching his work for several years along with Nigel and Anthony. Our first priority is the truth. We want there to be more Seth Raynor courses, but if they aren’t a Raynor design we also feel it’s our obligation to call that out. Whether that gets received well or not is up to the club. The bottom line with Minnesota Valley is there are two stories. I just want readers to be open to that idea so they can make their own informed decisions.
Matt,
I appreciate all the work you’re doing for your free site, but you’re asking for a lot! The time that has gone into research to make these lists as complete as possible is absurd. Much like the Donald Ross list at the Tufts Archives we do not list our sources, because it takes up a lot of space. Anthony encouraged anyone with questions to contact him by email. Anyone truly interested in this information has the means to access it. This list was really directed to Will so he could make an accurate Raynor map on Google Maps which sounds really interesting to me.
Bret
Bret, appreciate this and will make edits. Just sent you PM on here with my email as well so I can share edit privileges with you on this list should you uncover more in your research. I'm not sure if my PM went through, but feel free to message me on here as well and we can email back and forth
-
Jim:
Thank you for the Hotchkiss update, I will try to get up there in the next couple of weeks.
Phil:
Thank you for providing that report of Raynor at Swope Park. That is the only article we have ever found as well. The short paragraph is packed full of information, but leaves a lot of unanswered questions.
Matt:
I am not frustrated by the thread, I think it’s a wonderful topic. I also realize these threads can spiral, but it’s usually because of the people posting in the thread. We are responsible for the spiraling of this thread, the thread didn’t spiral on its own.
Sometimes you need to put down your history books, science books and philosophy books and use common sense. That is the approach I take. I’ve never had to use philosophy to figure out when courses were built or who built them. I just let the reports from the day tell me what happened. If there are two stories about a course and one story has evidence to back it up while the other doesn’t, it’s a very simple decision for me. I simply forget about the original story until evidence suggests I should do otherwise. The way you have framed your MV listing to the public is biased and you should be able to recognize that. It’s okay to be biased, but when you are writing an objective history, you need to temper those biases to be most effective. You certainly aren’t doing MV any favors by listing it publicly, and you aren’t doing Seth Raynor fans any favors by sending them to what is likely not a Seth Raynor golf course. Your writing however does make it clear that it benefits you in a great way because it’s a perfect case study for your philosophical approach. That is the part I am not interested in.
You also need to be consistent. You read half of one thread on Cypress Point and determine that Raynor’s routing is confirmed and Joshua Petit has seen it. If that’s the case, I would love to see the confirmed Raynor routing as well. Show me the verifiability. On the other hand, I give you a well researched list and hard evidence about a story and you want to write paragraph upon paragraph to challenge its validity. Where is the consistency?
I agree an open list of sources and citations would be terrific, but that’s not something we are interested in doing right now. We don’t like to just give away our information so someone can work on their pet project. You describe it as sharing information, but we aren’t really sharing information, if all you have to offer is your point-of-view on this information.
Phil Young found the article on Raynor at Swope Park and I am guessing it didn’t take him long to verify that the story was legit. The reason he found it so quickly, is because of his knowledge base. He knows where to look and how to manipulate databases. I would recommend this is a skill you acquire to put this list together otherwise it will just be another list. I would also recommend subscribing to one of the modern sources you often use, but don’t credit. If you aren’t going to give the modern source credit, then you should at least pay them for their services of providing you the information you desire. Searching pre-clipped articles for free will only get you so far. I hope this information helps you in your endeavor.
Bret
-
In my opinion, the gold standard for amateur historians gathering, researching, and sharing information on an architect is the Perry Maxwell Archive created by Ed Oden. If we had such a resource for other major architects, where information was sourced and shared, we'd all be much better off. I recognize it takes years to find, catalogue, and ultimately share such information, but the intent and spirit of the Maxwell project is the ideal.
HOME | Mysite (https://www.perrymaxwellarchive.com/)
There is no agenda here to promote or protect Maxwell's legacy. Rather, the only goal is historical accuracy. Which is why the PERRY MAXWELL ARCHIVE is factually based, with source materials included and without any interpretation other than clearly identified editorial comments intended to provide context to specific factual entries. Historical knowledge is never static and inevitably evolves as new information is discovered. Blind adherence to accepted truths is a recipe for misguidance and the PERRY MAXWELL ARCHIVE will be a failure if it ever ceases to be a work in progress. Accordingly, new or contrary information is not only welcomed, but actively encouraged. The hope is that others will contribute additional information that adds to the collective understanding of Perry Maxwell and the golf courses he touched.
-
Sometimes you need to put down your history books, science books and philosophy books and use common sense.
I see. We'll have to agree to disagree here. I have encountered a lot of common sense is neither common nor sense, which is why I don't tend to trust my own.
The way you have framed your MV listing to the public is biased and you should be able to recognize that.
It's not my MV listing. It's the MV listing on my site. The issue here is that literally anyone can come along and change it (and I hope they do, that's the entire point), so if a MV member comes along to my site, and sees that it is not listed as a Seth Raynor course, they can just add it as a Seth Raynor course. I don't want this to happen, but without getting too philosophical, it's a problem that Wikipedia has had to deal with (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputes_on_Wikipedia#Contentious_topics) so creating an entry that is generally inarguable, by describing the situation and laying out the known facts it will likely not result in an edit war. It seems like MV as a Seth Raynor course is ripe for that level of disagreement.
You certainly aren’t doing MV any favors by listing it publicly, and you aren’t doing Seth Raynor fans any favors by sending them to what is likely not a Seth Raynor golf course.
I had already planned to write a format that highlights courses in different, clearer ways, where a course that is fully designed by someone is bright red, but where they just worked in the construction of the course is, say, a dull grey. In this case, disputed courses could appear faded, so it is clear that they are in dispute. I have no concern about MV, I just want to share information. If people ended up removing MV from the Seth Raynor list, I wouldn't stop them.
Your writing however does make it clear that it benefits you in a great way because it’s a perfect case study for your philosophical approach. That is the part I am not interested in.
Again, I'd hope you'd reconsider your dismissal of an analytical approach to reason. I'm not here to tell you how to think, but I've done my best to lay out my reasoning. If it's wrong, I'm more than happy to be wrong, because if someone can demonstrate it, I've learned something.
You also need to be consistent. You read half of one thread on Cypress Point and determine that Raynor’s routing is confirmed and Joshua Petit has seen it. If that’s the case, I would love to see the confirmed Raynor routing as well. Show me the verifiability. On the other hand, I give you a well researched list and hard evidence about a story and you want to write paragraph upon paragraph to challenge its validity. Where is the consistency?
Firstly, once I get the citation system up and running (this is my biggest criticism of myself here, and it's high on my to do list), then I'll at least need a citation from Josh, and will reach out to him, and may attempt to verify it myself or at least reach out to CP to see if they will verify it.
Why one and not the other? I can't answer this without actually getting annoyingly philosophical, so bear with me. Negative assertions are different in kind than positive assertions. When listing a positive assertion, I can point to Josh and his citation, and that's all one really needs to do (unfortunately for us, without a time machine, we are limited to testimony). Generally we would say: 'this is the case, and here's the record of it.'
When making negative claims, though, there are so many ways in which we can be wrong that it's just hard to reasonably argue for it definitively. We can say, easily, that newspapers state that W.D. Clark designed and built MV (and we should shout it from the rooftops), but that does not mean that Raynor wasn't (possibly, even if improbably) a co-designer, or that it wasn't designed from his plans, or that Raynor and Clark weren't in correspondence. It is very difficult to state these negatives, because it's very difficult to know whether or not they are true, even if they are wildly improbable. The best we can usually say is 'probably not,' and probably not is what I tried to list in my entry.
This just isn't typically an issue we deal with simply because it rarely comes up. 'Troy was not a real city' would have have been an effectively universal belief until 1868, when it was unearthed. The existence of giant squids was considered dubious until 2002. The metaphor of the black swan is relevant here. On these rare occasions, the problem of negative assertions shows itself. It's okay that we don't have certainty on most things, but philosophical solipsism is generally rejected out-of-hand by most, and for perfectly sensible practical reasons.
I agree an open list of sources and citations would be terrific, but that’s not something we are interested in doing right now. We don’t like to just give away our information so someone can work on their pet project. You describe it as sharing information, but we aren’t really sharing information, if all you have to offer is your point-of-view on this information.
This is unfortunate. The concept of 'our information' is just so antithetical to the academic tradition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_science#History) that I know and have been a part of, that I find your usage of the term affecting. We are all here with the information we have because previous generations gave it openly, recorded it for posterity, and archived it for us not knowing whether we would need it. The principals of open research are there for a reason, because they benefit everyone. I do not care about the ultimate success or failure of my pet projects, but I certainly hope that you would reconsider sharing the basic citations that you think are relevant to golf history, simply for the sake of future generations.
Phil Young found the article on Raynor at Swope Park and I am guessing it didn’t take him long to verify that the story was legit. The reason he found it so quickly, is because of his knowledge base. He knows where to look and how to manipulate databases. I would recommend this is a skill you acquire to put this list together otherwise it will just be another list.
It won't be 'just another list' because it's not my list. If the project is successful, it becomes a list that is open, editable, and verifiable by anyone. That is the entire point is to combine knowledge bases from multiple people. The reason why Wikipedia is such a successful encyclopedia is not because it's 100% accurate (no encyclopedia is), it's that every other encyclopedia has so many errors of omission, because they rely on the limited resources of individual agents. The point is to create a reference, not to one or two architect lists, but to every possible architect's list, which will take a combine effort of a large group of people.
Again, I'm only focused on my site because Wikipedia did not have a golf-specific framework, nor is this project within their scope of relevance. One of the possible results of a successful project may be that it ends up as part of the Wikimedia Foundation.
I would also recommend subscribing to one of the modern sources you often use, but don’t credit. If you aren’t going to give the modern source credit, then you should at least pay them for their services of providing you the information you desire. Searching pre-clipped articles for free will only get you so far.
I am genuinely confused by this statement. Are you suggesting I credit the archive? I suppose I should add that as a technical part of the citation (again, I do need to get the formal citation system up and running). I will actively do my best to credit any source, insofar as it is something that can be cited. If you provide me with a publication of yours with a citation, that publication would receive top billing if that citation was used. If you are imploring me to subscribe to newspapers, I already subscribe to multiple. If you're imploring me to use funded sources for archive databases, I absolutely typically use those funded channels I have access to in my community, and failing those, I would happily pay per article I needed, but in this case I did not need to. I feel like I'm missing something here.
---
I do appreciate this back and forth, so please don't take any of this as critical.
-
Pioppi once said at a Raynor Society meeting that there were fewer Raynor courses built than folks realize. Based on the lack of much info, Raynor was thought by some to be credited with designing upwards to 150 courses. Pioppi said this was poppy (sorry, couldn't resist!). Tony said Seth designed about 75 courses of which around 55 were actually built and about 35 in existence today. That still holds Bret?
-
JC,
That still holds true. I think between Macdonald and Raynor the number of designs are up to 96. In other words, they worked on 96 different courses that we know of. This would include second courses at Yale, Yeamans, Gibson, projects that we know he designed a course and construction started, but the course was never completed (Shotwell, Cragin Park). And courses like Nassau, Bahamas or Hope Ranch in Santa Barbara, where we know he travelled there to look at sites for a golf course, but we have no further information whether he designed a course or not.
Out of those 96 course consultations, 66 golf courses were built or renovated, and 48 still exist. 10 of the courses that still exist are considered Macdonald designs, so that leaves about 38 Raynor courses existing in some form. This number includes courses like Everglades, which was redesigned by Brian Silva in the spirit of Raynor. It also includes courses where Raynor may have only made a few changes, or a place like Nassau Country Club, where only the remnants of one Raynor hole remain. Anthony probably accounted for about 3 courses where it would be hard to find any of Raynor’s original work left to get to the 35 number?
Charles Banks worked solo on at least 20 projects that we know, 15 courses were built or renovated and 2 no longer exist. That should give you another dozen or so to visit!
I’ve never discussed with Anthony how he got that exact number, but I think it has to be close.
Bret
-
In my opinion, the gold standard for amateur historians gathering, researching, and sharing information on an architect is the Perry Maxwell Archive created by Ed Oden. If we had such a resource for other major architects, where information was sourced and shared, we'd all be much better off. I recognize it takes years to find, catalogue, and ultimately share such information, but the intent and spirit of the Maxwell project is the ideal.
HOME | Mysite (https://www.perrymaxwellarchive.com/)
There is no agenda here to promote or protect Maxwell's legacy. Rather, the only goal is historical accuracy. Which is why the PERRY MAXWELL ARCHIVE is factually based, with source materials included and without any interpretation other than clearly identified editorial comments intended to provide context to specific factual entries. Historical knowledge is never static and inevitably evolves as new information is discovered. Blind adherence to accepted truths is a recipe for misguidance and the PERRY MAXWELL ARCHIVE will be a failure if it ever ceases to be a work in progress. Accordingly, new or contrary information is not only welcomed, but actively encouraged. The hope is that others will contribute additional information that adds to the collective understanding of Perry Maxwell and the golf courses he touched.
Brian,
Thank you for sharing this example. I agree that the Perry Maxwell Archive is the Gold Standard for sharing their attributions. It is something we aspire to do in the future, but like you say it takes years to compile, catalogue and eventually present this data to the public. We are still in the compiling and cataloguing stage, so we appreciate your understanding and patience while we prepare the data for presentation.
Bret
-
In my opinion, the gold standard for amateur historians gathering, researching, and sharing information on an architect is the Perry Maxwell Archive created by Ed Oden. If we had such a resource for other major architects, where information was sourced and shared, we'd all be much better off. I recognize it takes years to find, catalogue, and ultimately share such information, but the intent and spirit of the Maxwell project is the ideal.
HOME | Mysite (https://www.perrymaxwellarchive.com/)
There is no agenda here to promote or protect Maxwell's legacy. Rather, the only goal is historical accuracy. Which is why the PERRY MAXWELL ARCHIVE is factually based, with source materials included and without any interpretation other than clearly identified editorial comments intended to provide context to specific factual entries. Historical knowledge is never static and inevitably evolves as new information is discovered. Blind adherence to accepted truths is a recipe for misguidance and the PERRY MAXWELL ARCHIVE will be a failure if it ever ceases to be a work in progress. Accordingly, new or contrary information is not only welcomed, but actively encouraged. The hope is that others will contribute additional information that adds to the collective understanding of Perry Maxwell and the golf courses he touched.
Brian,
Thank you for sharing this example. I agree that the Perry Maxwell Archive is the Gold Standard for sharing their attributions. It is something we aspire to do in the future, but like you say it takes years to compile, catalogue and eventually present this data to the public. We are still in the compiling and cataloguing stage, so we appreciate your understanding and patience while we prepare the data for presentation.
Bret
GC architecture and history enthusiasts are deeply indebted to the folks that do the digging, verifying, and sharing. Thank you.
-
GC architecture and history enthusiasts are deeply indebted to the folks that do the digging, verifying, and sharing. Thank you.
Amen to that!
-
Matt,
The whole reason this list is called “The Definitive List of Raynor Courses” is because of an old GCA thread. Do not take it literally. It’s not definitive. It’s ever-changing, with updates and corrections. If you read the first post and replies 87 and 88 you will get a sense of how this list got started. There was a request for a better list. Anthony raised his hand and took the job. Anthony had already been working on Raynor research for 15-20 years prior so it only made sense that he would be the right guy for the job. The initial request was for a list. That’s all anyone ever wanted until October 2024.
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54531.0.html (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54531.0.html)
Once October 2024 rolled around the list was no longer enough and now demands were being made to improve it with citations. These requests have now been heard and we are going to work on improving our list over the winter months. Please check back for an updated list in the Spring of 2025. Thank you for your understanding and patience.
Bret
-
Thank you for sharing this example. I agree that the Perry Maxwell Archive is the Gold Standard for sharing their attributions. It is something we aspire to do in the future, but like you say it takes years to compile, catalogue and eventually present this data to the public. We are still in the compiling and cataloguing stage, so we appreciate your understanding and patience while we prepare the data for presentation.
Bret
GC architecture and history enthusiasts are deeply indebted to the folks that do the digging, verifying, and sharing. Thank you.
Once October 2024 rolled around the list was no longer enough and now demands were being made to improve it with citations. These requests have now been heard and we are going to work on improving our list over the winter months. Please check back for an updated list in the Spring of 2025. Thank you for your understanding and patience.
I want to echo the sense of thanks and good will. I deeply appreciate all the work folks are doing out there. It's certainly hard work, and I feel like we've been given some many amazing resources, and I want to recognize that.
-
Thank you for sharing this example. I agree that the Perry Maxwell Archive is the Gold Standard for sharing their attributions. It is something we aspire to do in the future, but like you say it takes years to compile, catalogue and eventually present this data to the public. We are still in the compiling and cataloguing stage, so we appreciate your understanding and patience while we prepare the data for presentation.
Bret
GC architecture and history enthusiasts are deeply indebted to the folks that do the digging, verifying, and sharing. Thank you.
Once October 2024 rolled around the list was no longer enough and now demands were being made to improve it with citations. These requests have now been heard and we are going to work on improving our list over the winter months. Please check back for an updated list in the Spring of 2025. Thank you for your understanding and patience.
I want to echo the sense of thanks and good will. I deeply appreciate all the work folks are doing out there. It's certainly hard work, and I feel like we've been given some many amazing resources, and I want to recognize that.
Matt,
There are a lot of “I”s in that sentence as if any of the people on this thread who have done all of the hard work should be grateful for your blessing. I (we all get) that you have a degree in Philosophy. I have a degree in History. I was quite privileged to study under one of the greatest American historians ever (Edmund Morgan, to save you the AI search). However, neither of those facts makes me an historian nor an expert. One thing that I retain 45 years later is that finding, digging through, and evaluating original sources is what gets closest to the Truth which is what those on this chain and others have done with great skill and patience. I am a fan of Wikis and also the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which I predict you will offer your take on). But at the end of the day, it is the painstaking research that gets closest to the answer.
I do enjoy and learn from your posts so I am not trying to discourage, just trying to provide some context.
Ira
-
If I am inarticulate, then I am inarticulate. I'm just trying to add, after a lengthy and arguably tense discussion on the subject, that I very much appreciate the folks actually doing the work.