The Evolution of Golf Architecture

[Phil Young]

RJ,

Thanks for the answer.

You stated, "Now, during discussion and deliberation, some director may observe that some contractor has a bad reputation for always showing up drunk, or is someone's kissing cousin, etc.   I can't imagine such personal observations are noted in official minutes.   Can you?  If this is a matter of how things might be done on official club minutes and business documents, well I'd be stunned."

Before I started researching in club's board minutes I also would have been stunned. I no longer am. Let me give you an example of a board minutes note from an unnamed club in a very different part of the country than SFGC. In 1943, the notes atste that a board member "noticed that we have minorities working for us." He then put forth a motion to have the club fire all minorities and have as a policy to only employ caucasions. The vote passed unanimously. Today this club is filled with minority members who would probably be quite stunned to learn of this.

You also stated, "Am I wrong, or naive?   Why not have a current club secretary redact sensitive names and business matters days long ago, yet offer historians documentation of the club's key architectural and historical events?"

In SFGC's case that is exactly what happened and the result is the Tillinghast Illustrated article on the evolution of SFGC.

[RJ_Daley]

Ah, I see, Phil.  If only such historical embarrassments could be swept away with the use of redaction ink...  I recokon such historical research and documentation must be done by the social, economic, political researchers and historians; not GCA Oriented ones. 

Interesting, your example.  Me thinks the particular board member making those comments some 72 years ogo, was probably already well known for those racist sentiments, quite apart from some golf club board minutes.  Heck, they may have posted those very minutes on the club house bulletin board at the time as ashow of solidarity on the issue.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

At so many of the blueblood clubs many here would be interested in, it's possible/likely that there are 3rd and 4th generation members who might be embarrassed or possibly compromised by comments of their great grand dads. 

I can see the "best to let sleeping dogs lie" mentality.  Not that I don't love it when a Phil Young or other researcher can come up with some real history of architecture.  Even the Medinah history, which revealed the real estate venture that was to become the famous No. 3 course had a nice little cover story to hide lawsuits, etc. was interesting to know when it came out, but obviously some source of embarrassment to the club at the time.

It just seems to me that at this point in history, golf architecture history at a detailed level isn't important enough to most clubs to bother with going through their dusty old minutes.  Of course, none of us here can understand that notion!