The greatest game ever played

« **on:** January 28, 2005, 10:34:30 AM »

Just finished this book by Mark Frost. It is about the 1913 US Open at Brookline. It may be one of the more enjoyable reads I have had in a long time. Describes the players, course, the pressure, and has a litlle look into the rules of the day.

« **Reply #1 on:** January 28, 2005, 10:37:59 AM »

Tommy - this book has been discussed in at least two very lengthy threads here already. I'm sure Scott Burroughs can find those threads, he's great at that. But anyway, just to save you some time, many here have read it, and the feelings can be summed up as:

1) great read, very enjoyable (where I fall)
2) so far off on many facts and so poorly researched as to be unreadable (led by Dan King, among others).

There doesn't seem to be much middle ground between the two positions, either. Those in camp 1 don't care about the poor research, those in camp 2 can't believe the camp 1ers don't care.

TH

« **Reply #2 on:** January 28, 2005, 01:59:27 PM »

Tom, I realized early that there may be some problems from a strict historical perspective. I think what I like about it was the glimpses we got into the character of the personalities and an understanding of the social climate of the day. In that the book succeeded.

« **Reply #3 on:** January 28, 2005, 02:14:24 PM »

Quote from: tommy Williamsen on January 28, 2005, 01:59:27 PM

Tom, I realized early that there may be some problems from a strict historical perspective. I think what I like about it was the glimpses we got into the character of the personalities and an understanding of the social climate of the day. In that the book succeeded.

You and me both brother - I am on your side.

Just wanted to give you fair warning if the Dan Kingites see this.

« **Reply #4 on:** January 28, 2005, 03:53:38 PM »

Any chance you posted this just to see me get riled up?

Tommy Williamsen writes:
I think what I like about it was the glimpses we got into the character of the personalities and an understanding of the social climate of the day. In that the book succeeded.

How can you tell the glimpses he is giving you didn't come out of his imagination? When you play fast and loose with the truth, what can be believed?

Tom Huckaby writes:
Just wanted to give you fair warning if the Dan Kingites see this.

Are Dan Kingites those that believe in truth, justice and the American way, while the Huckabites are those that believe the words of George Costanza, "Just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it."

Dan King

Quote

Sure, we lie, cheat, and swindle. We've been known to deal in a bit of bullshit ourselves. So some of you may ask, "Why pee on someone else's parade?" One important difference: WE TELL YOU WE'RE LYING!
--Penn Jillette

« **Reply #5 on:** January 28, 2005, 03:55:18 PM »

Glad you saw this, Dan.

Hey, you needed some riling up. Being happy all the time makes you too much like me - not a good thing.

« **Reply #6 on:** January 28, 2005, 03:58:24 PM »

Proud to be considered a Dan Kingite on this type of subject matter.

I hate it when writers play around with historical subjects. For instance, after recently seeing Friday Night Lights, I found out that the story was distorted in that Permian actually played Dallas Carter in the state semifinals, not the finals. Now I wonder what else the bozos changed to make the story "better".

Real life is damn interesting. Anyone playing fast and loose with the details should at least tell you so.

« **Reply #7 on:** January 28, 2005, 04:01:43 PM »

That's cool, George.

But do we really need to start this argument AGAIN?

« **Reply #8 on:** January 28, 2005, 04:02:11 PM »

I stayed out of this the first time but I am with Dan. What troubles me the most is that the true story is so good, it doesn't need any help. Moreover, I did not find the writing style particularly compelling.

« **Reply #9 on:** January 28, 2005, 04:05:30 PM »

I agree, George.

In my former life as a TV critic, I tried to make time to read the source material or look up the facts before I reviewed a TV movie or miniseries, and it always baffled me why the scriptwriters insisted -- insisted! -- on changing the plot, the facts or both. The original was always just as interesting, and when it was based on history, it struck me as near-libel to change it for "artistic" reasons.

« **Reply #10 on:** January 28, 2005, 04:05:34 PM »

You too, Shel?
Et tu, Rick-ay?

Look, you guys make a good point. But it's not like this was about the vital records of our nation, or curing cancer, or who really is Lemony Snicket. Methinks we can lighten up here.

Burroughs, please save me and find the other threads. We can't possibly go through this pain AGAIN....

« **Reply #11 on:** January 28, 2005, 04:30:01 PM »

Until we convince you of how wrong you are, Huck, we MUST go through this again!

This is a real life story. This is not The Greatest Golfer Who Never Lived or Bagger Vance or that weak piece of tripe Golf in the Kingdom (just kidding - kind of).

If you are going to play fast and loose with the facts, you owe it to people to say "inspired by a true story" or something like that. Period. Otherwise you are simply deceiving people.

Anyone know if the Friday Night Lights book is actually honest, as opposed to the movie?

« **Reply #12 on:** January 28, 2005, 04:33:27 PM »

Give up George, it's not gonna happen.

Because I HAVE already conceded the author should have better acknowledged that he was playing fast and loose with the facts. Not that I really care that much, but it does seem correct, moral, fair and ethical to do so. His failure to do so doesn't lessen my enjoyment of the book, but I do understand how it does for you tightasses.

So can we put this to bed forever then?

TH

« **Reply #13 on:** January 28, 2005, 04:37:13 PM »

Bagger Vance wasn't real?

??

I will say that I have never been more disappointed in a movie more than Bagger Vance. I was actually mad when I left the theater.

« **Reply #14 on:** January 28, 2005, 04:40:32 PM »

Not until you admit that some small part of you enjoys the book less because doubt has been cast on everything....

« **Reply #15 on:** January 28, 2005, 04:41:42 PM »

Boy you guys do take this entertainment stuff seriously.

I enjoyed the book version of Baggar Vance. I also enjoyed the movie. They were totally different, the book was far better (as it damn near always is), the movie made laughable errors and the like, the accents and swings were bad, etc. But it still featured golf, lots of it. For a guy whose cinematic diet is limited 99% of the time to singing animals, well... I didn't feel like my time was wasted.

« **Reply #16 on:** January 28, 2005, 04:43:52 PM »

Quote from: George Pazin on January 28, 2005, 04:40:32 PM

Not until you admit that some small part of you enjoys the book less because doubt has been cast on everything....

Nope. If anything this makes me like it MORE and want to go and re-read it, just to piss you and Dan off.

I guess the difference here is I went into it KNOWING he must be taking liberties... no one exactly had a tape recorder around in 1913 recording all these conversations... so I understood that liberties were being taken, it was a given. Sure he should have been more clear, in fairness to the dense reader, but that's not my problem.

« **Reply #17 on:** January 28, 2005, 05:29:01 PM »

My problem is a little different than George's. I can accept historical fiction and enjoy novels that attempt to delve into the motivations of historical figures based on the author's perception of the times and his guess at the motivations of the subject. A prime, and far more serious example, might be William Styron's Confessions Of Nat Turner. But I didn't think the author brought any insight to this subject. The invented conversations and thought processes were trivial and didn't even serve to move the story. The mere facts standing alone are in this reader's view more dramatic alone than the embellished version provided in the book. Thank goodness I received it as a gift. I had trouble finishing it.

« **Reply #18 on:** January 28, 2005, 05:29:03 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on January 28, 2005, 04:41:42 PM

Boy you guys do take this entertainment stuff seriously.

I enjoyed the book version of Baggar Vance. I also enjoyed the movie. They were totally different, the book was far better (as it damn near always is), the movie made laughable errors and the like, the accents and swings were bad, etc. But it still featured golf, lots of it. For a guy whose cinematic diet is limited 99% of the time to singing animals, well... I didn't feel like my time was wasted.

Thomas,

I am stunned, shocked and surprised, that you of all people could say something good about Bagger Vance. It was almost as sleep inducing as the latest Bobby Jones tripe.

Why is it that directors of so called golf movies cannot get their actors just to GRIP the club decently? This is a completely static position and your grandmother, or for that matter, my grandchild, could master the technique. As for staying with the facts forget it......can anyone remember Glen Ford practically falling over at Riviera in the "Follow the Sun" movie. It didn't happen.

Don't get me started on the second half of 'Golf in the Kingdom.'

« **Reply #19 on:** January 28, 2005, 05:31:02 PM »

Bob:

Remember who you're talking to, and what my usual fare is. I have 6 and 9 year old kids.

Baggar Vance is mannah from heaven for me.

« **Reply #20 on:** January 28, 2005, 05:52:31 PM »

shivas, I'm not trying to say I'm right, just making a plea for understanding.

And by the way, I liked Mulan. That oughtta tell you enough.

« **Reply #21 on:** January 28, 2005, 06:00:13 PM »

Huck, Sounds to me like you are settling a bit.

Next thing you'll say that you kinda liked the Ranch at Silver Creek

« **Reply #22 on:** January 28, 2005, 07:14:06 PM »

Sorry I started this. It is fascinating that the book creates such strong feelings.

« **Reply #23 on:** January 29, 2005, 10:00:58 AM »

Quote from: Sean_Leary on January 28, 2005, 06:00:13 PM

Huck, Sounds to me like you are settling a bit.

Next thing you'll say that you kinda liked the Ranch at Silver Creek

Hell yes I'm settling when it comes to cinema. I have a wife and two kids who have strong feelings, and if I fight there, I don't get to have my way where it matters.... like where I do, and don't play golf...

Time and place for everything... priorities...

« **Reply #24 on:** January 31, 2005, 10:02:55 AM »

Quote from: tommy Williamsen on January 28, 2005, 07:14:06 PM

Sorry I started this. It is fascinating that the book creates such strong feelings.

tommy -

You shouldn't be sorry you started this thread - we just like to argue. I'm sorry if we sidetracked your good intentions. That Huck's just such a disagreeable guy.

I will say that if one knew going in that the book contained a great deal of historical fiction, that mitigates a lot of the problems I had with it.

Have a good one.

News:

Tommy Williamsen

THuckaby2

Tommy Williamsen

THuckaby2

Dan King

THuckaby2

George Pazin

THuckaby2

SL_Solow

Rick Shefchik

THuckaby2

George Pazin

THuckaby2

Sean Leary

George Pazin

THuckaby2

THuckaby2

SL_Solow

Bob_Huntley

THuckaby2

THuckaby2

Sean Leary

Tommy Williamsen

THuckaby2

George Pazin