Robert Tyre Jones, Jr.

[Dan Kelly]

As that telephone operator used to say on "Laugh In"--

"Oh never mind!"

Tom I --

You're getting your comediennes crossed!

That snorting telephone operator on "Laugh-In" was Ernestine, played by Lily Tomlin. Her trademark line was "Is this the party to whom I am speaking?" (Snort.)

"Oh. Never mind" was the trademark line of Emily Litella, the hard-of-hearing, ranting guest editorialist on the "Weekend Update" segment of "Saturday Night Live." She was played by Gilda Radner -- may she rest in peace.

If it's not one thing, it's another ...

Dan Kelly (tm)

[Bob_Huntley]

Carlyle,

You wrote:

"He also doesn't gamble, go on drinking binges, or beat his wife."

You are right about the last two, but woefully wrong on the first.

[Lloyd_Cole]

After all this debate, here's hoping it's not Mel Gibson directing this forthcoming Jones movie!!

[jim_lewis]

I honestly believe that Bobby Jones was the greatest American of the 20th century. There is no point in anyone trying to convince me otherwise, because nothing you can say will change my mind. I will listen only if you wish to suggest Ronald Reagan. I know he wasn't perfect, but no one embodied such a splendid combination of character, intellect, charm, athletic talent, humility, and courage. His humble way of accepting hero worship was only surpassed by the strength with which he endured his terrible illness.

[GeoffreyC]

Jim Lewis

Your last line is particularly convincing, however, in the grand scheme of things I would nominate FDR or Jonas Salk as having made greater contributions. As Mr. Jones would have said- "Its only a game".

[jim_lewis]

Geoffrey:

I don't argue that he had the largest impact, just that he was the greatest person. Define "greatest" as you wish.
IMHO FDR did as much harm as good...started us down the road to a welfare state.  Enough of that. We are getting off the topic of golf, let alone architecture.

[THuckaby2]

IMHO FDR did as much harm as good...started us down the road to a welfare state.  Enough of that. We are getting off the topic of golf, let alone architecture.

Oh great Crusty One:

Well, as much as I tend to agree with your assessments of Jones, I too would keep it in perspective as Geoffrey has... But the main thing is, when you brought up Reagan, just realize that those of us who are not Republicans must have been absolutely STRAINING not to comment.  I know I was.

 

But you are right, it is MUCH better NOT to have that type of discussion on here.  To each his own.

TH

[GeoffreyC]

Crusty Jim

Peace  

With your definition of "greatest American of the 20th century" I nominate my dad.  

[THuckaby2]

Crusty Jim

Peace  

With your definition of "greatest American of the 20th century" I nominate my dad.  

Then he's tied for first with mine, GC.  

[Mike Benham]

But the main thing is, when you brought up Reagan, just realize that those of us who are not Republicans must have been absolutely STRAINING not to comment.  I know I was.

Tom -

You are assuming that this a politcal reference but I believe Jim Lewis was referring to Mr. Reagan's entertainment career, from recreating baseball games on air to his portrayal of George Gipp in the Knute Rockne All-American.  


Mike

[THuckaby2]

Aha!  I stand corrected.  Obviously for playing George Gipp alone he belongs in any discussion of great Americans.

 

[JohnV]

For a wonderful profile of Bobby Jones, get the book, "The Good and the Great" by Alaistair Cooke.  Mr. Cooke says that he met three truely great men in his life.  Bobby Jones was one.  The others were not famous men as I recall.

Among other things he talks about how Jones always determined who was the person in the room that was most likely to be ignored and would make it a point to talk with them and make them feel important.

I'm saddened that Mr. Cooke recently retired from his weekly BBC broadcasts.  He will be as sorely missed as HW Wind and Bernard Darwin.

[TEPaul]

"I honestly believe that Bobby Jones was the greatest American of the 20th century. There is no point in anyone trying to convince me otherwise, because nothing you can say will change my mind. I will listen only if you wish to suggest Ronald Reagan.

Jim Lewis:

That's an hilarious post. Spoken like a true republican conservative. I learned about four decades ago not to bother trying to convince them of anything for the very reason you just gave---eg there's no point at all, they're not even willing to listen!

[ForkaB]

Wasn't Max Behr a conservative Republican?

[MBL]

A huge fan of Mr. Jones, my admiration just increased a notch (or three) due to John Vander Borght's reference about the-most-likely-to-be-ignored story.

There is a growing group of my playing partners that regularly utter the phrase "WWBJD" (we've been kicking around having it embroidered on the back of hats): What Would Bobby Jones Do?  Now I think you'll be hearing it from me outside the confines of the golf course.  Thanks, John.

[Carlyle Rood]

I was shocked to see this book ("The Greatest Game Ever Played") in the non-fiction section of my local library.

If only factual inaccuracies were the only problem. When you make up facts it makes it really tough to tell what is real and what’s fiction. It would have worked better if he just said it was a novel based on a real situation. The story of the Ouimet Open is a good story, and I don’t understand the point of making-up history instead of at least attempting to do some research.

Dan:

(a) I explicitly lauded Sir Walter and Mr. Jones as a thoroughly researched and well-documented factual account of both gentlemen's careers.  I even suggested that the credibility of the facts was motivation enough to read it.

(b) I deliberately avoided such praise for The Greatest Game Ever Played.

(c) I only suggested that The Greatest Game Ever Played is a better read.  It is.  Frankly, Sir Walter and Mr. Jones isn't a very good read.  It's interesting.  It's entertaining in parts.  But it's a little painful to get through, and can be damn boring throughout.

I'm curious which "made-up facts" you discovered in the book.  If you have this much conflict seeing the book in the non-fiction section, then I can only imagine how difficult it must be for you to read a newspaper in the morning.  I think its ironic that newspapers consider the Editorial section unique from the rest!  

[Dan King]

Carlyle Rood writes:
For a really outstanding read, try "The Greatest Game of All."  It's a very interesting account of Ouimet's U.S. Open triumph, as well as some fascinating information about Vardon and Ray.

It took me a while to find any information about the book because the title is wrong. It’s The Greatest Game Ever Played.

I didn’t read the whole book. It was too upsetting to me to see history played with like Mr. Frost did.

My problem is that because he is pretending the book is non-fiction that we get people saying that they discovered “fascinating information about Vardon and Ray” or others saying they learned new things about Ouimet, the Open or golf history. I was also surprised at first because I was learning new things, right up until I realized the reason why some of these things were new to me was because they came from Frost’s imagination.

Every biography has factual inaccuracies, particularly if the author relies on quotes and recollections of the participants!

or his own imagination.

But this was a very enjoyable book--four and a half stars out of five.

Would the fact that he made up some of the lesser-known facts change your rating of the book?

I only suggested that "The Greatest Game of All" is a better read.

So is Grapes of Wrath but I can’t imagine someone bringing that up in connection to Sir Walter and Mr. Jones without good reason.

I'm curious which "made-up facts" you discovered in the book.

You can click here for the earlier discussion

Like I said, because of the minimal research done by Frost, I’d suspect all information I didn’t know before I read the book. He never gives us anyway of knowing what is true and what comes from his imagination.

If you have this much conflict seeing the book in the non-fiction section, then I can only imagine how difficult it must be for you to read a newspaper in the morning.

Are you complaining about the liberal media or the conservative media? Anything that has both sides equally pissed must be doing something right.

Legitimate newspapers might not get the entire stories or make decisions on what to cover and what not to cover, but they should be and are criticized when they makeup stories. Frost was rewarded for writing fiction and selling it as history.

At the top of this post I almost misspelled your name. But I did a tiny bit of research and made that discovery and fixed it. I could have not bothered with the research, and when you told me I misspelled, I could have insisted I was right or just said your name reads better the way I wrote it.

Dan King

The way your smile just beams
The way you sing off key
The way you haunt my dreams
Oh, no they can't take that away from me
We may never, never meet again, on this bumpy road to love
Still I'll always, always keep the memory of
The way you hold your knife
The way we danced till three
The way you changed my life
Oh No they can't take that away from me
 --Robbie Williams

[Carlyle Rood]

I didn’t read the whole book. It was too upsetting to me to see history played with like Mr. Frost did.

I've read your comments regarding the errors in the book from your the previous post you referenced.  The errors you cited are absolutely trivial, and I think the liberties Frost took using modern terms actually improved the comprehension of the book.

I think your fantastic "Vardon Flyer" conspiracy is somewhat rich in inference, and light on evidence.  I think your comments about Frost "making up facts" are entirely speculative.

I think most of your concerns would be attenuated by finishing the book.

My problem is that because he is pretending the book is non-fiction that we get people saying that they discovered “fascinating information about Vardon and Ray” or others saying they learned new things about Ouimet, the Open or golf history.

Again, perhaps if you finished the book, you might discover some fascinating information.

I never realized that Vardon had tuberculosis.  I thought the accounts of his rehabilitation, and the peculiar way the press reported such illnesses in that era, fascinating.  It was a genuinely remarkable comeback.

So is Grapes of Wrath (a better read) but I can’t imagine someone bringing that up in connection to Sir Walter and Mr. Jones without good reason.

Do you honestly not see the correlation between a book published about Jones and Hagen with a book about Vardon, Ray, and Ouimet?  There may be some correlation regarding athletics.  I'm not sure.  

Comments regarding The Greatest Game Ever Played:

It will give you great insight into how golf got its start in America, and the man who really introduced golf to America: Francis Ouimet. -- Ken Venturi

At last this remarkable story has been given the epic treatment it so richly deserves. -- Butch Harmon

Anyone who loves golf, or just a great story will relish this wonderful book. -- Scott Turow

His work is thoroughly researched and he has brought out the characters splendidly. -- Ben Crenshaw

I enjoy Kinky Friedman detective novels. -- Dan King

[Dan King]

Carlyle Rood writes

I think your fantastic "Vardon Flyer" conspiracy is somewhat rich in inference, and light on evidence.

What conspiracy? Do you think it is true or made-up? I don’t know. Do you? He made up portions of the book, could that be part of it or is that factual? That’s the problem I have with a book that pretends to be non-fiction but isn’t entirely. What do you believe, what don’t you believe?

Again, perhaps if you finished the book, you might discover some fascinating information.

I discovered fascinating information in the part of the book I read. Do I believe it or not?

You think the two errors I originally mention are trivial. I posted originally that I thought maybe he knew something I didn’t. I was surprised about a couple points. I found out I was right and he was wrong. I also found out he was wrong about Harry Vardon’s tours of America and how many defeats he had on his final tour.

Okay, maybe trivial, but it trivial enough that Frost could easily have gotten the right answer. Hell, he could have had someone who knew a little something about golf history read the book before publishing, and those trivial errors would have been caught.

Later I found out he freely admits that he made up part of what he wrote. He waits until page 479 or something like that to tell us, but why are you doubting him when he admits he made up part of the story?

Do you honestly not see the correlation between a book published about Jones and Hagen with a book about Vardon, Ray, and Ouimet?  There may be some correlation regarding athletics.  I'm not sure.  

Do you see the correlation between The Greatest Game Ever Played and The Grapes of Wrath? There is a correlation that they are both based on real events.

Other comments regarding The Greatest Game Ever Played:

Mr. Frost was lax for sure – Tom Huckaby

My guess is that Frost took many liberties with the story. –Wayne Morrison

Definitely written to Hollywood standards... – DKSmith

I'd read about half of the book, before all of that holiday stuff intruded -- and concluded, early on, that this book should be called "historical fiction" or "fiction nonfiction" or ... what did Capote call "In Cold Blood"? – Dan Kelly

That note should have been on Page IX, not on Page 479. People tend to read books from beginning to end, and it seems to me that if you're going to be fabricating material for a TRUE story, you owe it to your audience to let them know that ahead of time. –Dan Kelly

The 1913 U.S. Open is a great story, but I'd have a very hard time enjoying a re-telling of it if I believed the author was mis-reporting facts that were easy enough to get right. I didn't understand the rationale for working that way when I was a TV critic, and I don't understand it now. –Rick Shefchik

I enjoy Kinky Friedman detective novels. -- Dan King

I’m guessing you read historical books for a different reason than me. I’m guessing you read historical books to be entertained. I read them to be educated. If someone is fabricating parts of a book and refuses to tell me which parts, then it is impossible to be educated.

Dan King

Like a jaded, Jewish juggler in the cheap sideshow of life, one cold gray afternoon I suddenly found myself with five balls in the air. Unfortunately, two of them were my own. Ah, but the other three! That's where the story really began. For the first time since God gave Gatorade to the Israelites, I had three potentially big cases all going for me at once. Many aspects of this investigative trinity were so daunting that I'd taken to referring to each case with a code name. --Kinky Friedman (Meanwhile Back at the Ranch)

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Couldn't agree more. I haven't finished Frost's book either but if he made stuff up to pass it off as fact when he knew it wasn't and presented the book as non-fiction, that's not good--and just another example of revisionism. One of the most interesting things of all to me about some of the odd-ball little facts about early golf and architecture is just how different things could be in earlier eras, even very importatnt things from the way we look at things today and the locked in perceiptions we have about the way it must have always been. When someone, particularly a writer like Frost with the popularity of his recent golf book, starts making stuff up and passing it off as fact it gets awful hard after a time to ever prove it was otherwise---eg the way it really was--and that's never a good thing.

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

Read the book.  God I love Dan King, I have learned tons from him and I can't wait to see him next week and hopefully get to bat the ball around with him, but on this issue regarding just this book, my feeling remains that he is really making an unnecessary mountain out of a molehill.

Carlyle's right here.  Dan is right also - in principle - but in the case of this book, the errors are indeed trivial, and hurt nothing and no one.  In the end this book likely caused many who would otherwise never care to learn more about these all time greats Oiumet, Vardon and Ray to go find out more... and if the author took a few liberties to make this happen - and in the end provide a great read in so doing - I just can't see this as a bad thing.

But then again, you already know how I feel about the absolute necessity of historical accuracy.  Time and a place for everything, my friend.

TH

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
Dan is right also - in principle - but in the case of this book, the errors are indeed trivial, and hurt nothing and no one.

I came to the realization last night. The difference in perception of this book has a lot to do with the different reasons we would read a non-fiction book. I’ll read it to learn something, and if I’m also entertained, coooool. You, and I assume Carlyle will read a non-fiction book to be entertained, and if you also happen to learn something, coooool.

My only real question is you guys bring up all these trivial errors. How can you tell the difference between trivial errors, Frost’ imagination and real information? You both have said you learned a lot from this book, but without knowing what is real and what isn’t, how did you learn anything from this book?

In the end this book likely caused many who would otherwise never care to learn more about these all time greats Oiumet, Vardon and Ray to go find out more... and if the author took a few liberties to make this happen - and in the end provide a great read in so doing - I just can't see this as a bad thing.

You read a non-fiction book that enriched your knowledge of the 1913 U.S. Open. Why would you look further? If it wasn’t for these two threads wouldn’t you have been perfectly content with your new-found knowledge of the tournament and gone on accepting Frost’ view as gospel?

Dan King

Many things do not happen as they ought. Most things do not happen at all. It is for the conscientious historian to correct these defects.
 --Herodotus

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

You did hit on our fundamental differences.  I can live with that.

But as for leaving this as is and assuming Frost is right, or wrong, about the factual issues you raise, well.... if anyone does leave those as is, the world will keep spinning.  If it causes some to go out and learn more, then that to me is just a positive.

TH

[Carlyle Rood]

Dan:

After careful consideration, I think I'm beginning to empathize with your point about requiring authenticity and exhaustive research.  In fact, I want to begin a crusade to weed out all fraudulent historical references and the charlatans that perpetuate them.

In particular, I want to restore the integrity of Old Tom Morris's legacy.  Look at this obviously flawed characterization of Old Tom.  The beard has obviously been dyed.  The wristwatch is certainly not vintage.  Why, even the glass is not EMPTY!  

This following depiction is a travesty to those of us who appreciate history.  THIS PERSON HAS BLASPHEMED THIS BOARD AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE GCA ROSTER!

...or maybe by dwelling on a few trivial details I'm overlooking a highly entertaining and reverential message.

[Dan Kelly]

I'm sure you'll all be surprised and pleased to learn that Hollywood will get its own chance to get the facts right (ha). According to Variety:

HOLLYWOOD -- "Holes" star Shia LaBeouf will hit the links and play "The Greatest Game Ever Played" for Walt Disney Studios and helmer Bill Paxton.

LaBeouf is the first to be cast in the pic, based on Mark Forst's [sic] 2002 bestseller "The Greatest Game Ever Played: Harry Vardon, Francis Ouimet and the Birth of Modern Golf."

Project, adapted by Forst, tells the true story of the legendary 1913 U.S. Open, in which 20-year-old Ouimet shocked the golf world by defeating Brit champ Vardon.

Lensing on the film, produced by Forst and Larry Brezner, is expected to commence this summer.