Confidential Guide errors

[Scott Warren]

I got my hands on The Confidential Guide today, having read all the hype here about it.

Ignoring any quibbling about what courses got what ratings or whether it was unfair to give Seaton Carew a 3 from the carpark (though the strength of the cooling tower comment did make me wonder how Tom willed himself to leave the carpark at Royal St Georges ), because opinions are individual and it's only Tom's business how he wanted to carry out the process (and because I was a one-year-old when he saw a heap of them and who am I to pretend to know what he saw!), I found myself a bit disappointed with the errors.

Royal Cinque Ports is listed as "Tom Dunn 1895" when Harry Hunter designed it in 1892 (and the Roman road is in play on #11, not 12).
Royal Zoute is attributed to Seymour Dunn when everything I have seen credits the original design to Colt.
Are there really "six two-shotters of over 430 yards" at Swinley Forest?

I see from searching there are other things, like NGLA's hole names ending up on Westward Ho! in one edition and the Durban review in place of Garden City's.

All that (from the small sample I have played) in a book that regularly goes for $300? Maybe I am too pedantic, but spelling errors and rogue punctuation are usually enough to bother me in a book. In a book of criticism, isn't rule number one to cross your Ts, dot your Is and keep your own backyard clean?

I am sure some people will take this thread the wrong way, but I don't think it's out of line. After all, from reading what I have, it's clear honest criticism is something Tom holds dear.

But Tom, if you're back in London soon, please do come to Deal to see why it's worth more than 6!

[Kevin Pallier]

Scott

Tom didn't put the price on the book - the market did !! So you think it may not be worth the $'s you forked out ?

Far from me to defend it - but it's his assessment of courses he's seen - feel free to write your own and place your own "scale" but personally I can handle a few spelling mistakes or errors.

Some ratings I agree with others I dont but at least he tried to separate the pack where most would sugar coat many of the alleged "better courses".

[Scott Warren]

Scott

Tom didn't put the price on the book - the market did !! So you think it may not be worth the $'s you forked out ?

Far from me to defend it - but it's his assessment of courses he's seen - feel free to write your own and place your own "scale" but personally I can handle a few spelling mistakes or errors.

Some ratings I agree with others I dont but at least he tried to separate the pack where most would sugar coat many of the alleged "better courses".

Fair on the price comment. I was going to edit to add that, but the book was still published for public consumption, so my argument remains the same.

As far as your last two paragraphs, I made a point of saying I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to call Tom on his ratings (and didn't mention any spelling mistakes in TCG), so I'm not sure they're really relevant for the criticisms I made.

[Mark_F]

Maybe I am too pedantic, but spelling errors and rogue punctuation are usually enough to bother me in a book. In a book of criticism, isn't rule number one to cross your Ts, dot your Is and keep your own backyard clean?

I would suggest you steer well clear of Mike Clayton's "Golf - From The Inside", which is an excellent book that you can read over and over - but the proof reader on that book was either a chimpanzee, or an AFL footballer.

[Ally Mcintosh]

It may have been published for public consumption... but I'm not sure that was even the original intent...

[Scott Warren]

It may have been published for public consumption... but I'm not sure that was even the original intent...

I did consciously think I would never have started this thread if I'd got one of the copies he initially did for his mates, that's different to a published book.

The writing itself is really interesting and insightful, that's not in question.

[Mac Plumart]

I like the book a lot.  I can take or leave the ratings as they are simply Tom's opinions...but certainly there is food for thought there.  I love the back...The Doak Gazetter I think it is called.  Great study material.

The pricing is interesting.  $300ish for now (unless it is an autographed copy)...but should go up in the future if Tom keep pumping out good courses and they don't do another printing of the book.  As an FYI, I bought "Discovering Donald Ross" by Brad Klein maybe a year ago for $50ish...now it sells for over $100.  These golf books seem to have such small prints due to their niche audience they seem to collect accrue some value over time.  

On the spelling issues...I didn't even notice.

I think it is a must have for a golf book collection.

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark,

It is frustrating to see mistakes.I went over it several times - and you never see them until you see the actual book and the mistakes jump out.
Rich Beem became Rich Been - presumably when someone did a spell check and 'corrected' it.
Ping Eye 2 irons became Ping Eye two irons ( as in the individual club)
It is tough to pick up stuff like that - but I did call Ken Brown English when he is Scottish - despite the fact he has lived in England all his like and has the most English of accents.

[Kevin Pallier]

Scott

You said "cross your Ts, dot your Is" I thought it was cross your "t's" and dot your "i's" ?

You also reckon Deal is worth more than a 6 ? I think a 7 is a push so TD may well be right

Your issue is about corrections maybe you should consider your own backyard first ?  

[Marty Bonnar]

It is tough to pick up stuff like that - but I did call Ken Brown English when he is Scottish - despite the fact he has lived in England all his like and has the most English of accents.


Clayts,
think you need a proof reader for your posts here too.

cheers,
FBD (Mr Prefect)

PS sorry, I didn't introduce myself at the Lloyd gig in St A...

[Tom_Doak]

Hi, Scott.  I don't mind the criticism.  Sorry if you had to pay $300 for the book -- especially since somebody else made all the $ out of that.

My mom was an editor, so I am a stickler for such stuff, and I understand your criticisms.  The big errors you mentioned -- the NGLA hole names and the Durban / Garden City confusion -- happened in the second edition, which I did not have a chance to proofread.  I had asked the publisher to change out High Pointe for Stonewall -- which changed the position of reviews, since those courses in the front are listed alphabetically.  In the process, they screwed up the items you mentioned.  Had you bought a first edition ... or the limited edition ... those problems would not exist.  [On the other hand, the printer's error is a collector's item of sorts.]

As for the attributions of the courses, I went with whatever I could find at the time -- pre-Google, mind you.  Many of them have been proven wrong over the last 15 years of research.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Scott:

You bought the book, so you're perfectly entitled to criticise it. If you publish a book, you have to be prepared to take the good with the bad. As long as your criticism is fair - which it is IMO - I see no problem with that.

I personally find it very frustrating when I discover errors in books, whether they are typo errors of factual errors. It usually takes me less than 60 seconds to come across the first error, which makes me even more annoyed.

Dónal.

[Scott Warren]

Scott

You said "cross your Ts, dot your Is" I thought it was cross your "t's" and dot your "i's" ?

No, it isn't. Plurals don't get apostrophes.

You also reckon Deal is worth more than a 6 ? I think a 7 is a push so TD may well be right

He may be, that bit was meant slightly in jest. Being Tom's scale, a course is what he says it is on his scale. It's his opinion. You can't say a bloke's opinion is "wrong", just the same as or different to your own.

Your issue is about corrections maybe you should consider your own backyard first ? 

I'm not sure what you're referring to. The Ts and Is, or something else?

[Scott Warren]

Hi, Scott.  I don't mind the criticism.  Sorry if you had to pay $300 for the book -- especially since somebody else made all the $ out of that.

I actually got a PDF emailed to me. I am quite interested in owning a proper copy, but wanted to see what all the fuss was about first. Worth saying that despite my above issues, I still think it's a pretty impressive resource.

As for the attributions of the courses, I went with whatever I could find at the time -- pre-Google, mind you.  Many of them have been proven wrong over the last 15 years of research.

Fair call, you can only trust the information you have at your disposal (and it did occur to me that you did all this pre-internet). Having recently discovered pretty glaring errors on the Colt Association's site I can see that misinformation is out there.

[Tom_Doak]

Scott

You said "cross your Ts, dot your Is" I thought it was cross your "t's" and dot your "i's" ?

No, it isn't. Plurals don't get apostrophes.

Scott:

I was pretty sure you were wrong about this, and went immediately to The Elements of Style to settle the question, but amazingly, it wasn't covered.  [At least, it wasn't covered as far as I could find ... the book has no index.]  So I went to Google instead and here's what I found:

The Walsh Plain English handbook (widely used in American schools from 1939 into the 1970s) gave this rule:
Form the plurals of letters, symbols, figures, and words regarded as words by adding ’s, or sometimes just s: Ex. Dot your i’s, cross your t’s, and make your 3’s (or 3s) plainer. You have too many and’s (or ands) in this sentence.

In 2009, the Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL), an excellent and authoritative guide to written English, gives this rule:
The plurals of single capital letters, acronyms, and Arabic numerals (1,2,3,…) take an -s WITHOUT an apostrophe:
•   Z (the capital letter Z)–Zs
•   UPC (Universal Product Code)–UPCs
•   ATM (Automatic Teller Machine)–ATMs
•   GUI (Graphical User Interface)–GUIs
•   3 (the Arabic numeral 3)–3s

The OWL handout Forming plurals of lowercase letters carries this notation:
Apostrophes are used to form plurals of letters that appear in lowercase; here the rule appears to be more typographical than grammatical, e.g. “three ps” versus “three p’s.” To form the plural of a lowercase letter, place ’s after the letter. There is no need for apostrophes indicating a plural on capitalized letters, numbers, and symbols (though keep in mind that some editors, teachers, and professors still prefer them).


This should have been clear in that "dotting your is," is obviously confusing.

I am too lazy to Google the correct attribution for the quote about people who live in glass houses. 

[Anthony Butler]

You also reckon Deal is worth more than a 6 ? I think a 7 is a push so TD may well be right

He may be, that bit was meant slightly in jest. Being Tom's scale, a course is what he says it is on his scale. It's his opinion. You can't say a bloke's opinion is "wrong", just the same as or different to your own.

Scott, at least you'll be upgrading to a Doak 7 when you return to Australia... BTW what did Kingston Heath get in the TCG. I sent a friend from the Concord Country Club (solid and overlooked Ross course that is probably the equivalent to Charles River) to KH over RM based on the negative conditioning reviews posted here.

[Anthony Butler]

Scott

You said "cross your Ts, dot your Is" I thought it was cross your "t's" and dot your "i's" ?

No, it isn't. Plurals don't get apostrophes.

Scott:

I was pretty sure you were wrong about this, and went immediately to The Elements of Style to settle the question, but amazingly, it wasn't covered.  [At least, it wasn't covered as far as I could find ... the book has no index.]  So I went to Google instead and here's what I found:

The Walsh Plain English handbook (widely used in American schools from 1939 into the 1970s) gave this rule:
Form the plurals of letters, symbols, figures, and words regarded as words by adding ’s, or sometimes just s: Ex. Dot your i’s, cross your t’s, and make your 3’s (or 3s) plainer. You have too many and’s (or ands) in this sentence.

In 2009, the Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL), an excellent and authoritative guide to written English, gives this rule:
The plurals of single capital letters, acronyms, and Arabic numerals (1,2,3,…) take an -s WITHOUT an apostrophe:
•   Z (the capital letter Z)–Zs
•   UPC (Universal Product Code)–UPCs
•   ATM (Automatic Teller Machine)–ATMs
•   GUI (Graphical User Interface)–GUIs
•   3 (the Arabic numeral 3)–3s

The OWL handout Forming plurals of lowercase letters carries this notation:
Apostrophes are used to form plurals of letters that appear in lowercase; here the rule appears to be more typographical than grammatical, e.g. “three ps” versus “three p’s.” To form the plural of a lowercase letter, place ’s after the letter. There is no need for apostrophes indicating a plural on capitalized letters, numbers, and symbols (though keep in mind that some editors, teachers, and professors still prefer them).


This should have been clear in that "dotting your is," is obviously confusing.

I am too lazy to Google the correct attribution for the quote about people who live in glass houses. 

Potatoe

[Sean_A]

I can understand some errors especially with who designed what - much of the time this sort of thing is a never ending  story.  What I do find strange are the mistakes like 6 holes over 430 yards.  Something went wrong here and I can only assume Tom meant over 400 yards.  The Roman Road mistake is odd as well.  

As for Tom's ratings, well, as Scott states, they are his opinion.  However, I believe Tom is quite accurate most of the time.  There are some really out of line numbers which perplex me, but thats life.  I am sure Tom emphasizes different aspects of courses than what I or many others would.  I get the impression he is looking for a solid course with one or two stand out holes to really get things going in the 5 range - maybe 6 if the course is well known and with history.  

Kevin

Folks gotta understand that the Deal Appreciation Society's main goal is to lift that Deal number to 7, maybe 8 if you listen to them carefully.  They haven't yet heard of grade inflation.  

Tom

Don't bet too heavily on the apostrophe deal.  I bet you will find folks out there who will disagree.  The point is, this sort of stuff doesn't seem to be an exact science anymore.  Well, at least not as exact as when I was in school...


Ciao

[Scott Warren]

I was pretty sure you were wrong about this, and went immediately to The Elements of Style to settle the question, but amazingly, it wasn't covered.  [At least, it wasn't covered as far as I could find ... the book has no index.]  So I went to Google instead and here's what I found:

The Walsh Plain English handbook (widely used in American schools from 1939 into the 1970s) gave this rule:
Form the plurals of letters, symbols, figures, and words regarded as words by adding ’s, or sometimes just s: Ex. Dot your i’s, cross your t’s, and make your 3’s (or 3s) plainer. You have too many and’s (or ands) in this sentence.

In 2009, the Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL), an excellent and authoritative guide to written English, gives this rule:
The plurals of single capital letters, acronyms, and Arabic numerals (1,2,3,…) take an -s WITHOUT an apostrophe:
•   Z (the capital letter Z)–Zs
•   UPC (Universal Product Code)–UPCs
•   ATM (Automatic Teller Machine)–ATMs
•   GUI (Graphical User Interface)–GUIs
•   3 (the Arabic numeral 3)–3s

The OWL handout Forming plurals of lowercase letters carries this notation:
Apostrophes are used to form plurals of letters that appear in lowercase; here the rule appears to be more typographical than grammatical, e.g. “three ps” versus “three p’s.” To form the plural of a lowercase letter, place ’s after the letter. There is no need for apostrophes indicating a plural on capitalized letters, numbers, and symbols (though keep in mind that some editors, teachers, and professors still prefer them).


This should have been clear in that "dotting your is," is obviously confusing.

I am too lazy to Google the correct attribution for the quote about people who live in glass houses. 

This is why I wasn't so petty as to mention spelling and grammar in my OP. I'm not about to shitcan a bloke on the strength of it, especially as you make clear in the introduction that you avoided commercial publishers and their demands to do it yourself and keep it pure.

I only mentioned spelling and grammar to accept that maybe I am a pedant, but obviously the things I referenced aren't spelling or grammar-based.

We're wandering somewhat from the intention I had, but I suspected that might happen

It's a slippery slope to turn yourself into the Grammar Police, because then you end up paranoid every time you post!

[Anthony Gray]

  The most amazing thing I find surrounding the book is passion. Dick Vitale in his induction speach to the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame mentioned how passion leads to success. The passion for the land that golf is played on inspired the book and thus its success. It is one example that parents can share with their children.

  Anthony

 

[Jim Sweeney]

Golf history evolves as new facts are revealed, making what we thought correct, an error. The proliferation of people writing about the subject adds to the opportunity for errors.

I have found factual errors in all three Mark Frost books- The Greatest Game, The Grand Slam, and The Match. None of them changed the stories, but they gnaw regardless.

I am fortunate to have an original Confidential Guide, and I wouldn't know what was in error, and therefore it never bothered me. The effect of the book was to accelerate the discussion of GCA and for that reason Mr. Doak provided us a great service.

Which I think is a point Mr. Warren made also- the errors are regrettable but don't change the character or effect of the book.

[David_Elvins]

I actually got a PDF emailed to me.

Pedant for spelling, not such a pedant for copyright laws.  A bit surprising for someone working in journalism.  Or then again, maybe not. 

[Scott Warren]

I actually got a PDF emailed to me.

Pedant for spelling, not such a pedant for copyright laws.  A bit surprising for someone working in journalism.  Or then again, maybe not. 

The professional attack was unnecessary.

[JNC Lyon]

I actually got a PDF emailed to me.

Pedant for spelling, not such a pedant for copyright laws.  A bit surprising for someone working in journalism.  Or then again, maybe not. 

Yeah, low blow there.  I am pretty sure there are plenty of journalists on this site (I am an amateur journalist myself) who just might take issue with your statement.

[Sean_A]

I actually got a PDF emailed to me.

Pedant for spelling, not such a pedant for copyright laws.  A bit surprising for someone working in journalism.  Or then again, maybe not. 

David

Perhaps Scott and whoever copied the book have permission to do so. 

Ciao