News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #50 on: March 22, 2011, 11:53:03 PM »
I was suprised that I did not get a single comment on the Capilano routing rebutal.

I've found many examples of tall tales from architects in this era.
The Thompson interviews from this period are particularly hillarious, but as his step daughter said he was a story teller by nature.


Ian:

I tried last night to get back to the issue at hand, but didn't have my password handy.  I've been out routing a golf course of my own today, and am just back to the computer.

Wind's article describes in detail the various projects that Thompson and Jones pursued together.  I assume all his facts are from Jones himself, though Jones is not quoted directly much in those three paragraphs, and though The New Yorker is known to be a stickler for fact-checking.

Unfortunately, the article is in a PDF, so I can't just copy and paste the relevant section here.  After describing the start of their partnership at Midvale, where the club went broke a month before they were finished [and wound up owing them $9,000], Wind says their next three American projects all went under, so they concentrated their efforts in Canada.  The only sentence about Capilano is the very first thing after that:  "Jones routed the Capilano course, near Vancouver, on land owned by the Guinness family."  It later describes his contribution to the project at Banff Springs being mostly that Jones recommended a way to fight winterkill on the greens and fairways.

So, Jones is not quoted directly about Capilano, but Wind reported his involvement as fact.  Perhaps he just got it wrong; but it's also possible [is it not?] that Jones worked on routings for the course based on the topo maps, and that the finished routing might be partly or mostly similar to his work?  After all, if Jack Nicklaus wasn't already on record as saying that I did the routing for Sebonack, 75 years from now it would most likely be attributed to him.


Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #51 on: March 23, 2011, 04:04:22 AM »
Tom
If you email the PDF of the article to me I can break it down into JPEGs of the individual pages and post them. I think a lot of people - me included - would like to read the article.

Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #52 on: March 23, 2011, 04:14:01 AM »
Neil, 
I had a look at the available excerpt and I think there is the ability to just pay a wee bit of cash and you get a particular article for a nominal fee.  Maybe JPEGging PDFs wouldn't be appreciated by the publishers!

Cheers,
Colin
"Golf, thou art a gentle sprite, I owe thee much"
The Hielander

Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #53 on: March 23, 2011, 04:18:02 AM »
Colin - maybe they wouldn't, but they'd have to find me first! Guess it's Tom's call seeing he obtained the article in the first instance.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #54 on: March 23, 2011, 09:00:27 AM »
Tom
If you email the PDF of the article to me I can break it down into JPEGs of the individual pages and post them. I think a lot of people - me included - would like to read the article.

Please don't. Aren't you a magazine guy, Neil?

I recommend: Subscribe to the magazine! As much as some of the content might make you nuts, if you're not a confirmed liberal, it's still a great magazine, with a bunch of wonderful writers. Almost every issue has something well worth your time.

As a subscriber, even for just one year, you will have unlimited access to every issue of the magazine, all the way back to 1925. Every article, every advertisement, every cartoon, every cover. You can make a copy of every last Herbert Warren Wind article ever published in The New Yorker -- on golf, on tennis, on whatever else he wrote about.

The Digital Archive is one of the great bargains, ever.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #55 on: March 23, 2011, 09:07:20 AM »
Blame Hemingway for the short sentences.

I will.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #56 on: March 23, 2011, 09:15:42 AM »
Blame Hemingway for the short sentences.

I will.

One thing you'll be able to read, if you subscribe to The New Yorker, is James Thurber's "A Visit from Saint Nicholas
[in the Ernest Hemingway Manner]" (The New Yorker, 12/24/1927, page 17).

It's findable elsewhere, online, but I'm not sure of its copyright status, so I won't post it here.

The doctrine of fair use, though, allows me to quote the opening lines:

It was the night before Christmas. The house was very quiet. No creatures were stirring in the house. There weren't even any mice stirring. The stockings had been hung carefully by the chimney. The children hoped that Saint Nicholas would come and fill them.
 
The children were in their beds. Their beds were in the room next to ours. Mamma and I were in our beds. Mamma wore a kerchief. I had my cap on. I could hear the children moving. We didn't move. We wanted the children to think we were asleep.
 
"Father," the children said.
 
There was no answer. He's there, all right, they thought.
 
"Father," they said, and banged on their beds.
 
"What do you want?" I asked.
 
"We have visions of sugarplums," the children said.
 
"Go to sleep," said mamma.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Matt_Ward

Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #57 on: March 23, 2011, 12:16:36 PM »
One of Wind's great lines in explaining his lengthy pieces --

He was just clearing his throat in the first 2,000 words !

Priceless ...

Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #58 on: March 24, 2011, 01:24:36 AM »
Tom
If you email the PDF of the article to me I can break it down into JPEGs of the individual pages and post them. I think a lot of people - me included - would like to read the article.

Please don't. Aren't you a magazine guy, Neil?

I recommend: Subscribe to the magazine! As much as some of the content might make you nuts, if you're not a confirmed liberal, it's still a great magazine, with a bunch of wonderful writers. Almost every issue has something well worth your time.

As a subscriber, even for just one year, you will have unlimited access to every issue of the magazine, all the way back to 1925. Every article, every advertisement, every cartoon, every cover. You can make a copy of every last Herbert Warren Wind article ever published in The New Yorker -- on golf, on tennis, on whatever else he wrote about.

The Digital Archive is one of the great bargains, ever.

Dan
Appreciate your thoughts. Yes I have in the past produced 10 issues of Golf Architecture magazine. That hasn't stopped me from offering to email PDFs of a few articles to people when I have mentioned them on here. I have also from time to time posted newspaper articles I have got from places like Ancestry.com where I have a subscription. And I suspect many of the newspaper articles posted here in the historical articles come from behind pay walls. I can't really see the difference with the New Yorker article. I don't want to subscribe to an entire magazine to read one article from the 1950s. That's my take. :)

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #59 on: March 24, 2011, 12:22:03 PM »
Tom
If you email the PDF of the article to me I can break it down into JPEGs of the individual pages and post them. I think a lot of people - me included - would like to read the article.

Please don't. Aren't you a magazine guy, Neil?

I recommend: Subscribe to the magazine! As much as some of the content might make you nuts, if you're not a confirmed liberal, it's still a great magazine, with a bunch of wonderful writers. Almost every issue has something well worth your time.

As a subscriber, even for just one year, you will have unlimited access to every issue of the magazine, all the way back to 1925. Every article, every advertisement, every cartoon, every cover. You can make a copy of every last Herbert Warren Wind article ever published in The New Yorker -- on golf, on tennis, on whatever else he wrote about.

The Digital Archive is one of the great bargains, ever.

Dan
Appreciate your thoughts. Yes I have in the past produced 10 issues of Golf Architecture magazine. That hasn't stopped me from offering to email PDFs of a few articles to people when I have mentioned them on here. I have also from time to time posted newspaper articles I have got from places like Ancestry.com where I have a subscription. And I suspect many of the newspaper articles posted here in the historical articles come from behind pay walls. I can't really see the difference with the New Yorker article. I don't want to subscribe to an entire magazine to read one article from the 1950s. That's my take. :)

Neil --

You are, of course, free to email PDFs of articles you own, to anyone you wish.

And you are perfectly free not to subscribe to a magazine in order to read one article from the 1950s. That is your absolute right!

It is the magazine's perfect right to demand that you do so, if you want to read their copyrighted material.

I, too, suspect that many newspaper articles posted here come from behind paywalls -- and violate their publishers' copyrights. You're right: There's no difference between those articles and The New Yorker article. None of them should be posted here.

If we don't start respecting publications' rights, there will be fewer and fewer publications left to disrespect.

That will be bad for all of us, not just for us journalists.

Dan
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Andy Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #60 on: March 24, 2011, 12:52:40 PM »
Dan,

I'll take issue with this:

It is the magazine's perfect right to demand that you do so, if you want to read their copyrighted material.

I, for one, put in a request for delivery with my library, and I'll get a copy within a day or so. If my library didn't have it, they'd have gotten me a copy from another library. This is, of course, not in violation of copyright laws. Of course I pay taxes (and in this case tuition), and my library (presumably) paid for this issue 60 years ago, but the magazine actually can't require me to pay to read their copyrighted material.

I take copyright and the like very seriously, but it's important to remember that we can still use copyrighted materials for many, many things, particularly when the usage is non-commercial. There is a lot of room to use excerpts (like a whole article or a chapter of a book) of materials, especially for 'scholarly' debate.

P.S. I'm new around here, and I mean no disrespect and am not trying to pick a fight. I simply wanted to continue a 'positive' debate.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #61 on: March 24, 2011, 01:05:02 PM »
Dan,

I'll take issue with this:

It is the magazine's perfect right to demand that you do so, if you want to read their copyrighted material.

I, for one, put in a request for delivery with my library, and I'll get a copy within a day or so. If my library didn't have it, they'd have gotten me a copy from another library. This is, of course, not in violation of copyright laws. Of course I pay taxes (and in this case tuition), and my library (presumably) paid for this issue 60 years ago, but the magazine actually can't require me to pay to read their copyrighted material.

I take copyright and the like very seriously, but it's important to remember that we can still use copyrighted materials for many, many things, particularly when the usage is non-commercial. There is a lot of room to use excerpts (like a whole article or a chapter of a book) of materials, especially for 'scholarly' debate.

P.S. I'm new around here, and I mean no disrespect and am not trying to pick a fight. I simply wanted to continue a 'positive' debate.

Andy --

No fight picked. Points well taken.

I should have said "ask," not "demand."

And I shouldn't have been making legalistic arguments; I'm not a lawyer.

But in any event: I still think it's wrong to post whole copyrighted articles here, regardless of the legalities -- particularly when there are alternative ways to direct people to the articles in question.

Pretty much every newspaper and magazine in the world now has a Website, through which one can find many, most or all of their articles -- oftentimes free of charge, sometimes for a fee. I think that we should make it our policy to post links, not articles, whenever possible.

I am merely arguing, as I have argued here before, that we should respect, as much as possible, the property rights of publishers -- who need all the help they can get.

Dan
« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 01:08:19 PM by Dan Kelly »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Andy Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #62 on: March 24, 2011, 01:47:06 PM »
Dan,

As I said before, I too think respecting copyright is important. I do, however, think people tend to give it too wide a berth. By that I mean, no one needs to pay to read this article (or almost any other). If someone wants to out of convenience or a desire to support the New Yorker, by all means do so. But no one should be made to feel 'bad' for not doing so if he acquires the content through any of the many ways that are available without copyright issues.

I was generously offered a copy by mail. If I had a pdf copy, I'd have offered, in the thread, to provide it via email. To me, that's a perfect solution to the problem.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #63 on: March 24, 2011, 02:13:22 PM »
Andy --

I'm simply opposing the practice -- pretty common here -- of posting entire articles that could just as easily be linked to via URL...thereby denying the publisher a "payment" (a hit) in return for the publisher's investment in producing that article.

Dan
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #64 on: March 25, 2011, 07:17:13 PM »
I found a few passages of the article particularly interesting:

-- "Except for a few topnotch professional golfers, like Ben Hogan, who has earned close to a hundred thousand dollars a year, Jones's annual income exceeds that of anyone else whose livelihood is derived entirely from golf."

                     ======== I wonder how many people whose income is derived entirely from golf exceed the income of today's highest-paid GCA.

-- An advertisement for the "strapping new '51 Buick" promises, among many other features, a "Fireball engine."

                     ======== Was it named after Tom Paul's pal Fireball Roberts?

-- "The Scottish pros might have built better [meadowland] courses if they had taken more time. For most of them, architecture was a means of snagging a few extra dollars -- say, fifty -- on their day off. On a Sunday, in response to a request for 'a sporty nine-hole course,' they would saunter over a specified property, planting a stake to mark the spot where the first tee should be built, another stake to mark the midpoint of the fairway, and a third to mark the center of the first green. They would repeat this procedure for the eight other holes. Then, after giving the members of the embryonic golf club a few tips on where to stick the traps, they would collect their fee and leave. It took only three or four hours to design a course this way, and some of the more energetic Sunday architects could knock off three in a day."

                    ======== I wonder if The New Yorker's legendary fact-checkers seriously examined this paragraph. The Scottish pros *worked* on Sundays? (Is it OK to work -- just not to play?) "Some" of the more energetic pros could stake out three courses in a day? That's a little hard for me to believe. Has anyone ever seen evidence of that? Three courses, plus some inevitable schmoozing before and after, plus travel times? In one day?

** "When Jones is working on a course, he supplements his pencil drawings with a model of each green, scaled twenty feet to the inch and made of ordinary green modelling clay. Water hazards around the green are indicated by blue clay, and the traps are painted in with white enamel. [Aside: When did golf writers drop "trap" for "bunker"?] Jones usually devotes three days a week to inspection trips over courses in the process of construction. If he discovers that a project superintendent, despite the clay model of a green, has somehow missed his intention, Jones goes to work on the green himself. Standing in his shirtsleeves, he directs his bulldozer operator with hand signals and vocal exhortations until the green is buffeted into the shape he had in mind."
 
                   ========= Showing my ignorance (but what else am I here for?): How much of this description, if any, still applies? How much is standard practice? How much was ever standard practice? How many architects direct their shapers with "hand signals and vocal exhortations -- and how often do they do it?

** Just interesting: " 'When we started building West Point, we got our sand from Army cargo ships anchored in the Hudson,' he says. 'The way it worked, those transports would sail in convoy for Europe loaded down with war supplies. After dumping their cargoes, they'd pull in near any convenient beach and take onsand for ballast. Well, one of those convoys was routed to Scotland, and I like to think that some of the bunkers at the Point are filled with the authentic stuff, scraped right off the dunes of the linksland.' "

** On Page 42: an ad for "A New Musical Play ... The King and I," at the St. James Theater. Who got top billing? Not Yul Brynner. Gertrude Lawrence!

One more passage, later.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 07:21:13 PM by Dan Kelly »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #65 on: March 25, 2011, 07:52:04 PM »
Dan:

I generally have verbal directions (and sometimes hand gestures) for all of the shapers on a course I'm building whenever I am on site.  It's one of the fun parts of the job!  Some architects just make a new drawing of the area they want to change, but I'm better with words than with pictures!

Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #66 on: March 25, 2011, 07:53:37 PM »
Dan, Good on you for fighting the good fight.  I am genuinely surprised that people do not take a bit more seriously the effort that has gone into writing and thus compensation via subscription or one off payments for such. 

“How many architects direct their shapers with "hand signals and vocal exhortations -- “

I was amused at this and I bet when Tom Doak was building St. Andrews Beach on the peninsula near Melbourne that there were plenty “hand signals and vocal exhortations” from the Aussie workforce!!

“Three courses, plus some inevitable schmoozing before and after, plus travel times? In one day?”    The protestant work ethic was obviously working overtime!! Those Scottish pros were damnedly efficient.

Thanks and cheers,

Colin

Oops I see Tom has already replied!!!
"Golf, thou art a gentle sprite, I owe thee much"
The Hielander

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #67 on: March 25, 2011, 10:35:47 PM »

I was amused at this and I bet when Tom Doak was building St. Andrews Beach on the peninsula near Melbourne that there were plenty “hand signals and vocal exhortations” from the Aussie workforce!!



Colin:

What Aussie workforce?  We did have Jason McCarthy from Michael Clayton's firm doing some of the bunkering, but all of the greens and the majority of the bunkers were shaped by my two associates, Brian Slawnik and Eric Iverson.

Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #68 on: March 26, 2011, 05:16:36 AM »
Tom,

My apologies. That is very interesting. I have to admit that I just assumed that you would have had a small gang of little Aussie bleeders beavering away under close supervision and direction from your actual associates Brian and Eric. Is it generally the case then, in golf course creation, that the band at the coal face (bunker face) is so small?

Cheers Colin
"Golf, thou art a gentle sprite, I owe thee much"
The Hielander