The tallest tale

[Dan Kelly]

Good finds, Ed Oden.

I wonder where the WSJ writer found that information: here, or in the "Disorderly Compendium," or somewhere else?

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Ed - I didn't know about either of those cases.  

Not the end of the world, I grant; but it's ironic that Tom M is now criticizing those who didn't personally confirm the existence of the original 1939 article (i.e. essentially blaming them for taking his essay on trust and on face value), but at the same time calling over-dramatic posters who say they can no longer take anything Tom writes on trust and on face value.  Tom and Ran proved that they know their gca history better than most; I hope the snickers of delight they shared were worth it.  The hoax only worked because most of us had high regard for Tom and Ran's research skills and ethics. Yes, it was a joke, as Shivas says -- but to what purpose, and to what end? As far as I know, it didn't make any one actually laugh.  

Peter

[Ed Oden]

Just to be clear, there was virtually no effort on my part.  A 30 second search on this website and another 30 second search on Google is all you need to see how extensively this list has been quoted and relied upon.

[Rick Shefchik]

Two lines from pop culture come to mind. First, Dan Rather: "Fake, but accurate."

Second, "Animal House":  "You f---d up. You trusted us."

[Carl Nichols]

I find it interesting that Tom has posted a public confessional but is now ducking a series of fairly obvious questions, like why write it in the first place, why confess now, and what does it mean for him to have held off on the disclosure because "the article took on a life of its own, including some restoration projects as a result" -- choosing instead to deflect those core questions by nitpicking posts.   For the record, I've never even read the article, I'm just fascinated by those choices.

[Tom MacWood]

Thanks, Ed - I didn't know about either of those cases.  

Not the end of the world, I grant; but it's ironic that Tom M is now criticizing those who didn't personally confirm the existence of the original 1939 article (i.e. essentially blaming them for taking his essay on trust and on face value)...

Peter

Blaming? Bart said he felt badly for those who quoted my piece and Sean said those who quoted it must now feel pretty dopy. And I responded that I wasn't happy about that, but asked don't they bear some responsibility for not confirming it. They were not quoting me, they were quoting an old article that they obviously never read or confirmed existed.

Here is a link to another link:

http://robertfagan.com/golf/uncategorized/748/golf-s-finest-courses-1939

[Tom Dunne]

This kind of dealing in bad faith reflects poorly on the site. I remember Foulpointe piquing my curiosity several years ago and spending the better part of a day looking into it both on and offline. I came up empty-handed, and after that I just kind of moved on to the next thing. I suppose if I'd really been hot for the long-lost Lido of Madagascar (I'm surprised I dropped it, actually) the next step would have been to contact Mr. MacWood--would he have then told me that the list was fictional? Would I have had an easy time reaching him? What if I were working on a tight deadline?

If I'd looked into it, maybe I would have come up with some verification--because I have an account here. But many writers do not, and that's to say nothing of the fact that many writers aren't solely responsible for their own fact-checking. GolfClubAtlas doesn't have formal protocols in place to assist other media in verifying information. I'm not sure there's even an email address for interested outside parties to contact either GCA or its contributing authors.    

I don't think the original goal of this piece was to make professional writers and news organizations look bad--more likely it was just an unintended consequence that turned out to hold some kind of perverse fascination as time passed. GCA is routinely referenced in the wider world--both with and without citation, it's true--but if this site really stood behind its work, there would be some kind of mechanism in place to expedite fact-checking. Who wants to start fielding those phone calls? Show of hands?

It just comes down to what this site is or wants to be. Everyone knows it's influential, but is it responsible? (I think Uncle Ben said something to Peter Parker about that.) Maybe leaving this turd in the punchbowl was a nifty way of actually elevating GCA by lowering confidence in others. I will say this, though--if I'm one of the many other authors who have contributed accurate, meticulously researched work to this website--or even Macwood himself, who has done a great deal of what I've deemed impressive work himself--I'd be pretty pissed off, because guess what? Your work basically looks like shit now, too--until the fact checkers prove otherwise, that is.  

Unless I'm taking all of this too seriously, and the point I should walk away with is that GCA is not, in fact, a place that promotes "frank commentary on golf course architecture." Are hoaxes "frank commentary"?

[Dan Kelly]

"You f---d up. You trusted us."

Every reporter everywhere should have this line posted right above his computer screen.

Not that that would always save him from dishonest or mischievous sources.

And not that he'd ever meet a deadline if he took the line to heart.

[Tom MacWood]

I find it interesting that Tom has posted a public confessional but is now ducking a series of fairly obvious questions, like why write it in the first place, why confess now, and what does it mean for him to have held off on the disclosure because "the article took on a life of its own, including some restoration projects as a result" -- choosing instead to deflect those core questions by nitpicking posts.   For the record, I've never even read the article, I'm just fascinated by those choices.

I wrote the article to highlight what I believe were the greatest designs prior to WWII. I was also hoping to bring attention to those great courses whose reputations may have faltered over the years because of redesign or being lost all together. I also hoped to highlight architects who were doing the best work back then. I chose the format (fictitious article with a fictitious panel) because I could play on the irrational popularity of rankings, and I thought it may initially give the article more weight, based on the make up of the panel. I was also very impressed my Plimpton's Sidd Finch essay, and the reaction to it and wanted to create something similar and equally entertaining.  

The reason we did not reveal as originally planned was due to the initial reaction of a couple of high profile clubs and the ensuing restoration efforts. The article was not the primary reason for those efforts, but it did get some clubs to have a better appreciation of the quality of their original design, and they began digging deeper.

The other reason for not revealing it sooner was the on going problem Ran has had with others taking original material off this site without his permission or giving any credit to the site. In this case when someone reprints the article in its entirety and claims they found it independently we know what we are dealing with. Others might not think that is a big deal but they've probably not devoted any time, effort or money to writing an essay or hosting a site.

[Tom MacWood]

Seeing that is April Fools day I think it is a good time to make a confession -- the supposed article The World's Finest Golf Courses was a total fabrication. Actually it wasn't a total fabrication...

What I find amazing is that he waited such a long time to announce this, then when the time is right to make the announcement, he stumbles all over himself in the first two sentences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5O3XCIJTJw&feature=fvst

I'm sorry about that, I began writing that at 6AM, right before I went to work. And I have a hard enough time when fully awake.

[Scott Warren]

Tom,

I can't see how you intend to argue this doesn't completely discredit you as a trustworthy source.

For mine, it's not that you did what you did per se, but more that you (and Ran, you seem to indicate) allowed the deception to continue for so long, knowing the impact the fake article and list were having.

It's one thing for an author to use the research in good faith without verifying it (which can be bloody hard with an article so old), and another altogether for you to deliberately misrepresent history.

Tom Dunne was 100% current in what he wrote.

[Tom MacWood]

KBM
I take it you have not read the examples on this thread, and there others dealing just with this article. Ran deals with it on a regular basis, why don't you contact him.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

I can't see how you intend to argue this doesn't completely discredit you as a trustworthy source.

For mine, it's not that you did what you did per se, but more that you (and Ran, you seem to indicate) allowed the deception to continue for so long, knowing the impact the fake article and list were having.

It's one thing for an author to use the research in good faith without verifying it (which can be bloody hard with an article so old), and another altogether for you to deliberately misrepresent history.

Tom Dunne was 100% current in what he wrote.

Time will tell. What impact are you referring to?

Other than the ranking/panel being fictitious, what misrepresentation of history is found within the article?

[Scott Warren]

 Tom,

If it had been a legitimate article, how is you reproducing it on this website any different to others reproducing it in their own publications - with mention of the original source - after seeing it here?

What impact? The myth of that ranking list will continue to be perpetuated due to its presence in other reference material - we know it is in at least one book.

[John_Conley]

I'm real glad I don't take this stuff that seriously, but definitely perplexed that one of the guys that does apparently doesn't take it seriously either.

[Phil_the_Author]

As one who has had his work quoted from without attribution to the extent that it was borderline serious plagiarism I can completely understand Ran's perspective that this work of "fiction" has enabled him to uncover examples of writers who have done just that, who have quoted from the site and Tom's work and given no attribution whatsoever to either.

I have a serious issue with this 'episode' for lack of other words for a completely different set of reasons that has yet to be mentioned.

A number of weeks back a well-known golf writer contacted me about this subject. He asked me to keep his name confidential at the time and so I am doing so and honoring his wishes. He told me that he had actually spoken with Tom and asked him where he found the article and what his source was. The reason? He wanted to use it and couldn't find the source. According to him, Tom told him that he "found it while researching something at an archive, but couldn't remember which one." He was then asked if that is so "how could he have recreated the list?" Tom is said to have stated that, "I memorized it and wrote it from that."

This writer asked me MY OPINION of whether Tom was being honest about this because he had spent a good deal of time and effort researching it and was stymied by his inability to find it.  He believed that Tom had “lied to him” about it.

I told him that even though I disagree with Tom on a number of interpretation issues, that “if Tom says he found the article he did and that you could trust his word.”

The two problems here then?

1- Tom continued the deception OFF THIS WEBSITE when he was directly asked the source! If he wanted to expose those who plagiarized then he also had a moral and ethical obligation to tell this writer what he had done and why. Instead, this writer wasted precious time and money trying to confirm it.
2- I am a believer that there are some whose reputations as a researcher should allow that they can be quoted from in faith. I believed that of Tom and so I gave my word in support of him. As a result, MY WORD has now been called into question with this writer. How many others may this have happened to? The irony in this, as I told Ran yesterday when we spoke about this, is that Tom has accused me of LYING on this site and yet I said that his word can be trusted.

In my opinion, these two aspects are extremely important because they fly directly in the face of Ran’s support of the reason for the allowing of the purposeful deception. To specifically lie to a writer who did WHAT HE SHOULD and contact you, then you lose all credibility when it comes to purity of purpose, especially when you cost someone time and money by that lie. You also lose all credibility in the eyes of those who made the mistake of “trusting your veracity.”

I had decided to originally not comment on this, but since Tom has now justified his actions based upon Ran’s belief that it could serve a good purpose, I believe that the ENTIRE STORY needs to be told.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

If it had been a legitimate article, how is you reproducing it on this website any different to others reproducing it in their own publications - with mention of the original source - after seeing it here?

What impact? The myth of that ranking list will continue to be perpetuated due to its presence in other reference material - we know it is in at least one book.

I don't understand your logic. One presumes if it were a legitimate article I would have found it via the original source. I get all of my old articles from the original copies of magazines/newspapers, books, microfilm and/or digitized date bases. I don't recall ever taking material from a website without citing the source or confirming it.

If you planned on reproducing an old article in a book wouldn't you first try to find the original? And presuming you looked and couldn't find it wouldn't you at least reach out to the person who originally produced it? That did not happen. If this site were cited there would no perpetuating myth.

You said I should have revealed the hoax knowing the impact it was causing. No one ever came to me and said they wanted to reproduce the article. When I saw it in print it came as a complete surprise to me. I think what you meant to say is that I should have revealed the hoax prior to the article being reproduced in a book (I was unaware of), which would have prevented the impact of the perpetuating myth.

[Tom MacWood]

As one who has had his work quoted from without attribution to the extent that it was borderline serious plagiarism I can completely understand Ran's perspective that this work of "fiction" has enabled him to uncover examples of writers who have done just that, who have quoted from the site and Tom's work and given no attribution whatsoever to either.

I have a serious issue with this 'episode' for lack of other words for a completely different set of reasons that has yet to be mentioned.

A number of weeks back a well-known golf writer contacted me about this subject. He asked me to keep his name confidential at the time and so I am doing so and honoring his wishes. He told me that he had actually spoken with Tom and asked him where he found the article and what his source was. The reason? He wanted to use it and couldn't find the source. According to him, Tom told him that he "found it while researching something at an archive, but couldn't remember which one." He was then asked if that is so "how could he have recreated the list?" Tom is said to have stated that, "I memorized it and wrote it from that."

This writer asked me MY OPINION of whether Tom was being honest about this because he had spent a good deal of time and effort researching it and was stymied by his inability to find it.  He believed that Tom had “lied to him” about it.

I told him that even though I disagree with Tom on a number of interpretation issues, that “if Tom says he found the article he did and that you could trust his word.”

The two problems here then?

1- Tom continued the deception OFF THIS WEBSITE when he was directly asked the source! If he wanted to expose those who plagiarized then he also had a moral and ethical obligation to tell this writer what he had done and why. Instead, this writer wasted precious time and money trying to confirm it.
2- I am a believer that there are some whose reputations as a researcher should allow that they can be quoted from in faith. I believed that of Tom and so I gave my word in support of him. As a result, MY WORD has now been called into question with this writer. How many others may this have happened to? The irony in this, as I told Ran yesterday when we spoke about this, is that Tom has accused me of LYING on this site and yet I said that his word can be trusted.

In my opinion, these two aspects are extremely important because they fly directly in the face of Ran’s support of the reason for the allowing of the purposeful deception. To specifically lie to a writer who did WHAT HE SHOULD and contact you, then you lose all credibility when it comes to purity of purpose, especially when you cost someone time and money by that lie. You also lose all credibility in the eyes of those who made the mistake of “trusting your veracity.”

I had decided to originally not comment on this, but since Tom has now justified his actions based upon Ran’s belief that it could serve a good purpose, I believe that the ENTIRE STORY needs to be told.

Did the well known writer contact me before or after he reproduced the article?

[Scott Warren]

Are you admitting you lied to him Tom?

Re: your reply to me above, The point is that if the article were legitimate, it would not be necessary to obtain your permission for its reproduction, given your part would have merely been reproducing it yourself.

I am amazed, given your understanding of the importance and value of historical documents, that you're dismissing the fallout to your deception in such a cavalier fashion.

"They all should have contacted me to check that it was legitimate".

Maybe so. But I also know this site generally and you specifically have a certain reputation, so I can also understand a writer on a tight deadline trusting that the info is correct.

Notwithstanding the fact you appear above to b admitting you lied to someone who did go to he trouble of contacting you...

[Peter Pallotta]

I see - The thinking was "We want to legitimize gca.com as an historical resource, and the best way to do that is to create a clever hoax and then see who falls for it". 

Not an accurate description of the intentions, I know -- but at least not too smart by half.

Peter

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I take from your response, "Did the well known writer contact me before or after he reproduced the article?" that this occurred and that you DID LIE TO HIM!

By the way, read what I wrote and show me where I stated that he had published it. I said neither that he had nor hadn't.

[Tom MacWood]

Scott
Your hypothetical makes no sense. The article was not legitimate so obviously anyone who reproduced it took it from this site. There is no other way to look at it.

I did exchange emails with the person I believe Phil is referring to in 2009. He told me he was working an article and had some questions about the 1939 article. Right away I was little leery because he never mentioned he had already reproduced in its entirety a few years earlier, and I was well aware he had done so. These are the questions he asked about the magazine:

Was this a stand-alone publication?  Or was it an annex appended to the magazine proper?  Was it published at the end of 1939, summarizing the year, or at the beginning, summarizing 1938?

I'm afraid I wasn't much help with those questions. He then asked me if I had a copy of the article. I obviously I told him I did not, and gave him a bogus story of how I found it. I probably should have left that part out (and its not the story Phil gave). He never asked me for permission to reproduce it, and why would he, he had already reproduced it by that time and also had no idea I wrote it. It was a pretty strange exchange to say the least.

[JC Jones]

Wow, this is even more screwed up than I originally thought.  I sincerely hope Ran wasn't involved in a scheme to mislead those who seek out his website for reliable information.  If it is some concern with plagiarism or monetizing the content of the website, there are certainly more honest and legal ways of accomplishing such.

Who knew this had turned into golf's version of The New Republic.

[Phil_the_Author]

Sorry Tom, but there is no excuse for DELIBERATELY giving him a "bogus story" especially when you believed that he had already plaigerized you. If you had any temerity or ethics you would have confronted him and accused him of plaigerizing you without any hesitation and put him in his place.

Your current story has as little believability as your former one. You are now an admitted liar.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

While I find much of the information on GolfClubAtlas.com to be nothing more than the ravings of ill-informed people or those with an ax to grind against someone (living or dead) or something (existent or non-existent), there has always been a small percentage that I found to be highly informative, interesting and, I thought, factual. No more.

Whatever modicum of integrity this website might have once had in the eyes of professionals who research and write on golf course architecture is gone forever. Whatever integrity I believed the two people responsible for this hoax – Ran and Tom – had has also vanished.

I cannot help now but to question every bit of research supposedly uncovered by the two and ever posted here. I will never again trust their work, past or future.

What mystifies me most about this farce is that neither of the participants seems to understand is that GCA is, or at least once was, considered by many in the industry to be the world’s preeminent golf course architecture chat room. To dupe those who come to it for education and insight is idiotic.

It is a joke to argue, as Ran has privately, that had those who referenced the post in books, magazines and on websites been better journalists they would have uncovered the hoax. The fact is, however, the only mistake these journalists (many of them well-regarded) made was to assume that Tom and Ran were honest men. For that error, the journalists that trusted the information posted here will pay a steep price.

I would venture to say Ran and Tom will also find themselves paying dearly for this hoax, as well they should.


Anthony