Sad conclusion to the Scott-Taylor matter

[Bill Brightly]

Ironically, the same lack of verifiable identification of sources that was questioned in the DST report is what we must believe if we accept the purported level of influence of this site.

Or we can look at what is on the ground today. We can note that the "pretty" geometric style of architecture that has fallen out of vogue, see Nicklaus altering his courses, take notice of the dramatic rise in minimalistic courses (and renovations.) Gil Hanse gets the Olympic job, and Trump hires him rather than Fazio to redo Doral.  C & C restores Pinehurst #2 to great acclaim and both US Opens are played there. We can also note that this all happens to coincide with gca.com's existance.

BILL,
I think it would be fair to say that the combined membership of this site professes to know more about the ODG's and what they wanted to do with their projects and their strategies than the actual ODG's knew about themselves.  They were not nearly as complicated as the site makes them out to be.  IMHO

Oh yeah. Forget the combined membership. I probably have spent many more hours analyzing Banks' plans at my home course than he did building the holes.

[Jason Walker]

I'm not posting to weigh in on the IST issue (although I thought it was bogus early and have text message evidence to prove it!)  

I do want to weigh in on the popularity (not importance) of the website.  I've had no fewer than 10 random members of little old Tavistock CC in New Jersey (none of whom knew I was even on this site) come up to me over the last two years to say they've seen my name on the discussion group postings.

Not sure what that stat means, but to me it means there's a lot of people who read this.  Was a little creeped out by it honestly.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Was a little creeped out by it honestly.

I know what you mean, Jason.

Some guys from my club got back from a golf trip to Turkey a few weeks ago. At one course they were waiting on the first tee when a greenkeeper noticed the club crest on one of their shirts.

"Ah, Reddish Vale" he said. "MacKenzie course. Do you know Duncan Cheslett?"

Like you, I was a little spooked by the story, but my friends were highly impressed!  

[Connor Dougherty]

I'll echo everyone's thoughts on the influence of the site While on my road trip a year and a half ago I had the pleasure of talking to superintendents from various clubs, ranging from very popular clubs on here to those talked about much less, and for that matter, architects who do not post on here but who use this as a reference.

But more importantly, since this stems from Golf Club Atlas' influence, I've noticed more and more on sites like Golf Digest and Golf Magazine (whether you agree or disagree with what they're currently publishing is one thing, but it is almost impossible to refute the impact and legitimacy that the two publications have on golf) things posted on here referenced. Surely this brings more traffic to the site and goes to show that in their eyes we are not only respected, but considered a more reputable source, especially when information is placed in the sections outside the discussion group.

Perhaps the best way to put it is this: I would have no problem (and have) used Golf Club Atlas as a source for papers in both high school and college. While they would never let me use the discussion group as a source (unless, say, I'm writing about Tom Doak and I use an entry of his) I have no problem arguing with teachers and professors that this is a respected site in this industry and can be trusted as a legitimate source for information. When something like these drawings is presented as fact in the IMO section, it challenges this site's integrity, and ultimately makes it more difficult to argue its legitimacy.

Maybe some of you don't think that this is important, but I certainly do. While I haven't had the privilege of meeting Ran yet, I'm sure he feels the same way.

As for how we should view those involved, I stayed out of the arguments prior to the most part, but I do think greater clarity to the issue, would do wonders for not only restoring integrity to the site, but satisfying those who feel like they've been duped. This thread makes me feel like I'm reading a tabloid. Interesting, sure, but it's doing nothing to make me feel better about the situation or that I feel like I've figured out what has happened. Greater clarity has to come from those involved .

[Adam Lawrence]

Was a little creeped out by it honestly.

I know what you mean, Jason.

Some guys from my club got back from a golf trip to Turkey a few weeks ago. At one course they were waiting on the first tee when a greenkeeper noticed the club crest on one of their shirts.

"Ah, Reddish Vale" he said. "MacKenzie course. Do you know Duncan Cheslett?"

Like you, I was a little spooked by the story, but my friends were highly impressed!  

Could have been Ben Lovett, head GK at the Monty course there, and member of this site!

[Jim Nugent]

This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while.  Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly.  Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil.  Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night.  It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.

Jeff,

In the "golf" world this site is extremely relevant and the number of lurkers is exponentially greater than your estimate

The Golf Club Atlas Info Center says in the last hour 33 GCA forum members have been on the site... and 430 guests.  Even if there is some double counting there, clearly GCA has a much wider audience than simply its members.  It looks like the lurkers far, far outnumber members.

btw, that same page says we're up to 1689 members now. 

[Niall C]

David
An assurance yes, but on what basis ? Did he intend to assure you that the material was genuine or that he'd seen a report that says it was genuine. I'm sure Neil will regret more than anyone that he was conned and how he worded his pronouncements on here but the real question to you is when you accused him of deception did you mean that Neil was knowingly party to a fraud ?
Niall

Niall, Please read my post (Reply 141) in it's entirety.  I think it clearly states my position and answers all your questions.

David

I've now reread your post and there is no ambiguity from what I can see, you do accuse Neil (and Phil) of knowingly deceiving you ie. they knew it was a fraud and played along with that. So the question is where's your proof to make such an allegation ?

Niall

[Niall C]

There are some on here who feel qualified to judge what is an acceptable level of indignation from others. There are also those who feel that if you didn't add anything to the thread before IST confirmed that the report was a fake that you shouldn't get to weigh in now. That approach certainly doesn't foster "frank commentary".

Tim

I dare say your post refers to me. I think you'll find me the last person to restrict your free speech but equally I'm going to continue to point out that you added nothing to the debate and yet felt you knew enough to slag off honest men once the saga had reached some sort of outcome. So feel free to bump your gums in future but don't expect me not to comment.

Niall

[Niall C]

WEll, I won't comment again, because I think its all said.

However, the last few posts have me wondering if I am way off base on the self importance some attach to this website?

This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while.  Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly.  Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil.  Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night.  It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.

So, while I understand the anger, especially at IST, in general, I don't get the words like culpability, free pass, etc. Especially for Ran, who brings us a web site and content devoted to a little interest group, and acted to bring even more, potentially exciting material for our interest group, mostly at his cost, BTW, and made a mistake. 

Fraud happens, maybe Ran and Phil have something to learn from this to make it a better web site, but really, IMHO, that's about it.  Sounds like some of you are ready to press charges or hang someone from a tree, when in reality, you may be offended, but you haven't been damaged.

At least in my world, the anger level is far beyond what it really needs to be.

Jeff

Well said, I agree totally. I'll now go off and attempt to lower my anger level by a notch or two !

Niall

[MClutterbuck]

This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while.  Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly.  Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil.  Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night.  It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.

Jeff,

In the "golf" world this site is extremely relevant and the number of lurkers is exponentially greater than your estimate

The Golf Club Atlas Info Center says in the last hour 33 GCA forum members have been on the site... and 430 guests.  Even if there is some double counting there, clearly GCA has a much wider audience than simply its members.  It looks like the lurkers far, far outnumber members.

btw, that same page says we're up to 1689 members now.  

Guest visits can indeed be double counting and they might even be the same members going in prior to log in.

You can see a bit of demographics and relevance at the link below. There are 55,681 web sites in the US that are more popular. There are over 200,000 more popular web sites around the world.

There are estimations it received 115,000 visits las month (visits include multiple visits by the same person). In January of 2014 the number is much lower, about 20,000. These are estimates.

Another site estimates 2,877 daily unique visitors.

The demographics are more precise and interesting.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.golfclubatlas.com

http://www.trafficestimate.com/golfclubatlas.com

It is fairly easy to get this sight on Google Analytics and to get much better stats if the administrators wanted to share them.


M

[Ben Lovett]

Duncan,
It was me

[Jeff_Brauer]

Those stats are interesting.  Among them is the leading search phrase that gets folks here is "Sand Hills Golf Club" and that 35.8% visit directly after visiting Google search engine.

To me, that partially confirms that those 2877 daily lurkers may comprise mostly of folks looking for golf courses, not engaging in these debates.

But then, stats can be used to prove just about anything, I know!

[Jim Nugent]

Jeff, the GCA stats also show what part of the site the guests visit.  My eyeball estimate is that the biggest section is the forum. 

I'll check again later today, and see how the numbers fall out.  The past hour, e.g., shows 555 guests and 71 members/users. 

You can look at the stats yourself.  Go to the bottom of the page that lists the threads, and click on "GolfClubAtlas.com". 

[Steve Okula]

Ironically, the same lack of verifiable identification of sources that was questioned in the DST report is what we must believe if we accept the purported level of influence of this site.

Or we can look at what is on the ground today. We can note that the "pretty" geometric style of architecture that has fallen out of vogue, see Nicklaus altering his courses, take notice of the dramatic rise in minimalistic courses (and renovations.) Gil Hanse gets the Olympic job and Trump hires him rather than Fazio to redo Doral.  C & C restores Pinehurst #2 to great acclaim and both US Opens are played there. We can also note that this all happens to coincide with gca.com's existance.

Or you could consider that Pete Dye in the '70's was selling a retro style that he observed in the British Isles, replete with railroad ties, scruffy bunkers, and waste areas. Or that Tom Doak, an early Dye disiciple, was doing his "minimalist" thing in the mid-'80's well before there even was an internet. Even if this site didn't exist, Doak would be doing the same work and his courses would be equally well received.

Fashions in golf architecture have been constantly evolving for a couple of centuries now, and it's delusional to think this site is instigating a pardigm shift. Perhaps Golf Club Atlas is to some small degree encouraging a style, but there is no evidence I can see of it influencing golfers' tastes in design and maintenance. 

As to the cited stats, I mainly view the site without logging in, only doing so when I decide I have something to say, so I would be counted as a visitor more often than not.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Duncan,
It was me

Thanks for boosting my creds at the club, Ben!

[David_Elvins]

David

I've now reread your post and there is no ambiguity from what I can see, you do accuse Neil (and Phil) of knowingly deceiving you ie. they knew it was a fraud and played along with that. So the question is where's your proof to make such an allegation ?

Niall

Sorry Niall, but if you have re-read the post and still don't understand it I am going to have to give you the Mucci treatment and call you a moron.

I never said that Phil and Neil knew it was a fraud, that is very unlikely imo.  I said they were deceptive in the way they implied that they had intimate knowledge of the 'interim report' that allowed them to assure us it was genuine.

If they had either checked the origins of the interim report, or not overstated their knowledge of the report's origins, this whole matter would have been resolved weeks earlier.

[Niall C]

David

What exactly is intimate knowledge when it comes to knowing a report ? If Neil had read all the contents and understood what the report was saying, irrespective of whether it was fake or not, would that not count as intimate knowledge. The fact is he thought it genuine. There was no deception on his part that I can see and you've certainly provided no proof. Even a moron could see that.

Niall

[David_Elvins]

The fact is he thought it genuine. There was no deception on his part that I can see and you've certainly provided no proof. Even a moron could see that.
Niall

Sorry Niall. In my mind there is a big difference between someone saying "I think the report is genuine" or "I think the report has been contributed to by highly regarded experts" and someone saying "I assure you the report is genuine" and "I assure you the report has been written by highly regarded experts."  

We aren't getting anywhere here, and it mainly due to your unwillingness to see the difference between a thought and an assurance.   Let's just leave it at that.  I don't want to blow it out of proportion.  I was disappointed but obviously don't think Neil or Phil were involved with the production of fraufraudulent documents.

I don't think Neil and Phil are posting anymore but I would be interested to know which police jurisdiction they should report the matter to.  Does anyone know? Is the fraud committed in Australia, America, England or Wales?

[Ulrich Mayring]

What fraud? The faked preliminary authentication report? Where is the victim that has been materially damaged or deprived?

Ulrich

[David_Elvins]

What fraud? The faked preliminary authentication report? Where is the victim that has been materially damaged or deprived?

Ulrich

Neil? Phil? The Tillinghast Society? The MacKenzie Society? STEP? Just asking the question. 

[Jeff Bergeron]

I am absolutely disgusted by the behavior of numerous members of GCA relative to this issue. The vicious attacks against Phil and Ran, who have contributed so much to this site and to golf course architecture in general, are distasteful and inappropriate. I know each of these men personally and they would never compromise their principles. Yes, mistakes were made. Human beings make mistakes. Unfortunately we live in a society where a public mistake must be punished regardless of the overall character and past contributions of the individuals involved.
There are a number of you that should be ashamed of yourselves. You are a discredit to  the very principles of what gentleman and ladies in our game aspire to.

[Bill_McBride]

I think we are all eager to be familiar in a hands on way with the historical artifacts of our favorite sport.  I know I was thrilled to hold what I was told was the hand drawn original plan of Alwoodley signed by the Good Doctor himself, when I visited Alwoodley.    If I had later been told it was a fake I would have been crushed. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill,

I have told this story before, but when visiting Oakland Hills, I saw the fabled Ross plan for reconstruction for the US Open, the one he drew before his death, and before RTJ came up with a similar plan.  Yes, it is a neat experience to actually see stuff like that.  Across town at Franklin Hills, the super showed Jeff Mingay and I some of Ross' hand written field notes, which to me was even more spectacular.

I do believe there is a collectors market for gca memorabilia, but am not sure of the size.  So, in that sense, this kind of fraud needs to be combatted.  Of course, with any old finds, there would be some question of authenticity to consider.  It always makes a nice story when someone "finds" something like Hitler diaries in an attic.  Seems as if many of those most incredible ones do turn out to be fakes.

I have tried to get ASGCA members to donate similar things for auction to raise money for ASGCA, but so far, not much has been done.  Not sure any living architects could sell their stuff, as its too new, and I am sure no one is willing to die as a career move in the memorabilia department.......

[Ulrich Mayring]

Human beings make mistakes.

Absolutely. It's what happens after the mistake that makes or breaks reputations. So far not much has happened on that front except putting the blame squarely on Ian Scott-Taylor.

Ulrich

[Niall C]

The fact is he thought it genuine. There was no deception on his part that I can see and you've certainly provided no proof. Even a moron could see that.
Niall

Sorry Niall. In my mind there is a big difference between someone saying "I think the report is genuine" or "I think the report has been contributed to by highly regarded experts" and someone saying "I assure you the report is genuine" and "I assure you the report has been written by highly regarded experts."  

We aren't getting anywhere here, and it mainly due to your unwillingness to see the difference between a thought and an assurance.   Let's just leave it at that.  I don't want to blow it out of proportion.  I was disappointed but obviously don't think Neil or Phil were involved with the production of fraufraudulent documents.

I don't think Neil and Phil are posting anymore but I would be interested to know which police jurisdiction they should report the matter to.  Does anyone know? Is the fraud committed in Australia, America, England or Wales?

David

I think I can readily tell the difference between an assurance and an opinion. Neil was wrong in giving an assurance without at least caveating that assurance, however nowhere is there evidence that he committed fraud either on his own or in conjunction with others as you basically said when accusing him of deception. A point you now seem to be willing to concede judging by your post above.

In arguing the toss over that I wasn’t blowing it out of proportion. It was blown out of proportion when you made your original comment. Neil made a mistake, a very public mistake, but there’s a big difference between that and committing fraud. I think we just need to be very careful what we say on this matter.

Niall