Sad conclusion to the Scott-Taylor matter

[SL_Solow]

As usual, I am late to the party.  Candidly, I am always skeptical of the historical revelations trumpeted on the board and only read the entire thread shortly before the retraction.  I respectfully make the following observations;

  1.  The title of this thread is misleading and incorrect.  The conclusion is not sad, it is a recognition that a fraud could no longer be perpetrated.  The commencement of the thread was the "sad" event.

  2.  Equally sad was a significant portion of the discussion.  Too much of it was an attempt to turn an extraordinary effort at fact checking by a careful examination of obscure historical sources into an attack on the motives of those who suspected that something was missing and were willing to spend the time, effort and talent to uncover it.  It is no secret that certain of our members have no use for certain other members.  That is unfortunate but true.  In matters of opinion, while exhibitions of those personal feelings may add little to a discussion other than unpleasantness, they do little harm.  But here, where there was an attempt to ascertain the validity of factual assertions, there is no room for those type of attacks.  This was an analytical exercise and the identity of the proponents of either side was irrelevant.  Personal attacks of that type distract from the discussion and may even , by design or otherwise, serve to dissuade those who have something to contribute to the dialogue from entering the fray.  In this case, those who suffered the greatest personal attacks turned out to be correct.  Yet few who attacked them have conceded that they should not have done so.  We all owe a debt of gratitude to those who stayed the course and set the facts straight.  I, for one, am proud of their work.  On occasion, I have had the duty of exposing frauds as part of my work.  I know the difficulties involved but at least I get paid for my efforts.  Thus much of my admiration is borne out of personal experience.

  3.  We must be careful about the use of our site.  As noted, this is the second time historical "data" was presented as being factual which later turned out to be knowingly false.  The first time was justified as having been a joke gone astray or perhaps a way of exposing those who used this site as a source without acknowledgement.  It was an admitted error and we all believe it will not be countenanced again.  This time was different.  We all can suspect the motives, but this was a knowing fraud and when questioned, the principal moving party continually added to his misrepresentations until he could go no further and confessed.  In the future, if threads such as these are to be permitted, they should not be trumpeted as important findings unless we are prepared to expose them to preliminary screening.  Alternatively, they should be issued with a warning, suggesting that no verification has been undertaken and that the reader should be skeptical

  4.  This is a wonderful site for the most part. Many of us have made good friends here.  A lot of us, myself included, have learned about courses, architecture, maintenance, construction, club governance and the like from those more experienced.  It is a wonderful place to compare opinions and discuss, even argue, the merits of all of these subjects.  But there are limitations.  When we delve into the area of real historical research it is no longer "fun and games"; there are accepted standards pertaining to accuracy in force.  So if we are to venture into these areas, we should understand that the rules change and we should act accordingly.  Otherwise, we risk the loss of credibility in all areas.

  5.  A final note and I apologize if I sound like a scold.  The ad hominem attacks that I criticized in connection with this thread pervade too many other discussions.  While they may not be as destructive in other contexts, they are no more enlightening.  It is possible to disagree with someone without calling him a jerk.  Moreover, if you explain why you disagree, it may help your "opponent" and others understand your point of view and lead to a more interesting discussion which involves an actual exchange of ideas.  When that occurs, we all have a chance to learn something.  Moreover, the Board becomes a more pleasant place.

[George Pazin]

Well said, Shel, as always.

I wonder if #5 isn't a bit of an unattainable goal, but it is certainly an admirable one.

[Jay Flemma]

George and Shel - 5 isn't unattainable so long as you remember the Golden Rule:  only say things you'd say if you were sitting across form the person at dinner in front of everyone.

[Mike_Young]

Anthony,

Integrity is a tough word.  It's never used when describing a middle ground.  Seems it either describes one of great integrity or lack of integrity but never just average integrity.  But with respect to those who enjoy writing golf architectural history I am sure there is plenty of integrity to go around.  However, think of the entire business of golf design.  It is a brutal business with architects insulting integrity of other architects all the time in subtle yet polite ways.  Go to the average golf architect website who worked for one of the signatures and is now on his own.  If they are an ASGCA member they probably used 5 of the courses of the signature as their sample of works.  And most of the websites will have the work of the signatures listed as their works in their portfolios.  It's almost like a caddy listing his player's tournament wins as his own.  Does integrity fit here?  There is so much more to golf design than just drawing or going to a site visit.  Selling and finding the work is probably more important for survival.  And that is always where integrity gets mentioned.  Now going back to the ODG's .....why is DR such a big name today?  Here is a guy who did not even go to some of the courses he is credited with designing and on some was only there for a day and the members of the clubs described in this sentence will be quick to tell you their course is a DR course.  OK...  might be but it depends on how one defines design.  It works well for marketing but most archies know he could not have done it that way.  I'm not sure there is much integrity n a membership promoting a course as a DR gem if he were never there.  The truth is that in modern times no one needed to pay a marketing fee to DR as they would a signature and an entire segment of the design industry could market themselves as DR experts at the same time....the entire industry has integrity issues and most could care less about the truthful history if it gets in the way of branding...I just see a lot of infotainment in golf design history.....cheers...

[Wayne_Kozun]

Go to the average golf architect website who worked for one of the signatures and is now on his own.  If they are an ASGCA member they probably used 5 of the courses of the signature as their sample of works.  And most of the websites will have the work of the signatures listed as their works in their portfolios.  It's almost like a caddy listing his player's tournament wins as his own. 

That's not really a valid analogy.  You don't have Bones hitting all of the shots through the tournament and then just have Phil show up to collect the trophy - but my understanding is that is how it can be with some GCAs.

[Mike_Young]

Go to the average golf architect website who worked for one of the signatures and is now on his own.  If they are an ASGCA member they probably used 5 of the courses of the signature as their sample of works.  And most of the websites will have the work of the signatures listed as their works in their portfolios.  It's almost like a caddy listing his player's tournament wins as his own. 

That's not really a valid analogy.  You don't have Bones hitting all of the shots through the tournament and then just have Phil show up to collect the trophy - but my understanding is that is how it can be with some GCAs.

Wayne,
It may be more valid than many think.  It is not always the case but there are plenty of examples where an associate really has no clue how to get the product on the ground and is totally dependent on a good contractor.  All you have to do is ask a few of the contractors off the record...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Say what? A discussion on an obvious fraud gets turned to a broad based blast on ASGCA ethics?

Usually, (although not always, as I heard a vicious rumor today.....) if an ASGCA member has worked for another firm, he uses those projects in his resume with permission of the old boss, providing it is listed that he was with the firm at the time.  And, to get into ASGCA, we have lots of members double check the associate well enough to know that he could finish a course by himself (herself) and has been involved in all aspects.

While every architect has a variety of strengths, in general, I will disagree with Mikes post.  Although,  I suspect I know who he may be talking about......the field has no rumor shortage, that is for sure.

[Tim_Weiman]

As one who has been supportive of Phil and Ian i am obviously disappointed and saddened to learn that the authentication report was not genuine and that Ian had written it. Naturally I am embarrassed by this and extend my apologies to all here for my part in this.

My involvement was originally in looking at a set of 18 hole plans apparently drawn by Mackenzie for Riviera. They certainly appeared genuine to me based upon the numerous Mac plans I have seen over the years, and I said so.

Obviously I am very disappointed, upset and saddened that Ian fabricated the report, which naturally casts a grim shadow over all this material, the Riviera drawings included. What material is genuine and what material is not is now mixed up in a murky soup. Sadly it's all tainted now.

While I find it difficult to believe that these Mac plans plus the two from Augusta that I have seen, are forged, and while that possibility has always been there, it is perhaps far more prominent now. Anyway, there will be more fall-out on this to come no doubt.

For my part, I have argued a case that I believed in, in good faith. For being wrong, well, mea culpa.

Neil,
You, Phil and Ian Scott Taylor explicitly instructed those you shared the purported Alister MacKenzie Riviera drawings with to keep the sketches from being shown to me. Your lengthy authentication report was a key component of the attempt to sell these drawings and yet, knowing my background as author of books on Riviera and George Thomas, you conspired in the not-so-good-faith effort to not ask if I had thoughts on the authenticity of the drawings, or to provide some insight into who did renovation work at Riviera prior to the 1929 Los Angeles Open (it was not Alister MacKenzie, as you now hopefully know and something confirmed as not possible by your own MacKenzie timeline).

So do not suggest here this was a good faith effort on your part or Phil Young's. There was a concerted effort to deceive and conceal by both you and Young. This is not behavior consistent with how historians who truly love this art share information amongst themselves.

Sorry Geoff, but that just sounds like petulance on your part just because you weren't consulted on your pet subject. I've no idea who Neil (and Phil) shared information with but as I understand it they were instructed by IST as to who they could share info with. If they didn't share info with you because of IST's instructions then I suggest your beef is with him rather than Neil.

Niall

Niall,

In fairness, I think Geoff has earned being consulted on something like the reported Mackenzie Riviera sketch. I mean really, knowing Geoff's study of Riviera, Thomas and Mackenzie, why would someone who genuinely wanted to authenticate such a sketch, not have Geoff high on their list of people to call?

Were it me, I would call Geoff as soon as I was presented with the sketch and would be grateful for whatever time he took checking it out regardless of how the authenticifcation process turned out.

[Mike_Young]

Say what? A discussion on an obvious fraud gets turned to a broad based blast on ASGCA ethics?

Usually, (although not always, as I heard a vicious rumor today.....) if an ASGCA member has worked for another firm, he uses those projects in his resume with permission of the old boss, providing it is listed that he was with the firm at the time.  And, to get into ASGCA, we have lots of members double check the associate well enough to know that he could finish a course by himself (herself) and has been involved in all aspects.

While every architect has a variety of strengths, in general, I will disagree with Mikes post.  Although,  I suspect I know who he may be talking about......the field has no rumor shortage, that is for sure.

Jeff,
Sorry but did not mean for it to sound like a question of ASGCA ethics and I wasn't speaking of any particular one.  Let me try it this way.  Having the permission of a principal to use their courses as ones work examples for ASGCA application may be totally acceptable for the ASGCA.  However, the golf world accept those projects as the work of the principal and it is the principal that goes on record as having designed the courses.  When you see a particular website of an architect and all of the course shown are from a past employer and it does not specifically say so then that can be a little misleading.   That can be whether one is ASGCA or not....did not mean for it to sound as though it was ASGCA specific...

[David Stamm]

One must consider the possibility that the reason Geoff was not consulted was because he would've flushed out the ruse and the gig would've been up.

[Keith OHalloran]

One must also consider the possibility that Geoff considered that possibility when he made his post.

[Jon Cavalier]

Some people seek protection from a handgun, some the police, some seek a god, others simply hide; me, I will always want a damn good lawyer in my corner because of their training, persistence, experiences, ability to manipulate facts and truth to your benefit, and lack of compassion for those who oppose them; real street fighters without the weapons.

This is a fantastic quote. I'd like to hang it on my wall.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Is this the ugliest thread ever on GCA?


Only one person has been caught doing anything wrong Ian Scott Taylor, yet we have endless posts knifing our fellow posters and even the whole group!  NO one is innocent unless they can prove it. Nonsense.


Not one person has expressed a wish to find out more about how the deception was carried out or the exact roles that each party played, instead we all happy to express our opinion in the absence of facts.


If you believe you have never been taken in by a deliberate deception, then more fool you. Potentially there’s a very interesting back story here and I count myself lucky that I was never invited into a little group to see a few morsels of this amazing new find…

[David_Elvins]

Only one person has been caught doing anything wrong Ian Scott Taylor, yet we have endless posts knifing our fellow posters and even the whole group!  NO one is innocent unless they can prove it. Nonsense.

If you believe you have never been taken in by a deliberate deception, then more fool you. Potentially there’s a very interesting back story here and I count myself lucky that I was never invited into a little group to see a few morsels of this amazing new find…

Tony,

I am happy to knife others    -  because I feel like a fool for being sucked in by Neil Crafter's and Phillip Young's deception. 

When I first expressed the possibility that the authentication report was a fake, Neil wrote

David E
I can assure you that the report is not a fake, and was contributed to by a host of different specialists in their fields from across Britain's top institutions.

Given Neil's strong standing as a researcher and his more intimate knowledge of the report, I was happy to take his word that the report was real. 

So forgive my shock when yesterday I find out that Neil is "not sure how [he] was to check that [the report] was legit" and that he simply "took it at face value."  It turns out that his intitial post, which I gave strong weight to, (and the condescending nature of the rest of his intial post) was nothing but bluff. 

It's easy to give a pass to Neil and Phil for being sucked in.  But no way do they deserve a pass for sucking me (and others) in by giving me and others an assurance that the authentication report was genuine when they had no direct knowledge and (deliberately?) made no direct inquiries as to the reports authenticity.   

In all honesty, it pisses me off, and not just because I feel like a fool for believing Neil and Phil were thorough researchers. 

[John Mayhugh]

I don't mind the initial IMO post, even if it was not fully vetted. It was entertaining and exciting.

Soon, there was so much additional information presented that a rational  person would question the veracity of the IST material. Ardent resistance to gaping holes in the narrative should be the thing to be embarrassed by. 

[Bill Brightly]

I am not a professional researcher or writer. My one very limited effort was trying to investigate a rumor that Hackensack GC was routed by Raynor, then built by Banks after Raynor died. (Even Dan Wexler's book still lists HGC as a Raynor.) I spent a few days in the Hackensack City Public Library and many hours reading through all the old documents in our club's basement. The result was that I definitively proved that HGC was 100% Banks; Raynor had died six months before we acquired the land where the current course sits.

Looking back, I still feel guilty because when I set out to do my research I was privately hoping to prove Raynor's involvement. I thought Raynor's name was a bit more prestigeous than Banks' and  I wanted to be the one who proved this. It taught me a valuable lesson: a good researcher can't root for a certain outcome. He can only find all possible facts so that the conclusion "writes itself."

It seems obvious to me that while Phil may be a prolific Tillinghast researcher, his problem is that he is also a huge Tillinghast fan. He rooted for an outcome and set aside sound professional research procedures. He knows this and I can only imagine how this is tearing him up now. No words written on this site can hurt him as much as this knowledge. There is no need to pile on; no need to analyze the sincerity of Phil's written apology. We can just learn that if you are researching something and have a bias towards a certain outcome, alarm bells should be going off in your head.  You are at risk of making big mistakes. We all have biases. A good researcher must recognize his biases and redouble his efforts to find true facts and not allow his biases to enter into his conclusions.

[Niall C]

As one who has been supportive of Phil and Ian i am obviously disappointed and saddened to learn that the authentication report was not genuine and that Ian had written it. Naturally I am embarrassed by this and extend my apologies to all here for my part in this.

My involvement was originally in looking at a set of 18 hole plans apparently drawn by Mackenzie for Riviera. They certainly appeared genuine to me based upon the numerous Mac plans I have seen over the years, and I said so.

Obviously I am very disappointed, upset and saddened that Ian fabricated the report, which naturally casts a grim shadow over all this material, the Riviera drawings included. What material is genuine and what material is not is now mixed up in a murky soup. Sadly it's all tainted now.

While I find it difficult to believe that these Mac plans plus the two from Augusta that I have seen, are forged, and while that possibility has always been there, it is perhaps far more prominent now. Anyway, there will be more fall-out on this to come no doubt.

For my part, I have argued a case that I believed in, in good faith. For being wrong, well, mea culpa.

Neil,
You, Phil and Ian Scott Taylor explicitly instructed those you shared the purported Alister MacKenzie Riviera drawings with to keep the sketches from being shown to me. Your lengthy authentication report was a key component of the attempt to sell these drawings and yet, knowing my background as author of books on Riviera and George Thomas, you conspired in the not-so-good-faith effort to not ask if I had thoughts on the authenticity of the drawings, or to provide some insight into who did renovation work at Riviera prior to the 1929 Los Angeles Open (it was not Alister MacKenzie, as you now hopefully know and something confirmed as not possible by your own MacKenzie timeline).

So do not suggest here this was a good faith effort on your part or Phil Young's. There was a concerted effort to deceive and conceal by both you and Young. This is not behavior consistent with how historians who truly love this art share information amongst themselves.

Sorry Geoff, but that just sounds like petulance on your part just because you weren't consulted on your pet subject. I've no idea who Neil (and Phil) shared information with but as I understand it they were instructed by IST as to who they could share info with. If they didn't share info with you because of IST's instructions then I suggest your beef is with him rather than Neil.

Niall

Niall,

In fairness, I think Geoff has earned being consulted on something like the reported Mackenzie Riviera sketch. I mean really, knowing Geoff's study of Riviera, Thomas and Mackenzie, why would someone who genuinely wanted to authenticate such a sketch, not have Geoff high on their list of people to call?

Were it me, I would call Geoff as soon as I was presented with the sketch and would be grateful for whatever time he took checking it out regardless of how the authenticifcation process turned out.

Tim

Really ? So if someone gave you something in confidence on the understanding that you specifically not share it with someone else, you would share it any way ? The word integrity has been used a lot on this thread, and while Neil was wrong about IST and consequently the material IST was peddling, I don't think you can accuse him of not acting with integrity.

Niall

[Niall C]

I am happy to knife others    -  because I feel like a fool for being sucked in by Neil Crafter's and Phillip Young's deception. 

Possibly the ugliest thing I've read on GCA. To accuse Neil and Phil of being knowingly complicit in the fraud is a nonsense. As for the assertion that the first thing you should do when handed a professional report is assume it might be fake and therefore test it accordingly........well that's just as ludicrious as accusing Neil Crafter of wilfully taking part in a fraud.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,

In fairness, I think Geoff has earned being consulted on something like the reported Mackenzie Riviera sketch. I mean really, knowing Geoff's study of Riviera, Thomas and Mackenzie, why would someone who genuinely wanted to authenticate such a sketch, not have Geoff high on their list of people to call?

Were it me, I would call Geoff as soon as I was presented with the sketch and would be grateful for whatever time he took checking it out regardless of how the authenticifcation process turned out.


Tim,

I question if this is how it works!  As alluded to by RJ, the study of history is also a business.  I wouldn't call in TD or MY if I got a great commission just to "make sure it was right." (wouldn't feel I had to)

Perhaps a better analogy is news.  A newspaper reporter with a scoop isn't going to share it with a rival paper just to triple check the facts.  The goal is to get the scoop, but there is the strong professional creed (and need to avoid embarrassment) of getting it right, as well as getting it fast.  Given both Phil and Geoff are in the business of golf history, I think this is a practical consideration, and the reason why Geoff wasn't consulted.  And frankly, I wonder if the tables were turned, if he would consider it necessary to consult Phil.

A couple of other points already made here - Phil Young (really most golf architecture history researchers) are no Steven Ambrose or Ken Burns!  None that I know of has been trained as a researcher, they are merely fans, smart men, and have the time/personal situation to pursue those kinds of things, so they do.  So, the professional standard may not be as high as other fields yet (and maybe rightly so.  In truth, there is little damage to a course being attributed wrongly...although again, this is a special case of, I think, intentional fraud which might have some damage financially.)

Lastly, it occurs to me that yes, Phil is a Tilly fan, which clouded his judgment, but then, isn't that the case with most sportswriters and their subjects?  In the past, sort of the glossy treatments were just sort of the norm.  It wasn't particularly thought of as integrity to point out Babe Ruth's or even Dick Wilson's drinking habits.  

In general, it is now. And, for whatever reason, standards in gca history seem to be rising (oddly, in some cases by lowering the standards of good taste in the name of accuracy).  It may be just because we frequent here, but it seems some of our participants are right in the middle of that.  So, while ugly, maybe in the big picture, this really is a positive development for golf club atlas!

[Mike_Young]

Tim,

I question if this is how it works!  As alluded to by RJ, the study of history is also a business.  I wouldn't call in TD or MY if I got a great commission just to "make sure it was right." (wouldn't feel I had to)

But Jeff, think about all of the INTEGRITY that would be oozing from a project where the three of us made sure it was "right"

[Mike Hendren]

Ironically, I read these quotes just yesterday while sitting on the beach and knocking down a cold one:

"If you would be a real seeker of truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
- Rene Descartes

and

"There are two ways to be fooled.  One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
- Soren Kierkegard

Fwiw. 

Bogey

[Joey Chase]

Ironically, I read these quotes just yesterday while sitting on the beach and knocking down a cold one:

"If you would be a real seeker of truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
- Rene Descartes

and

"There are two ways to be fooled.  One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
- Soren Kierkegard

Fwiw.

 Bogey

 


Wow, Descartes and Kierkegard while relaxing on the beach, a real renaissance man!

Bogey
[/quote]

[Tony_Muldoon]

Ironically, I read these quotes just yesterday while sitting on the beach and knocking down a cold one:

"If you would be a real seeker of truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
- Rene Descartes

and

"There are two ways to be fooled.  One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
- Soren Kierkegard

Fwiw.  

Bogey

Just capturing this before you try and edit it!  



Nice post I hope the other Hillbillies like it too Bogey.   Descartes and Kierkegard wow!  Reminds me of the episode of Frasier where Martin asks Daphne where the dustpan and brush are, as the boys have started competitive name dropping again!

Edit Great minds Joey.

[Adam Lawrence]

Bibo ergo sum

[Brent Hutto]

Bibo ergo sum

My Latin is dodgy but I believe that translates to "I have a copy of Bartlett's, therefore I quote".

P.S. On second thought, maybe it's "I drink, then I post". Nah, that sounds like Barney not Bogey.