Golf Club Atlas

GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: johnk on June 07, 2002, 10:47:39 AM

Title: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: johnk on June 07, 2002, 10:47:39 AM

Does anyone else think that if you have a
bully pulpit and repeat your opinion enough times, it will become true?

For Whitten, the "evidence" about the Bethpage design
is unambiguous...


http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/critic/index.ssf?/courses/critic/bethpageblack.html


If the book has a flaw, it's that the text and running commentary make huge assumptions about the extent of the involvement of architect A.W. Tillinghast in the original design of the Black. (By his own admission, Tillinghast was a consulting architect. All objective evidence indicates Park Superintendent Joseph H. Burbeck handled the routing, design and construction supervision. Sad to say, Tillinghast spent little time on the project.) So, for instance, Rees alludes to "Tillinghast's original plan," when in fact no such Tillinghast blueprint exists. What Rees worked from were state park plans and a 1938 aerial view of the course, showing what the course looked like in the beginning.
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 07, 2002, 10:55:22 AM
JohnK

Could you provide a list of the objective evidence that you say indicates that Burbeck did the ROUTING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: johnk on June 07, 2002, 11:22:30 AM
No,

That's my point, and neither can Ron Whitten.  He's just
acting like he can.  I'm cheesed off at him...

I'm on the Tillie side here.

johnk
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: BCrosby on June 07, 2002, 11:32:20 AM
Pat -

John is quoting from Whitten's article in Golf Digest.  I don't think the passage represent's John's own views.

I ask again (this is a question to GD and Whitten), how is it that Tillinghast is given no credit for Bethpage when we have independent, contemporaneous newpaper articles that refer to "Reef Holes" being built there? Reef Holes are unique to Tillie.  No one else before or after used the term in connection with gca.

Seems to me that Tillie's role is beyond dispute.  The only issue is the extent of his involvement.

But whatever the level of his involvement, no responsible historian/journalist would deny Tillie at least partial design credit based on the available evidence.

Why is this so hard for Ron?  Is there something else going on?  

Bob
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 07, 2002, 11:49:19 AM
JohnK & BCrosby,

I understand, thanks.
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: GeoffreyC on June 07, 2002, 12:22:27 PM
When you write an article in a national publication like Ron Whitten did, there should be sound evidence and research based on facts to back up his assertions. I don't see the facts.  I don't see any evidence of scholarly research.  I don't see a credible article.
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Tom MacWood (Guest) on June 07, 2002, 12:22:42 PM
Pat
Did you read Whitten's article on Bethpage, Burbeck and Tillie?

By the way I agree with Whitten's assessment of the bunkers, which is not unlike my observations at Hollywood.

Bob
Tillinghast wrote about the Reef in "American Golfer" magazine 1926 and it also appeared in Thomas's 'Golf in America'. Is it possible that Burbeck (or any other architect for that matter) could have used/borrowed/copied the concept? Or that Burbeck laid out the 5th on the Blue and Tillinghast pointed out it was similar to the Reef? Or that Burbeck laid out the 5th and Tillinghast modified it to take advantage of the Reef strategy?
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 07, 2002, 12:25:03 PM
Tom MacWood,

Then this makes it simple, you're both wrong.
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Bill Wright on June 07, 2002, 08:26:28 PM
Gentlemen:

What's the matter?

Don't you know that Ron Whitten knows EVERYTHING about golf architecture and history?

Just one look at Mr. Whitten's playing, design, and academic credentials will convince anyone that he is, as Golf Digest so humbly and eloquently states, "THE preminent golf course architecture critic."
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: BCrosby on June 08, 2002, 10:52:40 AM
Tom -

Yes, it's possible that Burbeck happened to find an old magazine that mentioned a Reef Hole and that he copied the concept at Bethpage. Possible. But not very plausible.

What we ought to be looking for is an explanation that ties together the known facts in the most plausible way possible. Let's try that:

First, we know that Tillie had some involvement with Bethpage. Exactly how much no one knows for sure.  But some. (Tillie was on the payroll for a while. We know he visited the project during construction. How often is up for grabs.)

Second, the Reef Hole was a concept unique to Tillie, it was one he was very proud of, and one he used often.

Third, it seems likely that the appearance of a Reef Hole at Bethpage Blue was the result of the active and focused involvement of Tillie on at least one of the Bethpage courses.  

Fourth, as for Bethpage Black it seems plausible to conclude that Tillie had at least some role is the design of the course because (a) based on points 1,2, and 3 above, we know he was involved in at least some aspects of the Bethpage project generally, and (b) he was an architect with a distinctive routing style which is entirely consistent with the routing of the Black.

If my first three points above are true (and they appear to be, given what I've read) then any believable claim that Tillie deserves no design credit for Bethpage Black has a very high burden of proof to overcome.  

Put differently, because the circumstantial case of at least some Tillie involvement is very strong indeed, Whitten must now come up with some darned pursuasive evidence that the things we know about Tillie's involvement are wrong.

Let's come at this from a different direction.  

Is the foregoing story of Tillie's involvement with Black more or less plausible than giving full design credit for Black to a man with no prior experience or training in golf course architecture?

All of this seems crystal clear to me.  

Why it doesn't seem clear to Ron Whitten is the real mystery.

Bob    
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Tom MacWood (Guest) on June 08, 2002, 01:48:35 PM
Bob
Whitten's arguement is that Burbeck handled the routing, design and construction supervision, and that Tillinghast was simply a consultant. I don't see how the existance of one golf hole - the Reef on the Blue - proves or disproves any of his conclusions.

Wouldn't you expect anyone interested in golf design to have a copy of Thomas's Golf Architecture in America (it was probably the most detailed book on the subject)?

Phil-the-author claimed that the Reef only appeared in one Tillie's designs - in New England I believe - and wasn't Burbeck from NE. I have no idea.

I'm not sure there is a concept unique to a single architect, he may have originated it but don't they all borrow from the past and from one another?

I don't agree with many of Whitten's conclusions but not because of the existance of the Reef on the Blue.
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: TEPaul on June 08, 2002, 02:27:31 PM
Bob:

I have no interest at all in this matter but to look at available facts and apparent facts and no real preconceived interest in what Tillinghast did or didn't do at the Black. No interest in what Burbeck did or didn't do either. Only to look at available facts as you're trying to do!

But I will cite some of the what was stated in Whitten's article that IF TRUE could very easily swing things in favor of Burbeck too!

Firstly, it should not be all that hard to tell if those golf courses were routed before Tillinghast ever was hired to do anything at the Bethpage project. Whitten states the courses were "laid out" months before Tillinghast was hired by Moses in Dec of 1933. It's not hard to assume that Tillinghast did nothing at Bethpage before he was hired. If in fact those courses WERE routed before Tillinghast got there that would swing things dramatically in favor of Burbeck being the designer of the Black and probably all of the courses, in my opinon!

I don't know where Whitten got that apparent fact, ie, the courses were routed before Tillinghast was hired but he should make that fact clearer or give up using it as an assumption. If that point came out of that 1959 book it would mean something to me but would by no means be conclusive!But if it can be really validated that Burbeck routed those courses before Tillinghast arrived you must admit that changes this issue very dramatically!

Secondly, read carefully what Tillinghast himself was quoted by Whitten to have said about Burbeck's contribution to Bethpage and also what his own contribution was. It appears, if the Tillinghast's quoted remarks are really Tillinghast's remarks, he didn't say much more than he was a consultant. I don't believe that sounds much like a man who routed and designed those courses on his own, do you?

Thirdly, as a valuable assumption that can lead to a conclusion your reliance on the "reef hole" may be carrying far too much weight in this overall issue.

It can be more than likely to assume that a hole that had been "routed", any long par 3 routing with even a remotely compatible natural landform, could be "designed up" into a reef hole. All you have to really to do it is apply a Reef hole bunker scheme and maybe alter the green shape and orientation if need be at all! So maybe that's exactly the kind of thing Tillinghast did on a hole (or course) that Burbeck routed.

Also, saying that a man like Burbeck could not possibly have done something like The Black or those courses just doesn't  fly. We can hardly say that about him because we really don't know anything about him. What if he did do courses in the Midwest? Maybe he did something out there that was good and that isn't really known to have been done by him for some reason.

All this stuff about his sons later recollections and his mother's perturbance that Tillinghast got credit for something that he didn't do is pretty meaningless architectural evidence to me and it's disappointing that a researcher like Whitten would put so much actual stock in that!

But Burbeck apparently was a trained landscape architect which is certainly more than Geo Crump was when he started Pine Valley as a rank amateur architect.

And most definitely there is something about the Crump analogy that we all should try to understand and appreciate. Crump basically spent 4-5 solid years everyday at Pine Valley building that course. He may have been an amateur architecr in the beginning but to have spent that amount of time on a site obviously his learning curve was dramatic during that time!

It appears Burbeck spent years on Bethpage every single day too just as Crump had done! That was his job! The analogy to Crump is a good one then. No one obviously knew in the beginning of PVGC that Crump had the talent he did and now people are assuming that  Burbeck could not have had the talent either or that he wasn't capable of doing something like the Black or the courses of Bethpage. That has to be wrong as a solid assumption or conclusion!

If an amateur like Crump was able to create what he did with the learning curve he had there is no reason on earth to assume that Brubeck could not have too!

I know people don't like to believe that it's possible (and certainly many say it isn't) but without any evidence to the contrary it just isn't a logical assumption or conclusion.

I have no idea exactly what Burbeck did or Tillinghast either but the available evidence is in no way conclusive to me! Either one of them certainly could have designed and build the Black and the others as well!! Which one did remains to been known, as far as I'm concerned!
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 08, 2002, 07:25:01 PM
An article appearing in "The Majors of Golf 2002" written by Bob Cullen seems to indicate that Tillinghast had a much more active role.

Perhaps additional research will clarify each parties involvement, and perhaps we'll never know.
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Tilly on June 08, 2002, 08:08:09 PM
Try the following link for a thoughtful and well researched response:

http://www.tillinghast.net/whatsnewArchitect.htm

Let me also ask the following question:

If someone was to construct a machine from one of Leonardo DaVinci's sketches, would that person be the designer of the machine or would that person be the constructor/engineer of the machine?

Now, if you wade through Tillie's portfolio of design sketches you will find exact replicas of specific holes found at Bethpage.  The par-5 glacier hole on the Black, the diagonal carry holes on the par-4 fourth and par-5 seventh on the Black, the split fairway on the 14th of the Red, to name just a few.

Now, if one was to take the designs of another, build them and call them their own design, what would we call that person?  

The fact of the matter is that Joe Burdeck never claimed that he was the architect/designer of the golf courses at bethpage.  He was, however, the great engineer, constructor and superintendent of all the courses at Bethpage State Park.

Further, Joe Burbeck was also the engineer and constructor of the Bethpage clubhouse.  Should we now some 70 years later say that Clifford Wendehack, who was hired with the title of Consultant and assisted in designing and overseeing construction of the clubhouse, is no longer deserving to be architect of record; and rather Joe Burbeck should be because he was such a talented engineer and constructor and oversaw the building of the clubhouse on a daily basis.

Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: BCrosby on June 08, 2002, 10:08:08 PM
Let's be clear about we are arguing about here.

Whitten has make a very bold claim. The claim is that Tillie deserves no design creidt for BB. As in none, zilch, aucun, keine.

Whitten's claim contradicts commonly held beliefs about Tillie, it contradicts conclusions of the Tillinghast Society, it contradicts the evidence of our own eyes that BB has many traits of a Tillie course.

So what is the new evidence that Whitten has uncovered that leads him to his conclusion? What do we know now that we didn't know a month ago? What have we learned that renders false the best evidence of the Tillinghast Society and our own eyes? What is this new and startling fact?

Well, it's that Burbeck's son thinks his dad got a raw deal and deserves all the credit for BB. Old man Burbeck was a wonderful guy and deserves more credit because someone thinks that BB had already been routed before Tillie showed up. So Tillie must not have done anything.  

That's it. That's what new. Whitten has given us no new drawings, no new correspondence, notes or photos. No new contemporary accounts, newspapaer articles, etc.

To repeat, Whitten makes the bold claim that Tillie had no role in BB. To defeat that claim, all someone need do is show a single respect in which Tillie did contribute to the design of BB. I think the circumstantial evidence is pursuasive that Tillie did make contributions. If I am right about any one of those contributions, Whitten is wrong.

None of which denigrates in any way the important contribution of Burbeck. I'm sure he dedicated years to the project and he deserves much of the credit.

But let's be clear, Burbeck had no background in golf or golf course design. He was not known as having much interest in playing the game. He was unknown to the world of golf or golf course architecture until relatively recently. He knew - other than Tillie - virtually no one in golf. I find it absurd to think he designed a world class golf course without important design assistance.

What about the amateurs Fownes and Crump? Don't they prove it's possible for an amateur to design a great gof course?

Amateurs can obviously do good design work. But in the case of Fownes and Crump, but both were lifelong, serious golfers, deeply connected with the game and its institutions. Both consulted frequently over the years with architects, club members, and players about designs and design changes. There are boxes and boxes stuffed with their drawings, notes, photos and correspondence showing how they came up with their ideas and dealt with design problems.

In short, they were serious, dedicated designers.  

There is no record that Burbeck had anyting like the same connections or interest in the game. There is no evidence of any Burbeck drawings, notes or thoughts. There is no evidence he cared about continuing design improvements to BB.  

To think he came up with a course like BB on his kitchen table all by himself is, frankly, not credible.

Bob

  
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Tom MacWood (Guest) on June 08, 2002, 10:37:37 PM
Bob
I don't think Whitten is claiming that Tillinghast had absolutley nothing to do with Bethpage. He accepts that he was a consultant, but he claims the courses were laid out by Burbeck prior to Tillighast's involvement.

The article also says that Burbeck was a graduate in LArch and built courses in the Midwest prior to being hired by the Commission to assist in the design of the Jones Beach golf course.

I don't agree with many of Whitten's conclusions but he has many of the facts correct. And Tillinghast was a great admirer of Burbeck so I don't think it is wise to totally disregard his talents or involvement.

In these cases the truth is usually more interesting than we can ever conceive.
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: johnk on June 08, 2002, 11:21:34 PM

What really bothers me about Whitten's behavior
is the conviction he is displaying from his post
as probably the most widely read architecture
expert in America.  The circulation he gets from
Golf Digest, Golf World and the website column
is very high for an architecture columnist.

A more responsible tack would account for the fact
that we can never really know for sure what the full
role of Burbeck and Tillie was.  Instead, he's
quite over-confident of the correctness of his conclusion.

My main point is that he can pretty much over-influence
the world-view.  His stuff will be quoted during the Open
broadcasts, and he's re-iterating his very strong positions
whenever the opportunity presents itself (i.e. a review
of a course-guide).  From his post, his opinion can
become fact, if repeated enough times with the voice
of authority...



Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Thomas_Brown on June 08, 2002, 11:22:57 PM
I don't want to enter the fray too much here, but I'm curious why we're not getting more into the technical details comparing BB w/ some of Tillie's other designs.

I'm not discounting Whitten entirely, but the themes at BB are unmistakably Tillie, right?

Tom
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on June 09, 2002, 12:26:35 AM
In about a month or two when the Ralph Miller Library Collection is open to the public again, I intend to produce an article from an Early 1930's Golf Illustrated in which Tillie talks of the design of Bethpage Black, and his feelings of the course.

Maybe this will bring closure to this whole torrid affair and hopefully won't let Ron Whitten further embarass himself.

However, I will say that Ron's article from about three years ago on Tillie was one of the greatest pieces he has ever done. Back then there was no mention at all of Tillie's non-involvement at Bethpage. Hopefully he will be able to recant as I would if I were so bold to suggest, and was proven wrong.
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Brian Phillips on June 09, 2002, 05:52:13 AM
After reading these opinions again and again I started to look into my library of books including the three Tillie books that I own and here is his quote from 'Reminiscences of the Links' chapter 43 page 150:

'Certainly no course in America has been so much discusssed in past years as the Black Course at Bethpage Park, where the Long Island Park Commision accomplished something never before attempted - the planning and building simultaneously over the same tract, no less than four courses.  It was my very good fortune to be selected by the engineering force in the development of these courses, and let me say right here that never have I received heartier support and cooperation than from Joe Burbeck, the state engineer, who was in daily direction of the entire work from start to its finish.
Now it was Burbeck's idea to develop one of these layouts along lines, which were to be severe to a marked degree.  It was his ambition to have something which might compare to Pine Valley as a great test and although my continual travels over the country in the PGA work have prevented me from seeing play over Bethpages's Black since its opening, I am rather inclined to believe from reports from some of the best players that it is showing plenty of teeth.....'

He then goes on to describe one of the greens he located and designed which he thought might be too difficult.

On page 154 there is an aerial of the course from 1935 and a Development plan from the same year.  The bunkering on the aerial doesn't look like the bunkering today, however, the plan does!

Neither Tillie or Burbeck are named on the plan.  The only names I can find are one who prepared the plan: C.C.Combs (landscape architect) and another that recommended the plan: A.K. Howland. (chief engineer).

In my opinion with the facts I have before me the course is a mongrel design: a combination of many fine minds.

It is neither just Tillie or just Burbeck.  Both of them designed the course but Burbeck built the whole thing or had responsibility for building it.

So to me maybe Burbeck should given more credit than Tillie.

Brian Phillips



Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: TEPaul on June 09, 2002, 06:21:21 AM
First of all, I realize this thread seems to be about Ron Whitten. Just for the moment let's try to forget about Whitten and look at Bethpage Black (maybe all the courses of Bethpage), Tillinghast and Burbeck only.

The reason I say that is there are obviously contributors on this thread that are debating the fact that Ron Whitten claims that Burbeck is the only designer of the Black and they're also implying that Whitten says Tillinghast did almost nothing at all!

Frankly, that's just not so! I can't see that Whitten in any case has said that Tillinghast did nothing at Bethpage. At the least he's stated that Tillinghast acted as a "consultant" and he supported that with some apparent factual material--apparenly from Tillinghast himself!

Let's just suppose that the evidence produced by Whitten was produced by anyone and it's all there is and let's look carefully at that evidence without including Whitten in this discussion!

Before I go on I'd like to remark I just carefully read the article hyperlinked above by one Philip Young, apparently written in the last few weeks. I'm not sure if Mr. Young is attached to the Tillinghast Society or not--although that shouldn't really matter!

Whether he is or not (and I have no idea who Philip Young is) I'd like to say from the article he wrote that his assumptions and conclusions are about about the most egregious piece of "fact fitting" and "advocacy reporting" I've almost ever seen in golf architectural research!

I'm certainly not saying his assumptions and conclusions might not some day turn out to be true but at this point (with what facts there appear to be) he's using inconclusive material (as Whitten may be) and fitting it neatly in every single instance into a "this proves Tillinghast was the designer" scenario!!  

As an example of one of many "Tillinghast advocacy" assumptions he uses to make conclusions, here's one; 'Since Mr. Burbeck lived for many years.....the fact that he never claimed Bethpage as his own design "PROVES" that Tillinghast was the designer.'

I'm sorry to say Philip, that's really poor architectural research based on a really weak premise that CAN lead to some very misleading conclusions! And there are a least ten other instances in his article that arrive at the conclusion that Tillinghast was the designer in the same manner.

I have a feeling if a routing plan turned up with the courses of Bethpage the way they are today and with Burbeck's signature on it and dated before Tillinghast ever came on board that Philip Young could probably still find some way to "fact fit" that into "proof" that Tillinghast was the designer of Bethpage!

Again, I say that if there's some evidence out there that the courses of Bethpage were routed before Tillinghast came on board (as Whitten has claimed) let's see that evidence! Failing that look again at what Tillinghast himself has said about all this and try not to go much farther with attribution than what Tillinghast himself has said, at least not at this point.

At this point, I might give an example of what I see MIGHT have happened at Bethpage given the inconclusive material produced so far. I stress though that this is an assumption given as an EXAMPLE only and I'm certainly not trying to draw a conclusion out of it (given the incomplete and inconclusive material available).

If it's true that the courses of Bethpage were routed previous to Tillinghast's involvement, Tillinghast may have come in as a consultant (as he says he was) and made a number of "design" recommendations to that routing!

What that means is Tillinghast may have recommeded some feature placement (bunker schemes, green shapes and orientations, possibly exact tee placements) on an already existing routing with hole configurations unaltered from the original routing (by someone else). That's more than possible, it happens all the time! If this is what actually happened it would also very easily explain why some of the holes of Bethpage have a "Tillinghast look" to them to some extent!

It's of course possible that Tillinghast may have rearranged the routing that preceded him to some extent but of course there's absolutely nothing at this point to indicate that--but that's certainly possible too!

So if something like that happened where would that leave Tillinghast and Burbeck as to who designed the golf course(s)? It would leave them in a bit of a collaborative position which appears to be the way Tillinghast has always cast this situation!

Again, there's no reason, in my opinion to claim that Whitten or anyone else is saying Tillinghast did nothing here and that Burbeck did everything, or for that matter the other way around! Both obviously did something--so what that was still very much remains the unanswered question!

And again, I couldn't care less as to how it turns out as to which one did what, I just think it's very interesting to look very impartially at the available evidence and to try to determine which one did do what!!

But again try to rid yourselves of "advocacy" assumptions and conclusions in this process of trying to determine who did what! And try to rid youselves of really poor assumptions as to who could have done what. Saying that there's no conceivable way a man like Burbeck could have routed those golf courses because he was Joe Brubeck, a virtual unknown, is just such a poor assumption!

Here's another really poor assumption on Philip Young's part with what I feel could be a logical assumption!

Young says that the "reef hole" virtually proves that Tillinghast was the designer of Bethpage. He says this because the "reef hole" was Tillinghast's own design! And there's very little to deny that--the reef hole design certainly was Tillinghast's own!

But if the reef hole showed up at Bethpage and virtually no one had ever heard of the reef hole before that point, then and only then could I start to buy into Philip Young's assumption and conclusion that this proves Tillinghast designed (routed and designed) the Bethpage course.

Philip, you say Tillinghast wrote about this hole many years before--and indeed he did! There were descriptions and drawings of the reef hole in some golf architectural magazines that were very popular periodicals of their time all of which preceded the Bethpage courses by many years (as you yourself have stated in your article!).

Did it ever occur to you that many people read those articles written many years before by Tillinghast himself in those periodicals? Did it occur to you that Joe Burbeck may have been one of those who read those articles--and specifically the one about the reef hole?

Do you really believe it's beyond the realm of possiblity that Burbeck very well may have gotten some idea on the routing and design of Bethpage from reasearch and reading? If I was designing a course or working on something like Bethpage in the capacity that Brubeck appears to have been that's certainly something I would do!

Is it illogical to even assume that Burbeck himself may have asked the Park Commission or Robert Moses himself to contact and hire one A.W. Tillinghast because of things like the articles he'd written? It's certainly not illogical to me!

I have no real idea at the moment and certainly don't want to draw conclusions (as others are) at this point, but so far this smells like some kind of design collaboration between Tillinghast and Burbeck to me (as to exactly how I hope we find out or find out more). And isn't it interesting that Tillinghast himself seems to easily concur with that despite the fact that his "adocates" today want to believe otherwise?

But in the meantime a topic and thread like this I believe is an excellent one--a really valuable one to have on Golfclubatlas. Because at the very least I think it can show us all how to do IMPARTIAL architectural analysis and steer clear of "adovocacy" analysis--simply because an assumption or conclusion has been in existence for many years with inconclusive evidence!!

Ron Whitten may have gone too far in the apparent conclusions he's drawn--he should come forward with a clearer indication of this routing by Burbeck before Tillinghast came on board or give up on that apparent fact!

Others have gone way too far too in their conclusions about Tillinghast, in my opinion!

So let's keep looking at what's there imparially and also what else might come forward. If we all do that I do believe eventually the truth here will become known and all those involved back then will probably be treated fairly, as they should be--or should have been!





  
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: A_Clay_Man on June 09, 2002, 06:35:56 AM
As we have disected the realities in all cionstruction projects before, the "mongrel theory" sounds more like what reality exsisted.

After reading Brad Kleins piece in the 6-14 edition of Supt.'s News I was struck by the new information (new to me) that the routing included several awkward or long walks between holes.

Having only played one Tillie course, SFGC, I can't imagine he had much to do with the routing, if it was not seemless like sfgc.. I can also take one look at those bunkers and know that they are clearly his.

So, with just these two pieces of evidence, it is clear enough that a project of this scope needed several minds and while it is a wonderful statement to the Brubeck family.
 I doubt any high profile modern archie would give away eched in stone credit for a successful project to anybody but themselves.

 Afterall, Tillie was hired, right? Hired as what? Back in the depression I don't know how many consulting positions were given out.
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 09, 2002, 08:16:59 AM
AClayman,

Each piece of property dictates its unique design.

The walk from # 10 green at WFE to # 11 tee is anything but convenient.

I wouldn't use green to tee proximity to brand or disqualify the architect.
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Bill Wright on June 09, 2002, 09:10:44 AM
Posted by: TEPaul Posted on: June 9th, 2002, 8:21am
First of all, I realize this thread seems to be about Ron Whitten.  

Tom Paul:  of course, it's about Ron Whitten and how he has appointed himself (with the blessing of Golf Digest as "THE preminent golf course architecture critic) as the final word on all subjects regarding golf design.

His credentials, other than writing for Golf Digest, are suspect at best.  How he can unilaterlly rewrite golf history should trouble all...
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: A_Clay_Man on June 09, 2002, 09:45:50 AM
Patrick- That is just one hole. Which in my experience is acceptable and if it's a beautiful nature walk even more acceptable. But in the Klein article he talks of several long uphill walks to the tee.

Now, on a site and project of this magnitude don't you think Mr. Tillie would've  been able to find the perfect routing or at least one closer to what was done at SFGC, a natural flow where you never had to ask the caddie where the next hole is because that was designed in?
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: TEPaul on June 09, 2002, 09:49:53 AM
Let's just say it becomes known that Burbeck did route Bethpage's courses previous to Tillinghast ever showing up at Bethpage. Let's say that Tillinghast, as a consultant, took a "routed" hole landform and without changing anything about that routed hole landform "designed into it" a "concept" like a "reef" bunker scheme or some other "concept" known to or used by Tillinghast previously or even uniquely there.

Where would all of you think that leaves these two men as to the design of that hole (or that course)?

To me that's an architectural collaboration, plain and simple! A routing by one man and "designed up" to some extent by another man!

It certainly appears plausible, at this point, that may be the way Bethpage evolved during it's creation! The fact that "concepts" or "schemes" may have been used on a routing (previous to Tillinghast!?) and who conceived of those schemes or concepts is important. Who routed the course is very important too.

The fact that another man may have used a "scheme" of another architect is important to consider too. If one man used the scheme known as another architect's I wouldn't necessarily give credit to the architect that originated that "scheme" on a particular course unless the originator was there to suggest it, which Tillinghast certainly may have been a roll of Tillinghast's at Bethpage.

If we did give credit to an architect for his "scheme" or "concept" although he may not have had anything to do with a particular course then we would have to give MacDonald and Raynor, for instance, architectural and design credit for all the wonderful "redan" iterations that Flynn "designed up" on his own at many of his courses all over the place. We would then have to give MacD and Raynor credit for Tillinghast's great redan iteration at Somerset's #2 also, wouldn't we?

Would we want to do that? Of course not, certainly not the least of which is MacD and Raynor had nothing whatsoever to do with those Flynn or Tillinghast holes.

And also considering that MacD and Raynor did not invent the redan concept either -they simply borrowed it too!
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: TEPaul on June 09, 2002, 10:01:43 AM
Bill Wright:

I realize this thread is about Ron Whitten--and that's fine.

But there's a larger issue here, in my opinion, than just Ron Whitten, like who really did design various aspects of the Bethpage courses?

That's very interesting and all Ron has done is deliver a message questioning the assumptions of who did what. There's no harm to me in analyzing those old assumptions if there's evidence around that's interesting to analyze.

If Ron Whitten has just manufactured a bunch of what is clearly bogus evidence then this would only be about Ron Whitten, in my opinion! But did Ron Whitten manufacture only a bunch of bogus evidence all by himself? I think any impartial observer could say no he didn't--that he's only presenting evidence that may have always been there.

The fact that he so facilely drew conclusions may be suspect, but his presenting of evidence to be analyzed is not, in my opinion.

I don't agree with Whitten's conclusions necessarily, at this point, but the fact that he presented evidence is sure OK with me. If it were otherwise it would be a case of "killing the messenger" wouldn't it?

Furthermore, if there're either Tillinghast or Burbeck "advocates" out there that think there's something wrong at this point with IMPARTIALLY analyzing the evidence that both Ron Whitten produced and might otherwise be out there, then I think they're both wrong about that!
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Brian Phillips on June 09, 2002, 10:12:20 AM
Bill,

Ron Whitten is a golf course architect critic and is very good at it.  I met the man briefly for a weekend not long ago and he is intelligent and extremely funny.

He does know what he is talking about.  He writes for Golf Digest which means he writes for the masses which also means he has to write interesting articles which is not very easy when writing about golf course architecture!!

Ron has stated before, that the majority of readers couldn't care less about architecture and are more interested in reviews and tips for golf playing!

If it hadn't been for Ron this discussion about Burbeck would never have come up and I would never have thought that maybe the course wasn't designed by Tillie (which by the looks of things it isn't entirely..).

There is no definite evidence that the course is designed by any one man so maybe Ron was in his right to bring up his views.  

If you are the architect reviewer for Golf Digest then in my book you are the prominent golf course architect critic in the world...it is of course the most sold golf magazine in the world.

Brian.

Bethpage Black...designed by: a mongrel.

Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: BCrosby on June 09, 2002, 10:21:51 AM
Tom -

You draw an interesting distinction.

Someone who borrows architectural concepts that are original to others does not mean those "others" have a claim to design credit. Every architect on every project is to some extent borrowing pre-existing concepts on virtually every hole he designs.

For example, most angled greens borrow from the Redan concept. Some borrow very little, some borrow a lot.  That doesn't mean MacD gets partial design credit every time an angled green is built.

But how would you feel if MacD had been on the payroll for that project, had made several site visits and had been credited by independent sources as suggesting changes to various green complexes? And how would you feel if a sister course was advertised on opening day as having a "Redan Hole"?

By golly, I would be inclined to give MacD partial credit for the design of the course.

I assume - given Whitten's conclusions about BB - that he wouldn't.  

Which is. . . (I'm struggling for words here) . . .nuts.

Bob

Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Rick Wolffe on June 09, 2002, 11:05:46 AM

Tepaul

May I ask the following question?

On whom is the burden of proof on this debate?  Has GD and Whitten provided any compelling evidence that would justify rewriting history.

Phil Young has spent hundreds of hours researching the history of Bethpage.  He has taken the time to share his research and interpretative conclusions.  Most importantly he provides the source documents to all of his research and conclusions.  This is substantially more than what Whitten and GD have provided.

To trash Phil Young's essay and opinions is shameful.

The facts speak for themselves.  To date No one has seen any definitive proof that someone other than Tillinghast served as golf course architect in the role of planning, routing and designing the golf holes at Bethpage.

That being said, I would think that most rationale people would certainly agree that Joe Burdeck should receive significant credit for engineering and constructing the golf courses and club house and other facilities at Bethpage.  In fact, it was Tillinghast who was first to publicly recognize Burdeck for his contribution and his idea to build a "Pine Valley" challenge in the Black.

There are, however, many other professionals that should get credit for making Bethpage happen.  They include the Executive in charge, Benjamin VanSchaick, the Dictator in charge, Robert Moses, the Landscape Architect H.C. Coombs, the Chief Engineer, A.E. Howland, the clubhouse consulting architect, Clifford Wendehack and many others.

Anone with any experience building large scale public works can tell you that a team of committed professionals makes these projects happen.  "Lone rangers fail."  Or another quote that I like  is "Some people know how to get things done and those that do not only know how to criticize those that do."

Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Brian Phillips on June 09, 2002, 02:09:15 PM
RW,

Where is the proof that Tillie DID design the course?  I keep asking this but does anyone have any documentation with Tillie's signature on a drawing or a routeplan?

Tillie wrote in his own book that he was a CONSULTANT, he didn't write that he was the sole architect.

Re-write history...?  Where is the evidence?  Show me a routeplan or even some drawings.

Tom Paul would NEVER ever trash anyone. It is not his style (and the man has style and a good swing  ;D)


Here is Tom's quote, quoting Philip Young:

As an example of one of many "Tillinghast advocacy" assumptions he uses to make conclusions, here's one; 'Since Mr. Burbeck lived for many years.....the fact that he never claimed Bethpage as his own design "PROVES" that Tillinghast was the designer.'

I'm sorry to say Philip, that's really poor architectural research based on a really weak premise that CAN lead to some very misleading conclusions! And there are a least ten other instances in his article that arrive at the conclusion that Tillinghast was the designer in the same manner.

I totally agree with Tom, just because a man lives forever and doesn't claim a design does not mean he did not design something!

Let's take it the otherway, here is your quote:

The facts speak for themselves.  To date No one has seen any definitive proof that someone other than Tillinghast served as golf course architect in the role of planning, routing and designing the golf holes at Bethpage.

Now here is my quote:

To date no one on this site or anywhere I know has anyone or anything proved to me that Tillie had sole design on Bethpage Black.  And until someone does I will call the design a MONGREL design of many people.

Brian Phillips
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Rick Wolffe on June 09, 2002, 04:10:52 PM
Brian

You ask for Tillinghast to provide the burden of proof.  Well why don't you read Tillie's own writing.  Many of these letters and articles have been posted on this site dozens of times by me and others.  In his own words Tillie says he was responsible for planning and design.  Perhaps in an afterlife we will meet him and you can ask him to repeat himself.  I am not going to repeat myself anymore.

Furthermore, the executive in charge of the Bethpage project, Benjamin Van Schaick, in writing says Tillie was responsible for planning the golf courses.  If you want to see signed drawings, you are probably asking for the impossible.  I would speculate that signed drawings for golden age golf courses only exist for 1 out of 200 golf courses built.  Is there a motive to asking for the impossible?  

Also, I quote TePaul as follows, "Before I go on I'd like to remark I just carefully read the article hyperlinked above by one Philip Young, apparently written in the last few weeks. I'm not sure if Mr. Young is attached to the Tillinghast Society or not--although that shouldn't really matter!

Whether he is or not (and I have no idea who Philip Young is) I'd like to say from the article he wrote that his assumptions and conclusions are about about the most egregious piece of "fact fitting" and "advocacy reporting" I've almost ever seen in golf architectural research!"

Brian, Websters defines "egregious" as consipicuously bad or flagrant.  I would view the calling of Phil Young's essay, as "the most consipicuously bad or flagrant piece of fact fitting ever seen in golf architectural research," very strong criticism that I would define as "a trashing."  Especially since Phil's essay provides citations for all of his sources.  Ron Whitten and GD have not provided citations for all of their interprative opinions.  If I could be so bold to suggest, why don't you take a few minutes to read Phil's essay.

But who am I to say the Emperor of GD is wearing no clothes?

 ;D
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 09, 2002, 06:55:05 PM
RW,

You present a compelling case and take a reasonable position !
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Mark_Fine on June 09, 2002, 08:17:13 PM
If it ever proves out that Tillinghast did indeed design The Black, what does this say about designing "in the field"?  We know much if any time he spent on site!
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Tom MacWood (Guest) on June 09, 2002, 08:40:38 PM
I've done my own independant research on the subject and hope to produce my findings in the next day or two.
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: TEPaul on June 09, 2002, 09:43:55 PM
RW:

I have no interest whatsoever in either Tillinghast or Burbeck being assigned attribution for the routing and design of the Bethpage courses or the Black.

I'm interested in any evidence whatsoever about the creation of particularly the Black.

However, whether you call my remarks about Philip Young's article "a trashing" or not I stand completely behind my remarks that his article is the most egregious peice of "fact fitting" and "advocacy" reporting I've ever seen in golf architectural research.

Matter of fact, I just read it again and it's more egregious than I at first thought! Whether he spent and hour on his article or a hundred hours is of no matter! If he spent one hundred hours on that article then I feel for him because the way he makes, supports and defends his assumptions and particularly his conclusions is not credible. I'm really not even speaking of the inconclusive evidence in this matter, only the way Young makes, supports and defends his assumptions and conclusions in light of that inconclusive evidence--it's just poorly done on his part, in my opinon!

On whom is the burden of proof? This is not some court of law RW, as you would seem to want to make it! This is the analysis of an architectural creation. Just because the golfing world may have assumed the course to have been unquestionably Tillinghast's all these years does not effect the true facts behind the creation of this golf course. You seem to be basing your entire position on this issue on that assumption!

That's just not good enough! If you have something, anything, that can conclusively establish this issue, then let's see it! So far I haven't seen it!

Whitten produced a series of events which could bring into question the extent of Tillinghast's contribution in the creation of Bethpage Black. If you know something that can establish Whitten's remarks to be without a semblance of credibility then let's see it. Otherwise don't be so resistant or defensive about impartial architectural research and analysis!

But what I've seen so far from people like Young and also from Whitten and Burbeck Jr is not conclusive!

If I'm not mistaken, you may be one of the driving forces behind the Tillinghast Society! That's fine, I admire your dedication and what you've done for the architectural understanding of Tillinghast, his career and his courses.

But understand RW, I have no interest in seeing anything other than what the facts are here come to light.

If you have something really credible to show any of us other than people have ASSUMED that the Black and/or the Bethpage courses are all Tillinghast then let's see it now.

If you have that I would be more than happy to accept it! I have nothing at all against Tillinghast and no reason to support Burbeck--I just want to see some impartial analysis of what happen during the Black's creation.

So let's see and hear it--I'm all eyes and ears!

Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: TEPaul on June 09, 2002, 10:14:41 PM
Just read Brian Phillips post and it's a very good one directed only in the name of impartiality, in my opinion. That, hopefully is the way this discussion of this Bethpage topic should go too!

RW:

Maybe you have posted what you think is conclusive evidence about Tillinghast and the Black. If some of us, like me, have missed it, would you mind posting it again or at least refering us to where we can find it?

If it's only going to be more of "Tillinghast did it all because that's what people have assumed all these years (history) or Burbeck could not have done such a thing because he's a virtualy unknown", then don't bother--I've heard all that and I'm not going to buy explanations like that--and I really don't think any other serious architectural analyst should or would either!

Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Brian Phillips on June 10, 2002, 05:15:55 AM
RW,

For a man who only has 13 posts on this site under the name RW (with two of them on this thread) you must have posted a lot about Tillie on your other posts that neither I or Tom have seen.

Could you please post your evidence of letters or drawings or anything else.

I own all 3 books written by Tillie (or his writings put together by someone else) and he only states he was the consultant.  Please read my quote on a previous post.

I like Tom have no motive and do not care who designed the Black but I would like the truth to come out and I felt that Whitten made a good point and NO ONE AS OF YET has proved him wrong or right.

Brian
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Rick Wolffe on June 10, 2002, 06:13:24 AM
TePaul

Stand by your "trashing" of Phil Young's essay.  I am sure you won't get a Christmas card from him or me.

Brian, what do the number of posts made under one of my log in names have to do with this argument?  Try looking up posts under the name AWT.

In addition, if you really are interested, try reading the article written by Benjamin VanShaick who was the Executive in Charge of the Bethpage project from the inception through the completion.  The article can be found at the following link:

http:www.tillinghast.net/crsbeth.htm

On this site there is at least one other article by Tillie to the Bethpage project.  We plan to put up many more private letters written by Tillie which totally refute many of the interpretative conclusions drawn by Whitten in his interpretation of Tillie's life in his GD and Golf World articles.

The Truth will be told.

Oh, by the way.  Check out today's special segment on the Bethpage Black and the Open.  
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Rick Wolffe on June 10, 2002, 06:15:48 AM
sorry for the bad link

http://www.tillinghast.net/crsbeth.htm

And the special segment is in the NY Times.

Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: TEPaul on June 10, 2002, 07:08:08 AM
RW:

I realize the Tillinghast Society has obviously done a vast amount of research on all Tillinghast courses etc but just a very small point of order from your 1:05pm 6/9/02 post to me---the man who's a nobody in the broad scheme of design and architecture at the Bethpage courses who you claim was the engineer and constructor of the Bethpage courses and lived there and worked there daily for many years is named Joseph Burbeck--not Burdeck as you seem to continuously call him in your post!
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: George Pazin on June 10, 2002, 07:08:31 AM
Brian -

You might want to check who wrote, co-wrote or compiled those Tillinghast books you own.  :)

Rick Wolfe has indeed been posting on this site a long time, as long as I can remember (I've been on this site for about 2 years), post log notwithstanding.

Sometimes frequency of posts tells you good things, sometimes bad... :)
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Tim Weiman on June 10, 2002, 07:54:41 AM
George Pazin:

Having no special insight into the subject matter of this thread, I've stayed out of the fight.

But, like you, I was struck by Brian Phillip's reference to the Tillinghast books and his apparent ignorance about Rick Wolfe's role in producing the books.  I don't say this to criticize Brian and assume he just didn't realize who Rick was.

For perspective, can you imagine someone saying to Geoff Shackelford that "he has read a book about George Thomas" and on that basis disagrees with Geoff?

My point is simply that perhaps posting under "AWT" or "Tillie", as I think Rick has done, creates more confusion than it is worth.  It just seems like sticking with one name would be better, especially for people who don't go back several years in terms of particpating at GCA.

Rick Wolfe:

Ken Stofer from Lakewood has been kind enough to share with me some of the Tillinghast documentation that he has.  Though I don't recall anything about Bethpage, I was struck by Tillinghast's detailed trip reports on the work he did for the PGA.

I noticed that Ron Whitten didn't produce anything like that to support his claims about Burbeck.  Can you tell us if such materials exist about Bethpage?

Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: TEPaul on June 10, 2002, 07:57:55 AM
RW:

Thank you for that hypelink to the article about the creation of the Bethpage courses--actually I had read it.

The author and director's name is Benjamin L. Van Schiack, not VanShaick, as you would have it--but no matter, we do know who you're refering to!

Again, Van Schiack reports in April 1934 the courses have been laid out and work is well under way! He also reports that Tillinghast has been hired as a consultant!

Almost every course I've ever read about and researched it's been reported that an architect has been hired as the architect or the designer of the golf course in question so why is Tillinghast not idenitfied as such? Why in this case is he identified by the man you told us could clear up these questions (Van Schiack) as "a consultant"? Donald Ross designed my course and was hired as "the architect" certainly not "a consultant"!

And apparently in an addendum to Van Schiack's article Tillinghast himself reports that despite very disheartening winter weather the courses are well under way. I have to ask you if it's accurate, in your opinion, that Tillinghast was, in fact, hired by Moses in December of 1933? Is it also accurate reporting, in your opinon, that the courses of Bethpage were well under way in April 1934, approximately four months later? It's possible, certainly, but that's fast work to have routed and designed a number of courses and have them well on their way to construction in four months.

So again, was Tillinghast in fact hired by Moses in Dec 1933 and what do you make of this information (from Whitten) that the courses were "laid out" months before Dec 1933? No burden of proof here, RW, just a fairly basic question involving dates!

Again, nothing remotely conclusive in this article, from you, Young, Van Schiack or A.W. Tillinghast himself, or Ron Whitten either that I can see.

But I'm very interested and I eagerly await these letters that you plan to make available to us that will clear up this "design" matter!
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: TEPaul on June 10, 2002, 08:32:31 AM
Brian:

My understanding is it's true what George Pazin says that RW is the man who wrote or co-wrote the Tillinghast books that you refer to that report Tillinghast as only "a consultant".

This does get odder and odder, doesn't it? Possibly, at this point, we should ask RW (the author of the Tillinghast books) if he sees any difference or distinction whatsoever in an architect being hired as "a consultant" or as "the architect".

I would certainly hope that he sees no difference or distinction between the two terms (although I certainly would and you probably would too) because if he does see a difference then he would seem to be saying something at one point and something else at another point, wouldn't you think?

Or possibly when he did his research on Bethpage and saw that even Tillinghast called himself "a consultant" he just didn't think that mattered or meant much of anything.

I find as time goes on and people (such as those on Golfclubatlas) get far more interested in the various details of the histories of some of these old classic courses that it becomes less reliable to depend on some of the old assumptions that appear to have been so easily turned into conclusions.

Basically, in the past no one really seemed to care about architectural details amongst the architects and the courses of the past! That's changing rapidly now. It wasn't long ago that Frank Hannigan's article on Tillinghast revived Tillie from the status of almost a completely forgotten man!!

Today far greater interest from many more people is demanding that researchers really do get their facts straight and stop relying on some of the old easy assumptions that may have turned into easy conclusions!

RW:

I hope in this ongoing discussion of Bethpage you don't feel that any of us are being adverserial towards you or A.W. Tillinghast. I certainly don't mean to be. I am very interested in all of this though!

If it turns out eventually that Tillinghast did not do as much on the Bethpage courses as has been assumed or as you've believed, I really wouldn't worry too much about it, if I were you.

Tillinghast's position and reputation in the history of American architecture is very secure in my opinion! The courses that are clearly his, without a scintilla of doubt, are certainly proof positive of that!
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Jeff Goldman on June 10, 2002, 09:24:42 AM
One significant criticism on this site (and elsewhere) of the course is the greens.  From the pictures many of them look like simple saucers.  Would Tillinghast have designed those greens?  Do they affect the argument here at all?
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Mal Content on June 10, 2002, 05:36:46 PM
this just in...................

ron whitten has uncovered evidence that joe burbeck is actually the designer of 36 holes at winged foot and the 18 holes across the street at quaker ridge.

mr. whittens ascertations are that mr. burbeck was swindled out of these design commissions in a card game with mr. tillinghast.

more to come later.
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Rick Wolffe on June 10, 2002, 06:45:05 PM
TePaul

Thanks for correcting my spelling mistakes.

Yes, Tillinghast was hired with the title of consultant to plan and design.  Cifford Wendehack was also hired with the title of consultant to plan and design the clubhouse.  Wendehack is considered to be the architect of record for the clubhouse.  Many other design and engineering professionals were also put under contract on this MAJOR public works project (many of whom I have already mentioned).  Tillinghast was paid by the Long Island Park Commission for his planning and design services.  The amount of money he was paid was substantial and had considerable buying power.  

I have posted the abovementioned points several times before.

I would also point out that one should not get hung up on the title of consultant.  Evidently, it was a common method of contracting during the depression.  Robert Trent Jones was also hired as a consultant in the depression to design a W.P.A. golf course.  His fee was $0, but was given the right to operate the course after it was completed.

In my humble opinion, the living proof that Tillinghast played a substantial role in planning and designing these courses is found in the architecture of the courses.  The golf holes are right out of the Tillinghast design portfolio.  And I must re-emphasize that Joe Burbeck should get significant credit in building these courses.  And as many on this site can probably attest, during the construction of a golf course, plans and designs change.  I would certainly speculate that Burbeck played a significant role in this regard.  Given that Tillinghast made multiple visits during the construction process, I would also speculate that he made substantial revisions to the work in progress.  All that being said, the generally accepted convention in the building industry is that there is an Architect of Record, there is an Engineer of Record, there is a Constructor of record, and there may also be a civil engineer of record, etc. etc.  In some cases you see the architect of record listed in association with another architect on the design of a project.  As an example in the building trade, I had the great opportunity to be the executive in charge of the $100 million renovation of Boardwalk Hall in Atlantic City.  The project architect of record was Ewing Cole Cherry Brott (ECCB) out of Philadelphia in association with Rosser International out of Atlanta.  ECCB was also the Engineer of Record.

Now, the Bethpage State Park has always accepted Tillinghast as the Architect of record for the golf courses and Joe Burbeck as the Constructor and Engineer of record.  We may never ever really know the day-to-day of what went on in the field designing and building this great golf course complex.  And we could probably debate this until we are blue in the face.  But should Tillinghast be stripped of his design credit and merely be denigrated to a lesser position on this great project.  I think most would think not.  Should Burbeck's role be enhanced.  I think so.  In fact, as I have posted before, Tillinghast was the first to give him the credit he rightly deserves.

Peace.




Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: TEPaul on June 10, 2002, 07:28:59 PM
RW:

You say Tillinghast made multiple visits to the Bethpage project. Can you document that?

Also Tillinghast apparently said it was Burbeck who decided that something in the Pine Valley style would be done at Bethpage. What do you know about that? How or why do you suppose Burbeck came up with that idea? It would seem he must have been to Pine Valley at some point wouldn't you think? Do you suppose he'd read the articles Tillinghast had written--likely some of his reports on Pine Valley. Burbeck was also a landscape architect, wasn't he? And Whitten has stated that he may have done some courses in the Midwest. What about that?

And who do you suppose it was at the Park Commission that came up with Tillinghast as a consultant? Do you suppose it was Moses? Maybe it was Burbeck himself who made the recommendation as he was the director of the entire Bethpage project, wasn't he?
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Judge Jacobus on June 10, 2002, 09:51:36 PM
Whereas plaintiffs, Mr. Whitten & Golf Digest, have alleged that Tillinghast was not the golf Architect responsible for designing Bethpage Black, but rather Mr. Joe Burdeck was such architec who designed Bethpage Black.

And whereas defendent, Mr. Tillinghast, had a contract with the Long Island State Park Commission to provide design and consulting services for the planning and development of the Green, Blue, Red and Black courses at Bethpage State Park.

And whereas defendent, Mr. Tillinghast, was paid $50 a day for his design and planning services and made over 15 site visits to Bethpage pursuant to his contract.

And whereas plaintiff, Mr. Whitten and Golf Digest, conclude that, "This was hardly the sort of fee Tillinghast normally would have accepted.?  When the facts are to the contrary, as $50 per day during the period of the early 1930's was a substantial sum of money that had considerable buying power.

And whereas the Bethpage State Park has records of payments made to Mr. Tillinghast for services rendered.

And whereas plaintiffs, Mr. Whitten and Golf Digest, have provided no substantive proof of claim and no citations or sources of reference to their claims and conclusions.

And whereas plaintiffs, Mr. Whitten and Golf Digest, have on numerous occasions been asked, and have had ample time, to present citations of source and reference to substantiate their claims.

And to this day plaintiffs, Mr. Whitten and Golf Digest, have failed to provide any substantiation to their claims despite numerous requests to do so.

And whereas plaintiffs, Mr. Whitten and Golf Digest, incorrectly claim that  ?On August 10, the clubhouse and Bethpage Red officially opened, with 4-year old Joe Burbeck unlocking a giant padlock to the clubhouse as Robert Moses looked on.  Tillinghast wasn?t present.  He and his wife were already on the road, the first of two sweeping automobile tours of the country during the next two years while Tillie served as a consultant to PGA of America courses.?  When in actual fact the Red course did not open on August 10 with the grand opening of the clubhouse.  Rather the Red officially opened over two months earlier on May 30, 1935.  And the Blue opened the month before on April 28, 1935.  And Mr. Tillinghast was not long gone on his PGA tour.  Rather, he did not leave until August 14, 1935 (He must have been packing).  

And whereas defendent, Mr. Tillinghast, has publicly recognized the constructor and engineer who built his design plans when in 1937 he wrote, ??let me say right here that never have I received heartier support and cooperation than from Joe Burbeck, the state engineer, who was in daily direction of the entire work from the start to its finish.?
And whereas the owner of the Bethpage State Park has for nearly 70 years and to this day given design credit to Mr. Tillinghast as the Architect of record for the golf courses at Bethpage.

Now therefore this Court of Web Justice, rules against plaintiffs Mr. Whitten and Golf Digest and hereby dismisses, with predjudice, the alleged claim made by plaintiffs Mr. Whitten and Golf Digest.

It is so ruled on this the tenth day of June in the year 2002.
The plaintiffs have 60 days to appeal this ruling to the Court of High Revisionist History and Magazine Circulation Sales.

 :o
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: TEPaul on June 11, 2002, 07:48:58 AM
Judge Jacobus:

And, whereas, if a panel of review judges finds out that you are a member of the Tillinghast Society or that you happen to be in their pocket, then therefore, you will be given the opportunity of recusing yourself from giving any more "conclusive" opinions on this situation or else being unceremoniously removed from the Bench!!

Let that be amended to read, if it's found you're in their pocket you will be remanded to Riker's Island to play golf on a course of 600 inches within your cell for the remainder of your days--with cell visitations daily from all those sexual perverts you've sent up the river during your judicial career!

Neither Bethpage, Tillinghast, Burbeck, Whitten or Golf Digest needs to be in your court of law or any other court for that matter!
Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: BCrosby on June 11, 2002, 12:12:47 PM
Another log for the fire:

  "The original design of the Black has become debatable. The legendary A. W. Tillinghast had been considered the architect of the Black Course, which opened in 1936.  But according to Joe Burbeck, the son of the original Bethpage superintendent, Joseph Burbeck, his father designed the Black Course while Tillinghast was a consultant.

  Rees Jones disagrees. He conceded that Burbeck might have supervised the Black’s construction, but he believes Tillinghast designed the routing of the Black Course’s 18 holes.

  “I don’t believe Burbeck could’ve done this routing,” Jones said. “Tillinghast’s influence is in the routing of the holes and also the Pine Valley emphasis with No. 4’s cross bunkers and No. 5’s carry bunker. Also the natural green sites at No. 2, No. 5, No. 14, No. 15 and No. 18.  To use those green sites, you had to have Tillinghast’s experience.” "

New York Times - 6/10/02, p. E7.

No one is going to find a smoking gun that resolves this issue.  It's unlikely that there is a document buried in some closet that will settle the design attribution.

At some point you have to trust your eyes.  And the better educated the eyes, the more credence we should give to what they are seeing.

No one has better educated eyes than Rees Jones, especially when it comes to Tillie and Bethpage.

I'm with Rees on this one.

Bob

Title: Re: Whitten sticking to his guns
Post by: Rick Shefchik on June 11, 2002, 12:24:55 PM
There may be no smoking gun, but as I recall Ron Whitten claims there is evidence of one. He said the building of the Black Course had already begun when Tillie was signed on as a consultant.

The entire case teeters on that claim. I really wish Ron Whitten would explain why he believes it to be true. This matter would be largely put to rest if he did.