Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Mike_Sweeney on May 06, 2002, 06:36:48 AM
-
The following article appeared in today's NY Times
By CLIFTON BROWN
Joe Burbeck believes that an important part of golf history should be corrected.
For more than 65 years, A. W. Tillinghast has been recognized as the designer of the storied Black Course at Bethpage State Park on Long Island. But Burbeck disputes Tillinghast's involvement. Burbeck insists that Bethpage Black, site of next month's United States Open, was designed by his father, Joseph H. Burbeck, who was the park's superintendent for more than 30 years.
Burbeck's quest to gain recognition for his father is the subject of an article that is to appear in the June issue of Golf Digest. Now 71 years old and living in Rye, N.Y., Burbeck has spent much of his adult life waging a campaign on behalf of his father, who died in 1987. His story has often been ignored. But Golf Digest is convinced that Burbeck is correct, so convinced that it will list his father as the architect of Bethpage Black; Tillinghast will be listed as a consultant.
With the Open coming to Bethpage Black on June 13-16, Burbeck has never felt more strongly about fighting for his father's legacy.
"Ever since they decided to bring the Open to Bethpage, I've been hearing Tillinghast's name all over the place, and it just isn't fair," Burbeck said last week. "It's one of the best golf courses in the world, and there's no question my father designed it."
Tillinghast didn't design Bethpage? The suggestion sounds unbelievable to some, and Burbeck knows he will never convince everyone. Tillinghast was one of golf's most fabled architects, the designer of exquisite courses like Winged Foot and Quaker Ridge in New York and Baltusrol and Ridgewood in New Jersey.
Rees Jones, a renowned architect who restored Bethpage Black to prepare it for the Open, believes Bethpage is Tillinghast's work.
"Tillinghast did the design and the routing," Jones said last week. "He may not have been on site to see the project finished, but that doesn't mean he isn't the designer. Alister Mackenzie may not have been on site to see every step of Augusta National's construction either, but that doesn't mean it wasn't his design.
"But the hard part about golf history is that a lot of it gets lost. It's not as easy to trace something from that era as it would be today."
Is there evidence to support Burbeck's claim? The magazine article, written by Ron Whitten, points to "History of the Long Island State Parks," published in 1959, which credits Burbeck with the design and construction of the golf courses at Bethpage, and lists Tillinghast as the consultant.
By the time Bethpage Black opened in 1936, Tillinghast had fallen on hard times, fighting drinking problems and financial woes. The Bethpage golf course project was spearheaded by Robert Moses, a builder of many of the region's roads and other infrastructure and a former president of the Long Island State Park Commission. But not everyone supported the effort to build golf courses during the Depression, and Burbeck said Tillinghast was given credit for Bethpage to protect the project from being criticized.
"Moses got cold feet because a no-name was the designer," Burbeck said. "They figured they needed a known quantity like Tillinghast to have his name on the project, just in case the public didn't like it."
Burbeck grew up at Bethpage in a house that still stands near the 14th hole of the Black Course. He remembers sitting at his father's knee, watching him work on design plans.
"Those weren't Tillinghast's plans, those were my father's plans," Burbeck said. "He loved Bethpage, and he knew every inch of the land. It was a great place to grow up, a great place to live. But my mother always felt bad that my father never got the proper credit."
Burbeck's mother, Elizabeth, is deceased. The original blueprints for the course have not been uncovered, and Burbeck knows it is not easy to rewrite history. Yet he feels obligated to try.
Asked if he would attend the Open this year, Burbeck said: "I don't have any tickets. I'm hoping to get some. I feel like I should be there to represent the family."
-
Calling Rick Wolffe.....
Perhaps someone should give him a shout, if he doesn't know about it already.
EDIT: I e-mailed him.
-
I just wonder how much of this will be going on in 25 years?
Also, if Mr. Burbeck is given design credit in the future... how many notches will this will drop the golf course in future rankings.
-
I do agree that Burbeck has not been given his due over the years, no fault of Tillinghasts because he certainly acknowledged the man and always referred to himself as a consultant. What he considered a consultant I don't know, perhaps the fact he was not actively involved in the construction.
I doubt that Moses got cold feet because there was a 'no name' involved. Moses was the most powerful man in NY and didn't really worry much about anyone's opinion, including the Gov. or Mayor. He was not an elected official and pissed off many. If I'm not mistaken he didn't play golf either, and therefore wouldn't know much about names anyway.
I'd be interested to know Burbeck's background, I'm always a little suspect stories regarding amateur architects - there is usually more to the story. My impression has always been that Tillinghast and Burbeck designed the course and Burbeck constructed it. The fact that there are no blue prints I think hurts Burbeck's claim as the primary designer. If he was there for decades, you would have thought he would have saved his plans, especially if he was upset with not getting his proper credit.
I don't think it is necessarily a fair characterization to say in 1936 that Tillinghast was marred by financial problems and drinking woes. Wasn't everyone in the golf architecture profession hurt by financial problems due to the Depression (and golf architects weren't the only ones). And since when have drinking problems been a negative? That seemed to be a common trait among many of that era - in good or bad times. And wasn't the reason he didn't see the completed course a new job with the PGA as an architectural consultant. They had no problem hiring him as their representative, who would meet with many of their member clubs throughout the country.
-
???
The historical record is irrefutable. Tillie was the architect and Burdeck was the engineer and constructor. As such, universally accepted convention is to credit Tillie as the Architect and Burdeck as the engineer and constructor. I think all Golf Architects would take significant exception if we were to credit their design work to the professionals that engineered and built the courses. Although we sure can sell magazines if we stir up controversy.
That being said. I think Burdeck should be given his due. As he Tillie did back in 1936, when he wrote, "It was my very good fortune to be selected by the Commission as its consultant course architect to aid its 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 the start to its finish."
I am sure that many golf architects can give examples of how their design plans were butchered by the constructors.
-
I have a tough time believing as a four year old that Mr. Burbeck remembers sitting at his fathers knee watching him design this course.
-
RW: Many thanks for your timely reply.
This thread begs the question in a number of related ways. Who should get credit in designing a course for a large firm? Many times the associate is really the person responsible for the day-to-day designing. The lead figure may "just" come in for a quick peak or some minor modifications -- ala Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus, etc, etc.
I think of the work Roger Rulewich did at Metedeconk National (NJ) and the course is credited to Robert Trent Jones. In real terms, Roger did much of the heavy lifting -- ditto the Alabama Golf Trail. I can also recall a major discussion taking place with Arcadia Bluffs (MI) and the issue of who should be credited between Rick Smith and Warren Henderson. I'm sure the same can be said for many Donald Ross courses that Donald may have designed from a remote office but never really got to the site and left the rest to others to put into motion.
I've played the Black well over 100 times in my lifetime and I always believed that the actual greens were far less than what Tillie ever did with previous efforts such as WF, Baltusrol, SH, SF, QR, etc. Was Tillie really there to oversee their preparation -- it seems unlikely but I can't say for sure. Can anyone?
It appears to me Tillie may have done the plans but the work was carried out by others. The burden of proof rests with Mr. Burdeck to demonstrate his father actually designed the holes in question. I will read the June issue of GD with much interest. ;)
-
Matt,
Some very good points. Having also played the Black over 100 times, I would concur, the routing is pure Tillie. The angles, the bunkering, the strategy is classic Tillie. Tillie alludes to the routing in much of his writing, with some very detailed writing in particular on the 4th hole. The greens are probably not Tillie, he probably did the routing, but did not stick around for the construction and subsequent shaping of the greens. Thus the stark contrast to toher notable Tillinghast courses. Mr. Burbeck may consider the construction phase as deserving of credit for the design pahse, two distinctly different things. Nonetheless, Burbeck clearly deserves credit. He probably tweeked a bit and was responsible for green contouring. But, I'm not sure the routing would have been his creation. There are too many routing elements that reek of Tillie.
I've always felt Whitten has been on a quest to discredit Tillie's involvement with the Black. Not sure why, it could be my misinterpretation.
-
Maybe Mr. Burbeck has never been completely sure what the distinctions are between what an architect does and what an "engineer" or "construction man" does. Maybe he's still not sure. Maybe he thinks that because his father might have "built" the course that he must be the architect too. Maybe Mr. Burbeck should come on Golfclubatlas with Ron Whitten.
It seems a bit illogical to assume that a state engineer that had never done a golf course could have or would have "designed" a golf course as reputable architecturally as the Black is! Even an amateur although a clearly latent talent like Crump needed about five solid years on site daily to "design" his one and only course.
Plus, although Tillinghast was a bit of an eccentric in some ways he did know a ton of people in the game on all levels and I can't really see him taking create for something he had very little to do with and in effect lying about it! Even if he wanted to that seems either implausible or impossible under the circumstances!
Burbeck as the "designer" doesn't make much sense. It's much more logical to assume that what Mr Burbeck's father did might have been a lot because being the "engineer" on Bethpage Black and maybe the other ones really is doing a lot although it might not have anything to do with actually designing the golf course!
-
TEPaul,
To further your point, doesn't Burbeck want credit for more than just the Black at Bethpage? Doesn't that seal the debate? I suppose we should also wipe Tillie, Flynn, Emmet, and few others whose names escape me off the design credit for the Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow?!?!
Again, I think Burbeck's debate has flawed logic as you suggest. If he was involved with all the courses construction, which I think is impossible since the timeline between the first and last course being built is fairly long, that does not mean he designed them!
-
jamie duffner-
isn't alfred tull credited with bethpage yellow?
will
-
William - he's part of the "and a few others whose names escape me" reference. A lot of interesting people left their mark on the five courses at Bethpage.
-
Matt:
It seems like those that work for architectural firms whether it be Hatch for Ross, Rulewich for Nicklaus or Marzolf for Fazio are in another position to sub or actually do for the architect of record than Burbeck ever would have been for Tillinghast!
I don't know Bethpage very well but the fact that the greens are mundane might say a lot about how Bethpage evolved during construction, but even that is not a reason to believe that Tillinghast did not design the course.
What about the stories I've always heard that Tillinghast got increasingly frustrated with some of the NY state or Federal Depression era work crews and may have left the project prematurely? If that's true why would Tillinghast get inceasingly frustrated with a project he had no real design stake in in the first place.
Again, Mr. Burbeck obviously saw his father do a lot of work but possibly then and now has no real idea of the differences and distinctions between "design" and "engineering and "construction" work. Sure he saw his Dad pouring over blueprints and such--but that doesn't mean they were Burbeck's father's blueprints--not unless little Burbeck remembers his Dad spending loads of time drawing them too!
-
Tony, why would questioning Tillinghast's role in Bethpage Black have any effect on course ratings? I hope you don't think people evaluate a course solely on the basis of who designed it.
As a number of people here have noticed, there's a serious issue as to who gets the real credit when a designer makes a few or one cursory visit while an associate does the real work. I think that all along, architects usually get too much credit while builders and field hands don't get enough. I'm not saying MacKenzie doesn't deserve credit for a job - it depends on how much he did and how crucial his routing was to the final product. But I know of big name designers today who might show up once during routing approval, then get lost on the way from the airport on opening day - and they seem to get (and expect) full credit.
My point is it varies a lot from case to case.
Finally, this wouldn't also have something to do with a media outlet looking to stir up the pot and generate publicity for itself, would it? Do I think Whitten invented this for that purpose? Absolutely not! He has far too much integrity. But the magazine might be encouraging this in order to be the centerpiece of conversation a month from now on Long Island. And it will be.
-
"I hope you don't think people evaluate a course solely on the basis of who designed it."
Brad
You forgot to append your smiley face! :o
-
Look at Golfdigest.com. They also run a story claming that Tillie had very little to do with the design and construction of any of the courses at Bethpage. The editors conclude the story by saying that in their future listings they will list Joe Burbeck as the architect and A.W. Tillinghast as a consultant. How do ya like that?
-
Look at Golfdigest.com. They also run a story claming that Tillie had very little to do with the design and construction of any of the courses at Bethpage. The editors conclude the story by saying that in their future listings they will list Joe Burbeck as the architect and A.W. Tillinghast as a consultant. How do ya like that?
-
Here's the exact link:
http://www.golfdigest.com/majors/usopen/index.ssf?/majors/usopen/gd200206whitten.html
Seems pretty convincing to me.
TH
-
Whitten certainly takes quite a leap in his piece. From all the facts presented, it only makes it more confusing as to who exactly did the routing. Certainly Burbeck built it, there seems to be little doubt about that point. Burbeck is responsible for the green construction. But who walked the property and routed the holes? The article makes no definitive reference to this point. Mac only did a quick walk through at Royal Melbourne. Could Tillie have done a similar routing at Bethpage? The Burbeck's may not say the name Tillinghast in their house, and that is understandable sine Burbeck poored a lot of sweat equity into the Black. But, the design and routing are critical elements to the Black and I'd like to know who did it!
I think GD and Whitten are making a mistake by arbitrarily naming Burbeck the architect and Tillie the consultant.
And more point, who here thinks Tillie didn't have a style!?!? Is that just Whitten trying to bolster his argument? The angles and strategy of Black are strikingly similar to Winged Foot. Diagonal carries, deceptive bunkering (i.e. bunkers 40 yards short of a green), the par five 4th is practically right out of Tillie's memoirs. I suppose Burbeck accidentally did that!
-
Jamie: I have absolutely no axe to grind here, I've never been to Bethpage and the only Tillie course I've played is San Francisco and I know next to nothing about any of this.
That being said, it seems to me we can all debate re Tillie's style, who did the routing, etc. But how do you respond to:
"It's in the official history of the Long Island State Parks, published in 1959. "The four golf courses constructed as work-relief projects were designed and constructed under the direction of Joseph H. Burbeck, the Superintendent of the park," the book reads, "with A.W. Tillinghast, internationally known golf architect, as consultant." "
Are you saying the 1959 history is wrong?
TH
-
Tom,
I'm not saying that at all. I'm asking who did the routing? It would have been very easy for Tillinghast to work his fifteen days and in that time, lead Burbreck around the property and lay out tees, fariways, hazards and holes, complete with the strategy intent. Then Tillie takes off, Burbeck builds the course. The 1959 plans are only one source of info. There are countless other sources which talk about Tillie's involvement as being more than a consultant. Like I described above, the 4th hole is straight out of Tillie's memoirs. I think its awfully coincidental that common strategy themes seen in several of Tillies' courses are repeated at Bethpage, but he had no hand in the routing! Burbeck sounds like a very talented man, but the genius of the Black is the tee to green game and I am a bit skeptical that he routed the course by himself.
I am sure Burbeck deserves a lot more credit than he has received, but to call him the architect is a bit presumptuous until a definitive answer on who did the routing is found.
Perhaps the Tillinghast Society folks have some info.
-
Aha! Thanks, Jamie. That did sound a little too cut and dried to me - but you gotta admit though that the statement in the official 1959 history is powerful.
TH
-
Tom,
The 4th hole at Bethpage is rather famous and in about 5 weeks, it will become world reknown. Take a look at the two design sketches, "the three shotter" and "the double dogleg" at the link below and tell me in about 6 weeks if you think Burbeck designed the hole.
http://www.tillinghast.net/toc.htm
Take a look at Atlantic Beach #16 at the Tillie site as well. Looks a lot like the par five 13th at Bethpage.
Take a look at the Wernersville (Galen Hall) at the Tillie site, looks a lot like the 6th at Bethpage with the only difference is the 6th at Bethpage is a dogleg left.
I think Burbeck and Whitten need a little clarification on "desgin", "built", and "consultant."
-
Jamie: I'd venture to say #4 is word-reknown NOW. But yes, after the Open, more people will see its greatness, and much more at the Black.
And these comparisons speak loudly also - I'm not debating this at all, just trying to clarify things for my own edification.
But yes, the crux of the whole matter is indeed how to define the terms you list. My only sticking point here is that yes, Burbeck and Whitten may have "problems" with these in this context, but if this really went as you say (which seems reasonable), then the one really at fault is the 1959 history writer.
Thanks!
TH
-
Rock Wolfe -- where art thou?
It would be most interesting for RW to comment after he's had an opportunity to read the golfdigest.com article on the subject at hand. The Digest is taking a very clear position on who actually designed the course. The consultant tag (can someone define that role?) is still in my mind unclear given what I have written previously on this thread on who should get credit for a particular layout.
Someone needs to explain to me the definition of architect / designer versus that of builder. The Whitten article does not say anything about who actually designed the course ... it does lay out a quote from Tillie speaking to his disdain for WPA type projects. Does that automatically mean that Tillie had no involvement or is it simply because he was not there at crucial times and, in his mind, could have done even better work than what was completed?
All I can say is if you follow the logic of the Burbeck matter for Tillie you must do the same for other old time architects - you can start with Donald Ross because it's hard to fathom how Donald was able to travel to all parts of the country and REALLY have a day-to-day familiarity with the courses he designed. Clearly, individuals could have taken his plans and tweaked them in a variety of ways.
This issue will clearly draw attention and it needs to be explored because the repercussions go far beyond the issue of Tillinghast / Burbeck and Bethpage.
-
All,
The post near the top by RW, is Rick Wolffe, one of the curators of the Tillinghast Society. He has seen the NY times article at the top, but not the GD article.
I just e-mailed him the article.
-
Scott - thanks for pointing that out.
I wonder, did Whitten cross check the 1959 report or Burbeck's claims with Tilie's books, writings, or sketches or with a Tillie expert such as Rock? I would hope so, journalistic integrity would say so, wouldn't it? The sketches are striking proof. I wonder if someone can paste them into this thread.
I hope GD can print an accurate update on this debate.
I only hope NBC has accurate data on this issue. I'm sure there will be a piece on this at some point during US Open weekend.
-
I very much agree with Matt that this issue has far broader interest and implications than the Whitten/Tillinghast Society feud. To wit:
1. What constitutes the "design" of a course? Is a rough sketch or routing a "design" or just the equivalent of an artist's"cartoon?"
2. Why do we really care who designed a course or a hole, as long a we know why the hole pleases or displeases us?
Also, for those concerned by the wording of the 1959 report, I read that statement as saying, very clearly, that BB was designed "under the direction" of Burbeck. This does not necessarily mean it was designed "by" Burbeck. It could also just be referring to the fact that Burbeck directed the work/managed the contract of the actual designer, Tillie or whomever.
-
Jamie Duffner:
You're on the right track.
Before agreeing that Burbeck rather than Tillinghast deserves design credit for the Black course, I hope Golf Digest will start by clarifying exactly what both Tillinghast and Burbeck did and didn't do.
For example, if GD does not lay out the evidence for who did things like the routing or hazard placement, the credibility of the magazine will suffer.
It will look too much like they are trying to sell magazines rather than provide an accurate historical record.
-
Rich Goodale:
Good point. "Designed under the direction of" doesn't mean "designed by".
Why do we care?
Only to set the record straight and give proper credit to the person doing the work.
-
One of the great skepticisms I have with this whole story is how does one jive the fact that Tillie, who had a profound respect for PV, explain the similiarities for PV's hell's half-acre with the par-5 (will play as a par-4 during the Open) 7th hole. Ditto the unique semblance of the 14th at PV with the 8th at the Black. Did Burbeck really create all of these design elements from scratch? Did he actually play golf or understand strategic concepts tied to the game? Or did he simply "just get it."
Someone has to really explain that to me. My heavens, look at Hugh Wilson, before carrying forward with his brillance at Merion took a great degree of time to study the classics in the UK.
In addition, you have the concept of cross bunkers at the 4th which Tillie did previously at other layouts (i.e. 17th at Baltusrol Lower, 6th at Five Farms, to name just two). Also, the element of the angled fairway bunkers at the 5th and 6th at the Black. The concepts that I have found at other Tillie courses from tee-to-green are at the Black. What's missing is the detail with the greens and plenty of the bunkers look like someone just took a crane and started digging without the kind of style you would find with other Tillie layouts such as Winged Foot, SH and SF, to name just three.
Is it not possible that Tillie "roughed out" a routing with key suggestions and that these elements were taken by Burbeck and actually constructed -- although in some cases not exactly to a finished Tillie result?
No one wants to see any injustice done for proper accreditation, however, until someone can provide me and others clear definitions on terms such as consultant, designer and builder I am indeed one puzzled person. Because if you start with Tillie you'd better open the book on Ross and a host of others from years gone by.
The elements of Tillie seem to be part of the Black Course in many different ways and the terrain provided him with an opportunity to re-create elements he was fond of at PV. There are other experts who need to weigh in, but for now I think you have a conceptual Tillie plan that was taken into construction by Burbeck. Tillie may have been disgusted for a host of reasons and the actual finished project took on other hands.
Think of the flip side of this issue. If a project / course turns out bad can a case be made that it wasn't the fault of the original designer but the team that finished the product? I'm sure many present day architects would love to state this when things don't necessarily work out for whatever the reasons are. ;)
P.S. I don't dispute the '59 article but I also don't minimize what one really sees at the course either.
-
At the very least, Burbeck appears to deserve a lot more credit than he's been receiving. It's a shame that the prints
are unaccounted for--they would help end the debate. Hopefully some summer intern in the NY government will emerge from the dusty archives with a set of conclusive prints.
As for Mr Burbeck working on the prints at home, I'm sure he did. No matter what his role was.
-
???
I read Mr. Whitten's article and don't understand the speculative nature of the article nor the motivation.
As for the 1959 reference in an interpretive history, I would respond with the following article written by the Benjamin Van Schaick who also probably does not get the credit that he is due on the creation and development of Bethpage.
http://tillinghast.net/crsbeth.htm
VanSchaick was the Executive Secretary of the Long Island State Park Commission. Quoting from this article, VanSchaick wrote in April of 1934 that, "A.W. Tillinghast has been retained as a consultant in the planning and development of the golf courses. Work on the three new golf courses is well under way and when completed within the next 12 months, will provide a total of four of the most up-to-date and well-equipped public golf courses in the country."
The link to the full text of this article is at
http://tillinghast.net/crsbeth.htm
The GD article by Mr. Whitten is also loaded with factual errors and speculative conclusions. As an example the article says that Tillinghast was not at the grand opening of the clubhouse on August 10 as he was long gone on his PGA tour. Not true. Tillie did not leave on his tour until August 14.
In addition, it concludes that Tillie abhored WPA work. Also Not True. Tillie tried to get as much WPA work as he could. The only thing he disliked about WPA work is that in some projects, but not Bethpage, the WPA failed to hire a credible golf architect. I could provide many references to this from Tillie's archives. I would also note that Bethpage was not a WPA administered project. It was administered by the Long Island State Park Commission.
Oh, and Tillie did not lose his house to a tax foreclosure in February of 1935. Tillie was in the house in Harrington Park for another year and a half. He closed the house in September of 1936.
Also, if someone has H.B. Martin's "50 Years of American Golf," which was written around 1936, there is a reference that may also be worth posting. I cannot find my copy. But as I recall, Martin's first hand account is that Tillinghast was most proud of his design work at Bethpage.
Our research would lead to a substantiall different interpretative conclusion that Mr. Whitten. It appears that Tillie and Burbeck were on very good terms and worked very well togehter on the construction of the golf courses. The fact that Tillie dedicated an article in Golf Illustrated on Burbeck's caddie program at Bethpage and complimented him for his foresight and leadership would support this conclusion.
I have to run. This defense of Tillie's record is most unpleasant to me. Especially since Tillie did give Burbeck the credit he deserves in his article called Man Killer. In closing, there are many other professionals like VanSchaick that orchestrated the deals and financial structuring to make Bethpage a reality. Someone should be giving these guys some credit too.
-
That really is an excellent and well researched article. I thought it was interesting at the very beginning it seemed Mrs. Burbeck was originally the main force behind contraversy, Mr.Burbeck never mentioned it. I'm sure not the first time a wife has claimed her husband hasn't gotten the shaft while he remains silent for whatever reason. Even the son characterizes it as family lore.
I agree the wording in the History of 1959 is a little ambigous. I doubt if anyone in 1959 knew who Tillinghast was and even if they did, the author would have feared Mrs. B. :) Mr. Burbeck was the commisioner when the history was comissioned, so its difficult to say how much weight it should be given.
The chronology is interesting. I believe there was a rich guy who died, he had built Lennox Hill and had a large estate which the State put down an option in 1931 (although they didn't come up with the money until '34). The course was renamed in 1932 Bethpage. It is interesting that in the summer of 1933 work began on the Blue and that Tillinghast wasn't hired until December 1933. Does that mean Burbeck designed the Blue, perhaps. But if the course was already in capable hands why hire Tillinghast? I wonder if work began in the summer of 1933, meaning the land was prepared in a general sense. That is what happened here at Ohio State GC even before an architect was hired they began preparing the site, removing debris and undergrowth, gathering manure and compost, etc.
I think it is a little misleading to say Tillinghast was hired for 15 days in Decemeber 1933, because he wasn't "laid off" until April 1935. By that time all the courses had been designed and construction well on its way. (Although the article claims Blue, Black and Red had been layed out before Tillie was hired, I wonder what the source of that is.)
As far as the smoking gun, Tillinghast's attitude was not uncommon among Republicans. As early as the mid-30's the 'Red Scare' had begun - fueled a great deal by William Randolph Hurst's newpapers - the New Deal, WPA and Moses were popular targets. My father who was born and lived in NYC at the time and ironically was a greenskeeper on LI in the early 30's, still has disdain for Roosevelt and his form of socialism. Tillinghast's attitude might explain why he flew the coop duing construction, which explain why the greens turned out the way they did.
Another interesting point was the comparison to PV. Was it Burbeck's idea that the course should be bitch or that it sould be PV-like. Is it likely he ever saw PV? I suspect he wanted it be a bitch and Tillignhast came up with PV idea. And with such an accomplished architect at Bethpage in Burbeck, why did Moses hire Van Kleek in 1934 to design and redesign most of the courses for NYC? And why did they hire Tull in 1958 at Bethpage with Burbeck on hand? An excellent thought provoking article, but I don't think I'd award the design to Burbeck -- unless Mrs. B. is still around.
-
Craig Rokke:
I'm hardly well informed on this issue, but there seems to be a question regarding EXACTLY what Burbeck deserves credit for.
If his role was limited to construction, I can only say that very few construction companies get much credit for any project. How often do we hear about Landscapes Unlimited or Wadsworth?
If he wants to claim design credit, then it must be spelled out exactly what aspects of the design he actually was responsible for. And spelled out with evidence, not just the brief statement of a state parks historian whose qualifications to write about the golf course design process have never been established.
But, like others here, I am inclined to think there is SOME truth to the story. There may be no other way to explain why the greens were not up to Tille's usual standards.
The Black's design is pretty awesome, but the greens are mediocre, I seem to recall.
-
If I built a course that someone else routed & the routing was acclaimed yet the greens were questioned, I'm not so sure I'd want the credit due... ;)
-
How much of this will be going on in 25 years? Tons! In fact, it goes on every day in many architects' offices around the country.
On the one hand, it makes no difference. It's a team sport, and seldom does any architect build a course alone. Even at High Pointe, where I built all the greens and half the bunkers myself on the dozer, it never would have gotten done without Tom Mead running the crew and doing the rest.
On the other hand, if you're going to start dividing up credit for some courses, then no architect will really be able to claim his due for anything, and certainly that's not right, either. I've shared credit for a couple of the courses I've done, and in truth that's more of an injustice to Jim and Tom and Bruce and Don and Brian who have helped me do the others, than a justice to Gil for what he did on those.
I always joke with Jim Urbina that 25 years from now, his daughter will be telling everyone that he really designed all those courses my name is on. And there's some truth to it; but for some reason those courses have turned out better than the ones he designed for Perry Dye!
-
This being my first post on this site I must say that I amgreatly impressed with the passion that everyone seems to have. It is a pleasure to see people who want to discuss and learn.
In the article Mr. Whitten makes what I believe to be several mistakes in interpretation to back up claims made. For example he quotes from the "...official history of the Long Island State Parks, published in 1959..." First of all this in itself is just a reference to an original article published by Chester R. Blakelock, then Executive Secretary of the Long Island State Park Commission, who wrote what he quotes in the June 1942 edition of the Long Island Forum. This is an example of what might be considered careless work in trying to overly prove an idea to be true. It would actually come across better if he quoted it as coming from 1942 than 1959, though in either case it appears to be a misinterpretation of what the writer stated. All one has to ask about the meaning of the sentence is if his statement that "The golf courses were designed and constructed under the guidance of Joseph Burbeck" was to mean that he was the course(s) designer why didn't he simply say so. Why not state that Mr. Burbeck designed the course and was given some advice by A.W. Tillinghast who consulted on the project? In fact if Burbeck did these masterful designs and, as the article intimates, that Tillinghast spent a total of only 15 days (maximum as stated in paragraph 15), why did they bother hiring tillinghast at all? And why even mention him at all, no less in the same sentence and especially as "internationally known golf architect", if these were Burbeck's creation ?
Actually it appears that Mr. Blakelock wrote in a very ambiguous fashion simply that Tillinghast designed and Burbeck woked along with him doing the day-to-day construction. As proof to this is the article "The Courses At Bethpage" written in April 1934 (during the height of the course(s) construction by Mr. Blakelock's predecessor as Secretary of the Long Island State Park Commission states this in the second paragraph, "The courses are being laid out and constructed under the direct control of the Long Island State Park Commission." (Surely this doesn't mean that the commission designed the course(s)?) Paragraph 3 continues, "Mr. A.W. Tillinghast has been retained as a consultant in the planning and development of the golf courses." Not one mention of Mr. Burbeck is to be found in this article. If he was so clearly the architect why not a mention of him?
Another problem, as I see it, is his interpretation of the 1937 article written by Mr. Tillinghast in PGA Magazine. after quoting Tillinghast's writing of "In locating and designing the green... when I looked back..." he states, "Was he physically looking back down the fairway, or was he merely looking back in time, to the day when he'd reviewed the original blueprints?" This seems like a nebulous conclusion to draw at best that he was reminiscing as it were, but even if we take that to be the case, why would he have been "reviewing the original blueprints" if the course was already substantially laid out as claimed when he was hired or if he was not the person giving fianl approval to drawing as the person incharge and responsible would do? No the conclusion reached and claimed does not seem correct.
I want to say that I believe that Mr. whitten has written this piece as a point of honor and that his motives appear to be as one trying to right what he has concluded to be a long-time wrong. In this he should be commended. He has certainly raised points that must be addressed and taken seriously.
Finally I must state in all sense of fairness that some might reason that I have a personal claim in Tillinghast being the architect of the Black. This is because my book "Golf for the People: Bethpage and the Black" will be released next week. I obviously make many mentions in my book of Mr. Tillinghast's being the course designer.
I will say this, I had a nice conversation today with MR. Whitten about his article and as I told him we might view the problem this way. What would you do if you came home this night and was told by your wife that she just found out that she had actually been adopted at birth. Would the fact that she had different parents change how much you love her? Or rather would it not move you to help her find the truth for once and for all?
I believe that is what lays before us to do, find the truth for our own curiosity, but mostly for the sake of Mr. Burbeck who has had to wrestle with this his whole life. I wish him well and that we can find the truth for him.
-
Gee, what a tough-minded report by that New York Times writer -- digging deep, to analyze Whitten's sources and his conclusions.
Where's the super-sarcastic smiley when I need it?
Another question: Who owns Golf Digest? (Oh, yeah, right! The New York Times! That's a heck of a coincidence, if you ask me.)
Yet another question: If a guy doesn't design the GREENS, for heaven's sake, how can he be THE Architect?
Is there any doubt that more than one man deserves credit for Bethpage Black? Maybe more than two?
It seems pretty likely, to my uneducated eyes, that neither Tillinghast nor Burbeck deserves sole, above-the-title credit.
Maybe, as Tom Doak seems to be saying, sole, above-the-title credit rarely describes the reality of golf-course design. Maybe what we need is for golf courses to have movie-like credits -- showing all of the people involved, and citing their titles, and leaving it to their competing memoirs to argue about who did what when how and why.
-
I think it's right to give a majority of credit to the router.
Time wears away all of the elements of the design.
The greens, the bunkers, hummocks, cut lines, even different grasses all look and play different relatively quickly. Trees change the shot values. The backbone of the course is the routing and even it gets changed pretty readily over the decades.
I don't think it takes an Ph.D in architecture to see the Tillie routing, even one dressed in bunkers with a Reesian accent.
The best thing to come out of this will not be recognition of Brubeck, but more recognition of Tillinghast. Remember that most golfers have absolutely no idea who he is in the first place...
-
Brad, Perhaps I've been in Europe too long. I look at the lists here and it takes a while before my eyes stop rolling around my head. Courses here are rated by name value, or are living on generosity from the past. Club zur Vahr fits this example... Peter Dobereiner putting Club zur Vahr in his Personal Top 10 and the generosity of The World Atlas of Golf to include a native designer, instead of the best course in the country: Colt's, Hamburger GC Falkenstein
I don't think name consideration is a sole method of evaluation...that's way too simplistic but do I believe a "name" influence factor exists...yes I do.
Tom, Shouldn't credit be given where do, and not when little meaningful involvement has occurred.
What I see, and this is parallel with Modern Culture, is the potential for architects who sold out their services in the name of another, and after the current "architects of record" have played their final hole, some of these individuals will look back at their life's work and notice they are divorced from it...and will try to reestablish the connection. There are few Steve Garvey's today...people willing to live up to their agreements, play out their long term contract without renegotiation or ill-will. I've only heard of one case of public fighting over credit...but believe more is to come in decades ahead, and not just in back offices, but in public just as Mr. Burdeck is doing.
-
This is a very interesting situation and plenty of crumbs around to be analyzed and reanalyzed by some of the really good "research sleuths" who we have on here anyway and others who seem to be collecting on Golfclubatlas for this one!
I would hope that somewhere there's enough documentation and evidence left to be able to piece timelines and anyone's contributions back together again. I know from looking at some of PV's archival material that in the absence of clear documentation you have to look at what there is and let it sit for a while and try to let what seems reasonable start to gel into a logical progression and whole. It's sort of interesting how it plays out to. Some people look at body of evidence and just forget to really analyze what might pre or post date something else extremely important and indicative and exactly what that means. Even getting into identifying handwriting, notations, and drawing styles can turn the key!
There is one little fact mentioned in Whitten's article that should be checked carefully for accuracy--it could be very important! It's in the paragraph just following the heading "Hard Times for Tillie". Whitten mentions that Tillinghast was hired by Moses in Dec. 1933! Just following that he mentions that three courses, including the Black had been laid out months before!
If some of these good research sleuths really want to get into this maybe they might want to reanalyze in this entire situation exactly what "laid out" means but I can tell you in common architectural parlance "laid out" in almost all cases means "routed".
So if that statement becomes a true fact, then the Black was "routed" (laid-out) months before Tillinghast was even hired for the Bethpage project. And clearly from the available evidence on this entire Bethpage situation, if Tillinghast had not yet come on the scene or project there really doesn't seem to be anyone else around who would have "laid out" the course other than Burbeck.
I sure don't want to discredit a well known architect like Tillinghast or his actual contribution or attribution for Bethpage, but Burbeck should be treated the same way as Tillinghast is treated in the face of available evidence!
Suggesting that Whitten is behind an effort to discredit Tillinghast, that Golf Digest is up to no-good because they're owned by the New York Times or that Mrs. Burbeck was on some kind of lifelong family mission is not particularly good evidence to even begin to base architectural assumptions on!
That the course was "laid out" months before Tillinghast was hired on is a piece of evidence that should be looked at very carefully! That would be the first place to start to find the truth of how Bethpage Black began and was done and who did what!
Lastly, Burbeck was a landscape architect and did some courses in the Midwest previous to Bethpage. Did anyone know that or what they were? If that's true did he get any credit for them?
-
The article said he helped build courses in the midwest - no mention of design. I'm not sure getting credit is an issue.
The comment of Mrs. B was made in a humorous vain - very little humor evidently.
I think there is quite bit of evidence throughout the article and the subsequent posts, its how one chooses to analyze it is another story.
-
Tom MacW:
If it becomes an established fact that those three courses, including the Black, were "laid out" months before Tillinghast was hired on by Moses, and I'm certainly not saying now that is an established fact, what would you make of that?
-
Tom I --
You write: "Suggesting that ... Golf Digest is up to no-good because they're owned by the New York Times ... is not particularly good evidence to even begin to base architectural assumptions on!"
Since I'm the only one who has mentioned the common ownership of the Times and GD, I suppose you must be referring to me there.
That is NOT AT ALL what I was suggesting. What I was suggesting was: That New York Times article reads much less like analytical journalism than like a press release for Golf Digest.
Draw your own conclusions. Mine would be: The Times would have been more skeptical of Mr. Burbeck's claims (and might have ignored them, even) had those claims been made in a soon-to-be-published magazine not owned by the New York Times.
-
I guess fromn this point on when the subject of designing courses is mentioned one had better list E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E under the sun who is remotely involved with the process in order to be politically correct. I guess we just follow the formula used when they list the credits for a movie. ;D
All kidding aside there is little doubt that any project (i.e. the design & construction of a course) is a collaborative approach. However, the initial thrust for a design and routing is where the ball starts rolling, and, in my mind, it is that person(s) who deserves to be acknowledged. The actual construction of the course FLOWS FROM THAT ORIGINAL DESIGN. If someone is going to start to list the construction team then it should be done for all courses -- not just Bethpage.
What amuses me is that all of sudden the focus of the Black / Bethpage is debated but the concept of design associates doing all the heavy lifting for other "big name architects" goes on all the time and it is the "big name" who gets solo credit for the design. Where is the sense of outrage with that from major golf publications ??? Does anyone really believe that Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus, et al, have really put forward the "sweat equity" that their chief design associates do with projects? What often happens is that people who look to have courses created actually engage these "big names" as a brand concept. If you buy the brand then the brand has value with consumers who then purchase lots and memberships and on and on it goes.
Let's not also forget the massive number of projects "designed" by Donald Ross. Does anyone really believe Donald actually trekked all over the country and actually supervised / sweated out all the exact details for each of his 500 or so courses? Keep in mind each of these so-called "Ross" courses goes out of their way to trumpet that they are an original "Donald Ross designed course." What serious reserach has been done to confirm this? Would it not be possible for tweaking of those plans "in the field?"
There is a golf course in the immediate NYC area called Manhattan Woods and the owners tried to parlay the involvement of Gary Player as the architect when much of the effort was put forward by Stephen Kay. The owners believed a "Kay" course had little bang for the buck for memberships and all the rest. I've already mentioned other examples such as Roger Rulewich in his capacity in working for Robert Trent Jones (i.e. Metedeconk National, The Alabama Golf Trail, etc.) and I know there are a bunch of others.
When I've played the Black (over 100 times easy) I see a strategic brillance on the tee-to-green demands. The greens and many of the bunkers don't have the same polish you see at other Tillie courses. In my mind, Tillie designed the course and that routing was taken by Burbeck and brought into being. I chuckle when GD says Tillie should be listed as a consultant (another word that needs precise definition). If that's the case then they should say the same for Fazio and Nicklaus on many of their designs because the "heavy lifting" is being done by others.
In any event -- if we enter this revisionist era I say let's do so for all because for anyone to think it pertains to the Black only has their head in the sand (no pun intended). ;)
-
Matt,
I'd bet that Roger Rulewich was the main man at the President's Cup U.S.A. site, RTJ Golf Club in Virginia outside of Washington, D.C.
-
Dan Kelly(tm)
Are you nuts?? Are you questioning the journalistic integrity of THE NEW YORK TIMES?? How can you even dream of being such a heretic?
That newspaper and all that it owns and controls is the best, most honest and dependable researching, reporting and writing in the entire history of humankind! There are Chinese walls all over that company--I've seen them! Golf Digest or any of its articles has no influence on THE NEW YORK TIMES whatsoever or vice versa!
I didn't even know that was you who said that about the TIMES and GD anyway--but know that I do that'll be about 50 demerits and 100 pushups!
-
(1) Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm:
Ron Whitten quotes Mr. Burbeck Jr. as saying: "The thing I remember most is my mother saying, 'We don't ever mention the name Tillinghast in this house.' I never knew until I got older who Tillinghast even was. My father never talked much about it. He was a very strong personality. I never tried to coax it out of him."
My circuits are overheating.
The thing that Mr. Burbeck says he remembers MOST is his mother saying, apparently in the family home, the name Tillinghast -- which is the name they never mention in the house.
Which is strange, you'll have to concede.
Even stranger is that Mr. Burbeck Jr. remembers this statement of his mother MOST -- even though she was speaking of someone young Mr. Burbeck allegedly had no knowledge of. Why would he remember at all what his mother supposedly said, much less remember it MOST, if he had no idea who Tillinghast was?
Burbeck Jr. also says: "My father never talked much about it. He was a very strong personality. I never tried to coax it out of him." Didn't talk MUCH about it? What did he say when he DID talk about it? This guy remembers exactly what his mother said (presumably only one time) about some guy he'd never heard of -- but he doesn't remember anything of the little his father said about his role in designing the golf course where he grew up?
Many questions. Many questions.
(2) Ron Whitten writes: "It turns out Joe Burbeck is right. His father did design Bethpage Black. The evidence always has been out there, if anyone had bothered to dig for it. It's in the official history of the Long Island State Parks, published in 1959. 'The four golf courses constructed as work-relief projects were designed and constructed under the direction of Joseph H. Burbeck, the Superintendent of the park,' the book reads, 'with A.W. Tillinghast, internationally known golf architect, as consultant.' "
Rich Goodale writes, persuasively: "I read that statement as saying, very clearly, that BB was designed 'under the direction' of Burbeck. This does not necessarily mean it was designed 'by' Burbeck. It could also just be referring to the fact that Burbeck directed the work/managed the contract of the actual designer, Tillie or whomever."
What the Official History says is: Burbeck was the boss of the project. Nothing more, and nothing less -- to my eyes, anyway. An Official History of Trump National might tell us, someday, that the course was "designed and constructed under the direction of Donald Trump" -- and that will be true, won't it? Will that prove that Donald Trump was the architect?
I'd like to add a further layer of doubt: Just because it's called an "Official History" does not make it unimpeachable. In fact, I would argue that, as a general rule (I don't know the specifics of this Official History), "Official Histories" should be looked at with extreme skepticism, since they're generally produced by institutions with a greater interest in propaganda (image, spin, public relations -- take your pick) than in the unvarnished truth.
That Official History's allusion to Mr. Burbeck's role at BBlack is, yes, "evidence" -- but it is laughably far from proof.
-
Er, uh, stammer... ok Dan, you've sold me.
Very interesting thread all around!
TH
-
I guess we need the magazines to come out with a definition for what "design" means. We have always noted the flatness of the greens and Tillinghast's lack of participaton in building them when discussing the Black. Speculation about how much time Tillie spent on this site has always moved between virtually none and none. Yet, unquestionably, the routing bears his stamp. So, what we have hear is not really a revelation about the process by which the Black came to be, but the start of a debate about how we should define terms.
-
Matt:
I really don't think "revisionism" is beginning for the first time over this Bethpage Black situation.
Attempting to determine who did what goes on here all the time--sometime in minute detail--and when it becomes conclusive what happened where I think credit is probably alloted fairly.
But for the moment I certainly will buy into your theory that the "design" of a golf course may start and be primary when the "routing" is done, perfected, and held in place through to completion of the product by an architect or whoever it was that did it! A routing to me really is a "golf walk" as Bill Coore says! It's the basic path golfers will take. Following a routing the concpets and features of the holes fall into place. Someone can do one and not the other although almost always that someone does both. So you couldn't be more right that the routing phase, then the concept and feature design phase flows into the construction phase.
How they (whoever that may be) do it is fascinating too. The great amateur architects that produced some of the best and most famous courses in America took months and sometimes years doing it on a single course. Others, like Ross, apparently had a unique talent of doing a lot of it off of topo maps as well as sometimes limited initial routing site time. Ross also had a well known and very perfected process of instructional devolution to well known associates primarily through detailed drawings and notes and telegrams.
Others, like MacKenzie, who seemed to be extremely fast in what he did may have had other ways or simply was very quick and comprehensive about what he did. Frankly, I'm not buying that theme about MacKenzie completely because he happens to be the architect who partnered far more often and with impressive people than any architect EVER! So that alone could explain a lot although some might not want to admit that now.
Tillinghast may have done the routing of the Black or he may not have. It doesn't appear he spent much time at Bethpage Park, even by his own admission, but he's given credit for routing and designing three courses there.
As I said earlier, (and using your theory about the importance of the routing phase in "design"), it would probably be better to not make assumptions that Tillinghast did the routing(s) and just see what comes out of this mention in Whitten's article that all three courses were "laid out" (routed) months BEFORE Tillinghast was even hired for the Bethpage project!
If documentation comes forward that those courses were "laid out" (routed) before Tillinghast arrived, would you then say the golf course(s) really aren't Tillinghast?
I see no reason to give Tillinghast any more credit than Burbeck, at this point. Facts will probably prove the truth. But the instant notion that if someone is apparently an amateur, like Burbeck (or other than a well know professional architect) that it's unlikely to impossible that he could have done something great. The fact that Burbeck apparently was a landscape architect and an engineer, and may have done some courses previously seems to be overlooked so far!
The notion that simply because one happens to be a so-called "amateur", he's not capable of greatness in architecture is just laughable to me, particularly in the face of the evidence of great courses in America! Pine Valley (Crump), NGLA (MacDonald), Riviera (Thomas), Oakmont (Fownes), Myopia (Leeds), Pebble Beach (Egan, Hunter and Lapham), Wilson (Merion) etc! Some of the top courses in America then and now and every single one of them created by men who were amateur architects or all of them men who never took a fee!!
It makes no difference who did it--whether it was Tillinghast or Burbeck. We all know what Tillinghast could do, but noone apparently knows what Burbeck could do--and if it becomes apprent through the evidence somehow that Burbeck did do the routing, design and construction even to a large degree, he should be comletely recognized for it because it's fascinating and impressive.
If Tillinghast was around so little at Bethpage and nothing can be found of what he left Burbeck, if anything, and even Tillinghast himself said he was a "consultant", then what was Burbeck doing all those years at Bethpage park?
We know that anyone can do a routing. Anyone can create concepts and features and completed courses too but very few can do it really well. And if a man called Joe Burbeck really did those things and his name has been deep in the shadows for 70 years, it should come out and he should be given the credit for it!
-
The question that GD has raised on this issue is a valid one. But it certainly does not appear that there is enough evidence available to have arrived at a conclusion on this question already. From that perspective, we may be seeing the pressure to create "news" for the US Open issue.
-
Tom I --
Amen to every word in your last post.
Every one of them.
All of them. All of the words.
Every last one.
Let Mr. Burbeck get all of the credit he deserves.
(My only interest in this thread has been to argue that, based on the "evidence" they've supplied, Golf Digest and its partner, The New York Times, have made a giant leap to a conclusion. I hope someone -- maybe even Ron Whitten -- will keep looking into this, because there just HAVE to be some documents somewhere that will shed more light on this murky affair ... unless they all went up in that blaze, along with Rosebud. Did you know that was Tillinghast's last word? Just "Rosebud." Or maybe that was Burbeck! ::))
-
TE
A lot of 'ifs' there.
I'm not sure I would agree all those gentlemen were 'amateurs'. Some had been at for a while, others had help and still others may have been amateurs when they started but after a decade or so of 'building' a course and they probalby were no longer 'amateurs'.
-
Dan:
Good post on one half of the question here but although you might appear to be persuasive you sure didn't convince me! Concentrating on what Mrs Burbeck did or didn't say about Tillinghast or what Mr Burbeck didn't say and a four year old's recollection of it is a long long way from architectural proof on Bethpage Black to me. Creating doubt in that manner as a valid argument in this situation seems far less valid than creating an argument attempting to establish documentary architectural proof--some of which may be available.
Like you, I'm skeptical of some 1959 Park report too. Reading between the lines of all these things might be interesting but so far does not seem to be much in the way of proof. You say the evidence to support Burbeck is laughably far from proof. The evidence to support Tillinghast seems laughably far from proof too--or have I missed some apparently conclusive evidence to support Tillinghast.
What Tillinghast has going for him is he's a famous architect from that era, and the fact that for 70 years it's been ASSUMED that Tillinghast was the designer of Bethpage despite the fact that there seems to be even less evidence to support Tillinghast than Burbeck! Why would anyone, without some good evidence simply assume it must have been Tillinghast's design? Because it's a great course? Because he's the well known Albert W.Tillinghast?
Probably easy assumptions to make but also laughably far from architectural proof.
-
Tom I --
Are you PURPOSELY misunderstanding me?
Let me say this as succinctly as I know how. Please read it carefully:
I am NOT trying to deny Mr. Burbeck any credit rightfully his.
I am NOT arguing Mr. Tillinghast's case.
I have NO IDEA who deserves credit for what at Bethpage Black (or any other course). Is that clear?
All -- ALL -- I am saying is that Ron Whitten's conclusion (reported with minimal skepticism by GD's partner newspaper) leaps well beyond the evidence in hand.
Let me say it one more time, lest I be misunderstood: I am not trying to convince you that Tillinghast deserves the archie credit at BBlack.
-
Tom MacW:
At this point there's probably no reason to quibble about the exact meaning of the word "amateur architect", particularly with those I cited. The reason I cited them is because they all put a tremendous amount of time into their courses onsite and that's more to the point here in this situation, I think.
I'm certainly not trying to suggest that one Joe Burbeck was the architectural talent of A.W. Tillinghast, although if he did do the Black (and the others) he should be considered for his talent.
Looking at the apparent facts of the "time in" really starts to get down to the probable or even the possible. Tillinghast, by his own account called himself a consultant at Bethpage! Tillinghast was paid $50 for 15 days at Bethpage and it's seems impossible to determine if he spent even remotely that much time there and so many people have always said he spent very little time there--certainly less than that!
Somehow the old adage "you get what you pay for" is beginning to surface here to me. It's not so much the 15 days or less, the extent of which appears completely unknown! It's the $50 that's beginning to sound implausible to me. Maybe Moses was trying to buy some architectural "cache" by using a known architect's name and as clever as Moses was maybe he just forgot to expunge the fact of the $50 fee.
I mean, come on! Sure it might have been the depression but $50 to really design three course much less even remotely one comprehensively? And people believe that Crump paid Colt $10,000 twenty years previous for a week's work?
It really starts to get down to the probable and the possible! He's given credit for designing three courses there. It's always been assumed that included routing, hole concepts and design features and probably the drawings to have those routings, concepts and design features carried out, I suppose? Not bloody likely, in my opinion.
Now Burbeck, on the other hand, appears to have lived on the site and worked on it for three solid years every single day, maybe far longer, just as a few of those other amateur architects did. Somehow they pulled off great designs, so why not Burbeck?
I'm not saying whatever evidence is around at this moment and on this website makes a good conclusive case for either of them--I'm just talking about what's beginning to seem more plausible and more probable to me.
-
Dan, OK, OK, OK, I understand where you're coming from and what you're saying.
I do realize that you're in the business and you've always been very interested in how writers present their case and such, and on this topic it's Ron Whitten's article.
But for me, I couldn't really care less about Ron Whitten's article, what motivates him to write it, what motivates Golf Digest or anything of that nature. All I care about is finding out about who really designed Bethpage Black, Tillinghast or Burbeck.
The evidence is probably out there and whether Whitten interpreted it correctly or not doesn't concern me. I don't really need his opinion, I'd just like to see that evidence and draw my own conclusions!
-
This is a most interesting discussion. I just got home from a trip and I have not read this thread as carefully as I will later on but I've played the Black over 60 times, read what was available from the Tillinghast books and I've studied the aerial in chapter 43 of ROTL.
I've played MANY of Tillinghast's courses and I like to believe I have a feel for his work and its great variety but there is a style to his body of work. I've speculated here before that I seriously doubted that the greens at Bethpage were done from Tillinghast plans. I have NO DOUBT that the routing and placement of most of the hazards are Tillinghast's work. However, careful examination of the 1935 aerial shows unmistakeable differences from the course that I grew to know from 1969 to the present. I've asked here before if anyone knew why the right fairway bunker on #5 (yes that striking feature of many "signature photos" of the Black is just not there in the aerial. Also, the excellent fairway bunkering on #6 is absent on the 1935 aerial. There are a few other less striking differences. It's hard for me to believe that that the aerial was taken before finishing the course and why would those be last work done (the greenside bunkering is all there on those holes).
Perhaps the finishing work including interpretation of the green contours was the work of Joe Burbeck. Maybe he resented being left to finish up and and took some liberty to add bunkers and wanted some credit.
-
TEPaul,
I am also quite skeptical about Tillinghast's involvement, and you make quite a plausible argument about the $50 fee. I must also candidly say that I am one of Tillie's biggest fans as well as a regular player on The Black.
There is no doubt that the routing has elements which support Tillie's involvement. #4 does resemble some of his earlier sketches of a premier three-shotter, and #7 & #8 certainly remind many of Pine Valley.
However, no one has ever questioned that Tillinghast was involved on the project - people have only questioned the extent of his involvement. Therefore, the examples listed above support his involvement, but do not define his role on the project.
Looking at the rest of the course's routing, what architectural elements suggest Tillie? This analysis might have been easier before Jones' restoration/rennovation but he left almost all of the original design intact. I may have to break out some photos of Baltusrol (Lower) and Winged Foot (West) tonight and really take a look at them. It seems to me that those two nearby Open venues (both of which I have played) might be the best comparison for Tillie's involvement on the Black.
On the flip side, what traits suggest Burbeck? Given Tillie's short time frame (15 days), I would look at the other courses in the complex. It is quite improbable that Tillie spent much time on The Red or The Blue, but Burbeck certainly did. #1 Red immediately comes to mind as a hole that would blend right in on The Black. Finally, people have always referred to The Green as the minny Black course because the two show common design traits. I doubt a seasoned veteran like Tille would have looked to Emmet's design for inspiration, but an upstart like Burbeck certainly would have. The Green (formerly Lenox Hills) was well received, and Burbeck could have drwan on elements from that course but built it to a grander and more penal scale.
Finally, lets not underestimate the potential quality of Burbeck's work. As stated before, there have been a number of architects who lived on the premises and constructed a great course on their maiden voyage.
-
TEPaul:
You may not be as familiar with the Black as others (myself included) but I know you are quite aware of PV. Tillie took many of the themes at PV and it appears (to me at least) that some of these elements were actually put into motion at the Black.
Two good examples -- the tremendous fairway bunker at the par-5 7th which replicates in so many ways Hell's Half Acre at PV's #7. You also have a dead ringer for the 14th at PV with the 8th at the Black. Does anyone believe these ideas were hatched from Mr. Burbeck whose total understanding of golf is at best unknown and probably, in my mind, unlikely?
Geoffrey C is quite correct about other Tillie features you see from tee-to-green at the Black (i.e. cross bunkers at #4, to name just one example). The angled greens are also another characteristic of Tillie on so many of the approaches you find at Bethpage.
In the many courses I've ever played I can't for the life of me name a course as demanding as the Black is from tee-to-green and have such mediocre greens (minus a few) as it does.
I believe Burbeck carried on the construction of the course and may have added a few bunkers to the plans he worked from. But a Tillie course would not have such bland greens and the bunkering work would have a more polished flair. Clearly, something is amiss here because someone of Tillie's skills would not have settled for such finished work if he had been on site through completion.
I am not a professional architect but I would like those who are to comment on the fact that if someone had a routing plan could they have taken that plan and carried on? Is it possible that rudimentary greens would be the by-product of someone, who although an engineer, may not have grasped the wherewithal to understand the complex nature that greens must be in the overall end game of any top flight course.
On another point this whole idea of "consultant" needs to be defined because right now you could drive a truck through it. What it means to one person versus that of another is completely different. If someone says Tillie was a consultant on the Black then the "big names" of todays design force are no more than that in so many of their courses today. ;)
-
Small correction:
You guys keep talking about a "$50 fee."
Here's the passage from Whitten's article: "As a master showman, Moses knew how to generate news. So he retained A.W. Tillinghast as a consultant to the project. Tillinghast was hired on Dec. 30, 1933, months after the Blue, Red and Black courses had been laid out. His contract paid him $50 a day for a maximum of 15 days."
$50 a day.
I've looked, carefully but in vain, to see how Whitten knows that "the Blue, Red and Black courses had been laid out" months before Tillinghast got involved. That's the key.
Are you out there, Mr. Whitten?
-
Apologies for spelling "mini" as "minny" - had a brain freeze there...
::)
-
We've generated an awful lot of bytes on this issue, but if Ron Whitten can prove -- or at least source -- his statement that Tillie was hired "months" after the Blue, Red and Black courses were laid out, then we know who did the routing, and we (most of us) can agree whose name deserves to be listed first.
The other question that comes to my mind is why there is no battle over the authorship of the other two courses that Tillie would supposedly have routed had he been hired at the beginning of the Bethpage project. Did Tillie never claim to have worked on those courses as well? Are they lousy courses? Do they bear no discernable evidence of Tillie's hand? Or is the younger Mr. Burbeck simply not interested in restoring credit to his father for designing courses nobody talks about?
-
Rick:
You're right that Whitten's mention of Tillinghast signing on months after the courses had been laid out should be answered. I would sure like to know where he got that--that could tell us a great deal one way or another.
If Tillinghast did a full blown routing it is strange that the greens are so unlike him. A regular routing generally includes green designs. A simple, sometimes preliminary routing, is generally called a "stick routing" as it generally just has lines from where a tee might be to where a green might be.
Perhaps if the course(s) had been routed before Tillinghast got there, then it's likely Tillinghast worked with Burdeck to place features on the routing and create concepts for the holes. That would certainly explain a hole that had the look of Pine Valley's #7 hell's half acre bunker, for instance, as that was one thing that Tillinghast recommended to Crump. If Tillinghast supplied ideas and planning for features it is not much different from some of what Colt did for Crump at Pine Valley, when he spent a week of two there.
-
Dan Kelly:
Thanks for the clarification on Tillinghast's fee from $50 to $50 a day--that makes a big difference--fifteen times the difference to be exact!
-
The preponderance of facts that we have researched -- every newspaper and publication on the matter -- show that the construction of Bethpage did not start until January of 1934 well after Tillinghast was hired to provide design and planning services.
There is no shred of evidence to indicate that the layout of the Red, Blue and Black was completed and finalized before Tillinghast was retained.
The Long Island State Park Commission (Bethpage) has the expense records on what they paid Tillinghast. I have not seen the records and cannot confirm that he was paid $50 a day for 15 days of work. However, Bethpage has confirmed that Tillinghast was on the payroll.
I have no definitive diary that traced Tillie's every waking moment. His wife, Lillian, probably would have solid grounds to divorce him if one was ever found. Thus no-one can make any credible claim that Tillie did not spend much time at Bethpage. And no-one can make any credible statement to how much time Tillie put into his pursuit of the contract to get the job as the so-called "consulting architect." I am sure many of the Archies on this site can share stories of how much design work they gave away in order to land a design job. In any event, even if it is true that Tillie only worked and was paid for 15 days, I can attest that Tillie could have gotton allot of designing done in 15 days time. From his letters and writings one would conclude that he was a work-aholic. (rather than an alcholic). As I also posted earlier, from the letters and articles one would easily conclude that Tillie had a very good working relationship with Joe Burdeck.
I am sure that there are some financial whizzes on this site that could also tell us that $50 a day in the midst of the depression was a significant sum with good buying power in the early 1930's.
$50 times 15 days equals $750, which I would guess probably could buy a nice full size luxury sedan back in 1935. By today's equivalent $45,000 buys a nice luxury sedan.
-
I agree that if there is evidence that shows that the courses were routed and designed prior to Tillinghast's arival it would seem to close the case. But for some reason the most compelling proof according to Whitten is the official history which doesn't seem that compelling.
Moses did know how to generate news and it always involved himself. It was not his style to hire a name to generate excitement. In fact the previous year he accepted designs for the Jones Beach clubhouses, a number of big name architects were overlooked for the design of nameless engineer's entry. Perhaps that helps Burbeck's claim. But it does not explain why Tillinghast was hired. I looked at this subject a while back and dug up some of my old notes. There were a number of articles in the NY Times involving the development of Bethpage and they all centered on Moses no mention of either Tillinghast or Burbeck.
As far the 15 day job at $50/day. You can not compare fees architects demanded prior to the Depression. Still $750 is nothing to sneeze at, MacKenzie charged $1000 for plans pre-Depression (10% if the total cost or aprox $6000 if he would actually build it). He fee at ANGC started at $10,000, I don't think actually got paid more than $1500-2000 and he travelled cross country a number of times and spent several months on site. $750 sounds about right. I also think the 15 days is misleading, because according to the article he was hired 12/30/33 and was 'laid off' 4/18/35 - did he only work 15 days during that entire time?
Moses was famous for hiring engineers and architects for his labor - 5 out of 6 were out of work. The fact that that he could use both there physical and mental strengths was a factor for the success and relative cheapness of his projects. Golf architects were out of work too and could be had relatively cheap.
There was one article in the NY Times in 1934 and three in 1935. The first in May 1934 anounced the final papers being signed and the completed sale. It also said that one course was 70% completed, the second course was 60% completed and third 30% completed. Whitten's article says the Balck wasn't started until Spring of '35.
The next article was April 19, 1935 - the day after Tillie was laid off. Moses gives a tour of 'the peoples country club' (it almost has a Mao sound to it). The Blue will open a week from Sunday, the Red somewhere before July 1 and the Black - the equal of any championship course - the following year. Its all Moses, no word of Tillinghast or Mr.B.
I can't believe Tillie's lay of was coinsidence. The first course had been completed, the second was nearly completed and third was roughed in only needing some detail work.
May 9, 1935 the Blue an exhibition match on the Blue which was opened in late April. The Red should be ready May 30 & the Black will not be open for another year.
August 10, 1935 clubhouse opened and three courses in use. After speeched by Moses and others, little Joe Burbeck ('son of the park superitendant') opens the door with a giant key. no mention of Tillingahst or who dsigned the courses. Thats all I've got from the NY Times, I don't believe there was any write up of the Black opening in 1936 - at least I never found one.
Other info, The Golf Course Guide written in 1950 said that the courses were designed by Joseph Burbeck with Tillie as a consultant. HB Martin's 50 Years of American Golf (1936) calaimed that Tillinghast was quite proud of his work at Bethpage which included planning and building for the NY State Park Commission.
Also in regards to his supposed disintigration, he was hired by the PGA in 1936 for a two month stint to remodel member courses - the project was so successful that the two months turned into two years.
-
The idea that the courses were routed prior to Tillinghast may have come from the article of 4/34 that RW provided a link to. In the article it says: "During 1933 much of the preliminary work on the second golf course was completed by the use of work relief labor supplied through the Work Relief Bureaus of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. The construction program as a Civil Works Administration project is now in full swing and the work is being rapidly progressed." The first course being Lenox Hill. I think you might reasonably conclude that the Blue was routed prior to Tillinghast, although even that is not certain. This article, which coinsides with an article in the NY Times, gives one the impression that work was progressing very quickly. The article also sets the estimated time of completion of the entire project at April 1934, which is when Tillinghast was 'laid off.'
By the way the wording in the book of 1950 'the Golf course Guide' is oddly similar to the strange wording used in the Bethpage history. Based on what I know, I would not replace Tillinghast's name from Bethpage Black with Berbeck. There is not enough information to elevate him to designer. There is much stronger case to be made that Tillinghast is responsible, after all they didn't hire him for nothing.
-
There are a few Very important points that need to be stated that have been overlooked and might help to prove that not just the Black, but the Blue & the Red are all true Tillinghast courses.
In the May 25, 1935 issue of the Farmingdale Post it states "The first of the new 18-hole courses in Bethpage... will be open... on Sunday, April 28. This course will be known as the "Blue Course""
Further down the article gives a short description of every hole. When it gets to "Hole 5-300 Yards-This is the famous "REEF" hole."
This is most important! The book "The Course BEautiful" reprints Tillinghast's December 1926 article from the American Golfer titled "The Reef Hole". In the last paragraph he writes, "I named the type "The Reef" because of the..."
This hole type was a distinct Tillinghast design and for hole #5 on the Blue to bear that name as title would signify his design involvement on the FIRST of these three new courses! If the course had "already been routed" as some have already stated on this thread it would never have been given this designation that people in the world of golf at that time would recognize as pure Tillinghast.
There are many comments in this thread about the greens being of a low standard or not up to Tillinghast's quality as if they were lacking in severety. This is also not the case. Tillinghast believed in Penal design, not UNFAIR design. It was because the Black is so very difficult from tee to green that these greens have less undulations in them than some other courses. Imagine what this course would be like to play if these greens were like Augusta's. It would be unplayable.
Also, there is a great chapter in the book "Golf for the People: Bethpage and the Black" (coming out next week of which I am the author) that comprises an interview with Rees Jones talking about the Bethpage project. In it he speaks of the effects of not having a Greens Commitee or commitees of any kind since this is a public course and how that affected the contours and sizings of the greens and bunkers over the years. One of the main things that he did was to bring them back to the way Tillinghast designed them! That is why people will be shocked to see how difficult they play during the Open.
Finally, how many out here play the Black from the true Championship Tees? Imagine the carries and views of the course as it must have been almost 70 years ago when the trees were young or not there and the game was played with the EQUIPMENT OF THE DAY! That is why Tillinghast called the course a "Man KIller" and it remains so to this day.
-
This dilemma can probably be answered quite easily if the documentation and evidence can ever be found that determines what "laid out" means--if in fact that does mean the Black was routed when it mentions "laid out" and if that did or did not precede Tillinghast's involvement.
Of course if it did precede his involvement and that routing that preceded his involvment was what Bethpage Black is today then it's obvious Burbeck probably did something very fundamental architecturally for which he has never been given credit.
But I think it should be understood that it's highly likely that if Burbeck did route The Black and that routing was what it is that Tillinghast may have had much to do with the developing of both the concepts and the design features on that routing.
That seems to be the way it went with all courses of that era, or maybe any era. First the raw routing is set and the next phase is to develop the hole concepts by working the architectural features, fairway and green angles, bunker features etc and whatnot into the routing.
But identifying the progression of holes and the landforms that are best to begin to "work-up" and "work-in" the best concepts and features is a primary one and can be called the "bones" of the golf course (the routing).
If that's what did happen it would explain a lot. It would necessarily lend credence to Burbeck and might also explain Tillinghast not inconsequential involvement.
It would also say something quite interesting if Burbeck did route the Black. It might say he certainly did a good job of it and obviously in Tillinghast's mind as well. Within whatever space or other limitations that may have existed then it is sort of logical to assume that if Tillinghast did not do the routing but only developed the holes and their concepts and features that he must have liked the routing Burbeck did or he probably would have attempted to change it or alter it for best overall effect!
If this is what happened it should probably be presented today as sn interesting architectural collaboration between Burbeck and Tillinghast.
But if Tillinghast did route the course himself, he should be given total design attribution and then Burbeck would be given credit for constructing that design only!
What exactly "laid out" months before Tillinghast's involvment means, is absolutely key to this entire question, in my opinion!
-
Phil,
Some very interesting points. Funny though, the 5th on the Blue is not a very interesting hole, at least how it stands today. The 4th and 6th are wonderful holes, particularly the 6th, what a brute.
Another fine point about the greens. I am a staunch defender of the greens on the Black. They will never be mistaken for ANGC or Oakland Hills greens, but I am firm believer that at least two-thirds of the greens will really surprise the long time players of the Black during US Open week. I too recall some of Tillie's references to the greens at the Black as being somewhat benign due to the severity of the tee to green game, particularly back in 1936. Didn't Sam Snead walk off the course in disgust?
There seems to be at the very least a preponderence of historical newspaper reports that Whitten blatantly failed to reference. I hope that gets rectified.
Redanman - I too saw the golf channel piece. I thought each person got to say very little. I thought Burbeck was rather unconvincing. He can only provide "recollections" of his father sweating over blueprints and working on the course. Living near the 14th green doesn't count!
-
Phil_the_Author writes:
"In the May 25, 1935 issue of the Farmingdale Post it states "The first of the new 18-hole courses in Bethpage... will be open... on Sunday, April 28. This course will be known as the "Blue Course""
Further down the article gives a short description of every hole. When it gets to "Hole 5-300 Yards-This is the famous "REEF" hole.""
Seems to me the above passage locks up the case for Tillinghast as the designer of Bethpage.
The Reef Hole design was unique to Tillie. It was not a type of hole commonly designed by other architects. Like, say, Redan holes. Even the use of the word "Reef" in the context of golf course architecture is unique to Tillie.
Case closed. Judgment for Tillinghast.
Bob
-
Bob Crosby:
Now that's fascinating about the "Reef Hole"! I just don't know Bethpage Black and I've been wondering where Tillinghast actually did a "Reef Hole". He mentioned Newport but don't know that either.
The "Reef hole" appears to me (Tillinghast's drawing of it anyway) to be one of the coolest concepts I've ever seen for a really long par 3.
So if Bethpage has a real tillinghast Reef hole that says a lot. Good work!
-
Or, a really short par 4!
-
Is it possible that Burbeck was aware of Tillinghast's Reef concept and adopted it? Or that Tillinghast adapted one of Burbecks holes into a Reef?
If Burbeck and Tillinghast were going for a Pine Valley type of test for the Black wouldn't interesting greens be part of the equation? Isn't it more likely that the greens were a result of Tillinghast being 'laid off' prior to completion?
I think there is enough information to give them duel credit. It seems to me that is what Tillinghast wrote in his articles. Burbeck probably deserves more credit then he has been given (which is none), but not at the expense of Tillinghast. What's wrong with saying the courses are the work of the team of Tillinghast & Burbeck?
-
Tom:
I don't see anything wrong with crediting Bethpage Black to Tillinghast & Burbeck. Based on the evidence presented so far -- and common sense -- that would seem the best solution to the problem.
My hunch, however, is that such a designation will not satisfy Burbeck the younger, nor does it make for a slam-bang ending to the historical detective story. It's more like a punt, and I don't think that's what Golf Digest has in mind.
-
I don't disagree with giving Burbeck some credit, but Whitten goes way, way past the mark if he wants to designate Burbeck as the designer and Tillie as the consultant. That's just wrong.
Or to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, Whitten's conclusion was the result of a thought process that went - "ready, shoot, aim."
It is clear from the Farmington quote that design features unique to Tillie were a prominent part of the Bethpage courses from the beginning.
The "Reef" reference is the smoking gun.
Bob
-
Tom MacW:
Of course it's possible that Burbeck could've been aware of Tillinghast's "reef hole", but that's a possibility that Tillinghast afficionados don't really want to consider--can't you tell?
The second part of what you said seems more likely though given what's currently known. If, in fact, the course was routed by Burbeck because it was routed months before Tillinghast got there, then the second thing you said is far more plausible, in my opinion--that Tillinghast adopted the "Reef" concept to one of the holes routed by Burbeck.
Tillinghast/Burbeck might not be a bad idea if that routing question is answered and the course was routed before Tillinghast got there. Of course Burbeck Jr. would settle for that and even if he doesn't what does that really matter, since the facts became known?
-
Dear Ron Whitten,
What is your evidence that Bethpage Black was "laid out" (and what do you mean by that?) months before Tillinghast was hired?
As you can see, many of us here (all of us here?) are unpersuaded by the evidence you've supplied to date.
Many of us here (all of us here?) are willing to give Mr. Burbeck Sr. all of the credit he deserves -- but we need you to present a more compelling case that Mr. Burbeck alone deserves credit as the Black's architect.
Please respond. Thank you.
Dan Kelly
-
Good for you Dan Kelly!
The answer to the question of what exactly "laid out" meant and if it meant "routing", and when that happened with The Black is the fundamental question to be answered here! And you're right to ask Ron Whitten to provide what he was using when he cited that remark and to explain where it came from! It's completely necessary to know since he obviously based some very fundamental and important ASSUMPTIONS and possibly a conclusion on that bit of information!
I realize you're very interested in the accuracy of reporting--and you should be. We all should be. The real reason for it in golf architecture is far too often people base their assumptions from which they draw conclusions on the wrong things--or at least on indirect things which may be misleading.
In many cases it just isn't good enough to base architectural conclusions on what someone once wrote about something because it could very well have been wrong or misleading. And unless it's accuracy is checked it tends to be taken for the rest of time as fact.
Really good and accurate architectural fact finding has to go back as its source to the course itself and hopefully something can be found that is irrefutable that can clear up the accuracy of anything that may ever have been written about it!
It may not be possible to find those things, of course, but we don't know that now. They may be out there somewhere to piece things back together.
It's not much different than the creation period of Pine Valley and the collaboration of architects there and what exactly they actually did and didn't do. It was written about, of course, but in some cases possibly not that accurately for whatever reason.
But it appears that the evidence of exactly what went on there back then is still in the archives but it has to be analyzed very carefully, something that apparently was never really done that accurately.
Why that happened is interesting and one of the reasons I find is that the people who did it later simply relied too heavily on what was written about it instead of just looking at what is actually still there from when the course was being done. That material is far more valid to me than something that somebody once wrote about it.
-
TEPaul,
Some very good points. I've been thinking about the terms "routing" and "laid out" and find even those terms ambiguous. Here's another what if; what if Burbeck knew the proerty on which Black would be "routed" and of course he would have. Before Tillie get's there, he begins clearing the land, providing corridors for golf holes, but absolutley no features are "laid out." Meaning, all you have is a flow of corridors that will eventually will become a golf course. Tillie shows up, walks the property (with or without Burbeck), draws up the detailed features of how a golf hole will fit onto the "routing." Tillie provides tee positions, hazzards, green complexes, and entrusts Burbeck to lay those golf holes on the existing "routing." Confusing enough, but plausible. Also, I'm not sure what clearing would have been necessary in 1933. An aerial of the land pre-golf course would be interesting.
Still, I'm not covinced about Whitten's timeline and when Tillie comes on the scene; before or after certain aspects of the Black were begun or even completed. I am confident that at least two Tillie and Bethpage Black afficionados, both of whom have posted on this thread and written books on the subject, conducted much more thorough research than Whitten.
Clearly the jury is still out. But, it seems Burbeck deserves more credit on one hand, while on the other, Whitten needs to retract the article and provide a better researched, cogent argument for removing Tillie's name as designer.
-
JamieD:
What you said there in your first paragraph is exactly a scenario that a few of us have been proposing (on this thread) may have been the way The Black came to be. You should go back and read some of those posts.
You say it's confusing enough but plausible. You bet it is! It's more than plausible, it's the way golf courses are basically imagined, visualized, created and constructed--certainly the ones of The Black's era. So it's much more than plausible, it's highly probable, that is, if Burbeck actually did "route" the golf course before Tillinghast got there.
So what is a "routing" and what might have Burbeck done before Tillinghast got there? He may have "laid out" the basic progression of the course, the way the holes progressed and flowed, what those holes were (par 3s, par 4s and par 5s) and in their exact order then and today. Essentially that's a basic "routing".
But why would anyone do it in any particular way or fashion? Because they can imagine (even preliminarily) what the course will look like, what the order of the holes need to be and how they fit together, what the individual hole concepts basically can become, what the variety of the course is and where, what the balance may be and how necessary it is to the overall course always trying to use the best of anything on the site.
A preliminary routing such as it may have been if Burbeck did it back then, may have been what's sometimes called a "stick routing" only because dots or Xs were sometimes used for tee and hole sites and they were connected by a center drawn line that deliniated the way the holes were envisioned to go or flow.
More goes into envisioning a good routing than most seem to understand. It truly is like doing a large jigsaw puzzle on the ground because the "pieces" (the holes) have to fit together somehow. This was far more important in that era than today because golfers had to walk!
Finding golf holes really isn't all that terribly difficult sometimes on good land and good sites. But putting the holes (the pieces) together into an interesting "whole" (the routing) providing the necessary variety and balance to the progression of the holes is hard!
And even if you can find the holes and the variety and balance then doing the next part, what is sometimes called "connecting the dots" can sometimes become more than maddening. Basically what "connecting the dots" is is getting the greens and the next tee as close together as possible. And that part in that era was often very difficult and if done well is admirable and indicative of talent, in my opinion!
This all wasn't very easy back then because those men did not have as much ablilty to change the landscape as they do today and basically if you can't fit things together today you can simply make something where you want it and need it.
I can't really imagine what kind of latitude either Burbeck or Tillinghast might have had to change things to fit the pieces together but the fact that Bethpage apparently had 600 WPA workers working on it is not insubstantial at all---that's a lot of man-power for that era to make changes.
But let's just say that Burbeck actually did do the routing of both individual holes, their exact placement etc which created the routing of what The Black is. It's more than plausible, it's probable that Tillinghast may have come in at that point and begun to really develop the "features" of those holes (bunkering, fairway deliniations, angles of them, green orientations and all that goes on at the green-end etc, etc, to perfect the "concepts" and overall "options" that create the "strategies" of those holes!
This is more than plausible to me and would also explain why some of those who really do know The Black and Tillinghast might think The Black is Tillinghast's complete design and routing simply because the "features" that were added to Burbeck's routing really do look like Tillinghast's because they probably are! In this way the courses of some architects can be identifiable as theirs or their particular style.
But other than definitely Donald Ross and possibly William Flynn I'm not sure that any of those people can actually identify a particular "routing" style from particular architects much less Tillinghast of all architects. I don't know all that much about Tillinghast but some of his courses that I have seen and played are not even remotely similar in a routing style!
But if Tillinghast did not actually route The Black and only came in during the next phase of developing the hole concepts with particularly the architectural features (definitely not an unimportant undertaking) I, for one, would have to assume that Tillinghast must have been somewhat in agreement with Burbeck's routing or he might have attempted to change it if he was serious about the project and I presume he was.
But conversely, when anyone understands how difficult it can be to create a good routing in the first place they quickly become aware of how difficult it can be to change it! It's basically the same process in reverse with the pieces already fitting together that have to now be changed and in a "dot connected" routing as The Black may be that could be really hard.
The analogy to this reverse process can probably be looked at a little like trying to fit fence rails into fence posts that are already in the ground and set. Sometimes you have to take a whole bunch of rails (the holes) out to try to fit them into the set posts (the routing) and if you can't do that for some reason you have to start to uproot the posts themselves and reset them somewhere else (start to change the whole routing). If this gets bad enough or hard enough you may have to ditch the entire routing and go back to square one.
That, in my opinion, is how difficult it could be to redo some of those old close-coupled classic course routings. And if Burbeck did do it, Tillinghast probably agreed that it was good and he could work well with it!
I don't even know enough about The Black to know if it is a great routing but if it's such a highly acclaimed golf course it must be. So if Burbeck did it and Tillinghast worked with it without massively changing it, Burbeck should get some real credit because creating the routing on a great classic course takes some talent.
But for all I know this vague fact that Whitten is using that the course was "laid out" (routed) by Burbeck may not be true at all. Maybe Tillinghast did the routing, developed all the hole features and concepts on his own and then Burbeck constructed them when Tillinghast was gone.
But hopefully we will see about that routing and who did it!
-
TEPaul,
Very well put, all of it!!
Lots of questions for sure. If indeed it happened the way you propose, then I think we can all agree a joint Tillie/Burbeck acreditation is fair. Still, I'm not sure what exactly did happen. Did Burbeck rout the course? Did Tillie work with that routing? Did Tillie change it substantially? I'd like to know. It does appear that the two men got a long very well and at least Tillie has deep admiration for Burback, I bet it was reciprocated.
I wonder if both men would be saddened by this debate as I think both would gladly share credit. I hope Burbeck Jr stops to consider that point, although I think he'd be satisfied with joint credit, which is much more than his dad has at the moment.
Finally, and it's the last time I'm going to say this, at the very least, Whitten did a very loose article on this topic and caused more controversy than solving any debate. The research is very suspect and the article is a bit too one-sided and subjective.
-
Jamie:
I'd like to know exactly what happened, when and how too and that would answer all these questions, wouldn't it.
I don't even know that Ron Whitten's article really was irresponsible for making the conclusion he did. Maybe Ron Whitten has something conclusive and had no idea that anyone would really get into dissecting exactly what the differences and distinctions are between routing a course and some of the other things constructors do.
Ron Whitten is aware of Golfclubatlas but maybe even he didn't think we would get into something as particular as the things we have here.
But they're important if you're really fascinated by all things architecture, as we obviously are.
Ron Whitten's would be irresponsible as far as I'm concerned if he was basing a conclusion on who the designer of The Black was if all he's doing is depending on the word of Burbeck's son! Ron Whitten should know better than that!
But for all we know Ron Whitten may have seen something that shows that Burbeck Sr. routed and designed the routing phase of The Black. Maybe that something is what that 1959 State Park Report he cited is based on. Maybe Ron Whitten thought that would be all that was necessary to know!
But Ron Whitten should now show us what that was that conclusively shows Burbeck Sr designed The Black.
Because if there isn't anything more that Whitten based his conclusion on other that Burbeck Jr's word then Ron Whitten is wrong to make such a questionable conclusion based on a bunch of indirect assumptions.
I don't know Ron Whitten from Adam, except he co-wrote a really useful tome on architecture. There are a lot of people who seem to respect Ron Whitten for what he's done for architecture and people's awareness of it.
As for his article writing and how he does his research I don't know that either, except for one article. He wrote an article about Merion giving Gil Hanse and Bill Kittleman co-attribution for co-designing Merion with Wilson and Flynn, apparently without checking first with either Merion or Hanse and Kittleman! And I do know that the fallout from that article is still being felt today!
-
Here is another article, not much new info but Joe, Jr. is sure making the rounds.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/ny-till092699945may09.story?coll=ny-nyc-sports-headlines
-
It sure didn't take Golf Magazine long to give Burbeck credit for being the lead designer of the Black.
http://www.golfcourse.com/search/coursedtl_ga.cfm?source=GA&courseid=10287
-
This is how assumptions become conclusions and conclusions become "reality".
I've always heard good things about Ron Whitten and his contributions to architectural understanding.
This time, however, he needs to come up with more than a son, a mother and wife who appear to have been upset about something that happened to Joe Burbeck!
Whitten has to know he should come up with real documented proof about what Burbeck really did do at Bethpage Black or else at the very least he should simply leave this issue alone!
I'll go alone with some of you about how much benefit Whitten has been to architecture to an extent but in this case his research ability doesn't impress me in the slightest--unless there's something about what he's written about who designed The Black that I've missed.