[TEPaul]

Let's just say it becomes known that Burbeck did route Bethpage's courses previous to Tillinghast ever showing up at Bethpage. Let's say that Tillinghast, as a consultant, took a "routed" hole landform and without changing anything about that routed hole landform "designed into it" a "concept" like a "reef" bunker scheme or some other "concept" known to or used by Tillinghast previously or even uniquely there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And also considering that MacD and Raynor did not invent the redan concept either -they simply borrowed it too!

[TEPaul]

Bill Wright:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, if there're either Tillinghast or Burbeck "advocates" out there that think there's something wrong at this point with IMPARTIALLY analyzing the evidence that both Ron Whitten produced and might otherwise be out there, then I think they're both wrong about that!

[Brian Phillips]

Bill,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian.

Bethpage Black...designed by: a mongrel.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

You draw an interesting distinction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob

[Rick Wolffe]

Tepaul

May I ask the following question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brian Phillips]

RW,

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

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

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

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


Here is Tom's quote, quoting Philip Young:

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

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

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

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

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

Now here is my quote:

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

Brian Phillips

[Rick Wolffe]

Brian

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

RW,

You present a compelling case and take a reasonable position !

[Mark_Fine]

If it ever proves out that Tillinghast did indeed design The Black, what does this say about designing "in the field"?  We know much if any time he spent on site!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I've done my own independant research on the subject and hope to produce my findings in the next day or two.

[TEPaul]

RW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TEPaul]

Just read Brian Phillips post and it's a very good one directed only in the name of impartiality, in my opinion. That, hopefully is the way this discussion of this Bethpage topic should go too!

RW:

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

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

[Brian Phillips]

RW,

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

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

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

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

Brian

[Rick Wolffe]

TePaul

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

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

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

http:www.tillinghast.net/crsbeth.htm

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

The Truth will be told.

Oh, by the way.  Check out today's special segment on the Bethpage Black and the Open.  

[Rick Wolffe]

sorry for the bad link

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

And the special segment is in the NY Times.

[TEPaul]

RW:

I realize the Tillinghast Society has obviously done a vast amount of research on all Tillinghast courses etc but just a very small point of order from your 1:05pm 6/9/02 post to me---the man who's a nobody in the broad scheme of design and architecture at the Bethpage courses who you claim was the engineer and constructor of the Bethpage courses and lived there and worked there daily for many years is named Joseph Burbeck--not Burdeck as you seem to continuously call him in your post!

[George Pazin]

Brian -

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

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

Sometimes frequency of posts tells you good things, sometimes bad...

[Tim Weiman]

George Pazin:

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

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

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

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

Rick Wolfe:

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

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

[TEPaul]

RW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I'm very interested and I eagerly await these letters that you plan to make available to us that will clear up this "design" matter!

[TEPaul]

Brian:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RW:

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

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

Tillinghast's position and reputation in the history of American architecture is very secure in my opinion! The courses that are clearly his, without a scintilla of doubt, are certainly proof positive of that!

[Jeff Goldman]

One significant criticism on this site (and elsewhere) of the course is the greens.  From the pictures many of them look like simple saucers.  Would Tillinghast have designed those greens?  Do they affect the argument here at all?

[Mal Content]

this just in...................

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

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

more to come later.

[Rick Wolffe]

TePaul

Thanks for correcting my spelling mistakes.

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

I have posted the abovementioned points several times before.

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

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

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

Peace.

[TEPaul]

RW:

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

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

And who do you suppose it was at the Park Commission that came up with Tillinghast as a consultant? Do you suppose it was Moses? Maybe it was Burbeck himself who made the recommendation as he was the director of the entire Bethpage project, wasn't he?

[Judge Jacobus]

Whereas plaintiffs, Mr. Whitten & Golf Digest, have alleged that Tillinghast was not the golf Architect responsible for designing Bethpage Black, but rather Mr. Joe Burdeck was such architec who designed Bethpage Black.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()