NY Times - Bethpage - Son Claims His Father Design

[Scott_Burroughs]

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.

[Jamie_Duffner]

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.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

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.

[Tim Weiman]

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.

[Tim Weiman]

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.

[Matt_Ward]

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.

[Craig Rokke]

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.

[Rick Wolffe]

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.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

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.

[Tim Weiman]

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.

[George Pazin]

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...

[Tom Doak]

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!

[Phil_the_Author]

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.

[Dan Kelly]

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.

[johnk]

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...

[Tony Ristola]

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.

[TEPaul]

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?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

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.

[TEPaul]

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?

[Dan Kelly]

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.

[Matt_Ward]

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.

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).

[Scott_Burroughs]

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.

[TEPaul]

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!

[Dan Kelly]

(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.

[THuckaby2]

Er, uh, stammer... ok Dan, you've sold me.

Very interesting thread all around!

TH