Tom,
You stated, "Singular to the land? You are obviously not familiar with Wethered & Simpson's bunkering theories, nor their book. Here is graphic example of what I'm talking about regarding the broken line for trees. Don't you find Tilly's diagram very similar to W&S's?"
Tom, over and over you simply are singular in what you want to say to the extent that you neither pay attention to what was said, but both misapplying it and even going to the extent of ignoring what you yourself actually asked.
Tom in your post #28: "Do you find similarities in Tilly's bunkering ideas (and tree ideas) with those of W&S?"
It seems obvious to those of us who can read that you considered the "bunkering ideas" to be of greater importance in your question that "(and tree ideas)" by the simple fact that you placed it in parentheses. Whether or not that is true doesn't matter as it is obvious that you view them as two separate things. I ANSWERED this question in two parts SEPARATING BUNKERS FROM TREES.
Phil's answer in post #31: "I find similarities between Tilly's style(s) and a number of other architects. The reason for this is that Tilly's bunkering was always singular to the land upon which it would be placed and the hole upon which it would hazard. As a result, his bunkers vary not only from course to course but often from hole to hole. They sometimes even vary on the same hole. His use of trees are quite specific and are not influenced by anyone or anything other than beautification of the golf course."
Yes, Tom, his BUNKERS were SINGULAR TO THE LAND! I didn't state that about the TREES. So why did you both APPLY MY ANSWER to TREES and do so while LEAVING OUT the phrase "Tilly's BUNKERING" there by CHANGING MY WORDS AND MEANING? That was deliberate with the intent to PURPOSEFULLY mislead.
As far as whether or not there is a similarity between W&S' graphic example of a tree-lined fairway and those of Tilly's; by the way I am assuming you are referring to the one he used in his 1932 article in Golf Illustrated titled "Trees on the Golf Course?"
Tom, ANY ILLUSTRATION drawn by an architect showing an irregular tree-lined fairway will look similar to others. There simply isn't that many things to draw into a simple ILLUSTRATION that would make it appear otherwise. You seem top imply that not only was Tilly influenced to a major extent by W&S but that he may have actually plagiarized their work!
Tom, you betray how very little you know about Tilly, his attitudes and design philosophies and how they grew and developed. Tilly wrote about proper using of trees in defining fairways many times throughout his career going back to his early years.
You asked, "What is up with you. Why do you always repeat your question and my answer. We know what you asked and what I answered. I think most people can follow a thread and you are wasting valuable cyber space."
This is ludicrous! For someone so concerned about "wasting valuable cyber space" and the repeating of things, go up and look at your response in post #28 and explain why you pasted in an entire post rather than simply either commenting or asking questions. I'm sorry if you don't like the way I reference things in my comments, but no one can accuse me of intentionally altering, leaving out or misrepresenting what was said by doing so!
You continued, "The concept of bunker removal is the only recurring theme in those articles and it is mentioned more than twice."
Tom, this is simply stupid as in YOUR OWN SUMMARY of these 21 articles you can only reference ONE time where what was written was of any substance. I out of 21 articles and yet you insist that "The concept of bunker removal is the only recurring theme in those articles..." Go back and look at my comments on your summary. Note how time after time I state "No mention of DH's" yet you insist they are there. Unfortunately, as the articles, including those you missed by the way, are there for all to read on the Tillinghast Association website.
You continued, "It is also recurring theme in the PGA press releases on the project and the only Tilly interview on the project that I'm aware of." So, because YOU ARE UNAWARE of things they must not exist! Unlike you, I have DOZENS of articles containing DIFFERENT interviews with Tilly during the PGA Tour. I guess because you are unaware of them they must not exist. Some of them contain references to DH's but the majority DO NOT!
You are certainly unaware of when they began to be mentioned in press releases and interviews and, FAR more importantly, WHY. As we go through his tour it will be explained.
You continued, "Do you think one of the reasons bunker removal was emphasized above his other possible suggestions..."
Again, you draw a conclusion that the evidence doesn't support and do so simply because YOU HAVEN'T READ and are NOT FAMILIAR with all of the documents and writings involved.
You do present a point that is correct. Yes, they could "quantify the cost savings" in a manner that was most impressive to the general public and club members. My questions to you are When did they FIRST do this and WHY?
You closed by commenting that, "If you don't think Tilly's theories during his PGA tour are a departure from his previous ideas (and in particular what he was arguing for and against Taylor) I worry about volume II." Well I guess I have to call my publisher and tell him to print one less book!