Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Tom MacWood on August 18, 2009, 09:55:45 PM
-
In 1917 JH Taylor wrote an article ('Modern Courses Too Severe') in which warned that modern golf architects, and in particular American golf architects, were in danger of making their golf courses too difficult for the average golfer.
"The vast majority never attain to even a modicum of sureness in their control of direction and strength. If this be conceded it seems to me to be something akin to golf suicide to jeopardize the future welfare of the game, cramp the initiative of the player, and hinder his progress by making the links too difficult. It was a phase of links architecture that was rapidly coming to a most dangerous pass in this country three years ago and from what I can learn it seems that American golf is threatened with the same peril. I gather from good sources that the architecture thinks he has earned his fee to the full if he succeeds in making his last creation more difficult than its predecessor. I understand from one, whom I consider to be one of the best judges of the game in America, that one of your very latest courses simply bristles with difficulties from tee to pin and this applies to everyone of the eighteen holes. I cannot conceive that this can be sound in theory and do not believe that it can be defended from any standpoint."
Tilly responded by saying one should not judge American golf by the two or three courses designed specifically for experts (like PVGC), and that vast majority of American courses were enjoyed by all levels. In fact he said the challenges presented by the modern American course would inspire the poor golfer to improve his game. It is similar theory to the one I quoted from Tilly yesterday, in which he suggested the reason America was producing better golfers - her scientifically trapped, championship courses.
"The thoroughly modern courses are the most popular in America and those who first opposed reconstrcution along up-to-date lines, are loudest in their praise, after testing the new conditions. The duffer knows now that the new courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for the game. No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries. The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitation of each, meet with hearty approval. The chronic grumblers, and there are a few, usually are short players, who are disinclined to take the shorter safer routes from teeing ground to green. Naturally, some of the unreasoning players will pin future wails on Taylor's remark that any kind of a course will show the better players to advantage. These same men undoubtedly would be elated if all hazards were condemned and funnel like greens advocated. Even some of the most exacting courses are very popular among the most mediocre players.
I take exception when Taylor asserts that the humble golfer on a modern course 'approaches the making of each stroke with fear and trembling.' I boldly assert that a properly planned course will inspire any player with confidence as he plays day after day, and do much to improve his strokes, which is the ambition of everyone who swings a club."
A couple of things hit me in Tilly's response. His thoughts on bunkering and the duffer are very similar to Mackenzie's ideas of creating pleasurable excitement - creating hazards or conditions that look hard for the duffer but play relatively easy. The other thing that strikes me is his disdain for shorter hitter (the chronic grumbler) who doesn't have the intelligence to take the longer safer route.
Throughout the twenties Tilly continued to produce and promote the American championship course, his last design being the very testing Bethpage-Black. Immediately after designing Bethpage Tilly embarked on his PGA tour and began singing a different tune.
-
Tom,
You stated, "A couple of things hit me in Tilly's response. His thoughts on bunkering and the duffer are very similar to Mackenzie's ideas of creating pleasurable excitement - creating hazards or conditions that look hard for the duffer but play relatively easy..." I disagree with that premise, but since this topic of discussion is about "Tilly's Curious Transformation" I'll restrict my comments to what you next stated.
"The other thing that strikes me is his disdain for shorter hitter (the chronic grumbler) who doesn't have the intelligence to take the longer safer route."
This seems to be implying that Tilly held lesser players in "disdain" and viewed them as falling into the category of being "constant grumbler's." That simply is not true. Tilly championed the lesser player and prided himself on designing courses that would be fun for them to play while also present much greater challenges the better the player was.
Your key point though, is when you state, "Throughout the twenties Tilly continued to produce and promote the American championship course, his last design being the very testing Bethpage-Black. Immediately after designing Bethpage Tilly embarked on his PGA tour and began singing a different tune."
This is incorrect and let's show you from Tilly's own words that it is so...
During the PGA Course Consultation Tour, the time where you claim Tilly did a "curious transformation" he wrote the following. "I am the duffers’ Santa Claus, for over 20 years I have championed the cause of the ‘forgotten man’ of golf, the duffer who cannot break 90 and who comprise over 90% of our vast army of golfers. The future progress of this game depends entirely upon the active interest of the average divot-digging member. The trend has been to sock the helpless and hopeless dub with courses that are almost impossible for them to negotiate. I am against it, the P.G.A. is against it and every sound thinking professional is against it. I am the duffers’ candidate, and shall continue to defend them until my last breath.”
Now according to your statement Tilly would have to be outright LYING to make that statement. He clearly stated that "For over 20 years I have championed the cause of the ‘forgotten man’ of golf, the duffer who cannot break 90 and who comprise over 90% of our vast army of golfers..." Yet according to you he hadn't. Let's again turn to Tilly's own writings.
This is from, The Golf Course, and is titled "Modern Golf Chats." It was written exactly 20 YEARS BEFORE in 1916:
“If our holes are of proper distances as dictated by natural conditions, the duffer who misses a stroke cannot be figured as a serious factor, so why add to his discomfiture? ‘But how may this be accomplished?’ is a most natural question to ask. Let me attempt a simple and brief explanation, for in the limited space of these tabloid articles, elaborate analysis is impossible. Instead of relying on hazards which extend directly across the line of play we are building them diagonally. It is obvious that these diagonal hazard lines present a much longer carry at one end than at the other, and all carries between the two points vary. In the placement of the short carry we consider the light hitter, and as he stands prepared to play at such a hazard, he is to be the judge of the distance which he may successfully attempt. After a while, as he finds his game improving, it is natural that he becomes more ambitious, and he attempts greater things which he knows will be adequately rewarded, for the hazards guarding the approaches to the green are placed in such a manner as to grade the benefits of length and accuracy. In brief, every player gets exactly what may be coming to him and it is not necessary for anyone to bite off more than he can swallow… In subsequent articles I shall attempt further explanations of why modern golf construction is taking care of every class of player."
Another example can be found in the response to Taylor that you posted. You chose to concentrate on his remonstrance of the grumblers "of which there are a few" rather than the others of who make up the vast majority of lesser players and who he wrote about BEFORE and AFTER that small piece:
"The duffer knows now that the new courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for the game. No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries. The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitation of each, meet with hearty approval. The chronic grumblers, and there are a few, usually are short players, who are disinclined to take the shorter safer routes from teeing ground to green. Naturally, some of the unreasoning players will pin future wails on Taylor's remark that any kind of a course will show the better players to advantage. These same men undoubtedly would be elated if all hazards were condemned and funnel like greens advocated. Even some of the most exacting courses are very popular among the most mediocre players.
Tilly wrote often through the years about the importance of designing and building courses that could be both enjoyable by all and, more importantly, more importantly present fair and exacting challenges for players of ALL abilities.
Your premise is incorrect.
-
Phil
Who said Tilly wasn't building courses for the enjoyment of all golfers in the teens and twenties? You don't have to clear out all the bunkers within 175 yards from the tee and 175 yards from the green to build a course enjoyable for all levels. Please re-read Tilly's 1917 response and while you are at read Mackenzie's 'Spirit of St. Andrews.' Golfers of all levels enjoy the challenge and exhilaration of hazards as much as anyone. The sparsely bunkered courses of Simpson and Mackenzie's later courses were not devoid of hazards in Tilly's Duffer Zones.
Do you think one of the reasons Tilly emphasized the removal of bunkers during his PGA stint was due to the fact they could quantify the cost savings?
-
Toim,
You asked, "Do you think one of the reasons Tilly emphasized the removal of bunkers during his PGA stint was due to the fact they could quantify the cost savings?"
NO. He recommended the removal of DH's long before there was any quantifying done. By the way, do you klnow when that actually first began?
Can you clearly state what the "Curious Transformation" that Tilly underwent exactly was?
-
If I'm understanding things right, I'm not sure there was a transformation as much as a simple shift in focus, i.e. Tillinghast moved from designing a select number of championship courses/championship tests to advising a large number of (mainly) modest courses about better serving the average golfer, and doing it more cheaply.
Here's another snippet from the same article that Tom referenced for his Tillie quote from yesterday:
"Put your thunder on the left" is a cardinal axiom of American course builders. They realize that the man to harass is the star who makes a slight mistake. Therefore, they set a trap well out on the left flank to catch the top-notcher who gets a bit of a hook when pressing for distance. "Penalize the 'almost good shot' of the crack player," says Tillinghast, "and let the dub make his own trouble. Let the right-hand border of a golf course take care of itself. Put your pits on the left side, well out, to catch the long hitters who get too much right-hand into their shots. When the star lets his wrists roll over, he is apt to draw a bad kick to the left. American courses are designed to penalize the top-notcher who errs slightly; British links were planned to harry the already exasperated duffer. We bunker for the man higher up."
Tillie here -- with words like "star" and "top-notcher" and "crack-player" and "long-hitter" -- seems to be going out of his way to stress that he is talking about challenging the best of players, and that seems to me a natural focus for him in 1927, around the time he was designing courses like Bethpage. But naturally, when he set out later to help the PGA and average courses all around the country, his focus was (as it should've been) wholly different.
No?
Peter
-
Peter,
I think we will find that Tom is not refering to Tilly going from designing to advising. But I will wait for him to be specific...
-
Phil
I do believe one of the reasons bunker removal was emphasized in all the releases from the PGA was due to the fact they could quantify the savings. They were able assign an arbitrary value to every bunker removed. In fact I would submit Tilly's theory that their should be two duffer zones was concocted to help support the bunker removal project. That duffer zone theory has no architectural integrity as far as I can tell. Perhaps you explain why you believe it was a sound idea?
-
Can you clearly state what the "Curious Transformation" that Tilly underwent exactly was?
Phil
Going from designing some of his most boldly bunkered and beautifully bunkered courses late in his career (Ridgewood 1929, Bethpage-Red 1934, Bethpage Black 1934) to advocating bunker free zones. That was the transformation, and it was literally over night.
By the way do you know which course Tilly advised the removal of 92 bunkers?
-
Peter
Supposedly the twenties were the golden age in golf architecture, very good courses of all types were being designed, and many of these courses were designed with some championship aspiration, that was the American way, are you suggesting that actually the high point was in the mid-30s after Tilly removed 10,000 unnecessary bunkers. Do you believe his theory regarding bunker free zones was a good one from an architectural viewpoint?
Desperate times call for desperate measures. That is what this was all about, and it was not a high point in the annals of golf architecture. I can't imagine his fellow architects, who were still trying to scratch out a living in golf design, were thrilled to see him give his services away for free, guys like William Flynn, Perry Maxwell, Stanley Thompson and Trent Jones. I'm sure Phil will point out Tilly threw a bone to Maxwell, but still how do you compete with a headline architect who is working for free.
-
Tom,
I agree with your statement that he transformed. I disagree that it was curious in any way. He is out of work, the PGA calls and hires him as a course advisor to their members. I am sure their emphasis was to save money, as you posit.
When Tillie was commissioned to design "a man sized course" at WF he did so. When tasked with looking at the course from a more balanced view of economics and design, he did that, too. He was, in current parlance, "coachable." He was also practical, and the great depression would do that to you, just as its doing it now.
I think Phil is right that he considered the plight of the average golfer earlier in his career. I don't think he had as many top shot bunkers as Ross, for example, or the typical cross bunkering evident in early American architecture, even in his early and championship courses. His writings were of the oblique fw for choices, etc. So, I believe he is comparing himself (still) to the pre 1900 architects and still thinks he is making it easier on duffers from early on.
Then, when he gets into the PGA consulting role, the emphasis just flipped the 70-30% balance of challenge vs maintenance in his mind to fit the times. If it was a matter of a course going out of business vs. maintaining US Open difficulty we associate with Tillie today, I can see his thought process, and that of the PGA.
I know you are trying to stimulate discussion, as we all should on a.....well, discussion board. But, in all reallity, for someone who has studied golf architecture and is in the world of finance and business, what part of this is curious to you?
Whoops, our posts crossed! I guess there isn't anything curious about it, its just the title you chose.......I hadn't really thought of the competitive aspect. Was the PGA service totally free, or did they charge expenses to the club? I should know this, but I guess I don't.
-
Tom,
You stated, "I do believe one of the reasons bunker removal was emphasized in all the releases from the PGA was due to the fact they could quantify the savings. They were able assign an arbitrary value to every bunker removed."
I don't disagree with that. Question... WHEN did Tilly & the PGA begin to quantify the savings and mention them in their press releases?
"In fact I would submit Tilly's theory that their should be two duffer zones was concocted to help support the bunker removal project. That duffer zone theory has no architectural integrity as far as I can tell. Perhaps you explain why you believe it was a sound idea?"
Tom, that is so ludicrous a statement that it becomes laughable. CONCOCTED!?! Because YOU see no "architectural integrity" it means that Tilly MADE THIS UP? I will certainly explain it to you, but first, answer this... define what you mean by "architectural integrity" in this regard? Without knowing that it will be a pointless exercise.
"Going from designing some of his most boldly bunkered and beautifully bunkered courses late in his career (Ridgewood 1929, Bethpage-Red 1934, Bethpage Black 1934) to advocating bunker free zones. That was the transformation, and it was literally over night."
Tilly did NOT recommend "bunker free zones." He recommended the SAME BUNKER CONCEPT that he had since he began designing courses... that bunkers should be placed WHERE THEY CHALLENGE and NOT WHERE THEY SIMPLY PUNISH! As an example of this, look at the illustration included in the article in your first post. His sketch on the right illustrates a hole that includes two "Duffer Ranges."
Question... IF, as you contend, Tilly recommended "bunker FREE zones" for the Duffer, WHY did he ADD a NEW BUNKER on the right side of the fairway in the BEGINNING OF THE DUFFER'S RANGE? According to your theory it shouldn't even be there!
As I stated on the PGA Tour thread, I don't believe you understand what "Duffer's Headaches" are. You certainly are unaware that through the years in many of his redesigns he REMOVED these types of features.
You asked, "By the way do you know which course Tilly advised the removal of 92 bunkers?"
Yes, I do.
You mentioned to Peter, "Desperate times call for desperate measures. That is what this was all about, and it was not a high point in the annals of golf architecture. I can't imagine his fellow architects, who were still trying to scratch out a living in golf design, were thrilled to see him give his services away for free, guys like William Flynn, Perry Maxwell, Stanley Thompson and Trent Jones. I'm sure Phil will point out Tilly threw a bone to Maxwell, but still how do you compete with a headline architect who is working for free."
This is NOT what this was all about. Again, you show that you DON'T know either the history of the tour nor what Tilly actually did. First of all the consultation service was the idea of George Jacobus. Tilly was asked if he would do this; he had no input into bringing it about other than agreeing to do it. Tilly was paid VERY LITTLE for this work. Yet you imply that he was either creating business for himself, a tough idea to sell since NEITHER HE NOR THE PGA was being paid a single penny for this consultation or TAKING what little work was available AWAY from his brother architects.
You are quite right when stating that Tilly would, how did you put it, "Tilly threw a bone to Maxwell." Tilly was CONSTANTLY throwing out "bones" during the entirety of his tour to his fellow architects. There are a number of mentions in his daily reports of clubs asking him to oversee the work that he recommended and Tilly telling them that the PURPOSE OF THE SERVICE WAS NOT for him to do that. He then recommended "LOCAL ARCHITECTS" who would both Do the work and, more importantly, GET PAID FOR IT!
Tilly was NOT COMPETING with his fellow architects, actually he was CREATING WORK for many architects nationwide. Oh yes, that also includes Mr. Flynn who he recommended by name along with Mr. Maxwell and MANY OTHERS! Only a miniscule number of the courses he visited had PLANNED ANY CONSIDERABLE amount of work BEFORE he visited them. He convinced many clubs to SPEND MONEY in order to SAVE MONEY and in so doing he PUT A LOT OF ARCHITECTS TO WORK!
Jeff,
What Tom & most don't understand is WHEN & WHY Tilly & the PGA began to quantify monies saved and who the information was mostly for. I will be speaking to this issue on the PGA Tour thread when it gets to that point during which it occurred. By doing it that way it will become quite obvious...
Tilly's designs were based upon many factors, the first always being what did the customer want! Even during the Depression he built courses where he overspent seemingly unlimited budgets. For example, there is Aldecress, known today as Alpine. The following is from the book, Tillinghast: Creator of Golf Courses:
"An article was written that described the wonder of the entire project and the imaginative construction methods used. It stated that, “When A.W. Tillinghast, the golf architect, was called in, the sponsors simply said, ‘There it is; build us a golf course, no questions asked or advice given,’ he was told… And by careful economy Tillinghast was able to keep the construction costs down to the figures quoted above…” and “The finished product was a monument to golf architecture. Aldecress is a golf architect’s Dream.”
In the article Tilly described with pride and in great detail that “there was a deal of tree removal (big fellows), draining and above all, very far above all, we were messing around in huge stone outcrop over the entire area. And that means real money. But my clients wanted the last word and were prepared to spend sufficient to get just that. Among the hundreds of golf courses that I have designed and constructed, Aldecress (which is most exclusive and never seen by but a favored few) was by far the toughest course to build that I ever encountered.”
Because of the huge sums of money being spent, criticism was leveled at the project, the owners and Tillinghast. He answered by making a comparison with a fine 18 hole golf course near Jamestown, Rhode Island, named Beaver Tail that he had designed and built for less than $25,000. “There,” he wrote, “I had nature helping me at every turn. Aldecress took two years of real tough work.” It also took an expenditure of, “about $440,000. But the situation was most unusual.”
1931 & Tilly builds a course with "economy" that costs $440,000...
You stated, "Then, when he gets into the PGA consulting role, the emphasis just flipped the 70-30% balance of challenge vs maintenance in his mind to fit the times. If it was a matter of a course going out of business vs. maintaining US Open difficulty we associate with Tillie today, I can see his thought process, and that of the PGA."
What almost all who discuss this PGA course consultation Tour ignore is exactly how Tilly chose to go to the courses that he did. The answer is that HE DIDN'T. Each course had to APPLY FOR THE SERVICE, even those that contacted him when he was in their area. THEY SPECIFIED what they wanted hi to examine and why. That is the reason that he didn't recommend the removal of DH's unless they were on holes that he was invited to examine. In EVERY instance where there were numbers of these hazards that he recommended to a course for removal, he had been invited by the club to examine the ENTIRE COURSE, performing what he referred to as a "complete examination" and so recommended accordingly. He was not walking onto courses with the ideas to FIND DH's to remove. Unfortunately they were very much the part of many courses found throughout America in those years.
-
I think Phil is right that he considered the plight of the average golfer earlier in his career. I don't think he had as many top shot bunkers as Ross, for example, or the typical cross bunkering evident in early American architecture, even in his early and championship courses. His writings were of the oblique fw for choices, etc. So, I believe he is comparing himself (still) to the pre 1900 architects and still thinks he is making it easier on duffers from early on.
Who said he didn't consider the plight of the averager golfer earlier in his career? Regarding 'top shot bunkers' Tillinghast, Ross, Mackenzie, Thompson, Thomas, Fowler, Colt, Emmet, Alison, Raynor, Macdonald, Park, etc all placed bunkers in Tilly's Duffer Zone 150 yards off the tee, and they all considered the plight of the average golfer. Which article are you referring to in which he is comparing himself to pre 1900? [/glow]
Then, when he gets into the PGA consulting role, the emphasis just flipped the 70-30% balance of challenge vs maintenance in his mind to fit the times. If it was a matter of a course going out of business vs. maintaining US Open difficulty we associate with Tillie today, I can see his thought process, and that of the PGA.
So you are acknowledging the ideas Tilly promoted during his PGA tour were a departure from his previous ideas and had to do more with saving money than good golf architecture?
I know you are trying to stimulate discussion, as we all should on a.....well, discussion board. But, in all reallity, for someone who has studied golf architecture and is in the world of finance and business, what part of this is curious to you?
I guess you haven't been following the threads of the last few days. That was tongue and cheek....Phil is not acknowledging there was any transformation. On the other hand it is interesting or curious that in the end took JH Taylor's position.
Whoops, our posts crossed! I guess there isn't anything curious about it, its just the title you chose.......I hadn't really thought of the competitive aspect. Was the PGA service totally free, or did they charge expenses to the club? I should know this, but I guess I don't.
His consulting service was free.
-
Tom,
Absolutely I think his position changed. Its not perhaps as black and white, given that he had some thoughts concerning average golfers, and the like earlier. But, prior to 1929 his clients probably didn't ask for that kind of design.
Its not unlike Tom Doak taking on Commonground after doing so many high profile courses. Its not that he doesn't have it in him, its just that he took better projects when available.
But yeah, Tillie was desparate enough to take a consulting job for the PGA at some nominal compensation just to keep his hand in for a few years and if they wanted to save clubs money, then that was his emphasis, no doubt in my mind.
I guess the real question - unanswerable - is if he had lived past WW II to compete with Jones, etc., would he build the former championship courses he had built, or how would his designs have changed? I gather that would be the proof in the pudding as to what the depth of his transformation would have been.
-
Jeff
That is a good question. Its hard to say how Tilly's architecture would have evolved had he lived past WWII. I'm confident his duffer free zone would have been tossed in the garbage. Ironically his later designs (Ridgewood & Bethpage) were among his most bold - well bunkered and at even bigger scale than any of his previous work. Rand Jerris of the USGA, who knows more about Tilly's architecture than anyone I know, told me he thought those bold designs were influenced by Stanley Thompson. Tilly was editor of Golf Illustrated in the 1930s and Thompson's courses were often featured. He also seems to be well versed in Simpson's theories based on his allusions to Simpson in his PGA articles. Perhaps a Thompson-Simpson-Tilly combination would have been his post WWII style.
How do you think Tilly's fellow architects would have taken his free consulting service...from coast to coast?
I also wonder how they would have taken his removal 8000+ bunkers on some of their golf courses. That is a hell of a lot of bunkers removed, especially when you figure in his entire career (probably designing 80 courses with an average of 60 bunkers maybe) he planted less than 5000 in twenty plus years.
-
Phil
Which course did Tilly remove 92 bunkers?
-
Tom,
You asked, "Which course did Tilly remove 92 bunkers?" Thatb will be answered in the PGA Tour thread when I get to the date and course and no sooner. You can wait or do the research yourself...
By the way, I see that you have completely ignored my last post in which I addressed your question to Jeff, "How do you think Tilly's fellow architects would have taken his free consulting service...from coast to coast?"
It also spoke to the point that you keep INCORRECTLY making of "bunker FREE zones" as that is something that Tilly NEVER advocated or wrote about.
You also have yet to answer my question from that same post in which I wrote, "In fact I would submit Tilly's theory that their should be two duffer zones was concocted to help support the bunker removal project. That duffer zone theory has no architectural integrity as far as I can tell. Perhaps you explain why you believe it was a sound idea?"
Tom, that is so ludicrous a statement that it becomes laughable. CONCOCTED!?! Because YOU see no "architectural integrity" it means that Tilly MADE THIS UP? I will certainly explain it to you, but first, answer this... define what you mean by "architectural integrity" in this regard? Without knowing that it will be a pointless exercise..."
-
Tom,
One other point. You asked, "I also wonder how they would have taken his removal 8000+ bunkers on some of their golf courses. That is a hell of a lot of bunkers removed, especially when you figure in his entire career (probably designing 80 courses with an average of 60 bunkers maybe) he planted less than 5000 in twenty plus years."
Can you find one article, one single article or newspaper account where another architect condemned Tilly's recommendations for the removal off DH's. ONE ARTICLE? The GLARING absence of any architect even mildly criticizing him would seem to clearly answer your question of how they felt.
By the way, not that I agree with your assessment that Tilly averaged 60 bunkers a course, but 3 & 1/2 bunkers a hole certainly mean that he wasn't out there placing bunkers where duffers would hit into them. It certainly proves that he spent his entire career doing exactly what you state is a "curious transformation" by your own words. Also, we currently know of 89 original designs and are in contact with three clubs that believe they may also be unknown original Tilly's as well. Tilly himself wrote that heb had designed "several hundred" courses during his career.
-
Tom,
You asked, "Which course did Tilly remove 92 bunkers?" Thatb will be answered in the PGA Tour thread when I get to the date and course and no sooner. You can wait or do the research yourself...
By the way, I see that you have completely ignored my last post in which I addressed your question to Jeff, "How do you think Tilly's fellow architects would have taken his free consulting service...from coast to coast?"
It also spoke to the point that you keep INCORRECTLY making of "bunker FREE zones" as that is something that Tilly NEVER advocated or wrote about.
You also have yet to answer my question from that same post in which I wrote, "In fact I would submit Tilly's theory that their should be two duffer zones was concocted to help support the bunker removal project. That duffer zone theory has no architectural integrity as far as I can tell. Perhaps you explain why you believe it was a sound idea?"
Tom, that is so ludicrous a statement that it becomes laughable. CONCOCTED!?! Because YOU see no "architectural integrity" it means that Tilly MADE THIS UP? I will certainly explain it to you, but first, answer this... define what you mean by "architectural integrity" in this regard? Without knowing that it will be a pointless exercise..."
Phil
I'm sorry I ignored your post. Your posts have become increasingly unreadable with your constant regurgitation of previous posts - its nearly impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.
It appears he created the duffer zones to give an architectural rationalization to their economically influenced bunker removal plan. In other words it was an economically motivated theory, not architecturally inspired.
-
Tom,
One other point. You asked, "I also wonder how they would have taken his removal 8000+ bunkers on some of their golf courses. That is a hell of a lot of bunkers removed, especially when you figure in his entire career (probably designing 80 courses with an average of 60 bunkers maybe) he planted less than 5000 in twenty plus years."
Can you find one article, one single article or newspaper account where another architect condemned Tilly's recommendations for the removal off DH's. ONE ARTICLE? The GLARING absence of any architect even mildly criticizing him would seem to clearly answer your question of how they felt.
By the way, not that I agree with your assessment that Tilly averaged 60 bunkers a course, but 3 & 1/2 bunkers a hole certainly mean that he wasn't out there placing bunkers where duffers would hit into them. It certainly proves that he spent his entire career doing exactly what you state is a "curious transformation" by your own words. Also, we currently know of 89 original designs and are in contact with three clubs that believe they may also be unknown original Tilly's as well. Tilly himself wrote that heb had designed "several hundred" courses during his career.
You're right Phil. The lack of criticism proves his fellow architects must have been thrilled he was giving architectural advice for free and in affect shutting them out of an already depressed market place. You are a most defensive golf architect biographer; objectivity and open mindedness appear to be in short supply.
-
Although it's pretty hard to follow this discussion between MacWood and Young, me thinks this is just another one of MacWood's complete over-reactions on here and God only knows we sure have had enough of them over the years! ;)
-
Tom,
Of course, attack me when I make sense. "You're right Phil. The lack of criticism proves his fellow architects must have been thrilled he was giving architectural advice for free and in affect shutting them out of an already depressed market place. You are a most defensive golf architect biographer; objectivity and open mindedness appear to be in short supply."
Tom, you just simply don't get it. Tilly was CREATING WORK for many other architects! He gave recommendations of work to be done and provided the clubs with names of LOCAL ARCHITECTS who would do the work. It isn't that my objectivity and open-mindedness is lacking. What is lacking is you having any real knowledge on this subject. If you read ALL of the PGA letters and reports you would see numerous examples of where Tilly included that he had recommended a local architect to the club.
Only when you have read ALL of his letters and reports, instead of literally a HANDFUL only, spoken to numerous clubs about the follow-ups, read the many, many letters sent by the clubs to the PGA thanking them and praising the service and Tilly's recommendations, read the many, many newspaper accounts that are out their, only then will you be in a position to judge my "objectivity and open-mindedness" on this subject.
Sorry you don't like to read... but I reference what was asked by YOU and then provide the answer... Of course, if I wanted to follow your example and really waste the cyber space that you are so concerned about I would simply do as you in posts such as your last two in which you FIRST post my ENTIRE post and then respond. I only copy the questions...
Now, regarding your comment that, "It appears he created the duffer zones to give an architectural rationalization to their economically influenced bunker removal plan. In other words it was an economically motivated theory, not architecturally inspired." Once again you miss the point of what Tilly wrote and illustrated. He was building courses throughout his career with "duffer free zones" built into them. All you need to do is examine his many, many illustrations of hole drawings and see the open paths he laid out for the duffer to play while challenging the skilled player by setting up risk/reward opportunities for them.
By the way, you still haven't answered why Tilly INCLUDED a bunker in the Duffer Zone illustration that was NOT in the original one...
You also neglected to comment on the math problem you inadvertantly posed. If Tilly is averaging, according to you, 60 bunkers in an 18-hole design, at 3 & 1/2 per hole he certainly is NOT designing courses that place bunkers where where they would be considered DH's!
Finally, as I tyhink that this is going no where this will be my last post on this thread. I wish you a good discussion...
-
Phil
He was giving his services away for free! And doing so from coast to coast. That is not creating architectural work for golf architects. He was sucking what little work there was out dry. I don't consider ONE bone to an architect creating work, especially when he made the architectural recommendation and recommended the architect to carry out his recommendation. I often get the impression that Tilly the golf architect in your mind walked on water. None of these architects were perfect.
I love to reread I just don't want to read what you and I wrote on the previous two posts. I know what you wrote and I wrote on the two previous posts. Your posts are increasingly unreadable.
I don't believe Bethpage-Black, which was designed on the eve of his PGA tour, had duffer free zone. Since we appear to be unaware and confused about the duffer free zone, could you explain the history of it and how Tilly used it throughout his career...with perhaps some examples of courses or articles?
-
Although it's pretty hard to follow this discussion between MacWood and Young, me thinks this is just another one of MacWood's complete over-reactions on here and God only knows we sure have had enough of them over the years! ;)
TEPaul,
I know you and Tom do not get along, but in this case, I think Tom is right to explore this avenue on Tillinghast. Here is a thread Cirba started awhile back:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,12519.0/
I have always felt in what I have read on the subject that it was a desperate attempt to do something / anything to have a hand in golf course design whether beneficial or not. Some of the recommended changes that Phil has posted that he recommended so far have been curious to save the least
Chris
-
Chris
Thanks for pointing out that old thread. That thread explored more of the personal financial desperation Tilly was feeling. I believe he lost his home or sold his hole around the time of the PGA tour. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
-
Tom,
Before you again make conclusions without basis you should do your homework. You stated, let me add mistakenly once again, "Thanks for pointing out that old thread. That thread explored more of the personal financial desperation Tilly was feeling. I believe he lost his home or sold his hole around the time of the PGA tour. Desperate times call for desperate measures."
As you have no idea whatsoever as to the financial condition that Tilly was in you could have at least read the section "Tilly and Money" in the My Opinion Piece that spoke to the "Myths" and "Legends" of Tilly as a person. Hev was NOT financially desperate and lost his home for reasons that I am certain will quite surprise you.
-
I don't see any meaningful change in Tilly's ideas in the 1930's.
Having read the items posted by Phil and Tom, the point isn't how many bunkers were removed during the PGA tour, but the reasons for their removal or retention. I don't see any fundamemtal change in Tilly's design philosopy about that. As I read him, Tilly's argument was that there are good design reasons to remove things like DH's and, as a bonus, you will save money on maintenance. His argument was not the reverse.
Bob
-
Bob
What do you make of the Duffer free zones at set yardage off the tee...isn't that a departure from his previous design philosophy? I'm not aware of Tilly, or any architect, proposing such a thing, including Simpson and Mackenzie.
Phil
What is the story with Tilly's home?
-
Tom -
Virtually all strategic architects thought placing bunkers for the purpose of trapping foozles was the wrong way to place bunkers. They thought - as did Tilly - that bunkers ought to be located to achieve other, better purposes.
I see nothing in the record that indicates that Tilly changed his views about those basic issues.
Bob
-
Tom,
You asked, "What is the story with Tilly's home?"
This is what was written about it in the section on Tilly & Money:
Why then has it been reported that he went bankrupt just a few years later and even lost their home in a tax sale?
When Tilly bought his house and property he did it in a sloppy manner as was typical of him. He purchased the home directly from the family he had leased it from in 1927. They, in turn, carried the mortgage and all tax payments were to be made by them through the monies he gave them.
Tilly never saw that the family he bought the house from might have their own financial difficulties during the Depression. They began not paying Tilly’s taxes on the property. When he and Lillian left on the PGA Tour they had no inkling that this was occurring. They were on the opposite side of the country when they were informed that their property, house and furnishings were being seized by the government for non-payment of taxes. They hurried home and arrived in the middle of the tax sale and were able to save some of their furnishings including some extremely valuable antiques.
Now in addition to the above, he was able to save the furnishings by PURCHASING THEM for cash. He didn't borrow money to do this, he had it. That is the tragedy for Tilly in this as it was other's actions and problems that cost them. The proof that he wasn't bankrupt, in additioon to proof provided by different family members, is that in addition to being able to buy back the furnishinmgs he was also able to pay for shipping it to Minnesota to be stored at his daughter's home, that he had a steady income from a very forgotten source... the TILLINGHAST Rubber Goods Company, his father's business which he owned since his passing in 1918 and that would remain as an entity unti 1947, 5 years afrter his death. He had a number of other liquid & non-liquid financial resources. That he was destitute is am myth...
-
Tom -
Virtually all strategic architects thought placing bunkers for the purpose of trapping foozles was the wrong way to place bunkers. They thought - as did Tilly - that bunkers ought to be located to achieve other, better purposes.
I see nothing in the record that indicates that Tilly changed his views about those basic issues.
Bob
Bob
You see nothing in the record that indicates Tilly changed his views? What about the many bunkers he placed in his duffer zone at Bethpage, San Francisco, Brook Hollow, Fresh Meadow and other courses?
Mackenzie often placed bunkers in Tilly's duffer zone in order to give the average golfer pleasurable excitement. There are a number of other architects who did the same thing, including Tilly, and I think it is great feature.
-
Tom MacWood:
It seems you're of the opinion that once any golf course's bunkers have been initially built they should never be touched again under any circumstances. Is that an accurate reflection of your opinion?
-
Tom,
You asked, "What is the story with Tilly's home?"
This is what was written about it in the section on Tilly & Money:
Why then has it been reported that he went bankrupt just a few years later and even lost their home in a tax sale?
When Tilly bought his house and property he did it in a sloppy manner as was typical of him. He purchased the home directly from the family he had leased it from in 1927. They, in turn, carried the mortgage and all tax payments were to be made by them through the monies he gave them.
Tilly never saw that the family he bought the house from might have their own financial difficulties during the Depression. They began not paying Tilly’s taxes on the property. When he and Lillian left on the PGA Tour they had no inkling that this was occurring. They were on the opposite side of the country when they were informed that their property, house and furnishings were being seized by the government for non-payment of taxes. They hurried home and arrived in the middle of the tax sale and were able to save some of their furnishings including some extremely valuable antiques.
Now in addition to the above, he was able to save the furnishings by PURCHASING THEM for cash. He didn't borrow money to do this, he had it. That is the tragedy for Tilly in this as it was other's actions and problems that cost them. The proof that he wasn't bankrupt, in additioon to proof provided by different family members, is that in addition to being able to buy back the furnishinmgs he was also able to pay for shipping it to Minnesota to be stored at his daughter's home, that he had a steady income from a very forgotten source... the TILLINGHAST Rubber Goods Company, his father's business which he owned since his passing in 1918 and that would remain as an entity unti 1947, 5 years afrter his death. He had a number of other liquid & non-liquid financial resources. That he was destitute is am myth...
Phil
This is a slightly different story than the one you told in your book. In the book you wrote that for many years Tilly had been having a difficult time financially. You said that by the time of the Bethpage project (circa 1934) his daughters had moved to Minnesota and Ohio, he had almost no work and he was desperately fighting off the pack of ravenous 'wolves howling at the door' (by the way where does that quote come from?). I will add he lost his job as editor of Golf Illustrated in 1935 when the magazine went under.
In the book you wrote they only learned they owed back taxes in the spring of 1936, when it was already on the verge of being too late. I read that as almost too late, but not too late. Whatever the case Tilly did not pay the back taxes and he lost his home. Based on all the circumstances one can assume he did not have the money. The fact that he acknowledged the wolves were howling at the door in 1934 would seem to indicate troubles were brewing before the spring of 1936.
As far as Tillinghast Rubber being a source of income, I have my doubts. Tilly's grandson wrote, "So after B.C. died in 1918, the company began to wither and as I recall mother closed out the dismal remnant of it in the 1950’s." If the company began withering in 1918 it is very doubtful it was doing well in the heart of the Depression.
One gets the impression you are trying to paint a rosier financial picture for Tilly in order to help support your position on the Bethpage and PGA projects.
-
Tom,
Let me explain a few things so that you understand better.
First of all, every time I have written about Tilly's financial situation it has been consistent and always with the same conclusion. There have been times where, depending on the reason for the piece that some of the many facts involved have been included or not. In no case have the facts or how they have been presented ever changed.
Let's consider your understanding of what I wrote, "Phil... In the book you wrote that for many years Tilly had been having a difficult time financially. {Difficult, yes; bankrupt no. I have pointed out NUMEROUS times that if they were near destitute as some have alleged then how was he able to build a house, pay for it, give it to his daughter & her family and let them keep the money from the sale when they moved to Toledo during the years 1930-34? The "difficulty" that he was having financially was caused by a combination of things including cash flow and lack of work. He had many resources upon which to fall back on when liquid cash was needed and quickly.}
"You said that by the time of the Bethpage project (circa 1934) his daughters had moved to Minnesota and Ohio, he had almost no work and he was desperately fighting off the pack of ravenous 'wolves howling at the door' (by the way where does that quote come from?)..." {Tilly himself used that phrase a number of times in writings through the years going all the way back to the teens. He always used it in connection with cash flow problems rather than lack of funds.}
"I will add he lost his job as editor of Golf Illustrated in 1935 when the magazine went under...} This is incorrect. Tilly did not lose his job, he RESIGNED and QUIT his job as editor and THEN the magazine went under. Would it have gone under anyway if he stayed? Most assuredly so. Was he FIRED from his job? NO.
"In the book you wrote they only learned they owed back taxes in the spring of 1936, when it was already on the verge of being too late. I read that as almost too late, but not too late. Whatever the case Tilly did not pay the back taxes and he lost his home. Based on all the circumstances one can assume he did not have the money..."
{Boy did you ever miss a few details! Yes, it was already on the verge of "being too late" but that was CLEARLY said in the context of their LOSING EVERYTHING; they DID NOT! I guess that you still haven't read what I wrote about Tilly and Money in the In My Opinion piece. It contains the following which is what is also contained in my book:
"Tilly never saw that the family he bought the house from might have their own financial difficulties during the Depression. They began not paying Tilly’s taxes on the property. When he and Lillian left on the PGA Tour they had no inkling that this was occurring. They were on the opposite side of the country when they were informed that their property, house and furnishings were being seized by the government for non-payment of taxes. They hurried home and arrived in the middle of the tax sale and were able to save some of their furnishings including some extremely valuable antiques... Unfortunately they were unable to save their beloved dream house"
The reason that it was not TOO LATE was because they were able to save their furnishings! How did they do this? They actually purchased them at the sale in CASH! How did they manage that neat little trick if they were destitute as you would have us believe? they couldn't save the house because that had already been sold.}
"As far as Tillinghast Rubber being a source of income, I have my doubts. Tilly's grandson wrote, "So after B.C. died in 1918, the company began to wither and as I recall mother closed out the dismal remnant of it in the 1950’s." If the company began withering in 1918 it is very doubtful it was doing well in the heart of the Depression."
{Sorry, but Dr. Brown was wrong about that. First of all you must realize that Dr. Brown only saw his grandfather on either infrequent visits from Minnesota or when Tilly would stop out there. he was in no position to be aware of the status of the Rubber Goods store business and neither was his mother from whom he received that information. My information on that comes from many sources within the family. I interviewed all four living grandchildren, each of whom knew Tilly personally. I also interviewed many of the great-grandchildren including one who lives in germany and several of the Great-great-grandchildren as well. NO ONE EVER DID THAT! Among these included several members of his other daughter's family, the Wordens. They lived in the same area as Tilly did from the time they were married until they moved into the house that Tilly built for them on the property behind his home in Harrington Park. By the way, some of the monies used to pay for that house was from proceeds from the Rubber goods store. In addition, the Browns were not involved in the running of the chain at all at any time from when Tilly's father died in 1918. First Tilly's mother did, then when she was no longer able to, both Tilly & Lillian did. It was Lillian who closed the last store in 1947.
Since you are quoting Dr. Brown, how about if I quote him? He sent me a letter in response to my sending him the finished Tillinghast biography manuscript prior to its publishing:
"Dear Mr. Young, I read your bio of AWT and thought it quite good. Your recitation of his life events and attitudes seemed to be as close to accurate as one can get, from the distance of many decades..."
Other members of the family expressed similar thoughts by letter, email and on the telephone. In fact several thanked me for helping to correct a number of misunderstandings and misinformation that they had about Tilly. They agreed that for many years each hadn't really spoken of what they knew to each other and simply supposed the others were in agreement when the reality was that each had only pieces of the whole and often weren't fully informed of details that others knew. Simply put, a typical family.
"One gets the impression you are trying to paint a rosier financial picture for Tilly in order to help support your position on the Bethpage and PGA projects." I hate to quote Tom Paul, but that is the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post on GCA. It deserves no response...
-
Phil
The magazine was going under, what difference does it make if he resigned or not?
Your new story about the home makes no sense. They purchased their own furniture at the time of the house auction. He didn't own his own furniture? Please explain.
If Tilly got there during the auctioning, why didn't he purchase the home? Being in the middle of the Depression no doubt it sold for pennies on the dollar, and a fraction of what he paid a few years earlier in the 20s.
-
Tom,
I am SERIOUSLY concerned about your apparent inability to be able to understand what you read. You certainly didn't do a good job of it based upon your response.
You wrote:
"Phil, The magazine was going under, what difference does it make if he resigned or not?"
It doesn't. What does matter is the TRUTH of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED which, by the way, I have posted on site several times including the scanned copy of the front of the September 1935 issue of Golf Illustrated where Tilly clearly wrote "I RESIGNED as Editor last month..." You have recently made a big deal on several threads by stating that you only "seek the TRUTH." Why, instead of downplaying my correction of you with the TRUTH of what happened do you criticize me for doing so? Why NOT simply admit "OOPS, I was mistaken." Why is that so difficult for you?
You continue, "Your new story about the home makes no sense. They purchased their own furniture at the time of the house auction. He didn't own his own furniture? Please explain..."
How can this be so hard for you to understand. The government SEIZED their HOUSE AND ITS CONTENTS INCLUDING THE FURNISHINGS for the back taxes that weren't paid on their behalf! As they were out on the PGA Tour when they learned of this they came back home immediately to try and stop it only to arrive DURING the AUCTION! They couldn't stop the sale by paying the back taxes owed nor could they repurchase their house BECAUSE IT HAD ALREADY BEEN SOLD! You would have known that if you actually read what I wrote!
You continue, "If Tilly got there during the auctioning, why didn't he purchase the home?"
See above!
You finish with, "Being in the middle of the Depression no doubt it sold for pennies on the dollar, and a fraction of what he paid a few years earlier in the 20s..." That would be true for everyone except Tilly. The "furnishings" contained MANY very valuable museum-quality antiques and collectibles. Tilly was both a well-known antiques collector but had an antiques store during the 1920's on up until he went out on tour right there in Harrington Park that was also furnishing them with funds. The house was filled with its inventory when they left as well as Tilly's large collections of Civil War memorabilia, autograph collections, Presidential memorabilia collection and rare book collection in his library, JUST TO NAME A FEW! These had a greater value than his house even in those days. I suggest you spend a few dollars and look up Tillinghast in the New York Times archives. There you will find, as I have in the past, a number of notices of major antique sales during the 1920's-30's featuring his collections as the primary part of the auction. When he went to California and ended up opening the antiques store on Rodeo Drive with Nedda Harrigan they used this inventory as the stock for original sales.
Now what obviously also DON'T APPRECIATE is that Tilly would have had to pay back ALL OF THE BACK TAXES OWED FIRST before he could buy back the furnishings. That is the greatest irony in all of this.
Tom, there are things you simply don't know and this is clearly one of them. Its time to stop giving me a hard time and begin acknowledging it...
-
Tom,
I am SERIOUSLY concerned about your apparent inability to be able to understand what you read. You certainly didn't do a good job of it based upon your response.
You wrote:
"Phil, The magazine was going under, what difference does it make if he resigned or not?"
It doesn't. What does matter is the TRUTH of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED which, by the way, I have posted on site several times including the scanned copy of the front of the September 1935 issue of Golf Illustrated where Tilly clearly wrote "I RESIGNED as Editor last month..." You have recently made a big deal on several threads by stating that you only "seek the TRUTH." Why, instead of downplaying my correction of you with the TRUTH of what happened do you criticize me for doing so? Why NOT simply admit "OOPS, I was mistaken." Why is that so difficult for you?
Thats like the captain of the Titanic resigning after the ship hit the iceberg.
You continue, "Your new story about the home makes no sense. They purchased their own furniture at the time of the house auction. He didn't own his own furniture? Please explain..."
How can this be so hard for you to understand. The government SEIZED their HOUSE AND ITS CONTENTS INCLUDING THE FURNISHINGS for the back taxes that weren't paid on their behalf! As they were out on the PGA Tour when they learned of this they came back home immediately to try and stop it only to arrive DURING the AUCTION! They couldn't stop the sale by paying the back taxes owed nor could they repurchase their house BECAUSE IT HAD ALREADY BEEN SOLD! You would have known that if you actually read what I wrote!
They would not have seized his furniture and belongings, they would have no claim on these things. Tilly would have been free take them. Your story makes no sense!
You continue, "If Tilly got there during the auctioning, why didn't he purchase the home?"
See above!
You finish with, "Being in the middle of the Depression no doubt it sold for pennies on the dollar, and a fraction of what he paid a few years earlier in the 20s..." That would be true for everyone except Tilly. The "furnishings" contained MANY very valuable museum-quality antiques and collectibles. Tilly was both a well-known antiques collector but had an antiques store during the 1920's on up until he went out on tour right there in Harrington Park that was also furnishing them with funds. The house was filled with its inventory when they left as well as Tilly's large collections of Civil War memorabilia, autograph collections, Presidential memorabilia collection and rare book collection in his library, JUST TO NAME A FEW! These had a greater value than his house even in those days. I suggest you spend a few dollars and look up Tillinghast in the New York Times archives. There you will find, as I have in the past, a number of notices of major antique sales during the 1920's-30's featuring his collections as the primary part of the auction. When he went to California and ended up opening the antiques store on Rodeo Drive with Nedda Harrigan they used this inventory as the stock for original sales.
Now what obviously also DON'T APPRECIATE is that Tilly would have had to pay back ALL OF THE BACK TAXES OWED FIRST before he could buy back the furnishings. That is the greatest irony in all of this.
Tom, there are things you simply don't know and this is clearly one of them. Its time to stop giving me a hard time and begin acknowledging it...
-
Tom,
As is so typical of you, if you don't think something happened it didn't.
"They would not have seized his furniture and belongings, they would have no claim on these things. Tilly would have been free take them. Your story makes no sense!"
You are WRONG! It isn't a story, it is the Tillinghast family history confirmed by several members of the family. As you simply refuse to believe anything that anyone saysand have done so withouteven making an attempt to verify yourself or with any knowledge of what happened whatsoever, you are once again showing yourself to be a fool.
As with the other two threads, I am also dropping off this as well. I'm sure you'll miss me... ;)
-
Phil
May I suggest you talk to someone who knows something about property taxes and mortgage law. Your story makes no sense.
-
Phil:
Having been in real estate for about twenty years I know something for sure about property taxes and mortgage law but something tells me if my opinion on Tillinghast's property problems doesn't square with Tom MacWood's uninformed opinions he will automatically discount it which he does with anyone who doesn't agree with his uninformed notions. You are definitely right when you said the man is not interested in an intelligent discussion; he never has been.
I will caution you, though, that property tax and mortgage law very much does vary from state to state still today and it certainly did when Tillinghast had whatever property tax and mortgage problems he had in the 1930s.
-
TEP or Phil
If you'd like you can call my wife. She began as a foreclosure analyst for Chase Manhattan about decade ago, and after attending law school is now an Assistant VP in the legal department of JP Morgan Chase Mortgage. She is very familiar with the NYC metro and particularly NJ. I don't care what area you are discussing they are not going to seize his belongings. If he abandons his belongings they will deal with them eventually, but not at the time they are proceeding with a tax sale. The story makes no sense.
-
Just so people aren't misled by Tom MacWood's views about tax liens, I refer everyone to I.R.C. Section 6321. Tax liens apply to all property of the taxpayer. As in all.
I have litigated cases where houses, furniture, fixtures, cars, papers, securities and cash were seized.
Federal tax liens are not limited to real property or any other type of property. They extend to all property.
Tom MacW - Please be more careful about the tax advice you so freely offer. In a public forum like this one, it can do real harm to the gullible.
Bob
-
"TEP or Phil
If you'd like you can call my wife. She began as a foreclosure analyst for Chase Manhattan about decade ago, and after attending law school is now an Assistant VP in the legal department of JP Morgan Chase Mortgage."
Tom:
I would say go for it----eg call your wife about property tax and mortgage law but only provided you are considerably better at listening to your wife and understanding what she is saying to you than you are with the contributors to this particular website! I'm just still concerned that when she explains to you the details of property tax and mortgage law you might think it makes no sense at all and somehow interpret it all to mean that Tillinghast sold out his architectural principles in the mid 1930s. ;)
-
Bob:
You make an excellent point there. I must admit I sure can't read all the details of this property tax and mortgage law argument of Tillinghast's between Tom MacWood and Phil Young, but I did notice one or both of them did mention Tilly was in tax arrears to some "government."
For starters, which government? ;)
What most call "property taxes" (real estate taxes) are generally local real estate taxes that go towards the funding and running of local or county municipalities for things like schools, police departments and other municipal services et al. Depending on the assessed value of real estate (and sometimes personal property) and what we in Pennsylvania call the millage rate "real" property taxes can be substantial.
But it ain't the Federal Government. In America the Federal Government generally taxes "income" during anyone's lifetime and not personal and "real" property until someone dies (Estate or Death tax). But that's in America----in Canada, for instance, they do it quite differently.
This isn't exactly rocket science but nevertheless I do hope it makes SOME sense to Tom MacWood. ;)
-
Just so people aren't misled by Tom MacWood's views about tax liens, I refer everyone to I.R.C. Section 6321. Tax liens apply to all property of the taxpayer. As in all.
I have litigated cases where houses, furniture, fixtures, cars, papers, securities and cash were seized.
Federal tax liens are not limited to real property or any other type of property. They extend to all property.
Tom MacW - Please be more careful about the tax advice you so freely offer. In a public forum like this one, it can do real harm to the gullible.
Bob
Bob
I'm not giving tax advice although I did stay in Holiday Inn Express last night. Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black, going to a copyright attorney for tax advice is like going to proctologist for a stigmatism. No local government today or in Tilly's day is going seize your personal property (beyond the property in question) for delinquent property taxes. I would assume your example has something to do with the IRS, and probably is saved for drug dealers and Enron types.
During the Great Depression local, state and federal government were trying to do everything in their power to prevent foreclosures, much less take individual's personal property. In 1933 and 1934 the majority of States instituted a moratorium against foreclosures, although NJ was not one of them. In 1933 NJ passed a law that gave home owners who were in foreclosure due to delinquent property taxes two-years to pay up and regain possession. So if there was tax sale on Tilly's home in the Spring of 1936, his home actually went into foreclosure in 1934. Tilly was broke.
I will repeat Phil's story make no sense. The other part of his story that makes no sense is the story that Tilly was making his mortgage payments to the previous owner, and that person failed to pay the property taxes. Please explain to me how that worked.
-
Just so people aren't misled by Tom MacWood's views about tax liens, I refer everyone to I.R.C. Section 6321. Tax liens apply to all property of the taxpayer. As in all.
I have litigated cases where houses, furniture, fixtures, cars, papers, securities and cash were seized.
Federal tax liens are not limited to real property or any other type of property. They extend to all property.
Tom MacW - Please be more careful about the tax advice you so freely offer. In a public forum like this one, it can do real harm to the gullible.
Bob,
In all fairness to Tom MacWood, you can't equate a federal tax lien to a tax lien a homeowner faces for not paying their local property taxes.
-
Tom MacW -
You baffle me.
You say that Tilly's family is "lying" about having to buy their furniture back at a foreclosure auction. You offer no plausible motive for their lying.
You then try to prove they must have been lying because it was "impossible" that someone would be foreclosing in furniture. There are three scenarios where that might possibly happen.
- Unpaid federal taxes. See above
- Unpaid mortgage. Mortgages take liens in real property and personalty. That is, furniture, etc.
- Local ral estate taxes are typically limited to realty. But - and this is key - all mortgages are x-defaulted with tax lien foreclosures. If the problem originated as failure to pay realty taxes, it almost always ends up as a full blown foreclosure of the mortgage in which personalty is part of the collateral sold. Look at the mortgage on your house.
- Lots of naive people occupy homes in which other people are expected to pay mortgages and taxes and then have their home foreclosed upon. I have represented - on a pro bono basis - a nurse to whom that happened last year.
This all all pretty basic stuff and that is how it usually plays out.
It is clearly not "impossible" that Tilly's furniture was part of a foreclosure that originated with unpaid realty taxes. It happens all the time. It is entirely possible that Tilly's family misunderstood the technical aspects of the foreclosure. Frankly, most people do misunderstand the details of what goes on in those situations.
But the larger question is why you would accuse an eye witness to a historical event of "lying". That is not something reputable historians normally do without providing a motive.
So tell us, why would Tilly fabricate a story that is deeply embarrassing to himself and his family? Why would he dream up a story in which he comes out looking naive and pretty dumb about about basic financial matters? What was to be gained by "lying" about such things?
Bob
-
"Tom MacW -
You baffle me."
Bob:
Welcome to the rapidly expanding club!
It seems to be automatic if someone, anyone, does not agree with his increasingly logic-stretching notions they must be mistaken, engaging in the nonsensical or lying. This now includes some significant clubs and their boards of directors and committees---eg Merion, Myopia, and now perhaps the White Bear Yacht Club and apparently Tillinghast and his family and a rather long list of assorted others. This goes back a long way so we should probably throw Pine Valley in there too! :P
-
Bob
Where did I say anyone was lying? It was a nice try on your part, but even you have to admit the the story makes no sense.
Not only was no one having their personal items possessed because of delinquent property taxes, there were laws enacted to limit foreclosures period. More than half the states had a moratorium on foreclosures beginning in 1933/34, and although NJ was not one of them, in 1933 NJ passed a law that said in the event someone's home was to subject to a tax sale due to delinquent property taxes, the defaulting owner had two years to pay those taxes and regain possession. If the house was sold in a tax sale in the spring of 1936, the house went into foreclosure in the spring of 1934. The question is why didn't he pay the back taxes?
-
"The question is why didn't he pay the back taxes?"
Do you mean why didn't he pay the taxes in the first place or why didn't he pay the back taxes when his home and furnishings went into foreclosure and was auctioned? It seems to me Phil Young answered that but you responded that his answer (a story he says was confirmed by Tillinghast's family) makes no sense. I have no idea if Phil's answer and the Tillinghast story of his house and perhaps some of his furnishings being sold or repurchased at a tax lien or foreclosure auction is true or not but I certainly don't see why it makes no sense to you. If the house had been sold to someone else at auction when Tilly got there then obviously he couldn't buy it back from the government entity that put a tax lien on it and sold it in a foreclosure auction. As for paying his back taxes, at that point the government entity got the money owed them back from the auction sale to someone else and Tilly lost his house. As for the furniture that was apparently encumbered by a tax lien, if that hadn't been sold in the foreclosure auction Tilly could have paid the tax lien monies owed on it and gotten it back.
That's the answer it sounds like Phil gave that he says is the story from the Tillinghast family. I'm not sure why you think those answers or that story makes no sense at all. As Bob Crosby and others mentioned that kind of thing happened and happens all the time.
-
Tom MacW -
I repeat the question.
What possible motive would someone have for dreaming up a story that shows them in an extremely embarrassing light?
Bob
-
Bob:
Of course your question is a very good and logical one but I doubt the answer you will get---if you get one at all---will be even remotely satisfactory to any logical mind or interested discussant.
This is always more like some petty debating game with this man; for him to claim it is the truth he really seeks is nothing more than a transparent charade and joke.
I did just receive a very long and detailed explanation from Phil about the details of Tillinghast's mortgage and tax problems and even though I obviously have no way or interest in independently verifying any of it myself (I frankly feel no need at all to do that), I must say I am pretty blown away by the extreme depth of research Phil Young has done over the years via ever imaginable avenue into the life and times and family of one A. W. Tillinghast.
If Phil Young decided to be a top flight investigator/detective I have no doubt he would be a very good one! ;)
Frankly, this entire side-track into Tillinghast's finances seems to be just that----a sidetrack on MacWood's part to try to make some major point out of a semi-triviality that since Tilly was in some financial difficulty that THAT MUST MEAN he went through some architectural transformation and/or sold out his architectural principles.
The whole thing is just another of MacWood's attempts to make a mountain out of some minor molehill simply to defend and perpetuate some illogical notion, nothing more. And you are also right in your apparent implication that this man is no credit to the furtherance of historical understanding and historians!
-
TEP/Bob
Do you have Phil's book?
-
Tom MacW -
I repeat the question.
What possible motive would someone have for dreaming up a story that shows them in an extremely embarrassing light?
Bob
YOu can't possibly tell me that you can't think of a reason!!! I know I can.
-
"TEP/Bob
Do you have Phil's book?"
Yes, but for starters why don't you try answering Bob Crosby's very straightforward and very appropriate question instead of deflecting this discussion? That might actually intelligently further this thread and the truth of its subject ;)
Bob Crosby has an uncanny way of both getting to the meat of an issue AND coigning very definitive terms. Among others his term for you and your modus operandi on here----eg "Gottcha tone and technique" is truly appropriate.
You have always come across and apparently tried to as something of the intellectual snob but the truth is you have prescious little factual information from the subject itself (Tilly's life or club records) to back it up with.
And THAT is obviously why pretty near everyone on here who actually tries to follow you now feels as Bob Crosby does when he said today----"You baffle me."
For anyone who is truly into these subjects and following them with a modicum of information basically knows now that you are at the end of your credibility run, Tom MacWood! The fact is you are really transparent! ;)
-
SO, why don't we get on track here by having you actually try to answer Bob Crosby's question on post #49 instead of avoiding it with another inconsequential and deflective question of your own such as post # 51? ;)
-
TEP
What does the book say about the loss of his personal property?
-
"TEP
What does the book say about the loss of his personal property?"
Tom:
Why do you ask? Is it because you think what the book says about the loss of his personal property is in some consequential way different from what Phil Young said on here was the reason for the loss of his personal property? If so, please explain exactly what you think the difference is?
Hopefully, my question and the subject of the question isn't something that makes "No sense to you." ;)
-
TEP
Because I seriously doubt you have ever read the book or own the book. That being said let me post the section in question:
-
TEP
What possible rational would there be to take his furniture and personal belongings in addition to foreclosing on his home, especially considering the circumstances at the time? The country was in a severe depression and extraordinary measures were put in place to prevent foreclosures, much less taking everything. At the time in NJ they gave the defaulting owner an additional two years to make good before the home would be sold. Did Tilly go into default in the Spring of 1936, when supposedly the house was sold, or did he go into default two years prior? That question is not addressed in Phil's story.
Bob
First of all the story Phil is telling us now differs from the story he told in his book, and the story he told in his IMO piece.
I would not call the story as told extremely embarrassing. Tilly lost the home not because he was broke, but because he made a poor judgement. He was victim of confusion and financially strapped landlord. In fact to prove he had money, Phil tells us he was able to re-purchase his furniture and antiques right before they were sold off. What appears to be the real story is much more embarrassing IMO. So to answer to your question, perhaps the source of the story was embarrassed that Tilly was broke.
Another fact that adds to the story not making sense. In the book Phil claims Tilly was still coming and going from the home later in the year. In fact on Sept 17, 1936 Tilly wrote Jacobus that he had just closed the home for good.
What do you make of that?
-
"TEP
What possible rational would there be to take his furniture and personal belongings in addition to foreclosing on his home, especially considering the circumstances at the time? The country was in a severe depression and extraordinary measures were put in place to prevent foreclosures, much less taking everything. At the time in NJ they gave the defaulting owner an additional two years to make good before the home would be sold. Did Tilly go into default in the Spring of 1936, when supposedly the house was sold, or did he go into default two years prior? That question is not addressed in Phil's story."
Tom:
What possible rational would there be to take his furniture and personal belongings in addition to foreclosing on his home?
The rationale is the failure of a homeowner or property owner to pay debts such as mortgage payments and taxes owed. What eventually results from that is a lien, in this case a tax lien on real or personal property that can and does result in foreclosure and sale of the property to satisfy the government taxes owed. Anyone with some valid equitable interest in real or personal property can record that interest on the title of real property to protect their equitable right of redemption in that property. That's why homeowners record their equitable interest in real property as do mortgage lenders (mortgagees). Tax liens almost always trump other recorded encumbrances on property such as mortgages. The latter is why most all mortgage lenders escrow tax payments on property from a mortgagor (borrower).
The true story of what happened to Tillinghast's Harrington Park house in 1936 is not going to be correctly answered by your contention that those were tough times and Tillinghast's house could not possibly have been foreclosed on. I don't even know where Harrington Park is or even what kind of taxes Tillinghast owed (federal or local real estate taxes) but I can probably guarantee you that the entire proceedings of what happened back then in 1936 is all recorded on what is known as the Title and the title run on that property. To determine that all one needs to do is go to the Recorder of Deeds probably at the Harrington Park county seat, look up that particular property's history and it would all be right there-----all the former owners, all the former encumbrances, mortgages, liens, tax liens, foreclosure proceedings, auction and sale, the name of the new owner etc etc. This is what a Title Report is all about that most any buyer and their mortgage lenders require before the settlement on real property to be sure the particular property is not in some way encumbered by someone's right of equitable redemption. This is also why most all buyers and lenders require and buy title insurance (to protect themselves and their equitable interest against the rights of redemption of someone or something with an equitable claim on the real property in question).
I'm certainly not going to go do that but if one did, that is the best way to determine what precisely happened and when and how to Tillinghast's house and property in Harrington Park.
If someone bothered to do all that and it squared with Phil Young's and the Tillinghast family story of what happened to Tilly's Harrington Park property in 1936 and you still said it makes no sense to you and could not have happened, well then, Tom MacWood, I'm afraid I really wouldn't have much idea what to say to you or about you and your ability to analyze and discuss these kinds of things on this website, other than it's pretty much all fruitless and futile.
-
Tom:
Frankly, I have not followed that closely this entire diversion of yours and Phil's into the disposition of Tillinghast's Harrington Park proprety and his debts or tax problems. And so I wonder what really is the point or importance of it. Are you once again just trying to prove someone else wrong about some detail as it seems is your general interest on here with anybody and anything going back some years? I think Bob Crosby termed that very well when he called it your on-going "Gottcha attitude."
Or are you just trying to establish some cog that eventually leads to your contention that Tillinghast was broke at or around that time and consequently was driven into some "curious transformation" ;) that led to the selling out his architectural principles by doing anything with architecture simply to make money and nothing more?
-
"TEP
What possible rational would there be to take his furniture and personal belongings in addition to foreclosing on his home, especially considering the circumstances at the time? The country was in a severe depression and extraordinary measures were put in place to prevent foreclosures, much less taking everything. At the time in NJ they gave the defaulting owner an additional two years to make good before the home would be sold. Did Tilly go into default in the Spring of 1936, when supposedly the house was sold, or did he go into default two years prior? That question is not addressed in Phil's story."
Tom:
What possible rational would there be to take his furniture and personal belongings in addition to foreclosing on his home?
The rationale is the failure of a homeowner or property owner to pay debts such as mortgage payments and taxes owed. What eventually results from that is a lien, in this case a tax lien on real or personal property that can and does result in foreclosure and sale of the property to satisfy the government taxes owed. Anyone with some valid equitable interest in real or personal property can record that interest on the title of real property to protect their equitable right of redemption in that property. That's why homeowners record their equitable interest in real property as do mortgage lenders (mortgagees). Tax liens almost always trump other recorded encumbrances on property such as mortgages. The latter is why most all mortgage lenders escrow tax payments on property from a mortgagor (borrower).
Why would they put a lien on his furniture and other personal property above and beyond his home? Are you under the impression the sale of the house would not cover the dilenquent property taxes? Have you bumped your head?
The true story of what happened to Tillinghast's Harrington Park house in 1936 is not going to be correctly answered by your contention that those were tough times and Tillinghast's house could not possibly have been foreclosed on. I don't even know where Harrington Park is or even what kind of taxes Tillinghast owed (federal or local real estate taxes) but I can probably guarantee you that the entire proceedings of what happened back then in 1936 is all recorded on what is known as the Title and the title run on that property. To determine that all one needs to do is go to the Recorder of Deeds probably at the Harrington Park county seat, look up that particular property's history and it would all be right there-----all the former owners, all the former encumbrances, mortgages, liens, tax liens, foreclosure proceedings, auction and sale, the name of the new owner etc etc. This is what a Title Report is all about that most any buyer and their mortgage lenders require before the settlement on real property to be sure the particular property is not in some way encumbered by someone's right of equitable redemption. This is also why most all buyers and lenders require and buy title insurance (to protect themselves and their equitable interest against the rights of redemption of someone or something with an equitable claim on the real property in question).
At least you appear to be acknowledging Phil's story does not add up.
I'm certainly not going to go do that but if one did, that is the best way to determine what precisely happened and when and how to Tillinghast's house and property in Harrington Park.
If someone bothered to do all that and it squared with Phil Young's and the Tillinghast family story of what happened to Tilly's Harrington Park property in 1936 and you still said it makes no sense to you and could not have happened, well then, Tom MacWood, I'm afraid I really wouldn't have much idea what to say to you or about you and your ability to analyze and discuss these kinds of things on this website, other than it's pretty much all fruitless and futile.
Why would Tilly be closing down his home in September 1936 (mentioned in his letter to Jacobus) if the house and personal property were being sold off in the spring of 1936 (as Phil claimed)? Why would Tilly be lying?
-
"Why would they put a lien on his furniture and other personal property above and beyond his home? Are you under the impression the sale of the house would not cover the dilenquent property taxes? Have you bumped your head?"
Tom:
To answer that question, one should probably determine and consider the exact nature and amount of the tax liens placed on Tillinghast's real and personal property, would you NOT think? ;)
Do you know that? Have you considered that or have you just been sort of bumping along on your head?
BTW, pretty danged amazing coloration on that question of yours. Is your hair on fire or something?
-
You know,
I've been watching these threads while sitting on the sidelines, and thats all fine and good because I know little about Tillinghast and appreciate Phillip's effort and enjoy these threads.
What I don't get though is why these kinds of threads can't just be about the man and his work? Why do some feel compelled to drag all this other stuff into the discussion? Everyone's got thier skeletons and thier struggles in thier personal life so why do these discussions always seem to turn this way?
For once can we just keep that other stuff out?
Thanks,
Kalen
-
"What I don't get though is why these kinds of threads can't just be about the man and his work? Why do some feel compelled to drag all this other stuff into the discussion? Everyone's got thier skeletons and thier struggles in thier personal life so why do these discussions always seem to turn this way?"
Kalen:
I agree with you---I don't see why these threads get into such detailed debates about all this seemingly extraneous stuff such as the details of the lose of Tillinghast real estate in NJ, tax liens, mortgage law and whether Phil Young is being consistent or the extended Tillinghast family told the truth. Not to even mention what point any of this has regarding what the man did in architecture. For answers to all that you should probably just ask the one who keeps starting these threads and asking all the questions about that. Good luck, though, getting a straight answer.
Personally, I think he raises all these issues because he is trying to make the case that due to these kinds of things Tillinghast sort of sold out on his architectural principles. You can find another thread about this very thing on the back pages that was started a couple of years ago-----eg with a title something like "Did Tillinghast sell out his architectural principles (with that PGA Tour)?"
There's that as well as this guy seems to have tried to make a career on here of pointing out how clubs, club histories, architectural historians, biographers etc, etc have made mistakes with their records and what they've written and reported. The major problem I have with this kind of thing is he only seems to be interested in using extraneous sources such as newspaper accounts and he seems either completely unwilling or unable to actually go right to the source of the subjects as the rest of us do and always have. This seems to foster a rather large degree of argumentation, adverserialness and intransigence when others begin to question is sort of one dimensional opinion and point of view.
-
Kalen,
No, every thread from here on out is about who can piss the furthest!
-
"For once can we just keep that other stuff out?"
Kalen:
Do you have what you think might be a decent proposal of how to do that?
-
"Why would they put a lien on his furniture and other personal property above and beyond his home? Are you under the impression the sale of the house would not cover the dilenquent property taxes? Have you bumped your head?"
Tom:
To answer that question, one should probably determine and consider the exact nature and amount of the tax liens placed on Tillinghast's real and personal property, would you NOT think? ;)
Do you know that? Have you considered that or have you just been sort of bumping along on your head?
BTW, pretty danged amazing coloration on that question of yours. Is your hair on fire or something?
TEP
Last time I checked property taxes were a small percentage (usually calculated in 1/1000ths) of the value of the home. In your world the sale Tillys' home would not have covered his dilenquent amount? I take it math is not your strong suit.
-
"TEP
Last time I checked property taxes were a small percentage (usually calculated in 1/1000ths) of the value of the home. In your world the sale Tillys' home would not have covered his dilenquent amount? I take it math is not your strong suit."
Tom:
Well, last time we paid the real estate taxes on this 60 acre farm in Pennsylvania they were a little less than $20,000 per year and this farm has every single Clean and Green and conservation act and tax reduction measure available on it that reduces the effective tax rate to about 20% or less of what it would be otherwise. So if this municipal entity went with your thinking and checking this farm would be worth about $50 million dollars of assessed value which is not necessarily the same thing as market value. It's valuable but not that valuable. :'( Plus, I have no doubt at all that the real estate taxes where Tillinghast lived in New Jersey were and are percentage of tax owed to assessed value (the millage rate) much higher than the semi-rural township where I live in Pennsylvania.
And not to even mention, I'm not even sure what governement entities slapped tax liens on Tillinghast's real and personal property. Do you know? What if it was not just the municipal entity that Tillinghast's REAL ESTATE property was in? What if a tax lien on his real and personal property was the Federal Goverment (which does not tax real estate property in one's lifetime)?
So I have no idea what the amount of Tillinghast's back taxes owed were or what percentage of the tax lien foreclosure/auction sale paid off----all I'm saying is with his REAL estate property in Harrington Park, NJ there is one place where any of us today can find out in real detail what it was all about for him back then in 1936 on the sale of that Harrington Park property and that would be the Recorder of Deeds probably in the county in which Tillinghast's real estate property was in back then.
That's all I'm saying here. This isn't about me acknowledging what Phil or the Tillinghast family said is right or wrong. And this isn't about my math or your math or anyone else's math. This is only about how one really can find out exactly what happened with his property in 1936 because it should all be recorded there in black and white. Is there something about that you don't understand or that makes no sense to you?
-
"For once can we just keep that other stuff out?"
Kalen:
Do you have what you think might be a decent proposal of how to do that?
Tom Paul,
I have the perfect solution. I would be endowed with the status that starts with M and ends with R...and no its not "MotherF$%^ER". ;D
These threads could indeed use some moderation on topics like this because in my opinion the valuable information that could come out otherwise on Tilly and his work shouldn't be halted just because a few rabble rousers want to stir up the muck. This kind of insight and information is just too valuable to be sabatoged in the process....all in my opinion of course!!
Sure I insert my fair share of OT comments in other threads, but would like to think I don't interrupt valuable threads like this which really should be the heart and soul of what this site is about!!!
P.S. And yes I realize this is OT of sorts, but needed to be said!
-
Kalen:
What or who exactly do you think is sabotaging the process of this thread? I, for one, am not and never have asked whether Phil and the Tillinghast family are mistaken and I have never asked about the details of Tillinghast's real and personal property and tax lien problems. Somebody else has done that all on his own. Are you suggesting that none of us should even respond to him when he asks these kinds of questions?
If so, Kalen, THAT, might be a damn fine proposal afterall. ;)
-
Kalen:
What or who exactly do you think is sabotaging the process of this thread? I, for one, am not and never have asked whether Phil and the Tillinghast family are mistaken and I have never asked about the details of Tillinghast's real and personal property and tax lien problems. Somebody else has done that all on his own. Are you suggesting that none of us should even respond to him when he asks these kinds of questions?
If so, Kalen, THAT, might be a damn fine proposal afterall. ;)
Tom Paul,
I think everyone knows who the saboteur is, including him. I don't doubt his intellect for one second and think he knows full well what he is doing.
As for responding to it, I understand its tough to resist, but if the Merion threads have taught us anything, it sometimes laying off is a good thing...especially when you know the other side of the arguement is way off into the weeds.
-
"Why would Tilly be closing down his home in September 1936 (mentioned in his letter to Jacobus) if the house and personal property were being sold off in the spring of 1936 (as Phil claimed)? Why would Tilly be lying?"
Tom:
That too may be able to be found at the recorder of deeds. It is not at all unusual in certain cases in something like a foreclosure sale for the former owner (title holder) to be given even some months to vacate. I have no idea how that Tillinghast Harrington Park foreclosure and auction sale was performed but if it was done through some Court of Equity that too is probably all still recorded. I believe New Jersey was or still is one of the states that maintained some distinction between a court of equity and a court of law.
That could probably explain what Tillinghast said to Jacobus in September 1936 about his house.
-
Even though I have little to no standing in this court,I agree with Kalen.
If Phillip Young is willing to take the time to post all this stuff,why not first say "thank you" before trying to inflict some kind of death by a thousand small cuts?People are trying to learn about Tillinghast's golf courses not whether he's qualified for sainthood.
Maybe a solution would be to allow him to post the entire Tillinghast tour and then answer questions or have people present opposing facts and/or opinions.
-
So Kalen, what exactly are you saying there? Please be clear about it. Are you saying you think it is pointless for me or anyone else on here to even respond to Tom MacWood's constant questioning about Tillinghast's financial problems in 1936 including mortgage and tax lien details?
If you don't want to get into a simple yes or no to the second question will do. ;)
-
So Kalen, what exactly are you saying there? Please be clear about it. Are you saying you think it is pointless for me or anyone else on here to even respond to Tom MacWood's constant questioning about Tillinghast's financial problems in 1936 including mortgage and tax lien details?
If you don't want to get into a simple yes or no to the second question will do. ;)
Tom in simple terms, my answer is Yes. If it isn't true, then whats the point debating it? At some point its like debating Santa Claus....there is nothing to debate right? ;D
-
Phil, PHIL; PHILIP; PHILIP YOUNG, do you hear me Goddamnit to Hell???
Just look at what Kalen and Jeff just said! Get back on here on the Tilly Consultation Tour thread that is now on page three with the last post by MacWood that must have been some kind of death knell. He wanted to know what Tilly thought of Macdonald or at least why he never criticized Macdonald until after he was dead. I don't know what Tilly really thought of Charlie----you probably know that better than me but I do know that from around 1922 on Charlie said he thought everyone was a damn idiot and I have that in writing. ;)
WE will endeavor to shitcan this diversionary "Curious Tilly Transformation" thread if you will continue with your thread on Tilly's PGA Consultation Tour thread and/or continue with Tilly on architecture and not financial and mortgage and tax lien problems.
Get crackin' Bud, and if Tom MacWood tries to divert you we will all endeavor to simply ignore his inconsequential diversionary questions and grillings.
PS:
What is the official spelling of Tilly? Is it Tilly or Tillie or didn't he care? Did anyone ever call him like Albert or Al or A.W.? ;)
-
Phil, PHIL; PHILIP; PHILIP YOUNG, do you hear me Goddamnit to Hell???
Just look at what Kalen and Jeff just said! Get back on here on the Tilly Consultation Tour thread that is now on page three with the last post by MacWood that must have been some kind of death knell. He wanted to know what Tilly thought of Macdonald or at least why he never criticized Macdonald until after he was dead. I don't know what Tilly really thought of Charlie----you probably know that better than me but I do know that from around 1922 on Charlie said he thought everyone was a damn idiot and I have that in writing. ;)
WE will endeavor to shitcan this diversionary "Curious Tilly Transformation" thread if you will continue with your thread on Tilly's PGA Consultation Tour thread and/or continue with Tilly on architecture and not financial and mortgage and tax lien problems.
Get crackin' Bud, and if Tom MacWood tries to divert you we will all endeavor to simply ignore his inconsequential diversionary questions and grillings.
PS:
What is the official spelling of Tilly? Is it Tilly or Tillie or didn't he care? Did anyone ever call him like Albert or Al or A.W.? ;)
Here here...I second the motion. Crack those knuckles and get back to work!! ;D
-
Screw Phillip and Tillie's Magical Mystery Tour.
When will Pat Mucci get back to his enchanted journey around NGLA?When we last left him,I think he was on the 6th tee.This could be the mother of all slow play penalties.
-
"Tom in simple terms, my answer is Yes. If it isn't true, then whats the point debating it? At some point its like debating Santa Claus....there is nothing to debate right? ;D"
Kalen:
If what isn't true? Your Yes? Do you mean if your Yes isn't true what's the point debating Your Yes? If we debate whether your Yes isn't true, you say at some point it's like debating Santa Claus?! Do you mean Santa Claus's Yes or Santa Claus himself?
Perhaps first we may need to bring in some of our best word parsers and debate for awhile what "Yes" and "Santa Claus" means to various people. Maybe they mean the same thing and maybe they don't. What if we can't get a consensus on that? Personally, I never really saw that much similarity between "Yes" and "Santa Claus" but maybe that's just me and not you? We should debate that for a while too, I think. Frankly, I never gave that much thougbht to some similarity between "Yes" and "Santa Claus." Stupid me, I guess, huh? It actually does sound like quite the epistemological question for sure.
And you said: "In simple terms, my answer is Yes."
But what if we go beyond simple terms and get into some complex terms? What is your answer going to be then----something like "No" or "Maybe" or perhaps "Just because?"
Come on Kalen, you know we get into some highly intellectual and pretty tricky shit on here, so Man Up and deal with it would you please?
By the way, what the hell kinda name is Kalen anyway? I can't get a good enough fix on it to get comfortable with you. If you don't want to tell me in extreme detail what kind of name Kalen is just tell me if you've ever had dreams about being either a dictator or a communist. That will do fine for me for now but by the end of the year I damn well demand to know which end of the spectrum you and your name are on----the dictator end or the communist end. I can actually live with either, believe it or not, but if I find out you're one of those golf architectural Taliban-dits you will be in some seriously deep shit one of these days.
-
"Tom in simple terms, my answer is Yes. If it isn't true, then whats the point debating it? At some point its like debating Santa Claus....there is nothing to debate right? ;D"
Kalen:
If what isn't true? Your Yes? Do you mean if your Yes isn't true what's the point debating Your Yes? If we debate whether your Yes isn't true, you say at some point it's like debating Santa Claus?! Do you mean Santa Claus's Yes or Santa Claus himself?
Perhaps first we may need to bring in some of our best word parsers and debate for awhile what "Yes" and "Santa Claus" means to various people. Maybe they mean the same thing and maybe they don't. What if we can't get a consensus on that? Personally, I never really saw that much similarity between "Yes" and "Santa Claus" but maybe that's just me and not you? We should debate that for a while too, I think. Frankly, I never gave that much thougbht to some similarity between "Yes" and "Santa Claus." Stupid me, I guess, huh? It actually does sound like quite the epistemological question for sure.
And you said: "In simple terms, my answer is Yes."
But what if we go beyond simple terms and get into some complex terms? What is your answer going to be then----something like "No" or "Maybe" or perhaps "Just because?"
Come on Kalen, you know we get into some highly intellectual and pretty tricky shit on here, so Man Up and deal with it would you please?
By the way, what the hell kinda name is Kalen anyway? I can't get a good enough fix on it to get comfortable with you. If you don't want to tell me in extreme detail what kind of name Kalen is just tell me if you've ever had dreams about being either a dictator or a communist. That will do fine for me for now but by the end of the year I damn well demand to know which end of the spectrum you and your name are on----the dictator end or the communist end. I can actually live with either, believe it or not, but if I find out you're one of those golf architectural Taliban-dits you will be in some seriously deep shit one of these days.
Tom Paul,
1st things 1st...lay off the juice till a little later in the day OK?
2nd - Well said, and I can't debate that. I am now utterly convinced that you are not only Waynes daddy and he is your piss-boy, but the same must also be true of Pat as well. Surely you taught him everything he knows and then some!! ;D
3rd - Supposedly my name is found somewhere in the Old Testament of the Bible, but I can't confirm this as well I've never read it! Either way it is tricky and has confused many a person cause it really can go either way. Matter of fact I've seen more Girls variations like Kalin, Kaylin, etc.
4th - Enough of this OT stuff and lets give Phil some more encourgement to get back in the water....its still nice and warm. Cmon, Phil, you can do it! ;)
-
"3rd - Supposedly my name is found somewhere in the Old Testament of the Bible, but I can't confirm this as well I've never read it! Either way it is tricky and has confused many a person cause it really can go either way. Matter of fact I've seen more Girls variations like Kalin, Kaylin, etc."
If you can't confirm it my suggestion to you would be to get in touch with Tom MacWood and get him to see if he can find the name in like an old newspaper article from around 66 BC in the Canaan Gazetter or some comparable newspaper from the Holy Lands.
"1st things 1st...lay off the juice till a little later in the day OK?"
Don't you worry about that, my boy. I have never in my life hit the juice until the moon is well over the jabberwuffy.
-
"Screw Phillip and Tillie's Magical Mystery Tour.
When will Pat Mucci get back to his enchanted journey around NGLA?When we last left him,I think he was on the 6th tee.This could be the mother of all slow play penalties."
Jeff:
That is not likely to happen. Mucci knows damn well if he even tries to leave the 6th green and proceed to that nonsensical 7th tee addition idea of his which would be practically on top of the 12th green that I will be out there on the right side of that hole hiding in what should have been Macdonald's Road Hole railroad shed replication, and I while bushwack his ass once and for all and that will be the total end of him on here!
-
"Screw Phillip and Tillie's Magical Mystery Tour.
When will Pat Mucci get back to his enchanted journey around NGLA?When we last left him,I think he was on the 6th tee.This could be the mother of all slow play penalties."
Jeff:
That is not likely to happen. Mucci knows damn well if he even tries to leave the 6th green and proceed to that nonsensical 7th tee addition idea of his which would be practically on top of the 12th green that I will be out there on the right side of that hole hiding in what should have been Macdonald's Road Hole railroad shed replication, and I while bushwack his ass once and for all and that will be the total end of him on here!
All well and good,but I've never played NGLA and I want to at least see hole-by-hole pictures.Why don't you and he continue the tour in a Siskel/Ebert-type commentary?That way,you can easily point out his obvious misinterpretations of CBM.
You can always wait to bushwhack him until after he's putted out at 18.
-
"You can always wait to bushwhack him until after he's putted out at 18."
If I actually waited until he putted out on 18 that would not technically be a bushwack; that would be more like one of those human sacrifice jobs like when the Mayans threw all those dumb smucks off the top of the temple to their death on the rock below.
-
smucks
If I convert to Episcopalian,do I have to forgo Yiddish fluency AND give back my bar mitzvah gifts?
You know,the upshot of this bullshit is that we've probably ruined anyone's attempt to jump back into a discussion of whether or not Tillinghast was transformed.A massive thread derailment.
So,we've got that going for us.
-
"smucks
If I convert to Episcopalian,do I have to forgo Yiddish fluency AND give back my bar mitzvah gifts?"
Jeff:
A smuck is a word Episcopalians use for people who have backbones like jam or jelly like in Smuckers. What is a Schmuck or Shmuck?
As far as derailing this thread, don't worry about it----a momentary humorous diversion is a whole lot better any day than arguing about tax liens on property in New Jersey in 1936! ;)
And what the hell is the deal with this giving back of your Bar Mitzvah gifts? Is this like a really big fear or concern or something or are you really looking to unload them? If it's the latter then just bring 'em all up here to the Walker Cup and I'll take them all off your hands. I'll basically take anything and if I don't like them I'll just pawn 'em.
And tell me something about Bar Mitzvahs. If they are anything like that outrageous Fernanda Wanamaker Wetherill deb party in Southampton Long Island I went to back in '63 and consequently got indicted for I want to go to every Bar Mitzvah I can find.
-
And tell me something about Bar Mitzvahs. If they are anything like that outrageous Fernanda Wanamaker Wetherill deb party in Southampton Long Island I went to back in '63 and consequently got indicted for I want to go to every Bar Mitzvah I can find.
The only differences I can think of would be that bar mitzvahs probably have less drinking and fewer goyim-other than that,the same.Just guessing,but I doubt that there were many deb party/bar mitzvah scheduling conflicts in Southampton in 1963.
That said,at the time,my 2 best presents were a Mickey Mantle baseball glove and a dozen Spalding Dots.You can't have the glove and the Dots are probably still scattered around various hazards in Memphis.
I'll consider trading the glove for a date with Fern.If things work out between us,we'll have you over for our first Christmas/Hanukkah party.
-
"I'll consider trading the glove for a date with Fern."
Trading the Mickey Mantle glove for a date with Fern? Well don't offer to trade it to me if I get you a date with Fern. I'll just call her up and tell her there's a guy from Memphis who is willing to trade a Mickey Mantle glove for a date. I don't exactly remember it's been so many years now but it is very possible that Fern might get extremely turned on by a Mickey Mantle baseball glove or by getting an actual MM baseball glove for a standard Southampton or Palm Beach regulation hot date. Would you like me to ask her what exactly she needs to do for you during this hot date for the MM glove or would you prefer to ask her yourself at the time?
Aaah, Jeff, do I need to remind you that all those Fern stories and such were from back in the 1960s when we were all about 17 and 18 and 19 and early 20s? We are all in our 60s now! :'( ;) ::) :-*
-
You know,
I've been watching these threads while sitting on the sidelines, and thats all fine and good because I know little about Tillinghast and appreciate Phillip's effort and enjoy these threads.
What I don't get though is why these kinds of threads can't just be about the man and his work? Why do some feel compelled to drag all this other stuff into the discussion? Everyone's got thier skeletons and thier struggles in thier personal life so why do these discussions always seem to turn this way?
For once can we just keep that other stuff out?
Thanks,
Kalen
Kalen
Since your suggestion I see about a page and a half of other stuff.
By the way I started this thread, not Phil, and it was started separately so as not to divert his thread on Tilly's tour. If you are interested in getting that thread back on track making a post to that effect might be a good idea. Here it is:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40971.70/
As far as this thread is concerned, if you or TEP see no good reason to delve into Tilly's financial problems no one is forcing either one of you to post.
-
You know,
I've been watching these threads while sitting on the sidelines, and thats all fine and good because I know little about Tillinghast and appreciate Phillip's effort and enjoy these threads.
What I don't get though is why these kinds of threads can't just be about the man and his work? Why do some feel compelled to drag all this other stuff into the discussion? Everyone's got thier skeletons and thier struggles in thier personal life so why do these discussions always seem to turn this way?
For once can we just keep that other stuff out?
Thanks,
Kalen
Kalen
Since your suggestion I see about a page and a half of other stuff.
By the way I started this thread, not Phil, and it was started separately so as not to divert his thread on Tilly's tour. If you are interested in getting that thread back on track making a post to that effect might be a good idea. Here it is:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40971.70/
As far as this thread is concerned, if you or TEP see no good reason to delve into Tilly's financial problems no one is forcing either one of you to post.
Tom,
Thats all fine and good, but it doesn't seem to be the reason why you started this thread..and you did bring it up with the "desperate times called for desperate measures" dig.
I will agree that Tillie and his work should carry on in the other thread(s).
Kalen
-
"As far as this thread is concerned, if you or TEP see no good reason to delve into Tilly's financial problems no one is forcing either one of you to post."
Tom:
I don't really see any good reason to delve into Tilly's financial problems the way you're trying to discuss it by denying that what he went through with his real and personal problems makes no sense at all. Of course it makes sense, and was something that very much happened back then even if you try to deny it. I think this arguing about tax liens and foreclosures and such is fairly inconsequential anyway to Tillinghast's life and times in golf architecture.
It's pretty apparent you bring up these inconsequential points to try to support and supplement your real point which is it all adds up to the fact that he was desperate and broke in the 1930s and therefore did things on that PGA Tour that diverged from his real or original principles about golf course architecture generally.
You tried to make that point on here years ago and you're trying to make it again on these threads. To whatever degree most just don't seem to agree with you so for that reason I think Kalen and I agreed what is the point of discussing this kind of financial minutae with you? I'm willing to stop discussing it with you, Kalen seems willing to stop, Cirba, Young, Crosby don't want to continue with you anymore so I'm not sure who is at this point. But if you want to continue good luck to you, I hope for your sake there is someone left willing to do it.
-
Screw Phillip and Tillie's Magical Mystery Tour.
When will Pat Mucci get back to his enchanted journey around NGLA?
When we last left him,I think he was on the 6th tee.
This could be the mother of all slow play penalties.
JMEvensky,
I haven't forgotten, I've just been too busy to devote the time necessary to make sure that I do the descriptions justice.
If Hurricane Dan takes up residence off the coast and washes out any prospects of golf this weekend, I'll try to continue the journey.
Some of my favorite holes lie ahead.
Could you do me a favor and bring the thread back to the first page.
Thanks
-
"Screw Phillip and Tillie's Magical Mystery Tour.
When will Pat Mucci get back to his enchanted journey around NGLA?When we last left him,I think he was on the 6th tee.This could be the mother of all slow play penalties."
Jeff:
That is not likely to happen.
Mucci knows damn well if he even tries to leave the 6th green and proceed to that nonsensical 7th tee addition idea of his which would be practically on top of the 12th green that I will be out there on the right side of that hole hiding in what should have been Macdonald's Road Hole railroad shed replication, and I while bushwack his ass once and for all and that will be the total end of him on here!
JMEvensky,
TEPaul has a terrible time with spacial relationships, much more so than his relationships with dogs, women and custodians/guards.
The extending of the 7th tee, back towards the existing footpad that exists jush shy of Whites Lane would bring the right side bunker complex back into play for the longer hitters who can currently disregard that feature, a feature that replaced the RR Sheds/Hotel in CBM's version of the "Road Hole"
If you'll just go to "Google Earth" you can see that the 7th tee has room to be extended back toward Whites Lane.
But, I'll get to that when describing hole # 7.
-
"The extending of the 7th tee, back towards the existing footpad that exists jush shy of Whites Lane would bring the right side bunker complex back into play for the longer hitters who can currently disregard that feature, a feature that replaced the RR Sheds/Hotel in CBM's version of the "Road Hole""
You got that right Patrick! If NGLA has the lack of sense to take you seriously and add that tee on #7 back there, that tee shot LZ on the right where that smuck Macdonald should've put replicated railroad sheds is precisely where I will be lying in wait to totally bushwack your ass!
-
TEPaul,
I'll have to look at it again when I next visit, but that location is the ideal location to construct a dual tee, one for the 7th hole and one for the 13th hole.
You may recall that I suggested that CBM attempted to craft two distinct approaches into the 13th green at NGLA, one replicating the approach to # 7 at TOC and the other replicating the approach to # 11 at TOC.
The extending and melding of a back tee on # 7 with a new tee back and left of the 12th green for # 13 (replicating the approach into # 7 at TOC) would be the ideal configuration.
Simply playing # 4 as a par 4 is NOT a viable solution since it allows the golfer, the long hitter, to simply ignore CBM's wonderful right side bunker complex amongst the faux dunes. Extending the tee returns that complex into play, as it was always intended.
What you DON'T understand is that flying that complex provides the golfer with the ideal approach angle into that diagonal green, whereas, if the golfer has to drive left, rather than over it, his angle of attack is into the diagonal green, not along its axis which makes for a far easier approach. That green is about 43 yards deep, meaning that the golfer who flies the "hotel" bunker complex has that entire 43 yards at his disposal on his approach, whereas, if the drive is forced left, the golfer doesn't have the entire 43 yards of green to work with, he must attack the green from a less desirable angle into a much narrower target, probably 10 to 20 yards at most, and, he must contend with the "road hole" fronting bunker and the deep bunker at the entire right flank of the green, which, from that angle is the back of the green.
I realize, that without your faithful companion, Coorshaw, you're at a loss to understand these blatant and nuanced differences created by extending the tee back towards Whites Lane.
Today, a carry of less than 250 clears the entire right side "hotel" bunker complex
Taking the tee back 20-30-40 yards would radically alter play and return the play of the hole to CBM's intended strategy.
In my monthly conversation with CBM, I mentioned that you were opposed to my suggestion.
To which CBM responded, "What the "F" does he know ? He's a farmer from Philadelphia and a fanatical Merion/Flynnophile, tell him to stay on the west bank of the Delaware and leave the sophisticated design concepts to us. Next he'll be telling everyone that I had little or nothing to do with Merion" ;D
-
"As far as this thread is concerned, if you or TEP see no good reason to delve into Tilly's financial problems no one is forcing either one of you to post."
Tom:
I don't really see any good reason to delve into Tilly's financial problems the way you're trying to discuss it by denying that what he went through with his real and personal problems makes no sense at all. Of course it makes sense, and was something that very much happened back then even if you try to deny it. I think this arguing about tax liens and foreclosures and such is fairly inconsequential anyway to Tillinghast's life and times in golf architecture.
It's pretty apparent you bring up these inconsequential points to try to support and supplement your real point which is it all adds up to the fact that he was desperate and broke in the 1930s and therefore did things on that PGA Tour that diverged from his real or original principles about golf course architecture generally.
You tried to make that point on here years ago and you're trying to make it again on these threads. To whatever degree most just don't seem to agree with you so for that reason I think Kalen and I agreed what is the point of discussing this kind of financial minutae with you? I'm willing to stop discussing it with you, Kalen seems willing to stop, Cirba, Young, Crosby don't want to continue with you anymore so I'm not sure who is at this point. But if you want to continue good luck to you, I hope for your sake there is someone left willing to do it.
TEP
Cirba, Young, and Crosby can speak for themselves, but if I was in their shoes I might do the same thing. Thankfully there are many others honestly interested in uncovering the truth, whatever it may be. Golf architecture history is a fascinating subject.
As far as denying what Tilly went through I think you have me confused with Phil, and yourself. Phil is the one who has come up with this story that Tilly was a victim of a financially strapped landlord and got there just in a nick of time to repurchase all his belongings. That story fits in nicely with his contention Tilly did not dramatically alter his architectural philosophy due to the fact he was at the end of his rope.
And you are the one who is unable to put Tilly's property tax situation in an historical context...you seem to be oblivious to what was going on in the country at the time, and what extraordinary measures were being taken to help the average Joe.
-
Dream on Tom MacWood. If there are any discussants left on here for you on subjects like Merion, Myopia, Tillinghast etc, why don't we just see?
-
TEP
One day you will understand the subject is much broader than you realize.
-
This is getting very old. While I disagree with much of Tommy Mac's analysis and how he approaches subjects in a cloak and dagger maner, at least he is playing the game with proper contributions. TPaul, you are like an airborne disease caught on a breeze. Any thread you participate in is infected with nonsense. Give it a rest already. We get it. You don't like Tommy Mac.
Ciao
-
TMac,
I guess I am not sure I have ever seen your explanation of why you think the change was "curious." While you say that others don't understand the era, I guess I don't see that an era with even profounder economic slide than now wouldn' have anyone reassess the role of a heavily bunkered course.
I also wonder if ANGC had something to do with it in pure architectural theory. If the most highly acclaimed course of the 30's had opened to rave reviews and had only 28 bunkers, wouldn't that have affected Tillie's view point? If it got rave reviews with so few bunkers, but would be his justification circa 1935 for sticking with a more heavily bunkered golf course design recommendation?
Looked at in even broader terms, was Tillie a trend follower rather than trend setter in the 30's? How about the 20's and teens? Was there a Tillie course that set a trend for a decade or more, or was he merely a very competent gca who fell in with the times?
-
Jeff
As I said in reply #11 to you, the word 'curious' was used tongue and cheak. I think it is obvious why Tilly went from designing the heavily bunkered Bethpage-Black one day and advocating bunker free zones the next.
Based upon Tilly's article written for the PGA magazine at the time of his bunker removal tour Tom Simpson appears to be his biggest influence regarding limited bunkering.
I said TEP did not understanding the economic realities of the time, and what was being done to prevent widespread foreclosures. The only reason he is trying to defend Phils' illogical story is because I'm the one claiming the story makes no sense.
Ironically Bethpage-Black and ANGC opened around the same time. And even though ANGC only had around 30 bunkers, there were a number of bunkers in Tilly's Duffer Zone. Due to economincs and war I don't believe ANGC set any trend. Off the top of my head I can't think of any Tilly course that was trend setting.
-
"I said TEP did not understanding the economic realities of the time, and what was being done to prevent widespread foreclosures. The only reason he is trying to defend Phils' illogical story is because I'm the one claiming the story makes no sense."
This is why it's a waste of time trying to discuss these things with Tom MacWood. I already said a couple of times that I am not defending Phil Young or his story, all I'm doing is pointing out if anyone really wants to find out the details of what happened to Tillinghast's real estate property in Harrington Park, NJ, all they need to do is go to the Recorder of Deeds in that County. IF (that is an "IF" Tom MacWood and not an acknowledgement on my part, a difference you seem to continuously fail to understand) that Harrington Park, NJ property of Tillinghast's had a tax lien on it and consequently went into foreclosure and an auction sale it would ALL be recorded at the County Recorder of Deeds.
That is all I'm saying or have said. Is it any wonder Tom MacWood keeps saying these things make no sense to him? It appears for whatever the reason he is incapable of grasping some pretty basic real estate, tax lien, mortgage law and economic realities which includes the fact that most all these things are ALL recorded at the local Recorder of Deeds (I doubt MacWood has even been inside a Recorder of Deeds office; he may not even understand what they are or that they exist). Frankly if anyone is even remotely interested in this subplot to these Tillinghast threads they should simply call up any recorder of deeds office anywhere, particularly in New Jersey (where Harrington Park is) and ask them if there were foreclosure sales in 1936 or in the mid 1930s. That would definitely shoot down MacWood's nonsensical notion and contention that they were all suspended during the depression due to economic realities. ;)
Tom, for you to say the only reason I'm responding to this subject is because it is you is most definitely flattering yourself. Just about everyone has already stopped responding simply because it IS you!
-
"And you are the one who is unable to put Tilly's property tax situation in an historical context...you seem to be oblivious to what was going on in the country at the time, and what extraordinary measures were being taken to help the average Joe."
Tom:
Do you really not understand what I am saying here? If one goes to the Recorder of Deeds in the county of Harrington Park NJ and looks up the title history of that property Tillinghast owned, it would be recorded in detail what happened, how and with and by whom in 1936. It has to be IF what Phil and the Tillinghast family said is true. If none of it is recorded in the county recorder of deeds of Harrington Park NJ then it probably didn't happen or didn't happen as Phil and the Tillinghast family said it did.
What is it exactly about any of that that does not make any sense to you?
-
TMac,
I do remember your reply 11.
I have just returned from my morning walk in a park next door. Opened just a few years ago, it had several detail planting areas which always struck me as odd because I came out of LA school in the 70's, when it was clear that costs kept such detailed items from being included. Parks were trees and lawns, because that is easiest and cheapest to maintain. Somehow, a generation of LA's and Park Directors, who came up in the good times, have let themselves forget that maintenance cost is an important part of design. I noticed that they were removing said landscape areas in droves for cost reasons.
In my career, I have never forgotten the maintenance aspect of design. I figure if its too hard to maintain, it will eventually go away, whatever other design merits it had. There is no such thing as "pure design" in the real world. Cost is a factor for all but a select few courses.
My point it, I still don't think Tilly turned away from any design principle of his. He may have modified it to fit the times. Or, he may have ALWAYS had the "first" principle of giving the client what they wanted, and it was simply the needs of the clients that had changed.