Tom MacWood's Bethpage Mystery is posted

[Ran Morrissett]

...under In My Opinion.

As we saw in his Arts and Crafts Golf document, few golf writers today have Tom's ability to a) perform research and b) connect the dots.

In another such example, Tom outlines why the principal credit for Bethpage Black should still reside with Tillinghast.

Hope you enjoy this timely and well researched piece.

Cheers,

[Jeff_Lewis]

Genuine scholarship. Bravo Tom.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Great work Tom, you answered a number of questions, namely why the Blue/Yellow routings are so different in character and quality from the Black and Red routings. The sequencing and use of the land on the Black is for me, the course's best design feature, and it's hard to envision any but a handful of architects coming up with something that good. Not that this undermines Burbeck's role, it just reinforces the importance of Tillinghast in the outcome of the Black.

[BCrosby]

First rate Tom.  Thanks.  I think your conclusions are exactly right.  

Robert Caro's background about governmental entities hiring architects and engineers during the Depression explains a lot about the nature of Tillie's connection with the Bethpage project.  Yours is the kind of research this topic needed.

You da' man.

Bob

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Thanks for the wonderfully-researched essay.  

I'm not sure I'm ready to form a determination yet, but it would seem to me that listing Tillinghast and Burbeck as co-designers is the responsible, fair thing unless more is uncovered.

  

[Rick Shefchik]

Tom:

More than anything I've read previously, your investigation makes sense of the timeline that has previously seemed so muddled. Thank you for providing some clarity to the issue.

For those who haven't read Tom's piece, he has found that work had indeed begun at Bethpage before Tillie was hired -- but he found no documentation that the work involved the Black or the Red.

If Ron Whitten has more to go on than you've presented, I'd sure like to know what it is -- and at this point, I'd be surprised.

[George Pazin]

Now that's research!

It's hard to imagine that Whitten uncovered more (or, more accurately, as much) & for some reason didn't present it. Too bad most journalism these days seems to have lost its desired objectivity.

The Pinehurst Corporation will probably be filing suit against Joe Jr. any day now....

[JAMIE_BLACK]

Tom

Great work. An intriguing and well written essay.

You just wish that Burbeck or Tillie could have just blurted out "I designed" in any one of those many column inches and interviews devoted to Bethpage. I really can't decide who I would label "architect".

"...no course in America has been so much discussed in past years as the Black Course at Bethpage Park".

It seems ridiculous from all that coverage that the man responsible for it's design was never identified.

Thanks Tom

[A_Clay_Man]

Wonderful, insightful and practical interpretation of what the realities probably were.

I just have one question of the author;

Who helped you research and write the piece?

I'm sure the use of the word 'we' in the first part of your conclusion was well placed.


Author, Author

 

[Rick Wolffe]

Tom

Thank you for putting the time and effort into your wonderful well researched and well written essay.

It is a great piece!
One thing that may be of interest to add.  You noted that July was the last issue of Golf Illustrated.  We have a Tilly letter from 1942 when he sold his golf art and book collection to a friend.  In that letter Tillie provides an inventory of the collection and points out that includes an August 1935 issue of Golf Illustrated that never went to press.

One small errata, Chester Kirk of NYC was architect of Baltusrol's clubhouse.  I do not have much on Kirk and what studio he may have worked out of, and if he was affiliated with Wendehack.  Any info or leads on him would be appreciated.

Rick
 

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

Great stuff!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Thanks for the kind words. In a way I really didn't do the research myself, I relied on many that have done unbelievable research before me -- like Robert Caro, Rick Wolffe, Herb Graffis and especially Ron Whitten. There is no way I would have attempted to do this research and put this on paper if it weren't for the excellent research done by Whitten and the subsequent article. He (Ron) and the article more or less inspired me to look into this story.

I also believe with all the information (and no clear cut evidence), that there is plenty of room of interpretation and differences of opinion. I just tried to present what I thought was the most logical scenerio.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

That really is great research---or as you said you really didn't do the research--those others did--but what you do best is take that researched evidence and analyze it intelligently without seeming to "advocate" any particular conclusion!

Like Mike Cirba, I don't know at this point if I'd draw conclusions--yet--but the things that seem to come through in what you presented is some very interesting and very consistent information from Tillinghast himself!

Clearly he had some very complimentary things to say about Burbeck, consistently, but as to what exactly he did with him Tillinghast never was specific.

I think the interview with Lester Rice that you presented is also very interesting--something we very much needed to see and as you and I mentioned on the phone was the only time I can see in this entire Bethpage situation when anyone was ever "identified" in print as "the architect" and "the designer"!

But why did that happen in the 1937 Rice article? Was it Burbeck himself looking for credit and attribution for Bethpage or was that the way it was? Whatever it was, as you mentioned (on the phone), that attribution appeared not to last beyond that point (1937) and you also surmised from that point on Tillinghast seems to become known as the architect although there is no direct evidence of how or why. Did Burbeck go too far in what he said in that article? His use in that article of the term "we" is also interesting!

It clearly appears from what young Burbeck JR said recently about the later feelings within his family that his father was not happy with the way things turned out but it also appears that Tillinghast viewed his relationship with Burbeck as one of a very successful collaboration of some kind!

Your assumptions of why the park commission (and depression-era agencies) may have referred to Tillinghast as "a consultant" is also very interesting! It makes good sense but they would have had to have gotten Tillinghast to also buy into that term and phrase too, wouldn't they, because it appears more than once that's the way Tillinghast refers to himself in the Bethpage situation?

[Ed_Baker]

Another shining example of why this site is the best, Thank You Tom,very well done.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom- That was quite scholarly and thorough. The conclusions you reached at the end were exactly those that I have posted here before.  That is that the Black course is clearly a Tillinghast design but the greens (many of them at least) must have been done by Berbeck.

Why then in the end do you go and ruin it.  Nowhere in the article based on this very contentious topic do you feel it necessary to use BOLD text until you throw in a statement totally unrelated to the topic of the article.

You state
The bunker outlines and shapes are clearly that of Tillinghast. Many are protruding into play or diagonally crossing the fairways. And there are a number of Sahara like hazards - no doubt due to the Pine Valley theme all reflective of Tillinghast unfortunately the Tillinghast look has been ignored and disfigured in the recent remodeling. All that is missing are his greens.

Your constant harping on this topic from someone who has never seen or played the course pre or post restoration is the antithesis of your scholarly writing.  Again I ask you to POST all of those 1938 photos of the bunkers on the black course.  Where are the ground level photos of the diagonally crossing bunkers and Sahara like hazards you refer to and that you think are so different today? If you are going by the photos in ROTL then that just doesn't cut it as there are no quality ground level images of the black course from that era that show the bunkers in detail.

If you are going to be a scholar then do ALL the research.

[TEPaul]

Do you think maybe this last post and answers to it could be moved into it's own topic thread?

[GeoffreyC]

Tom- no - I really don't want to start this discussion over again.  It will turn into a never ending contest of who will get in the last word.

I only wanted to be sure to point out that it was an excellent article BUT he seemingly can't help but throw in that statement in bold that has NOTHING TO DO with the topic of the article.

I for one am planning to enjoy the Black course this week.  It looked spectacular yesterday and I'm going back to see the first round tomorrow.  I'll enjoy actually playing there shortly and I'll leave the further discussion to those who want to look at pictures.

If you want a traditionalist's view of how the course looks please ask Paul Turner. He saw Bethpage for the first time (IN PERSON!) yesterday.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Geoffrey
I'm glad you liked the essay (with the exception of the single bold sentence). I made it bold so no one would miss it. I actually added it later after the essay was completed.

After I finished the essay, I began to think it might be useful to describe Tillinghast's architectural charateristics and to point out there existance of those characteristics at Bethpage. And so I did, adding that part near the end. It was after I wrote those paragraphs that I decided to add the disclaimer and I did so for two reasons.

First because of my interest in golf architecture and the historical aspects of golf architecture (including preservation and historically accurate restoration). I am very sensative to accurate representations, and the opposite, inaccurate representations. There have been many reports that Bethpage underwent a restoration. Bethpage undertook a renovation and remodeling. I didn't want to contribute to that idea.

The other related reason, I just finished making my case about Tillinghast's style and that style at Bethpage. And since I didn't include any scanned photos and I didn't want anyone to get the wrong image of either based on what they see today. I didn't want the unsuspecting to look at some of the bunkering at Bethpage and mistakenly confuse it with something Tillinghast created.  

In hindsight I may have added to the confusion; adding that sentence probably was a bad idea. People might have gotten the wrong idea that none of the bunkering is Tillinghast's, when there are still original bunkers remaining -- like the 'Sahara' bunkers on the 5th and 7th.

But on the other hand I did detail Tillinghast's typical style, hoping that if one saw something at Bethpage out of character, there wouldn't be confusion, identifying the non-Tillie from the Tillie. Unfortuately I must have been unclear because I confused you (the Sahara bunkers have changed very little). I also wanted to note the existance of the non-Tillie bunkers -- especially the many with exagerated or prominant capes and bays -- that contradicted my discriptions in the essay.

I see that even noting the existance of non-Tillie bunkers at Bethpage is a little dicey among those most ardent Bethpage supporters and/or those advocates of the remodeler. I proably should have left sleeping dogs lie. Just bring them up will send this thread, my essay and the subject matter careening off into a huge unrealted pissing contest.

I agree if your goal is to judge or rate a golf course, it is without question necessary to play the golf course. I had no interest in commenting on the quality of these courses. On the other hand if you are going to analyze and characterize a past architect's works (useful in determining attribution) or if you are studying the evolution of a golf course, it is impossible to due so without the assistance of photographs (I take it you are not a big fan of 'Missing Links').

I wish I had a scanner, I could have (and probably should have) added photos. Photos from from the three Tillinghast books (as well as a number of old magazines) to represent his style.  The Bethapge map from Tillinghast Book #2. The aerial from 1938 which clearly shows what the course as it looked originally. There are a number of quality ground photos from the 30's other than those seen in "Remberance of the Links". Do you think I made up my findings or do you doubt these photos exist? Do you think the essay and its conclusions are less valid without photos? Which conslusion do you question? Or is the essay invalid because I haven't played the golf course? What is your point?

By the way, the aerial in ROTL is not an earial. I had always thought it looked a little odd. And the map evidently is actually from 1934 and I suspect the so-called aerial is from the same date. But in comparing it to the real aerial of 1938 it is clear it was either a photo of a model or an aerial that was touched up (the Black was even complete until 1936 and there is no sign of contruction in the so-called aerial). It also does not show several bunkers that were originally contructed like the waste bunker on the 5th (and the greenside bunkers for that matter) and several bunkers that were never constructed like the fairway bunker inside the dogleg on the 1st.

Maybe my next essay will document the changes at Bethpage (with pictures). Do you have scanner perhaps you can help me? In fact we could write a dual essay - documenting both the Yale and Bethpage restorations.

By the way, I enjoy playing golf as much as I enjoy research - each enhances the enjoyment of the other.

[Mike_Cirba]

Gentlemen;

Can I insert myself right here and say the following in the interest of averting both another "can tell/can't tell" debate about pictures, as well as whether what Rees did at Bethpage was a "restoration" or something different;

Can we just agree on the following?

A trained eye can tell a LOT from a picture, particularly a good picture, but that information ultimately cannot compare to the value of that same trained eye actually seeing and playing a course in person.

For a person with no real knowledge or passion about golf course architecture, it wouldn't matter if you hit some of them over the head with the distinctions we make and often debate about, and that is fine too.

The bunkers that exist at Bethpage now are very much in the style of Rees Jones, although scaled to the hugeness that has always been Bethpage.  Beyond the overhead aerial from 1938 that he worked from, there weren't a lot of ground level photographs available to use as models for emulation.   Whether or not these photos existed somewhere, Rees didn't have them at his disposal, evidently.

It is in the eye of the beholder whether these bunkers "fit" with the lineage of the course.  From a practical standpoint, GeoffreyC has argued in the past that sturdier bunkers with cleaner demarcations were needed at Bethpage (which Rees provided) given the huge amount of play.  He contends that more weathered looking bunkers would simply not have held up well, which seems a reasonable assessment for an overcrowded public venue.  However, from an aesthetic standpoint, I can also agree with Tom MacWood that they are neither in the Tillinghast style, per se, or particularly attractive.  I'd personally say they look stylistically overdone, but are probably effective hazards, nevertheless.

I've commented on the "look" of many courses I haven't played from photography and television.  I will continue to do so, but would never argue that it is a substitute for seeing and playing a course in person.  Still, perhaps it's arrogance, but other than sometimes underestimating scale and "movement", I think I can tell a lot from those sources and assume others can as well.  If not, then what is the purpose of the pictures on this site, for instance, if not to dramatize and illustrate what a hole "looks" like?  

In the case of historical discussions, or restoration work, photographs are invaluable, and the more the better.  

[GeoffreyC]

Tom

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.  No I do not have a scanner. My scanner at work went out of service when we converted to Windows 2000 and EPSON didn't support it with a new driver.

I fully understand your passion for accurate restoration and I agree with you but for this one exception.  I wish you could see the course today and I hope that Paul Turner will comment on what he saw yesterday.  

I have commented on that (so called) 1935 aerial in the past noting just those discrepancies you noted.  The bunkers are absent on #6 in that photo as well.  Interesting to learn that the bunker complex on the corner of #1 was never built.  Why do you think they/someone bothered to put that (never built) bunker complex in and yet leave out the ones on #5 and 6?

I have no doubt about the availability of photos of the black course.  I marveled at the ones in the clubhouse 30 years ago! I don't remember if the 1938 aerial was among them so I'm not sure that I've ever seen it.  I'm sure that this group would love to view all of these historical gems. I just wanted to make clear that you were not basing your assumptions only on the photos in ROTL which I think do not show the Black style in any detail at all.

Tom- I've said before that I know the look of many bunkers have been changed at Bethpage and extended up some of the landing areas.  I won't rehash why in this case I think its OK.  I disagree with you saying that they don't fit Tillinghast's style at all (just not fully his Bethpage style).

I've been beaten to death over the Yale "restoration" and my views that Roger Rulewich has butchered the course are well documented.  My new strategy is to let the powers that be realize (as I think they finally might be doing) how bad it is and then finally get the right people in to do the job.

Your article was great and I enjoyed it and I learned a great deal about a place that I love to visit.  I just wish you could delete that one line so it sticks to the topic- Who deserves credit for routing and designing Bethpage Black.

Peace?  

[GeoffreyC]

Mike- Have YOU been back to Bethpage lately?   See what you think on TV this week.

Thanks for the mediation. I believe that Tom and I simply disagree on this one issue.  I use what amunition I have which is photos don't substitute for first hand experience before and after the work done to the course and he uses his wealth of written material.  All's fair.  I think everyone knows we agree on most issues related to Classic courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I enjoyed both your article, and its balanced views based on rationale thought.  It seems logical to me that Tillie was involved, but not in complete control.  Sadly, that was missing from a few other posts on the other thread.  

As one who doesn't believe things change all that much across eras, I would like to add a few thoughts.....

I think it would be interesting to focus on the actual Tillie contract, if available.  I have signed both consulting contracts and contracts for the design of a golf course.  There is a difference in levels of responsibility.  

I recall that the MacKenzie contract for Augusta, signed at about the same time was $10,000 for full service.  Tillies was both less, and flexible at the discretion of the Owner.  It also appears he did not get all the days allocated to him.  All point to the fact that he did not have full responsibility for design.

Based on my similar experiences, the daily consulting arrangement suggests they called him in, got as much out of him as possible - which may very well have been routing and even bunkering and hole suggestions - and dismissed him when he got too pushy for their tastes or they felt they could do the rest themselves.  (Yeah, Yeah, Tillie, we got it, you want a reef hole here....We can handle it!) That would explain any feature - like the greens - that didn't have the detail of a Tillie feature, even if it followed his design concepts.

I am also interested in the December 30 signing date.  I have had a few of those, and it always means they want to either get a tax write off or make sure it is in this years budget, as next years is not assured!

You may also want to examine the ego of Mr. Moses.  It is not inconceivable that Tillie was brought in in case it was a failure, but when they were confidant it was a success, they all wanted the credit.  This could explain the dismissal just before a grand poohbah tour.

[Ken_Cotner]

"...unfortunately the Tillinghast look has been ignored and disfigured in the recent remodeling. All that is missing are his greens."

Honest question:  I've never seen Cypress Point, but aren't the bunkers there significantly different than the originals (due to time AND active changes)?  If so, would one state that the MacKenzie look has been ignored and disfigured?  Or are there qualitative differences between the two "remodels"?

Thanks,
KC

[Ken_Cotner]

P.S.  Excellent piece, Tom.

KC

[Brian Phillips]

Tom,

Thank you for putting the effort into this mystery.  Although I feel the balance has tilted even more in favour of Burbeck than Tillie.

I thank Jeff for wording his sentences so much better than mine!!  I work in Norway where there is a lot of 'consulting' where you get paid to consult but do not want your name anywhere near the course as you are not allowed to have 100% say in the design.  It then becomes a mongrel design which most of the time do not end up looking that good.   This is not the case with the Black as Tillie likes it.

Tillie admits (and this is the only piece of evidence in the whole mystery) that he was consulting architect.  That's it... no where else can anyone prove to me that he was the ARCHITECT.  

I think people on this site might be surprised how many courses in the world are designed nowadays the same way.  A bunch of rich golfers get a bit of cash together and they have ideas on how the course is going to look even route it sometimes but then need a consulting architect to check what they are doing.  

I built half a course last year where the routing was finished (I have now left construction and the course is still being built the same way) and I begged the owners to bring in an experienced architect to check what they were doing and they did and now his name might go on the design to help to sell the project.  He had nothing whatsoever to do with the routing or any of the green sites or tee sites.

I feel as an outsider in Norway who is not biased by anything, that there are people who want it to be a Tillinghast design even though there are no drawings proving otherwise.  Rick Wolffe mentioned that hardly any drawings can be found from the golden age of GCA.  I don't buy that.  Ross and Colt always produced drawings.

The contract was for 15 site visits that were not completed and there isn't one drawing to this day showing his ideas?  Why not?  Because in my assumption (seeing as everybody else is drawing assumptions)  Burbeck did everything and Tillie came and checked his work.  Tillie may have moved tees or greens but Burbeck did nearly everything.

That is why as Jeff suggested the greens are apparently pretty boring.  Checkout any site of a golf course where an architect has not been involved and I will show boring greens or greens that are completely mad that they need re-designing after a couple years of complaining from the members!!  Burbeck did it himself and Tillie only was consulted when the board thought Burbeck was going astray.

Just an assumption..

I enjoyed your article.

Thank you

Brian Phillips