Tom,
After this I would appreciate it if you would move this discussion the "Ask the Tillinghast Association Questions" thread as it will enable this discussion to remain on topic.
You wrote, "Phil
I missed the thread about the Black that Jason was referring to. I believe this is it:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40072.0/I read through it and it would have been a perfect opportunity for you to contrast Tilly's original design with current very different version, but for whatever reason you did not. {Because it is only a VERY DIFFERENT VERSION IN YOUR MIND}
The only changes to the bunkering you acknowledged were at #8, #14 and maybe #18. {Incorrect! I commented quite clearly on bunker additions to other holes such as 9 & 13. I didn't comment on any changes to the bunkers on 18 as there were no changes since 2002.}
Why do you spend so much time on the Burbeck controversy and virtually no time on publicizing the changes to Tilly's original design? {I spend time on the "Burbeck Controversy" because it is FLAGRANTLY INCORRECT and is affecting the future's view of the history of the course and Tilly's involvement there. In addition, I am being asked about it all the time. For example, I did more than 25 interviews on the subject prior to the Open by media members who contacted me. I have written a great deal about the work done on Bethpage Black in numerous golf journals and other publications both in print and on-line. You just haven't read them.}
You have an entire chapter in your book devoted to Bethpage-Black. This short bit is what you wrote about the changes (again, you devoted much more to Burbeck):
{To conserve space I cut out the paragraphs you quoted from my book. First of all it is quite obvious that you are trying to boil down the theme of 12 pages into 4 paragraphs and are doing so quite incorrectly. The chapter you are referring to is titled "Of Bethpage and the Black Leopard" and it is from my biography, Tillinghast: Creator of Golf Courses. It is NOT a discussion of the Black Course, but rather a condensed version of the history of the project with a bit of information added about the actual role played by Joseph Burbeck and Rees Jones. Now if you would like to read a chapter from ANOTHER BOOK I wrote, Golf's Finest Hour: The Open at Bethpage Black, there is a 12-page chapter in that titled, "What Hath Rees Wrought" that goes into some detail about the work that he did in restoring the course prior to the 2002 Open. There are a number of other articles where I have commented on and written about specific aspects of the work that Rees did that I am sure that you can find if so inclined. Finally, all that to once again tell you that you are wrong in your opinion of what I have written and even what some of it says.}
There are so many disturbing aspects to this I'm not sure where to begin.
1. To say only one bunker was not restored is a gross mischaracterization. There were many bunkers that were not restored and/or completely altered by Rees. {No it isn't. FACT - EVERY BUNKER EXCEPT THE LARGE WASTE BUNKER ON #7 WAS COMPLETELY REBUILT!}
2. Tucking them back into greens as Tilly favored? Many of the greenside bunkers Rees created are an abomination and bear little resemblance to the original Tilly bunkers. {Yes Tom, Tilly tucked his bunkers into the green complexes and this IS WHAT REES DID! You are certainly entitled to your opinion on whether they are an abomination or not.}
3. Jones believes he had a mission and responsibility to finish the course? You are telling us the course was not finished? I suppose this is your way for rationalizing all the changes you fail to acknowledge. {Again Tom, you simply show a lack of understanding in what you read. All I did was QUOTE what REES STATED AND BELIEVES. I neither agreed nor disagreed with it. Thereby was DEFINITELY NO RATIONALIZATION on my part in anything that I wrote.}
4. Jones brought life back to the 18th? I realize the old 18th was always somewhat of a let down but at least it was harmony with the rest of the course. The current 18th is out of character and poorly conceived. {You are entitled to your opinion... as am I with mine}
5. The new bunkers are built in the 'Tillinghast Style'? Tillinghast Style? Tilly must have been spinning in his graves when you wrote that line. That is insulting to Tilly, his architecture and those of us who appreciate both. You should have Tilly Association membership revoked. {Tom, of all the things you have ever written that makes me smile the most! Revoke my membership... Well, why don't you write that to the Tillinghast Association and make the suggestion? The last thing they want is a loose cannon out there insulting Tilly and demeaning the Association. Of course you could just resign your own membership in protest... that is, if you are a member... are you?"
6. Tilly would have thanked Rees for restoring and finishing his work? Thanked? Is there architect living today who has altered more Tilly courses than Rees? Who needs enemies when you have friends like Rees? Didn't you describe an incident when Tilly was drunk and banishing a revolver? That is the kind of thank you I believe Tilly would given him. And please explain what you mean by restore and finish? In my mind it is either or, you either restore a course or you redesign it....and then say you are finishing it as the original architect would have had he been alive. {Read what I wrote again, this time with a mind that is opened by just a tiny crack and you might see it.}
By the way I did ask Rick Wolfe of the Tillinghast Association the question of why they did not do more to promote the preservation and protection of Tilly's work. {Thank you for that reference. Of course I was talking about how you hadn't asked Rick or the Tillinghast Association ANY QUESTION at all before the Open at Bethpage of which you are complaining so much about. By the way, as that example you gave was from 2003, SIX YEARS AGO, I don't think that quite counts...}