Mike and Tom,
I want to make it clear that Tillinghast did the work for the PGA at a time when he had no other work. Yes, this was a way to pay the bills.
What you do not seem to appreciate is that he did not get a single dime for this work from any of these clubs. The work was done for FREE.
The PGA of America, an organization that he helped to found, paid his way and covered his expenses. They did NOT get a penny for any of this work.
How is this selling out then?
Mike, you wrote, "No, I contend that Tillie changed his design philosophy not because he truly believed that Hollywood, for instance, would be a better course minus 70 or so bunkers, but because it was a way to pay the bills."
If he wasn't paid for this by the clubs, how can you make that statement.
Secondly, you also wrote, "Does anyone find it disengenous that Tillinghast, whose own courses often contained over 100 bunkers (how about SFGC or Winged Foot for example?) suddenly "found religion" as a bunker minimalist at a time that the PGA asked him to be a paid consultant for their purposes..."
This is revisionist history at its worst.
His article where he outlined the problems with "Duffer's Headaches" type of bunkers was written for Golf Illustrated in June 1920!
His article, "Sans Sand Pits," in which he states, "Golf courses are overbunkered. I frequently have made this assertion: now let me explain rather than merely repeat the conviction." This was written for Golf Illustrated in February 1924!
There are a number of other examples of his stating his strong beliefs on the proper placement and uses, as well as misuses, of bunkers on a golf course.
By the way, I love seeing the Black course bunkers any chance I can, even in photographs. These though are most definitely NOT what Tillinghast was referring to when as "Duffer's Headaches" bunkers.