Golf Club Atlas

GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Mike_Cirba on March 22, 2004, 12:22:38 PM

Title: Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on March 22, 2004, 12:22:38 PM
I'm a huge fan of A.W. Tillinghast, a member of the appreciation society, and love his genius that I see evidenced on plenty of his original designs.

However, something has been bothering me for some time and that is the notion that Tillie became a paid shill for the PGA, on retainer, to essentially neuter courses during the Depression years.

Tillinghast later bragged about removing thousands of bunkers, but c'mon...were they really all just in play for the hack?  That sounds like pure political spin to me.  I mean, this is the guy who invented the "Hell's Half Acre" concept, for crying out loud.  Then, conveniently, one day suddenly he decides that our courses are too bunkered?  Oh, and by the way, he'll be happy to come and consult with your club to tell you which one's need to go for a suitable fee.  

Early aerials of Hollywood showed just an amazing course on a Pine Valley or Timber Point scale.  Although I can't prove it, I have a very strong sense that Tillinghast removed much of the fangs of the place.

Now, today, Jamie Slonis on the Alex Findlay thread mentions that most of the loss of the original Tavistock course (which thankfully is being restored) was during the 1930s after a Tillinghast visit.  

So, let's not give someone a pass, even posthumously.  

If Tom Paul bemoans the fact that Wayne Stiles was responsible for the removal of many cool Ross bunkers at Gulph Mills in 1940, then I don't see any reason that we shouldn't cite loss of key features due to the work of one of the most brilliant architects of all time.

What other courses out there did he visit in the 30's and what were the results?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Chris_Clouser on March 22, 2004, 12:43:13 PM
Mike,

I've read his letters on the golf courses he visited in Oklahoma and he made several proposals, but many were not followed.  I think a large part of that was that many of the courses he visited were Maxwell layouts and he did very little fairway bunkering early in his career.  I think the best part of that trip was the grass and soil consultation he did at many of the courses.  

A point to keep in mind was that Tillie was doing this during the heart of the depression.  It was a way for him to be compensated and still have involvement with something he was fond of.  Before we call him a sell out, we should probably wonder, would we not do the same if in his position?


Chris
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Jeff_Mingay on March 22, 2004, 12:57:51 PM
Chris,

How about Maxwell's redesign work on courses originally designed by his contemporaries? Off the top of my head, I think of Gulph Mills (Ross), Augusta National, Pine Valley... and isn't it said he made some adjustments at National Golf Links of America?

My point is, there were many instances where "Golden Agers" redesigned Golden Age courses.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 22, 2004, 01:38:51 PM
Mike
I'm also a great fan of Tillinghast (and Burbeck), but I can't give him a pass. His bunker campaign was not a good thing in my view.

I agree with Chris, no doubt the Depression, no design work, apparently some personal financial problems, the failure of Golf Illustrated all contributed toward his coast to coast PGA blitz. Ironically his later designs were among his most boldly bunkered--Ridgewood and the Bethpage courses as examples.

MacKenzie did not sell out in the same sense--removing thousands of existing bunkers like Tillie---but he did adapt his style completely during the Depression, from prolific bunkering to ultra sparse.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on March 22, 2004, 02:11:22 PM
Chris/Jeff/Tom;

Tillinghast was born to wealth and lived the life of a playboy raconteur for many years.  I have a tough time feeling sorry that he seemingly sold off (or conveniently dramatically changed) his design principles during the Depression to make ends meet.  He wasn't exactly selling apples or living in Hoovervilles.

If Tom Fazio were to alter classic courses in the same way that Tillinghast seemingly did in the 30s, we would be screaming bloody vitriol.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Michael Dugger on March 22, 2004, 02:25:51 PM
I can't say that I see a need to bash him, and calling someone a sell out is a pretty harsh term.

I don't think Tillie was living it up during those last days, nor was it probably an easy thing for a man with his affluent background to hit bottom so utterly.

It was steady work during a time in which any work was good work.

In the eye of a golf course architecture purist, he sold out.

In the eye of a golf course architecture buff 100 years later, he sold out.

In the eye of someone who actually experienced the great depression and was living during WWII, I think golf course architecture was probably a very insignificant thing.  

In that case, A.W. was getting by, like everyone, and I don't think calling him a sell out is justified.  We cannot ignore the context of things, as Pat Mucci would point out! ;)      
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: JSlonis on March 22, 2004, 02:43:28 PM
Mike,

I'm not sure if I'd say Tillinghast was selling out. I don't know what his story was.  Maybe, as Tom Paul often states, Tillie was just very "liquored up" and for every "one" bunker that was on the course, he was actually seeing "two or three"? ;D

Based on the info provided to us at Tavistock by Jim Nagle, I really didn't see a rhyme or reason to what he did at our course.  It appeared that many strategic features, bunkers mainly, were either changed or removed altogether.  He also did some tree planting in areas that didn't need it.

Like you, I admire many of Tillinghast's great courses, but I'm at loss for what he was thinking during his brief visit to Tavistock.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on March 22, 2004, 02:44:04 PM
Mike,
Around 1,000 golf courses were lost between 1930 and 1946.
I thought the main objective of AWT's excursion for the PGA was helping clubs lower maintenance costs to aid in their survival.. I don't think there is any way to find out but I think the possibility exists that AWT might have saved some clubs from having the NLE designation next to their names in C&W.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on March 22, 2004, 02:52:22 PM
Mike,

I believe that you are misinformed as to what Tillinghast did during his two years touring the country on behalf of the PGA of America. If a course desired that work be done, then the policy of Tillinghast and the PGA was to, "recommend reliable local experts and in every way help them with advice and suggestions, a fact that stimulates their activities and which evidently is being appreciated." He was paid a stipend by the PGA. Not one penny came from a club.

The only clubs visited were ones that had a pro who was a member of the PGA of America; no member - no visit. In every case his visit was REQUESTED as this was the only way he would visit a club. The primary purpose was to aid clubs in making their courses "more pleasurable for more people."

The purpose of this tour was to provide a service to PGA pros so that they could show the powers that be at their courses that having a PGA pro was worth the money. A number of pros during the Depression, as I am sure you can understand, were losing their jobs. A great many were quitting the organization or not paying their dues. This service turned this trend completely around and may actually have saved the PGA of America as an organization.

Most who are aware of this tour happening do not really appreciate what was involved. For the most part, Tillinghast would drive over roads that were nothing like what we have today. He would arrive at a central city and then spend anywhere from one day to as many as five there while visiting courses that were within a days drive. Almost without exception he visited at least two courses in a day, and many times up to four and even five courses.

Many evenings he spent addressing local PGA associations and doing interviews. At the end of the day, after all of this was done, he would spend his time typing reports that were mailed to George Jacobus on a daily basis, outlining where he had been and what was accomplished.

He did not ever mention signing a course on as a client or moneys that they would earn; this did NOT happen.

Not only did he not "sell out," but this was one of the most singularly inportant works ever done by a major sports organization for its members. It was extremely appreciated by all.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: JSlonis on March 22, 2004, 03:02:36 PM
While I understand the nessessity for a program to help keep the local PGA pros employed, what correlation does this have to the many on course changes that were done?  Were most all the changes for economic reasons?

It would seem to me that given the removal of bunkers and the addition of trees, that those changes would add to a course's costs.  Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't it less expensive to keep a bunker maintained than it would be to care for the grass that replaced it?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 22, 2004, 03:08:22 PM

If Tom Fazio were to alter classic courses in the same way that Tillinghast seemingly did in the 30s, we would be screaming bloody vitriol.

Mike -
I find your use of the subjunctive mood highly amusing.  ;D
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on March 22, 2004, 03:31:55 PM
Mike,

I thought that you might like to read what Tillinghast said about the Tavistock course and what was recommended.

The following is from his letter dated 9/18/1935 and is the report that he sent to George Jacobus.

"The schedule prepared by Ed Dudley took me over the Delaware River bridge into South Jersey for two investigations. The first visit was to the Tavistock Country Club at the request of P.G.A. member Jack Hiner, who accompanied me around the course together with E.C. Ridgeway, manager of the club, and Paul Cannarota, the greenkeeper. Hiner informed me that my afternoon call at at the Woodcrest Country Club would probably be futile... Consequently I was able to stay until after 2 O'clock on the Tavistock course, where they required an unusual amount of advice.

A number of useless pits were recommended to be removed but particularly bad were the formal mounds and slopes, which framed in most of the greens. All of these were noted by Mr. Ridgeway. My chief service consisted in finding a new teeing ground for the ninth hole, in an entirely different location, dog-legging the hole and at little cost developing one of the finest two-shot holes to be found anywhere. I also gave them a new arrangement of the twelfth hole. Altogether our assistance at Tavistock was considerable."

As you can see, he made suggestions that were left to the club to consider. The bunkers that he suggested removing were described as "pits" and would most likely have been of the fairway variety that he thought useless as they almost exclusively became in play only for the less able players. That is why he referred to them as "Duffer's Headaches."

It's interesting also to see that he obviously recommended removing or changing the approaches into a number of greens. Were any "formal mounds and slopes, which framed most of the greens," ever changed or removed?

I would also love to know what you think of the ninth and twelfth holes and if these were ever changed to reflect Tillinghast's suggestions, especially as he stated that they could be done at "little cost."

JSlonis - I am not a greenkeeper or superintendent, but I can't even begin to imagine how a once-a-week mowing of a small patch of rough next to a fairway could present a greater maintenance cost than caring for a bunker in the same place, no matter what the size!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on March 22, 2004, 03:37:08 PM
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 as outlined by Philip Young above?

This is the guy who raved on about Pine Valley, who loved and adored The Old Course (and its scads of bunkers), who created Hell's Half Acre as a design concept (and it's forced carry for all players), who called a testing approach to a well-protected target the epitome of what design should be about, who not only made bunkers functional but was perhaps the first to make them artistic in appearance.

He was also the consummate salesman, and is it any wonder that at the same time he was employed by the PGA, he started writing articles in golf publications bemoaning the fact that our courses were overbunkered.  

Puhlease....talk about the pot calling the kettle metal.  

Think about it pragmatically.  What other thing might he suggest to clubs during the depression?  Certainly they weren't going to go for some big, bold new design ideas, unless in a public works project like Bethpage.

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.

I hope as the market for golf architects gets tighter, we would treat modern architects who do the same type of thing as gently.    
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: JSlonis on March 22, 2004, 03:51:55 PM
Philip,

Our present day 9th hole is a dogleg right par 4.  I'm not sure if it is the same hole that Tillie suggested the change on.  Unfortunately,(1950's?)some of our original course was rerouted due to the construction of a major roadway, Route 295, so I am not sure if our current 12th hole was the actual 12th during Tillinghasts visits.

What is left of Findlay's original mounding is very interesting.  They are a feature that will hopefully be restored in some areas by Jim Nagle and Ron Forse.  I guess Tillinghast described Findlay's mounding as formal, but in reality, it was far from standard.  One of the original features that Jim particularly liked at Tavistock, was the haphazard shaping and originality of Findlay's mounding.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 22, 2004, 03:56:27 PM
Mike
I agree. Tillie and the PGA proudly advertised they had removed thousands of "useless" bunkers. This is the same guy who gave us SFGC and Brook Hollow. And Bethpage-Black--perhaps his most severely bunkered course--was being completed while he was on the road removing tons of bunkers, ironic.

I'm certainly not defending his PGA gig (I've often brought up his involvement in this unfortunate campaign), but the circumstances should not be ignored. I concure, he became involved in order to pay the bills.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Steven_Biehl on March 22, 2004, 04:09:00 PM
Tillinghast wrote a piece called "What the PGA course service really means" in Gleanings From the Wayside.  He describes the PGA service as:

"Expert advice, which emphasizes a concentration on vitally important details and the elimination of obsolete and unnecessary features, must direct budgets to doing the most good."

The courses who requested the PGA service were most likely looking for ways to decrease maintenance costs on the course.  The most likely thing to do then was remove bunkers.  I have to agree with Mike, that Tillinghast change his design philosophy to reflect the money that was available at the course.  With that in mind, Tillinghast wasn't all for removing bunkers.  In the same article in Gleanings from the Wayside, he highlights a course where he recomemded the addition of bunkers to make the hole better.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on March 22, 2004, 04:16:03 PM
Just thought some visuals of some "Duffer's Headaches" might help.  And yes, Tom MacWood, his concurrent work in the 30s at Bethpage was ironic to say the least.

(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Bethpage4a.jpg)

(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Bethpage17.jpg)

(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Bethpage5.jpg)

(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000405.jpg)

(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000421.jpg)

(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000451.jpg)

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on March 22, 2004, 04:29:04 PM
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.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Pete Lavallee on March 22, 2004, 04:32:02 PM
In all fairness Mike, those are Rees's bunkers. My recollection is that not much money or effort was ever put in to maintaining the Tillinghast bunkers.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on March 22, 2004, 04:41:58 PM
Philip;

How are cross bunkers that require carries from the tee for all levels of player not "duffer's headaches"?  

Thanks for sharing the dates of those articles.  I concur with you that he must have had a philosophic bent that way prior to 1930, but don't you also find it strange that his courses were almost all heavily bunkered.  Even those that are NLE in Daniel Wexler's book show a propensity for heavy bunkering and cross and diagonal hazards on par fours and fives.

At minimum, it would seem that Tillinghast was guilty of not practicing what he preached, wouldn't you agree?

(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Bethpage7.jpg)

Pete;

The size and scale of the bunkers at Bethpage are what Tillinghast designed.  They were/are humungous, and Rees only tried to "restore" them, or at least their intent.  Whether or not he succeeded grandly has been debated here in the past, so I'd rather not see the discussion take that turn.  

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on March 22, 2004, 05:36:59 PM
Mike,

I would not agree.

What I believe will help is to get an understanding of what Tillinghast meant with the phrase "Duffer's Headaches."

"The lenngth of this hole alone will place the green beyond the range of the duffer's two healthiest swipes, and if the fairway were absolutely barren of hazards, the 'three-figure' man will require three strokes and possibly more. His poorly played shots are vexations enough without digging pit-falls to add to his sorrows. Yet on hundreds of courses we find old-fashioned bunkers, marring the scenery at a point about one hundred and foorty yards from the teeing ground, hazards which extend squarely across the line of play and which call for a drive to carry the trouble from crack and duffer alike.

Now it is safe to assert that in the average golf club there are fully twenty-five per cent of players who cannot average one hundred and forty yards in carry, and a goodly number who cannot make the distance at all even with the long-flying balls of the present day.

{Further down in the same article}

"... there are enough of the Cheap-John, amateurish sort, rather cluttered with sand pits that cost money to maintain for no other reason than to discourage the very players at golf, who need encouraging most."

Tillinghast, during his tour for the PGA, examined some of his own courses and made recommendations to remove these type of bunkers that even he had designed in the beginning of his career.

When he came into his own and was designing his great courses from the late teens onward, these "Duffer's Headaches" are not to be found.

The great bunkering of Tillinghast courses are headaches for all, Duffer's and accomplished players alike. This was purposeful and proper and is what helps to establish his greatness as a designer.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Neil Regan on March 22, 2004, 05:48:13 PM
How are cross bunkers that require carries from the tee for all levels of player not "duffer's headaches"?  

Mike,
 Because they affect "all levels of player", not just duffers.
 A duffer's headache would typically have been a bunker that caught only a topped shot. Often, they were within 100 yards of the tee, and presented virtually no difficulty whatsoever for an accomplished golfer. And often, they were way off the line of play, where only a bad shot could find them. I don't think any greenside bunker would qualify as a duffer's headache.

  Winged Foot removed numerous such bunkers early on. Also, the club minutes from the depression era show deep concern over costs, and make frequent reference to reducing maintennance budgets in order to survive. Bunker removal was a part of this effort. Winged Foot has a plan from 1932 with all sorts of bunkers x-ed out.
 
  Of course, one man's "useless" bunker could be another man's Golden Age feature. If Tillinghast recommended removal of such bunkers for design, not financial, reasons, maybe he was wrong.

  Of the 70 or so bunkers removed at Hollywood, how many were greenside bunkers ?

Neil
 
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 22, 2004, 06:42:13 PM
Philip
The title "Duffers Headache" was chosen by the editors of The Course Beautiful. It is actually a merger of two articles: Our Green Committee Page (1920) a monthly feature in Golf Illustrated and an article for the PGA magazine (1936).

When does the old article stop and new one begin...your guess is as good as mine.

The first part of the article is clearly protesting the old-fashioned inartistic cop bunker. The latter part of the article deals more with the PGA mission.

1920 was the year Tillinghast revised SFGC with a see of sand and designed Brook Hollow (200-300 bunkers)....how did you reconcile the inconsistency?

IMO you are misreading the 1920 article, therefore there is no inconsistency...the inconsistency came during the Depression.

The advise the PGA provided (through Tillie) their member clubs was free. The work was not free...the club had to pay someone to carry it out. From what I understand Tillie recieved a salary from the PGA...so it is not accurate to say he was working for free.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: A_Clay_Man on March 22, 2004, 06:55:32 PM
Just from the arguments provided in this thread I'd say the answer is NO.

Not enough proof that he didn't do anything more than what the client wanted. If that i sselling out, than it's YES.

Is that a Kerry answer, or what?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on March 22, 2004, 06:58:51 PM
Tom,  

You are correct in that piece in The Course Beautiful is a combination of the two articles. What you miss is that Tillinghast was writing about poor bunkers and "Duffer's Headaches" type bunker since the early 20s.

Also, Tillinghast was NOT paid a penny by any of the CLUBS that he visited and neither was the PGA. Mike ascerted that Tillinghast "Sold Out" and was using the PGA work to drum up a lot of work for himself. This is incorrect. That is why I shared his own words from his article "What the P.G.A. Course Service Really Means" where he states that when clubs decided to do work that they, "... recommend reliable local experts..."

Tillinghast was paid a living wage for work that he spent morning to late at night on, doing this with very few breaks 24/7 for nearly two years despite severe health problems along the way.

You wrote, "1920 was the year Tillinghast revised SFGC with a see of sand and designed Brook Hollow (200-300 bunkers)....how did you reconcile the inconsistency?"

Tillinghast referred to bunkers whose SOLE PURPOSE was to catch the errant shots of the short hitting poor players. These are the Duffer's Headaches that he refers to and believed should be eliminated.

Great strategic bunkering on a large scale that was designed as a challenge for the good to accomplished player was NOT! Why is that such a difficult concept to understand?

I also strongly disagree with your assertion that I am misreading what he wrote about when he makes a very clear definition as to what he considered proper use of bunkers to provide challenge for the good to accomplished player and those that ONLY punished and provided a means of discouragement for the poor and short-hitting player.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Tim_Weiman on March 22, 2004, 07:08:55 PM
Mike Cirba:

About five years ago I had the opportunity to read about fifty of Tillinghast's trip reports from his consulting days. What stood out in these reports was how few recommendations he made for changes to any of the courses.

Unfortunately, I seem to have misplaced my file that had these reports or I'd be happy to send you copies. But, nothing I recall reading suggested "sell out". Mostly what came across was restraint.

Tim
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 22, 2004, 07:46:29 PM
Philip
It is inmaterial if the club paid Tillinghast or the PGA paid him...the point is he got paid. It is misleading to say the clubs did not pay him a penny. Jobs were not easy come by during the Depression, Tillinghast had a job advising clubs and the result was the removal of 10,000 bunkers. He didn't do it for free.

How many of the 200+ bunkers at Brook Hollow were duffer's headaches?

What was the difference between the bunkering scheme at Brook Hollow and Hollywood--weren't they both full of duffer's headaches?

Do you find it ironic that he was eliminating bunkers from coast to coast at the same time one of his most severely bunkered course was being completed? Wasn't the entire Bethpage-Black concieved as the ultimate duffer's headache?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on March 22, 2004, 07:59:34 PM
Tom,

In Tillie's defense, NYC asked him to do one tough course as part of a municipal complex of five courses.  I think there was and is room for a variety of courses under certain circumstances, and he recognized that.  I think he even wrote that the Black would be impractical in most cases.  However, when the biggest city in the world wants to demonstrate that public golf courses - which he surely saw as the future - didn't have to be ho-hum, he actively participated in that creation, thinking of the future of public golf.  Of course, many PGA clients were struggling in the here and now, as is usual, but it must have been fun to aid in a great vision.

Did he sell out?  I don't think so. But in reading his reports, I was struck by the fact that both he and MacKenzie in promoting their services during the Great Depression got on the cost efficient bandwagon, keeping with the times, which had changed drastically.  In so doing, I see them being repsonsible for much of post war design, and there being much less of a "disconnect" than people assume here, with the oldies retiring before Jones came on the scene.  

Its quite possible that when the next generation of architects arrived, they saw more rationale in the last of the Golden Age masters works than in their first - which were done in the roarig twenties, on great sites, etc.  What the fifties offered, was probably closer to the thirties in most cases, with the added burdens of fitting to housing developments on a grander scale, and post war technology increasing distances for pros, while the next generation of masses going to the courses didn't appreciate the golden age heroic carries.

Again, just my opinions, and not particularly backed up with shcolarly research.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 22, 2004, 08:57:13 PM
Jeff
Did NYC ask Tillie to build one tough golf course (Moses wasn't a golfer)? Or was that Tillie's (and Burbeck's) idea? I believe the latter...his idea. And the Red course was heavily bunkered too. One tough golf course and one super tough golf course. Were the Bethpage courses his last designs?

Like MacKenzie, Tillignhast did what he had to do to find work...even if it meant rejecting their previous design principals and developing new ones. Call it what you want adapting or compromising. The difference MacKenzie developed his new design philosophy to attract new work and Tillie was designing bold course one day (in the heart of the Depression) and removing bunkers from his contemporaries design's the next day.  

Brook Hollow is in your backyard...do you thing he suspended his duffer's headache aversion when designing that golf course?

RTJ was a Stanley Thompson desciple, how does that fit in to your theory? Wasn't RTJ the father of Heroic design?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on March 22, 2004, 09:50:14 PM
Tim/Phil;

I'm not saying that Tillinghast got rich off of his PGA work.  During the Depression, just having a steady, dependable income was better than most folks.  

I'm also sure that he did a thoughtful job.  My point is that Tillinghast worked through most of his career as a man without limits, financial or otherwise.  That type of mindset resulted in the creation of some of the best, most enduring courses in the world.  

Even his earliest design, Shawnee, was bold in scope, aggressive in its bunkering schemes, and brilliant in execution.  Many other masterworks followed and nearly all of them were spawned from a philosophy that reflected Golden Age, "roaring 20s" tendencies to live life to the fullest.

By the 30s, Tillie seemed to have "drawn back", seeing golf and its courses in a more functional, practical, economical way, and was paid to lend professional credence to the ongoing efforts of cost-cutting measures for clubs across the land.

It seems sad to me that such a creative genius was hampered by the practicalities of the time, and probably only human nature that he took to it with such vigor.  It's like George McGovern being asked to cut taxes and reduce spending due to a major recession.  

Perhaps "selling out" is too strong a charge, but don't either of you see a lamentable dichotomy between the type of adventurous, imaginative, free-wheeling courses he regularly produced and the subsequent budget-conscious redesign work he followed it with?  For heaven's sake, it seems to me like asking Barry Bonds to bunt every second at bat.

Is it any wonder that Tillie became tired of the profession?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on March 22, 2004, 09:59:02 PM
Personally, I think some of these interpretations of Tilly's design record are a little over the top.

Tilly wrote around 400 letters to George Jacobus summarizing his work for the PGA of America.  (We will try to get these up on the Tillinghast web site in the near future to engender more interpretation, or mis-interpretation.)

I think it is hard to say Tilly sold himself out to anyone.  First, he was an extremely strong willed person who could not be bought by anyone.  (Phil Young is writing the definitive biography on the man and probably has the best interpretation of his character from numerous first-hand and second-hand family sources.)  Second, even though it has been said that anyone can be bought, who was around in the depression with enough cash to buy him?

I think it is very fair to say that Tilly's design style evolved and that he was not afraid to experiment.  I think Rand Jerris has a book in the offing on Tilly's body of work and design style.  I would think that the natural terrain of the site probably was the largest determining factor in how much bunkering Tilly would use in his designs.  (i.e. allot of bunkering on a flat site and much less on a rugged site)  The project budget may have been the second biggest factor.

After reading and studying Tilly's PGA letters, it is safe to say that the so-called Duffer's Headaches (DHs) were bunkers that no longer were part of the design intent of the hole or were simply primitive and un-natural trenches -- mostly found on what Tilly called the "sporty courses," which certainly did not follow Tilly's principals of modern golf course design.   These DH's were not the great strategic diagonal hazards that Mike has put up on the screen.  These were crumy little fairway bunkers that were generally misplaced, poorly constructed and out of play.

An example of Tilly restoring lost design intent, and on a Tillinghast course to boot, was at Hermitage CC (now called Belmont) in Richmond, a circa 1916 design, Tilly wrote that he had to "take his own medicine" and recommended closing a number of side pits, for which he commented that,

   "it must be remembered that general play has lengthened out considerably in twenty years and that long ago we were much closer to another period of course conception."

Tilly recommended the most "DH" removal on the short and sporty courses with these un-natural or contrived features and misplaced bunkers -- most of these courses were designed at the turn of the century.  Most of these course were designed by the lesser known architects -- Bendelow, Douglas, Emmet to name a few.

Now, we can speculate and say, if Tilly came back from the beyond and visited some of these same courses, would he sell out to this DG and argue for a "total restoration" to the sporty old course of yesterday, or would he say what he believes.  Personally, my guess is that he would make a pitch for a "total redesign" contract to bulldoze the course and build a new one with his name on it.




 
 ;)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on March 22, 2004, 10:27:00 PM
Tom,

You wrote, "It is inmaterial if the club paid Tillinghast or the PGA paid him...the point is he got paid. It is misleading to say the clubs did not pay him a penny. Jobs were not easy come by during the Depression, Tillinghast had a job advising clubs and the result was the removal of 10,000 bunkers. He didn't do it for free."

This thread was started with Mike asking if Tilly "sold out" by doing the PGA tour & using it as a means of creating work and making money for himself from these clubs. How can you possibly say that he was paid even a penny as an answer to this ascertion? He did the work for free to the clubs. NO club paid anyone for his consultation services.

You wrote, "How many of the 200+ bunkers at Brook Hollow were duffer's headaches?What was the difference between the bunkering scheme at Brook Hollow and Hollywood--weren't they both full of duffer's headaches?"

I have no idea.

You wrote, "Do you find it ironic that he was eliminating bunkers from coast to coast at the same time one of his most severely bunkered course was being completed? Wasn't the entire Bethpage-Black concieved as the ultimate duffer's headache?"

No I don't. What I find ironic is that this part of your response shows that you obviously have yet to appreciate what a "Duffer's Headache" bunker was. If you go back and re-read several of the earlier posts you will see that they are described (by Tillinghast) as usually being a short distance off the tee (140 yards) and designed to cause problems for the Duffer only.

The Black course does not have any bunkers either now, or in the past, that would qualify as such. The entire course was designed to challenge the good to accomplish player. Just because bunkers are a great challenge does not make them a "Duffer's Headache!"
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Bill_McBride on March 22, 2004, 10:53:10 PM
I have a copy of AWT's "Gleanings from the Wayside" here and will quote from the book:
"It is a known fact that in the summer of 1935 Tillie commenced a tour of the country's golf courses as a consulting architect for the PGA of America.  Tillie's services were provided free of charge and only to golf courses where PGA members were retained.  Tillie's tour lasted two years through the summer of 1937.  He visited over 500 golf courses and has generally been credited with the elimination of thousands of sandtraps, which he called 'Duffer Headaches,' or DHs for short.  Tillie's DHs included obsolete bunkers, unnatural mounds (sometimes called chocolate drops) or other antiquated course features that hinder the higher handicap player, and are costly to maintain.  In fact, in the middle of his tour Tillie wrote, 'It is a matter of record that I have condemned nearly eight thousand sand traps.'"
    "However, few people are aware that Tillie's services were much more than the elimination of obsolete or 'useless' sand bunkers.  In fact, Tillie had significant design input into hundreds of the golf courses he visited.  There are dozens of well known golf courses with complete golf holes and greens designed by Tillinghast on which golfers play day in and day out thinking they are playing on an untouched Donald Ross course."
     Reading the author's commentary as well as Tillie's notes on DHs he removed (even from his own courses), it seems that he was motivated to remove poorly located and/or unnecessary bunkering, a plan which certainly would reduce maintenance costs at a time when budgets were threatened by the Depression.  Since he was on salary and not involved in the work actually done, it surely seems harsh to say he "sold out."
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Bill_McBride on March 22, 2004, 11:00:16 PM
As an added note, here's an interesting note from "Gleanings" about a MacKenzie masterpiece in California:

"In reference to other architects of the time, Tillie generally praised the work and capabilities of several of his peers --- Donald Ross, George Thomas, Max Behr, Perry Maxwell, Chandler Egan, and Billy Bell.  However, on the occasion of his examination of the Valley Club in Santa Barbara, Tillie did slightly knock the bunkering on this Alister Mackenzie and Robert Hunter collaboration: 'I complimented Hunter particularly on the masterly manner in which the approaches to the greens were contoured.  This a most noticeable feature of this notably fine collection of holes.  However, there were some useless pits, often in the back-flares of greens, and frequently the arrangement of turf and sand in the hazards was trivial and not worthy of the greater part of the work.'"

The interesting aspect here is that the club hired Tom Doak to restore the bunkering behind several greens, most notably #3 and #15, "scare bunkers" which add great depth to these green sites.  Apparently the club took Tillie's advice 70 years ago and has just now restored those wonderful features!

The book also mentions that Tillie's advice re changes to Bel Air were completely ignored by the club!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 22, 2004, 11:08:09 PM
Phil
That 140 yard bunker you refer to is the mathematical cop bunker or trench (that RW mentions)--that type of bunker was mentioned in the 1920 article. I may be mistaken but I do not believe he refers to these bunkers as duffers headaches.

It is my impression the cop bunker was pretty much extinct by 1936.

The DH is mentioned in the 1936 article and I don't believe he specified exactly what a DH was, except a bunker that penalized the duffer. RW mentions a couple of different possiblities.

Do you consider the bunkers short of the Redan at Somerset Hills DH's?

Do you think Tillignhast objected to the sandy waste areas fronting many of the tees at PVGC?

No one said Tilly got rich on his PGA tour, afterall it was during the Depression. There were successful folks jumping out windows, selling pencils on the corner and standing in soup lines. Having gameful employment beat the hell out of those other possiblities. If I were Tilly I'd probably would've done the same.

To keep claiming he was not paid a penny is a total distortion. He got paid, his job was to service the clubs of the PGA.

RW
The Tillinghast Assoc. lists a number of courses designed by Ross, MacKenzie, Fowler, Park, Travis, Barker as part of that PGA tour...were bunkers from these courses among the 7000+ he removed?

I agree Tilly's design style did change over the years, but this is more a change in philosophy. When exactly did he change his philosophy in your opinion (DH aversion). 1930 right after the crash? 1931? 1933? 1935? After Bethpage or before?

And what was the reasons or factors that sparked this change in philosophy?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 23, 2004, 02:40:04 AM
Mike Cirba,

What you, Tom MacWood and others aren't grasping is the impact and severity of the Great Depression on Golf clubs in America.

Clubs had to face serious belt tightening or perish.

Maintainance is usually the largest segment of any clubs overall budget, and as such, the target for any cost containment or reduction efforts.

It would seem highly practical that a club in distress would consult with an eminent architect, offering his services through the PGA, to assist them with the reduction of their
maintainance costs.

I'm sure that word of his services, recommendations and resulting financial savings spread from club to club.

Given the choice of modifying the golf course in an effort to lower costs, in order to continue operating, or choosing the alternative of shutting the doors and auctioning off the golf course, I think his efforts should be viewed as practical and noble.

I think the other possible factor, that many ignore, is that most clubs embarking upon this project probably viewed it as temporary solution to their financial troubles, and that when good times returned, the removed bunkers could be restored.

I would imagine that the error of revisionist history is easy to embrace when you view the removal process in today's context, rather then in the context of a nation under siege.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 23, 2004, 07:00:42 AM
Pat
Do you think the whole sale alteration Tilly made (from coast to coast) in those few years prior to WWII set the tone for the atleration in the 50's and 60's?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 23, 2004, 07:57:17 AM
"I would imagine that the error of revisionist history is easy to embrace when you view the removal process in today's context, rather then in the context of a nation under siege."

Pat:

Bravo!! You are so right about that I can scarcely believe it. This morning you must be squarely in that area (2%) that doesn't happen for you 98% of the time. ;)

Did Tillinghast sell out in the 1930s with his PGA project? I don't think so but only if one looks at what he did in the context of his own time--which as you say is really the only proper way to look at what he did. Few on here seem to get much of an accurate feeling of what was going on back then and how people thought--or let's say didn't think about golf architecture (as some of us do today). It should be better understood what efficiency experts (and how concerned about that they were) some of those professional architects of that time were and what they did in the name of efficiency and economy.

If one put what Tillinghast did back then in the context of our times, of course he'd be selling out--but he didn't live in our times.

There're so many on here who are masterful at coming up with wonderful and documented facts about golf architecture's history and evolution but I'm afraid very few understand how to view those facts accurately in the context of the times they happened. They're very good, though, at viewing those facts in the context of our times--certainly not an altogether useless thing to do actually! But it's impossible to deny that doing that creates massively different perceptions of people and things!

The thing I keep struggling with on this website and elsewhere is how readily those today who care deeply about those old courses label those back in the early days as fools and such. They were anything but that if looked at in the only context they should be looked at---eg in their own time!

This is another good time to reiterate the story of that wonderful 95 year old man and member of our restoration committee when he admitted he was the one who did the things we were complaining about and how back in the day he did them no one understood the things we do now---but that he could now understand and readily agreed with us.

A man like that shows wisdom in both understanding and admitting the vast differences in thinking and most everything else between that era and our own era. A man like that can understand exactly what those differences were and a man like that should now be asked to teach us how to look at that early time after we apparently taught him how to look at ours!

 
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 23, 2004, 08:04:14 AM
Tom MacWood,

It's quite possible.

Like the domino theory, once one alteration is made it can set in motion the environment for additional alterations to be made.

It would be interesting to read the minutes of clubs that altered their courses in the 30's, 50's and 60's.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: A_Clay_Man on March 23, 2004, 08:34:38 AM
An interesting ommission from all of this speculation is Tillie's (and Mac's) egos. How much did their egos play a part, in their decisions?

Also, if we consider the bunker removal as "dumbing down" the courses, for the less skilled golfer. Could all this have started a trend to gear the canvas for the less sophisticated? Challenging them less and less, and opening the door for everybodies favorite whine: "That's unfair". And if that's twue, is it any wonder gca evolved into long and down the middle?

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Neil Regan on March 23, 2004, 09:05:14 AM
It would be interesting to read the minutes of clubs that altered their courses in the 30's, 50's and 60's.

Pat,
  I have recently been reading the Winged Foot minutes from the 1930s.
   Survival is the theme. Other clubs are closing or desperate for members. Members are unable to pay their $200 (!) and are being given extensions. Staff is being regretfully reduced, and course conditioning is discussed with the goal of playability (not design principles.)
   In 1933 (I think, from memory) the club invested $7,500 (again, from memory) in maintennance equipment and labor. This is discussed as extraordinary, and justifiable. Numerous members testify that the club was the only one in the area to have playable grass all summer, and the membership committee reports new members joining for that reason.
   Regarding how long-lasting were the effects of the depression era and their contingent priorities, here is an interesting item. I recently read in the USGA Journal archives  a letter written in 1955 from Oscar Carlson, the president of Siwanoy  (http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1950s/1955/550433.pdf) very near Winged Foot. He thanks the USGA for their very effective agronomic advice in 1954, and states
Quote
1954 was the first year summer rules were played at Siwanoy since 1939.

  Think about that. As late as 1954, at least, the priority is getting the grass to grow, and not design principles.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on March 23, 2004, 09:09:13 AM
Tom/Pat;

Of course I'm viewing Tillinghast's motivation in his own time.  

My point is that you had this brilliant, daring, wild-man who could almost be a characterization of the excesses of the Roaring 20's, and then the Depression hits and he becomes the spokesperson for tamer designs, removal of bunkers and other austerity programs!  Quite the 180, wouldn't you say?

I realize he did what he needed to do to survive.  I'm also suggesting that his new pragmatic tone was more borne of necessity than actual philosophic belief.  I mean, what else could he advise clubs?  They weren't going to buy into any expensive plans so he kept the program going by becoming a champion of bunker removal (I have a tough time imagining 10,000 or more "top shot bunkers", don't you?) which kept him in demand and in good graces with the PGA, who he apparently fastidiously reported the results of his "consultations" to.

I guess the ironic part is that the clubs themselves could have saved money simply by stopping maintaining bunkers, or, at least stopping maintenance on those deemed to be useless and out of play.  Did they really require the advice of a professional to tell them that?

I find the whole thing pretty amazing and ironic, and as much attributable to Tillinghast's salesmanship skills and adaptability as anything else.  


Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 23, 2004, 09:12:25 AM
"It would be interesting to read the minutes of clubs that altered their courses in the 30's, 50's and 60's."

Pat;

The minutes of my club that're completely preserved are probably as representative as any club as to what happened and why in the 1930s, 1950s and 1960s. In the 1940s too.  
 
 
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on March 23, 2004, 09:15:17 AM
Pat;

Also, as the guy who posted the brilliant original aerial of Hollywood here, would you agree that Tillinghast's work during those years might not have been to the benefit of architecture in the long run?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 23, 2004, 09:22:43 AM
Selling out is too strong…compromising is more accurate in my opinion. I will acknowledge Tilly saved some clubs from the brink of extinction, unfortunately the eradication of 7000+ bunkers was not based upon each club’s financial predicament. Some no doubt were in bad shape, others I’m sure were more financially fit. But his philosophy was universal, he treated the Bel-Air and the Valley Club the same as he did Pontausuk Lake. Which makes sense -- for his mission to be successful he had to have a consistent message.

Thomas, MacKenzie and Tillinghast were all known for creating elaborate bunkering schemes which produced the maximum interest not only for the strong golfer but also the duffer. Many of these bunkers placed in the foreground of these holes and the general  randomness of their bunkering was designed to challenge and create excitement for every level of golfer. The removal of the bunkers at the Valley Club as an example, or Hollywood, or the recommendations at Bel-Air were unfortunate IMO, and ran contrary to Tillinghast’s career long design practices. It would have been interesting to see if he would have carried this new found philosophy into his new design work…..did he design anything after Bethpage?

Also Tillinghast’s systematic removal of these bunkers and the remodeling of hundreds of courses within a couple year period, may have opened the flood gates for what followed after the war. If you compare the old Oakland Hills with the remodeled RTJ Oakland Hills you can see a continuation of some of Tilly’s PGA mentality. The former course was beautifully bunkered with a random en echelon bunkering scheme. RTJ removed all of the fore-bunkers which effected play for the masses, and removed the en echelon quality and replaced it with a symmetrical scheme that pinched the landing area right and left from 240 to 270 yards for the Tiger. This was repeated at Firestone and elsewhere.

Were RTJ, Dick Wilson, RB Harris and others simply picking up the baton Tilly left them?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: ForkaB on March 23, 2004, 09:39:30 AM
So what?

Does whatever Tillie did or did not do in the 30's denigrate the quality of the golf courses he designed?  Sruely not.  And, even if he advocated the mass removal of bunkers at certain courses, was that a bad thing?  If so, why?

Just wondering......
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 23, 2004, 09:49:39 AM
Rich
Surely not.

But like the Art Historians who claim Picasso's creative height occured in 1928 and from there he slid steadily down hill, it is useful (and interesting) to look at the entire career--good and bad.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on March 23, 2004, 09:58:18 AM
So what?

Does whatever Tillie did or did not do in the 30's denigrate the quality of the golf courses he designed?  Sruely not.

Rich - of course not.  He even went on to design Bethpage, at least in terms of hole concepts if not necessarily in on the ground execution during that time.  

  And, even if he advocated the mass removal of bunkers at certain courses, was that a bad thing?  If so, why?

Rich - I think it depends.  I've seen holes where removal of bunkers has improved them and then I see Hollywood as it was and what was lost during those years and am saddened.

It seems a lot of it was done for economic reasons, which often is at odds, or at least a limiting factor, to great architecture.

If all 500 courses he visited acted on his consultations (and it's clear that many did not), 10,000 bunkers removed would be twenty per course.  The actual number is probably closer to 40-50.

Were they all top-shot and out of play bunkers?
 
Just wondering......
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: ForkaB on March 23, 2004, 10:07:12 AM
Agreed, Tom, if, you also agree that what he did in his PGA role just might have improved those courses, not just financially, but also as golf courses.  Until I see specific arguments, I don;t know.

Mike

I don't know either.  I've only played two Tillie's, SFGC and Brook Hollow, and I thought the former had quite enough bunkers, thank you, and cannot imagine the latter in it's original guise--good way of separating holes in the days before there were trees in Texas, but surely not a sustainable design today.  At least 1/2 of the 10,000 bunkers removed must have come from that course alone!  Both are great tracks and experiences, regardless.......

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Bruce Katona on March 23, 2004, 11:50:23 AM
Someone said it earlier and the post about summer rules finally being in place in the early 1950's is a fine example; SURVIVAL for these clubs was the key.

How would we all feel if places like Baltusrol, Somerset Hills, Ridgewood, etc were lost because of the Great Depression?   We be debating on this site which of these wonderful clubs was an equal  to other memorable lost courses like The Lido.  Thankfully the funds, manpower and transportation were available to have someone of Tillie's talent work with many clubs to insure their survival.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 23, 2004, 01:08:41 PM
Rich
I've acknowledged Tilly most certainly shared advise which helped financially strapped clubs. I have no doubt he improved some of these courses architecturally also--espcecially those of lesser architects. But I am also convinced his one size fits all 'DH' mission damaged a number of very good golf courses, including some of his own.

The point that Mike originally made has never been addressed...basically that Tilly became a minimalist in order to stay employed....his designs never reflected this philosophy (even during the Depression). One week he is overseeing the construction of one his most boldly bunkered courses (during the heart of Depression), the next week he is telling clubs from coast to coast bunkers need to go.

What changed in 1935?

Bruce
No doubt many clubs went under during the Depression and WWII, but I'm not sure anyone has been able to make the case these courses could have survived if more bunkers were removed...that seems to be an over-simplication of the situation.

Did Tilly advise Baltusrol, Somerset Hills and Ridgewood?

I believe the head of the PGA (who hire Tilly) was also the head of Ridgewood (it hosted the PGA in the mid-30's)--I suspect Ridgewood did not have any bunkers removed.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on March 23, 2004, 02:09:41 PM
I think some of the posts grossly overestimate and simplify Tillinghast's consulting assignment for the PGA.  He did not treat every property the same or another words apply a cookie cutter approach and his own style on every course.   If the course was a particularly good one, there were very few recommendations.  If the course was not, there were allot of recommendations.

The Valley Club may be an example.  In the letter, Tilly did not provide a specific recommendation for the removal of any bunkers.  However, he did say there were some bunkers that he did not like, or more particularly he did not like the trademark Mackenzie arrangement of sand and turf.  In all the other letters for all the other clubs, if there was a recommendation for bunker removal, the letter was quite specific and said just that -- "...recommended the removal of DH's".  

In contrast the letter on Valley is very complementary of the course and the Hunter-Mac design.  Perhaps Bunkers were removed after Tilly's visit, but this could also possibly be pinned on Robert Hunter as he was there the day Tilly visited, as Tilly wrote,

..."I talked to the chairman of the green committee, answering such queries as he put to me, and also with Robert Hunter, who collaborated with Dr. Mackenzie in 1929, when the course was built."

Tilly wrote nearly 400 letters summarizing his work.  The letters should be read in full before suppositions are stretched to revisionists conclusions.  In fact, if you read them, you will learn that there was a secret code buried in the text -- in which Tilly communicated with President Roosevelt and identified in which backfilled bunkers he hid the WMDs.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on March 23, 2004, 02:23:23 PM
In fact, if you read them, you will learn that there was a secret code buried in the text -- in which Tilly communicated with President Roosevelt and identified in which backfilled bunkers he hid the WMDs.

AHA!

That's exactly what I was trying to get at.  I knew it.  ;)

Rick;

Seriously, I don't know if anyone is making suppositions or coming to grand conclusions by asking tough questions based on largely circumstantial evidence.  To the contrary, I think we're trying to flesh out the story as well as trying to better understand the impact of the work that was done at various clubs during that time.

You and Phil have both been helpful in putting meat on the bones here and increasing the depth of our understanding.  

Based on your knowledge however, would you say that architecture was generally advanced by his effort, or started to decline during this period.  10,000 bunkers removed seems a lot and it's tough to imagine that it was all for the good, especially when one looks at an example like Hollywood, for instance.

Or, was this estimate simply Tillinghast's hyperbolic claim?  

 
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 23, 2004, 02:58:59 PM
RW
What specifically did Tilly not like about MacKenzie's arangement of turf and sand....what was his opinion of the arangment of turf and sand at SFGC?

You say the bunkers being removed at the Valley Club could be "pinned" on Hunter...by putting possible blame on Hunter I take it you are acknowledging that it wasn't a good thing?

What was Tilly's financial situation when he began the PGA tour?

I believe there is tendency to put these men on a petistol and not acknowledge they were human. And like all humans they had weaknesses and made mistakes (and in some cases weren't very pleasant people).

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 23, 2004, 05:37:49 PM
Mike -
I think you are laboring under the assumption that Tillie became a minimalist for the sake of survival. The only evidence that would seem to support this would be his later work at Bethpage, a pretty strong indicator that his change of heart was a rationalization in time of need, but by no means dispositive.

However, other than that I have no other reason to believe that Tillinghast change of heart came as a result of a 1) genuine belief that courses were becoming overbunkered, or 2) that overbunkering would condemn courses (including his own) to bankruptcy.

Other than his later work at at Bethpage, I have no reason to believe, nor is there any affirmative evidence to suggest that Tillie was employing a double standard for the sake of self-preservation. The more reasonable inference seems to point to the preservation of clubs as ongoing concerns with reduced operating costs. Mike is correct in drawing the inference that Tillie's change of heart was "born of necessity," I just worry about the indictment that the necessity was exclusively his own. Since it seems like he was paid fairly modestly by the PGA, and not directly by the clubs he consulted, he may have had an interest in the club's preservation, and, not merely his own.

Another thing that bears mentioning that has received full treatment w/r/t Robert Trent Jones' own renovations later, these clubs were not captive to Tillie. These were only recommendations.  

64% good.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 23, 2004, 06:26:58 PM
Adam Clayman,

I think your "ego" theory is a wild theory without basis in fact and a theory that doesn't understand the Great Depression and its impact on golf clubs.

Just read Neil Regan's paraphrased response to my comments.
A response that confirms the severity of the dire times for golf courses and the nation.

Mike Cirba,

While you say you're couching your argument in AWT's times, your comments are in denial of the severity of the times, and
their impact on golf courses.

The motives you attribute to AWT are flawed as well.

He wasn't a spokesmen for tamer designs, he was a spokesmen for survival.   Reduce your maintainance costs or perish, it's that simple.

How do you know what AWT's salesmenship abilities were ?

He didn't have to promote himself, he was a highly respected architect and clubs were desperate for financial relief that would allow them to survive.

Hollywood's bunkers and their alteration and removal was more a product of the membership and green chairmen then AWT.

If you look at the old aerial of Hollywood, who on this site could play that course day in and day out and not consider taking up bowling ??

It was intended as a "Championship" golf course that an average membership couldn't handle, and as such, it was modified to suit the emerging and aging membership desires.

Bruce Katona,

Those clubs didn't survive without their bumps in the road.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 23, 2004, 07:28:22 PM
Sean
I take the opposite stance...Mike's theory is more plausable than anything anyone else has presented. His body of work and in particular the Bethapge courses are the strongest evidence anyone has presented.

Tillinghast was editor of Golf Illustrated in 1933, 1934 and 1935 (the magazine went under in July 1935 in that issue he announced he was taking job with the PGA)...that was the heart of the Depression, there should be plenty of articles written about 'Duffers Headaches' and the overbunkering of America. Perhaps you are aware of these articles..I haven't seen any. His pet peeve at the time was the lengthening of golf courses.

In February 1935 in an article entitled 'The Ideal Course Rugged and Natural' he wrote about natural hazards and in particular dunes. Near the end of article he quote Findlay Douglas on the great number of natual courses waiting to be discovered out on Montauk.

"But no doubt many of the hazard-shirking fraternity would declare that playing a wayward ball from such places was entirely too difficult. What utter nonsence!"

Now that's the Tilly I love.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on March 23, 2004, 08:37:01 PM
Mike and Tom,

Will you please define what Tilly meant when he referred to a bunker as a "Duffer's Headache?"

Tom, how did Tilly benefit even one penny financially from any CLUB that he examined. This is separate from the small salary he received from the PGA for doing this.

How can anyone call Tilly a minimalist and having changed his design philosophies because he called for the elimination of a bunch of bunkers that were of a style that he preached as being wrong for teh courses, the players and the game for over thirty years?

What can anyone possibly cite as proof of this on the courses at Bethpage?

Bythe way, the last issue of Golf Ilustrated was September of 1935. You can see this and the August issue at the PGA of America Otto Probst library in Port St. Lucie. On the cover of the Sept. issue, the only one in existence, is written in pencil, "This issue never distributed. I resigned as Editor last month. AWT"
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on March 23, 2004, 09:12:06 PM
After reading all the posts several times I can honestly say that I have found an answer for myself and it is that Tillinghast didn't "sell out".
The posts of Philip Young and Rick Wolfe, two people who seem to have their facts in order, helped to settle the question for me. Neil Regan's post about Winged Foot  members having trouble paying dues and Bill McBrides post about summer rules not being played until the '50s at a particular club also added icing to the cake. Something else that I found was that the USGA Green Section suspended publication in '34, '35 and '37 and the magazine really didn't get back to full tilt until the late '40s. This may be inconsequential to some but to me it says a whole lot about what anyone was able to do at their courses during the depression and into the '50s.
The questioning of what AWT actually did during this time frame has been insightful, at least for me, but I can't find anything in the position of those who think he "sold out" that is based on anything more than conjecture and allusions to ulterior motives, none of which seem to jive with the recorded
facts supplied by those I mentioned above.
   
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Tyler Kearns on March 23, 2004, 09:16:37 PM
Tillinghast was paid a salary by the PGA of America, he was not paid a percentage of the construction budget for his proposed changes at the courses he consulted. Because of this, it is fair to say that he did not change his architectural philosophy in order to make more money, and thus, did not "sell-out".

Tyler Kearns
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 23, 2004, 10:10:44 PM
Tom -
I would be particularly interested to know whose idea this trip was. Was it proposed by Tillie to the PGA or vice versa. If it the latter, then it has significant bearing, in my mind, as to whether or not Tillie compromised his own design philosophy vis-a-vis extensive bunkering.

One can imagine that the PGA, through its network of club pros may have been receiving anecdotal evidence that memberships were dwindling as a result of either the playability of courses, or extensive maintenance budgets and that this was pushing clubs to the brink. If this was relayed to the PGA who in turn employed Tillie (who may or may not have had misgivings about some of these bunkers in the first place), then is the subsequent recommendations made by Tillie in his barnstorming tour a compromise or a "selling out"?
I don't think so, it would seem to be a pragmatic solution to a documented problem, and not any embodiment of Tillie's own thoughts untethered to exigent circumstances.

The above is speculation not supported by any ascertainable facts, but I'm not sure Mike's premise is any less (or more) tenuous or corroborated by more affirmative evidence.

By the way, let me add that I think this is one of the most interesting and thought-provoking threads to appear on GCA in quite some time, and the decorum of the participants is strictly top drawer - quite an accomplishment in this day and age.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 23, 2004, 10:15:29 PM
Phil
How many golf courses did Tilly design in the five or six years prior to the crash and how many did he design after the crash?

As far as I can tell he didn't do much design work after the crash.

How many redesigns, bunker removals, ecomonical projects did he take between October 1929 and July 1935 when Golf Illustrated went under?

As far as I know he didn't do any...new work was hard to come by, redesign work was hard to come by, thank God he had the Golf Illustrated job.

How may articles did he write in Golf Illustrated (1933, '34, '35)about duffers headaches and/or the over bunkering of America?

Perhaps you have found them...I have not.

The Depression was five years old in 1935...what you make of the timing of his new found attititude and the job opportunity at the PGA to replace the one he'd just lost?

What was his financial status in 1935-36?

From what I understand not good.

I have no idea what Tilly was refering to with DH...I suspect anything that would not be in the range of the Tiger.

There is a benefit in having a job as opposed to selling pencils or standing in a soup line. What golf design projects could he have landed in 1935, 1936, 1937?  

How were the bunkers at Hollywood, Valley, Bel-Air and his  own designs wrong for their courses?

That is the point...he was never a minimlist...look at Bethpage...he was forced to become a minimalist due to his circumstances.

Thanks for the info on Golf Illustrated...was that the merged American Golfer/Golf Illustrated....and was there any mention of Duffers Headaches?

Jim Kennedy
What facts?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 23, 2004, 10:28:24 PM
Sean
Herb Graffis wrote an extensive history of the PGA. He goes into the entire situation and chain of events...it was the PGA's idea.

In fact I believe the book says the PGA president, who was a friend of Tilly's, wanted to help him out and at the same time help his members. It was a one year contract, after the first year it had been so successful (they financially quantified the bunkers removed ) they extended Tilly's contract for another year. The book goes into the rational for the PGA in developing the project.

I personally don't think Tilly did anything most of us wouldn't have done under the circumstances, we have all compromised our prinicipals at one time or another.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 24, 2004, 12:02:31 AM
Tom -
That's very interesting, adn I think it changes the game. Does the article or book say why they thought it was necessary?

If it resembles anything like the scenario I laid out in my last point, I think it is unfair to use this trip to impeach the integrity of Tillie, or to say he compromised his beliefs in anyway.

It may simply be that he was trying to avoid the greater evil of an epidemic of course closures. If necessity is good enough to excuse criminal conduct, why should Tillie be held to higher standard? He didn't develop this theory, the PGA did, and maybe they had justifiable reason for doing so.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on March 24, 2004, 12:42:32 AM
Tom,
I think that the "why" of AWT's work has been well documented on this thread by Rick Wolfe and Philip Young
and it may very well have saved some courses from extinction, as your last post suggests, "..they(PGA) financially quantified the bunkers removed".

I think it was Philip Young who said that in reading Mr. T's letters from the time it was plain that he (Mr.T) was suggesting the removal of unsound and outdated bunkering and the like. I can't help but believe that AWT might have had a pretty good idea of what was sound so I don't see how his actions could be seen as compromising to his principles.  

Bring this same idea into the modern era, i.e., a noted architect will come to your course and make free suggestions, and clubs would be fighting for a place in line.    

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 24, 2004, 06:17:08 AM
Tom MacWood,

If AWT didn't get paid on a per project basis, but on a retainor or yearly stipend, and the club's didn't pay him a fee or percentage of the construction costs, if they elected to do the work, and many didn't, and the purpose of his work was to offer methods for clubs to reduce the financial burden on their maintainance budget through non-routing alterations to their golf course, how on earth can you imply that he sold out, changed his style or modus operendi ?

It would seem that his expertise was employed in an effort to help the clubs survive dire times in a very practical way.

Right now we're seeing clubs having difficulty attracting members.  Many clubs are having financial difficulty.
If financial times were to get much, much worse, woulnd't it be practical for clubs today to call in an "expert" architects,
agronomists, and others in an attempt to drastically reduce costs ?

I think it's the only prudent thing to do,
unless, you want to convert the golf course to home sites.

P.S.  The effects of the depression were felt long after its initial impact, and then came WWII, which wasn't great for golf in America.   Just look at what happened to ANGC.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 24, 2004, 07:10:40 AM
Pat
You are simply repeating what has already been covered. I know he didn't get paid per project....he recieved a salary from the PGA...he was on the PGA payroll as a consultant for their member clubs.

What was Tilly's financial situation in 1935?

Other than the $750 he recieved for designing Bethpage...how much money did he make as a golf architect in '33, '34 and '35?

In 1935 how many golf architects were working at their craft?

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 24, 2004, 07:24:04 AM
Tom MAcWood,

As I cited previously, these were tough financial times for America and Golf in America.

I think that addresses Mike's initial point and those points raised subsequently
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 24, 2004, 09:47:00 PM
It was the PGA's idea, in particular George Jacobus president of the PGA. Tillinghast was suffering through serious financial difficulties, and his very close friend Jacobus put him on the payroll (there were some who questioned why a PGA member architect was not hired).

The PGA funding came from the dues of their members (mostly club pros), in addition from the fledgling PGA Tour. Unfortunately during the Depression many Pros were being let go by their clubs. Membership in the PGA had been dropping consistently through the 30's and it was major concern to Jacobus.

The purpose of the consulting tour (according to Graffis) was to present the pro to his employer as a helpful authority. It was also hoped that Tilly and his recommendations would be carried out by an architect (many of whom were PGA members). There was an understanding that Tilly would have nothing to do with the actual work. Unfortunately the clubs rarely hired an architect when they had Tilly for free.

Tilly was hired first for a two month stint, but because of the success of the tour the contract was extended. In one day Tilly would go over of the course and present a recommendation plan to club officials.

At the end of the year Tilly would give a report during the PGA annual meeting, basically giving a scorecard -- the number of bunkers removed and the estimated dollar figure. In 1936 he reported he had advised 370 courses and 7427 traps had been removed, at an estimated savings of $164,000/year in trap raking. (I wonder what the raking costs were at Bethpage?) He eliminated 92 traps at one course; 41 at another.

1936 Tilly stated the sand wedge had made bunkers far too easy--especially for the expert. He also claimed rough was a better hazard (recommending the introduction of longer grass); in addition rough was less expensive. Prior to 1936 long grass was not a favored hazard for Tilly--just the opposite.

Evidently Tilly was embarrassed by the success of his tour, he claimed it illustrated the poor state of design up until that point, he believed this poor condition proved there was a need for architectural renovations (a little difficult to swallow). I suspect he may have also been embarrassed he was consulting for free, obviously cutting into any potential work for other architects. I also wonder if his change in philosophy and the altering of numerous courses designed by respected contemporaries was embarrassing.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on March 25, 2004, 09:47:14 AM
Why Tom, I am totally stunned!

After all the tweaking that you gave me throughout this thread where every time I wrote that Tillinghast did his work entirely for free as far as the clubs were concerned, you would respond with something on the order of, "Since the PGA paid him, he didn't do it for free..."

I am ALMOST at a loss for words then when I read your last post and in it you write, "I suspect he may have also been embarrassed he was consulting for free"

You also mentioned how the club pros were feeling the pinch during the depression with PGA membership being on the decline and this service then, "(according to Graffis) was to present the pro to his employer as a helpful authority..."

That's another one I wish I had thought to mention.   ;D

By the way, as a founder of the PGA of America back in the teens, why would the membership have complaints about his doing this valuable service?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 25, 2004, 11:13:28 AM
Phil,
I think what you're focusing on is whether or not Tillie got paid by the clubs. What Tom is focused on is whether Tillie got paid...period.

The troubling development in all of this is that Tillie's compensation, evidently, was proportional to the number of bunkers he removed. I would have no problem if he were paid a salary by the PGA, and as I said before - he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. But where he was paid on a commission basis, he had a vested interest in advocating removal of bunkers, DH's or otherwise.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 25, 2004, 11:40:50 AM
SPDB,

Where do you jump to the conclusion that AWT was paid on a per bunker removed basis ?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on March 25, 2004, 12:07:30 PM
Pat Mucci,

AWT couldn't have been anything but a great salesman in his heyday, or he wouldn't have had as many top drawer courses.

Tom MacWood,

You asked about Tillie's financial condition in 1935.  Didn't I read somewhere where he returned from one of these trips for the PGA to find his house had been lost to foreclosure, and that he took his fall in status very gracefully?  

Also, was he the one who sold off his collection of art in order to start an antique store, or was that someone else?

Just asking.  As Casey Stengal would say. "You could look it up,"  but I don't have the time today, and I'll bet someone here knows.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 25, 2004, 12:18:00 PM
Jeff Brauer,

So you don't think that his talent, the highly regarded golf courses he produced, his notoriety at the time and his pedigree had anything to do with his being selected as the architect of choice ???
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on March 25, 2004, 01:03:43 PM
SPDP you wrote, "The troubling development in all of this is that Tillie's compensation, evidently, was proportional to the number of bunkers he removed."

Where do you get this information from?

The ONLY moneys that Tilly received was the SALARY, and it was not a large one from the PGA. He was not paid anything by anyone, including the PGA, for his consulting work, and he DEFINITELY was not paid on a per trap removal basis.

The reason that I stress this is that the question was asked as to whether Tilly "sold out" in two ways. The first ascertion was that he was paid money for this work by the clubs and/or that he created work for himself by which he received commissions. This did not happen. Tom then is of the opinion that since he received a salary for working for the PGA of America for providing free work and advice to the member pros and their clubs, that it was the same thing. That is not a valid argument IMHO.

The second way that he was supposed to have sold out, is that he has, all of a sudden, changed his design philosophy by recommending the removal of the "Duffer's Headaches" type of traps that had become COMMON PLace on many courses throughout the country. This to is not true. He had been critical of traps whose sloe purpose was to punish the "duffer" and that would never affect even a fair player no less a good one. I read an article that Tilly wrote in 1901 about St. Andrews where he was critical of "the pits" that were placed so as to punish the unaccomplished player. This shows that from the very beginning, he had definite ideas as to the proper placement of bunkers and how courses should be designed to challenge the good player while still be enjoyable for the poor one. He maintained this philosophy until he died.

Think about how today's courses are being changed to challenge the pros. Pushing fairway bunkers out to the 280-340 yard range to specifically challenge the landing area where a modern pro might carry his drives to, is NOT a "Duffer's Headache." A poor player may end up in one of these after two, three, four or more swings, but we both know that a duffer who nails that one drive that ends up in the 300 yard bunker will be thrilled and will brag about it every time he comes to that hole.

It is because the two points of this question have been raised in this fashion that I respond as I do.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on March 25, 2004, 01:09:53 PM
Pat,

Chicken or Egg?  Design Great courses or ability to sell to get great clients?  He was known to be fairly flamboyant, and all great architects are great salesman and promoters.

I'm not sure if you are referring to his career in the 20's or his gig with the PGA when you call him architect of choice, but assume you mean the former, when saying this.  As noted above somewhere, he got the PGA gig through his good friend George Jacobus, and it sounds like a good idea for the pros involved, but also somewhat a charitable gesture towards Tillie, no doubt.

As to compensation, I think I have read (in the Tillie Trilogy) some of his reports, and he specifically recommends local architects or at least builders to carry out the work.  This avoids the conflict of interest in working for free, or using his PGA position to solicit work for himself.  I have not looked that up to confirm, though.  And, I have been wrong before!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 25, 2004, 03:20:59 PM
Jeff Brauer,

Do you think that Tom Doak had to do much selling after Pacific Dunes made its debut ?

Would you categorize Tom Doak as a great salesman ?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 25, 2004, 03:30:53 PM

At the end of the year Tilly would give a report during the PGA annual meeting, basically giving a scorecard -- the number of bunkers removed and the estimated dollar figure. In 1936 he reported he had advised 370 courses and 7427 traps had been removed, at an estimated savings of $164,000/year in trap raking. (I wonder what the raking costs were at Bethpage?) He eliminated 92 traps at one course; 41 at another.


I would simply like to know what bearing, if any, these "savings" had on Tillie's compensation. If his salary was in anyway tied to these quantifiable "savings" then it would raise eyebrows, b/c tillie would have a vested interest in eliminating bunkers.

I started off this thread on Tillie's side, now I'm not so sure.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 25, 2004, 03:43:28 PM
SPDB,

How do you reach your conclusion that AWT was paid on a per bunker removal schedule.

Tom MacWood doesn't say that in the part you quoted.
Phil Young also refutes your contention.

Yet, you persist in concluding that he was paid on a per bunker removal, with absolutely no facts to support your contention.    Why smear AWT because you've made an irrational leap to an irresponsible conclusion ?

Ask yourself, why would the PGA pay him on a per bunker removal basis ??

What motivation would the PGA have for the wholesale removal of bunkers through out the country ?

It's an irresponsible, if not an absurd conclusion.

Perhaps you misread and/or misinterpreted Tom MacWood's above post, which you quoted.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on March 25, 2004, 03:50:03 PM
Patrick;

Wouldn't you think that the ongoing "viability" (re: funding) of Tillinghast's PGA work would have to be based on some quantifiable result?  

In this case, it seems that the PGA's purpose was 1) Promotion of their professional membership to clubs, and 2) Helping clubs with "cost savings".  

I think Tillie sensed that his contract was based on the understanding that he had to prove the benefit of his cost-saving measures.  Why else would he fastidiously report such detail items as 7,000 bunkers to his bosses?  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 25, 2004, 04:02:17 PM
Mike,
Wouldn't you think that the ongoing "viability" (re: funding) of Tillinghast's PGA work would have to be based on some quantifiable result?

For who ?
What benefit inures to the PGA ?
 

In this case, it seems that the PGA's purpose was 1) Promotion of their professional membership to clubs, and 2) Helping clubs with "cost savings".

Do you really feel that the PGA was a viable force or influence on golf clubs ?

If so, why couldn't the get their local members, the club pro, access to the clubhouses at the clubs they served ?


I think Tillie sensed that his contract was based on the understanding that he had to prove the benefit of his cost-saving measures.  Why else would he fastidiously report such detail items as 7,000 bunkers to his bosses?  

What leads you to sense that, quessing or documentation ?

Are there any minutes that directly connect the number of bunkers he removed at local clubs to his method of pay by the PGA ?

He would report to provide them with an idea on the scope of his travels.  He was on their payroll and most firms like to know about the activities of those on their payroll.

How much do you think he was paid per bunker ?

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on March 25, 2004, 04:10:57 PM
Pat,

I don't know Tom that well, nor have I ever sold directly against him that I can recall, but I think he is not as flamboyant as some others, and even a bit quiet at times. So, perhaps, he does let Pacific Dunes speak for him at times!

But, he still has to sell.  Yes, Keiser has given him some repeat business and/or referrals to friends.  Others may had a job or two on a silver platter.  But, I understand that some of the projects he is pursuing are competitive, with other top architects also involved, so he still has to sell his ideas, personality, and approach to many potential new clients.

Most certainly!

I don't disagree with your contention that having designed a great course or two helps the sales process.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on March 25, 2004, 04:12:13 PM
It appears to me that the singular point that many are missing is the purpose for this service.

The Depression cut the funds that the PGA of America was receiving. Many members stopped paying their dues as well as quit the organization. Remember, the PGA was the pros organization, NOT the clubs. When money was free and flowing the clubs paid the dues as part of the pros compensation. When hard times came, this stopped.

Jacobus had to give his members a "quantifiable value" for the membership dues. This value was measured by the clubs keeping their pros, and remember also many fired their pros as a cost-cutting measure, and by the pros giving something to their club, in this case a free consultation by a recognized world-class architect.

As a result, the one to benefit from this was the PGA! Membership rose, the fledgling tour of paid tournaments were funded, Pros got their jobs back, and Tillinghast didn't receive one extra dime for any of this, beyond what the PGA was paying him.

The monies that the PGA saw from this was not immediate, but a slow and steady increase in the dues that were owed and finally paid as well as more dues received with more pros now actually joining.

Remember too that Tillinghast ONLY went to courses that had a pro who was a member of the PGA of America. There are many examples in the letters he wrote to Jacobus during this time of his refusal to visit courses because the pro was not a member. In each case they were refered to the local head of the PGA chapter they would belong in. Again, the PGA benefited, but no extra money was seen by Tillinghast.

Finally, if this was the fiancial windfall for Tillinghast that some claim, why did he lose his home during this period? Why would he stop traveling and making money when he needed it the most?

The arguments don't hold.

Now if anyone wants to say that the PGA greatly benefited from this I would whole-heartedly agree for the reasons stated above. That, though, is a different kettle of fish.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 25, 2004, 04:15:17 PM
Jeff Brauer,

I would imagine that an important factor, if not the critical factor, in the process is the developer, and his needs.

Perhaps he needs to be sold on one or more of the following.

Ideas, concepts, the architecture, or the man.

There has to be chemistry or trigger that acts to connect the developer and the architect.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 25, 2004, 04:18:30 PM
Pat -
How do you reach the conclusion that I'm reaching a conclusion?

If you read my post again, you might notice that i'm looking for what criteria Tillie's salary is based on, and if it is somehow tied to the work done, and savings accrued then it would raise eyebrows.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 25, 2004, 04:27:18 PM
SPDB,
I would simply like to know what bearing, if any, these "savings" had on Tillie's compensation.

Nothing provided to date indicates that the two are linked.

Why would the PGA hire him and direct him to eliminate as many bunkers as he could ?  How would it serve the PGA if every bunker at every golf course was removed ?


If his salary was in anyway tied to these quantifiable "savings" then it would raise eyebrows, b/c tillie would have a vested interest in eliminating bunkers.

Again, there is no record of a tie in.
Your conspiracy theory is inflamatory and derogatory, absent the slightest inkling of supporting documentation


I started off this thread on Tillie's side, now I'm not so sure.

I can understand that, but theory, without motive, and without supporting documentation, would seem to be irresponsibly painting a great architect in a poor light.
And, if this was the case, as Tom MacWood points out, why would he continue to design golf courses with bunkers and also leave his prior creations as is, if he had financial incentive to do just the opposite ?

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 25, 2004, 04:30:21 PM
Phil -
I think you seem to be missing what I (and perhaps others) am trying to figure out.

I know Tillie didn't get paid by the clubs, that is crystal clear - no one is disputing that. But that doesn't foreclose the analysis. On what criteria was Tillie compensation made? arbitrary? % of "maintenance savings" ... what? It matters not that it was a pittance. No one is disputing that Tillie was justified in wanting to make any money during a period when a large percentage of the population were making no money. However, that doesn't answer the dispositive question. Which one of the the following do you think is most correct:

1. That Tillie thought the America's courses were overbunkered and bunkers should be eliminated irrespective of financial situations. ["Pure Overbunkering Theory"]  

2. Whether Tillie thought that clubs could save on maintenance by cutting down bunkers and brought this idea to the attention of the PGA, who agreed. ["Tillie Practical Bunkering Theory"]

3. Whether the PGA thought courses could save on maintenance, and recruited Tillie to make recommendations to club on this basis ["The Disinterested Employee Theory"]


Which one?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 25, 2004, 04:35:50 PM
Pat - Under any interpretation, my post is merely a series of if/then propositions. There is no conclusion drawn within it, and for you to say that there is, is unfair. I'm merely looking for facts which can help fill in those proposition.

When I make a conclusion, you will know because the clauses following "if" and "then" will be transposed, the "if" and "then" will be removed and the clauses will be joined by "because"

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 25, 2004, 04:43:57 PM
SPDB,

You're asking me to make a forced choice on one of ONLY three possible answers, answers that I have some disagreement with.

Those three aren't the only possibilities, and to confine your thinking to just those three doesn't shed light on the situation.

Could it simply be, that through the local PGA pro, the PGA was trying to make a service available, where a famous architect would consult with a club that had a PGA Pro, for the purposes of assisting that club with cost efficiencies associated with architecture and maintainance ?

And, by doing so, the PGA was selling to clubs, one of the benefits that a club could enjoy from employing a PGA Pro ?
A free consulting service.

Sounds like a good deal to me.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 25, 2004, 04:58:03 PM
Pat !
You're speculating without the slightest factual support!  ;D

Seriously, though, what you subscribe would fall into the Disinterested Employee Theory, viz. It was the PGA's idea.

By the way, you're "free consulting service" sounds a lot like the soft dollar business.

If a club actually decided to keep employing a PGA pro because of the "free consulting service", then its technically not a free service. But for the architectural service, the money they paid the PGA pro would not have been spent. The architectural service part of the bargain, which is covered either explicitly or implicitly by the money they pay their Pro.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on March 25, 2004, 05:11:03 PM
I'm really happy that I started this thread.  I think there are some wonderful ideas and research being discussed here and I'm hopeful that everyone, particularly Tillinghast's biggest proponents (and I include myself in their midst) is taking this for what it is...an exploration of a dark time in golf course architecture history and what golf architecture might look like again in a shrinking economic environment.

I like to think that if Tillinghast were still alive, he'd be in here debating, as well.  

 
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 25, 2004, 05:11:14 PM
SPDB,

There is no doubt that I offered another possible explanation in the same speculative fashion that you postured your three examples.

There is no evidence, not one shred of fact yet revealed that would lead one to conclude that AWT had a direct financial interest in the eradication of bunkers throughout the country.

I don't agree with your last statement either.
Whether it was implied consent, quid pro quo, or a tacit understanding makes no difference.  If hiring a PGA pro provided a "value added" at no additional cost to the club, why wouldn't that be a good marketing incentive.

Remember, it's the club that establishes the amount of money that they will be paying the Pro, not the PGA.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 25, 2004, 05:16:13 PM
Mike Cirba,

What you are missing is:
It wasn't a dark time for golf course architecture,
It was a very, very dark time for all of America,
and golf course architecture was just one element affected by the bleak and dire financial times.

If guys were jumping out of buildings because of adverse finacial reverses, cutting maintainance costs at clubs would seem rather prudent, especially since membership at most golf clubs was and continues to be a luxury, paid for by disposable dollars deemed luxury dollars, by the guys jumping out of the windows.

Surely, even a lefty can understand that.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 25, 2004, 06:17:21 PM
Phil
I did not know Tillinghast was a professional and member of the PGA. Your information appears to contradict Graffis.

I was under the impression Tilly was an amateur--didn't he compete in a number of National Ams and other amateur events? Although I did know he attended one of the early PGA meetings with other prominent amateurs and sports writers: Ouimet, John Anderson, etc. When did he join the PGA?

Regarding the Duffers Headaches, you characterized them as being 140 yards (or nearer) from the tee. How many such bunkers did Tilly (and Burbeck) build at Bethpage-Black (a course that ironically opened while Tilly was on the PGA tour)...was he less concerned with the duffer and raking costs when he designed Bethapge?  

What are a few examples of bunkers we have today (or had) which have the sole purpose of punishing the duffer?  

As you understand Tilly's definition of DH, wouldn't Cypress Point, PVGC, NGLA, SFGC and St.Andrews have numerous examples of this type of bunker?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 25, 2004, 07:18:32 PM
Tom MacWood,

On NGLA, the following holes have duffers bunkers, as defined as 140 yards or closer to the tee.

Hole #'s, 1,,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,12,13,15 and 16

If the definition is slightly increased to 150 yards, the following holes would be included

Hole #'s 11 and 17

And, if we go to 160, the following holes would be included.

Holes # 8, 10 and 14
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 25, 2004, 07:38:32 PM
Pat -
No one is disputing or ignorant of the fact that the depression placed a large majority or people and private institutions in dire peril. It needs no discussion, no explanation. Nor is anybody disparaging Tillie. We are merely trying to figure out what happened during his employment with the PGA.

My concern, personally, is what criteria his compensation was based on. Pure and simple. I am not making conclusions, as you indicate. As you indicate, I have no direct evidence affirmatively indicating that his compensation was somehow tied to the number of bunkers eradicated. However, eradication of bunkers was viewed as a success in terms of reduced maintenance costs, which was the goal of the PGA program. The logical inference that one can draw from this is that, at least in the eyes of the PGA, the fewer bunkers the better. Stop saying I'm making conclusions when i'm only trying to get answers and provoke discussion about an issue that has at least some relevance in view of the circumstances.

As for you disagreeing with my last statement, that doesn't surprise me. The PGA program was aimed at keeping PGA pros employed. It therefore goes without saying that Pros were losing there jobs. If this program of providing Tillie "free of charge" was successful in keeping Pros employed, as it evidently was, it logically follows that the clubs saw retaining their pros was an investment in their course. You can imagine what was taking place at a number of these clubs, that compelled the PGA to come up with this plan:

Club A decides to let its pro go b/c times are tough, and they need to retain cash for obvious reason. The PGA steps in and asks the club would they reconsider if they offer AWT to them "free" so that they can reduce costs through maintenance improvements? Club A thinks this is a pretty good deal and probably worth the price of keeping their club pro. This is not costless to the club, who, but for the PGAs offer would have saved the salary of their club pro. In real terms, they got a club pro and a consultant very cheaply, i.e. discounted. For a club that was ready to axe its pro, but for the services of Tillie, you cannot say it was free.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 25, 2004, 09:09:00 PM
Jeff
I'm not sure about the house foreclosure...I believe I read the same thing. Tilly was a great person by most accounts and that reaction would seem to support that conclusion. I know he was also involved in charities....he sponsored an annual tournament for one of the diseases.

I know he auctioned off quite a bit of his memorabilia in 1930, perhaps his financial difficulties began after the crash.



I have no idea how Tillinghast was compensated by the PGA. He was on the payroll which probably means he was a salaried employee...but who knows. It is possible Tillinghast was given a bonus based on how much money he saved each club. It certainly was never reported that way...then again I don't believe the PGA (and Tillinghast) would want it known he was being paid based on how many bunkers he removed. Those who say he wasn't incented in that way are guessing...no one knows for sure.

According to Graffis there was considerable politics in the PGA presidential campaigns. Jacobus enjoyed being president and evidently was a sharp politician, but he was also controversial and unpopular with quite a few of the pros (in particular the strong Chicago pros).

The year before hiring Tilly, Jacobus developed another program to help illustrate the value of a PGA professional to the clubs. Dr. LS Dickinson, who started a maintenance school at Amherst, Mass, was hired to give free lectures for greenkeepers and officials from PGA employed clubs. Jacobus also set up programs to improve teaching skills, equipment repair, pro shop management, etc. Tilly was hired (a two-month experiment) right before the 1935 annual meeting and election. Jacobus was re-elected.

It seems the only way to prove the effectiveness of this project was to quantify the results. (There was no way quantify the maintinance lectures the year before) In order to place an overall figure on the 'improvments' they came up with an estimated dollar amount for annual raking (between $20 and $25 per bunker).

The problem with this method, it ignores other cost savings measures and it presumes all bunkers are created equally. The cost of raking one of the massive bunkers at Bethpage is not equal to raking the Devil's Arse. Another problem, this method of quantifying could easily lead to overzealous debunkering in order to project maximum benefit to the clubs, the pros and to the golf world. This over emphasis on the numbers seems to be supported by Tilly's annual scorecard to the PGA membership, and those numbers were then reported in the major newspapers and golf magazines to publicize the impressive results.

Another concern: is a single day enough time to analyze a golf course and come up with a thoughtful plan?  

IMO Tillinghast appears to have developed a hatred for overbunkering and a concern for raking costs sometime between laying out Bethpage and taking the PGA assignment--a matter of a few weeks (and five years deep into the Depression). If he had been complaining about raking costs and over bunkering in the early 30's, I could accept his prudent change in attitued, but I see no evidence in his writings of that attitude change and the Bethpage design doesn't support it either.

I wouldn't call it selling out, but I would call it compromising.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 25, 2004, 09:18:43 PM
SPDB,
The PGA program was aimed at keeping PGA pros employed.

How do you know that ?

If this program of providing Tillie "free of charge" was successful in keeping Pros employed,

How do you know that ?

... it logically follows that the clubs saw retaining their pros was an investment in their course.

How can you draw that conclusion ?


Club A decides to let its pro go b/c times are tough, and they need to retain cash for obvious reason.

How do you know that these were the circumstances and that this was the club's thinking ?

The PGA steps in

How could the PGA insert themselves into the affairs of any given club, they had neither the authority or the clout.

and asks the club would they reconsider if they offer AWT to them "free" so that they can reduce costs through maintenance improvements?

How do you draw this wild conclusion ?

Club A thinks this is a pretty good deal and probably worth the price of keeping their club pro.

There is no evidence to support your theory of a pre-approved deal

This is not costless to the club, who, but for the PGAs offer would have saved the salary of their club pro.

How do you know that, it's all supposition on your part, an unfounded and wild theory.

In real terms, they got a club pro and a consultant very cheaply, i.e. discounted. For a club that was ready to axe its pro, but for the services of Tillie,

How do you know that those were the FACTS ?

And,  how can you posture that it was systemic ?
That's irresponsible on your part.


you cannot say it was free.

Of course I can, it was free, the club paid no money directly or indirectly to the PGA for AWT's services.

If you have factual evidence to the contrary, please provide it, otherwise cease with your folly.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on March 25, 2004, 09:32:50 PM
Tom,

I believe that you have de cided what must be and are sticking with that, rather than going by what Tilly, Jacobus and others stated about all of these for themselves.

1- I did not pick 140 yards as an arbitrary number. Go back and re-read what I wrotte & you will see I was quoting from an early article written bt TILLINGHAST! He referred to many (not all) D.H.'s as being in that range. His feeling was that the only purpose it served was to punish the duffer; hence the name Duffer's Headache!

2- He wrote about poorly placed bunkers as far back as 1901 when he referred to the "pits" at St. Andrews as such.

3- You keep harping on Bethpage. The Black course does not now and never has had "Duffer's Headache" type bunkers.

The first of the new courses, the Blue, had this written about it when it opened for play in 1935, an exhibition match was played on May 9th. In an article describing the match and the course, the New York Times on May 10th contained this, "In constructing it the builders have kept in mind the purpose to which it is dedicated. It is a wide-open course, giving the fellow who is not a sharpshooter plenty of width through the fairways."

In other words, the duffers could enjoy themselves.

In another article, this one on April 19, 1935, in reference to the Black course that would open one year later states, "the Black Course... will be the equal of any championship links in the country."

As you can see, the courses were designed and built for different levels of play. This was purposeful and planned. Your references to the bunkers at Bethpage are incorrectly used.

It is time that you answer the question I posed to you earlier in this thread and have sidestepped answering until now. Please define what Tillinghast meant when he referred to a bunker as being a, "Duffer's Headache."

I did by using Tillinghast's own definition. Was he not telling the truth?

Several other answers for questions that were raised.

Tillinghast sold off many of his antiques and family valuables over the years. I have a copy of an advertisement from 1922 that lists the auction of rare books from the A.W. Tillinghast library at Christies in New York.

His financial dificulties were caused by several things including an unknown illness at the time. When he lost the house in Harrington Park, it was as much a documentation error and no follow-up on his part as it was financial. This is directly from his granddaughter.

As some may know, I am currently at work on a very in-depth biography of Tillinghast. I have been given access to all of the family holdings and memorabilia. I have interviewed in person and telephone all four survivng grandchildren, each one who has memories of him. Ihave interviewed eleven of the great-grandchildren and even one great-great-grandchild. Rick Wolffe of the Tillinghast Association has kindly given me access to all of their records, and I have spent a lot of hours researching through the PGA library & museum and USGA Library and museum.

I have shared a few startling finds with some already & hope to be able to share more soon. The problem I have is one of time. I am working very hard on finishing it so that my publisher, Classics of Golf, can have it in stores by November.

Now, all of that being said, I do NOT believe that I am the be all and end all expert on Tillinghast. I have no problem with those who disagree with any conclusions that I have or will draw and, not that I would expect it, I hope that no one holds back from gicving it to me when they disagree.

I'd like to share an anecdote that many do not know about. In the early 30's, Tilly had a foreman on a crew who was proving to be very inadequate for the job. For a variety of reasons, including some that most will find highly ironic when they learn the whole story, Tilly finally fired him. He chose to put a man that the entire crew frespected in his place. He was Lonny, and Lonny was black. Lonny felt inadequate for the job, but Tilly had faith in him. When Lonny told him that he didn't know some things and that he couldn't read or write, Tiliy said, "Don't worry, I'll Teach you." When Lonny told him that it was almost time for him to travel down to the Carolinas for his winter job, Tilly said, "No Lonny, you will stay and live with me this winter. You and your wife Mary will live in the apartment in the carriage house. I will teach you everything you need to know this winter."

And that is why young Barbara Worden, grand-daughter of Tilly, woke up one night in the winter of 1931. There was a lot of noise and yelling, and lights were flashing into her room. Scared, she got out of her bed and went into the hallway where her mother was standing by the window looking out.

Not realizing her daughter had awakened and walked up and started to stare out the window as well, they both stood transfixed, as in the fields between the house where the Worden's lived, and the main house where Tilly lived, stood a huge cross on fire, burning away into the night.

The Klan burned crosses in protest iover Lonny all winter.

Tilly never replaced Lonny.

 
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 25, 2004, 10:47:31 PM
Phil
The Duffer's Headaches that Tilly condemned were often side bunkers--he wrote about this during his tour. Bethpage-Black had a number of side bunkers (and some carry bunkers--the eleventh) within 140 yards -- #5, #7, #10 and #11. Ten and Eleven are load with these bunkers, large rake-intensive ones. What differentiates these bunkers from the 7000+ other bunkers that were removed?

What are a few examples of DH bunkers we have today (or had yesterday) which have the sole purpose of punishing the duffer?

As you understand Tilly's definition of DH, wouldn't Cypress Point, PVGC, NGLA, SFGC and St.Andrews have numerous examples of this type of bunker?

When did Tilly join the PGA?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 25, 2004, 10:56:54 PM
Pat - For chrissakes. Will you please cut it out. Here is what Philip Young wrote.


The purpose of this tour was to provide a service to PGA pros so that they could show the powers that be at their courses that having a PGA pro was worth the money. A number of pros during the Depression, as I am sure you can understand, were losing their jobs. A great many were quitting the organization or not paying their dues. This service turned this trend completely around and may actually have saved the PGA of America as an organization.


I missed the thread where you questioned Phil's "Wild, irresponsible theories/conclusions" about  about the purpose and procedure of Tillie's work.

I say it wasn't free, which according to you is unsupported, you say it was free, on the same facts - how can one be supported by fact and one not? (excepting as justification that only one emanates from your computer, which seems to pass for facts these days).
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 25, 2004, 11:11:23 PM
Pat
Read Graffis's history of the PGA or Hannigan's famous article on Tilly or look through old NY Times or Goldom magazines (Graffis was the Editor).

Graffis discussed the rational of the program, he states it was the most successful program the PGA ever had (at this point I think you ask how Graffis would know?). There were 500-600 hundred clubs who took advantage of the program....in a two year span. Anyone with an open mind can see that is extraordinary particpation.

The program was offered by the PGA...it is logical to believe the clubs understood the connection and appreciated the service. The clubs who did not have PGA pros also tried to get Tilly and understood the connection too...when they were rejected. It is discussed in the book.

By 1935, 36, 37 the economy was improving...I suspect that was reason the PGA discontinued the program.

According to Graffis courses that under went the PGA treatment were referred to PGA style courses...it became a popular style of course.

I wondered about the cost of these improvements myself...in turns out the WPA spent $10,500,000 on golf course maintenance and improvements during those years (NY Times).

"How do you know that those were the FACTS ?"

We know the facts by reading and searching for the facts...you should try it.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: DMoriarty on March 25, 2004, 11:27:49 PM
Great topic Mike.  It is nice to see someone else taking some heat.  

Perhaps there is a slightly different way of looking at this:

1.  During the depression, golf courses had to cinch their belts, almost to the point of cutting off all circulation.  Take a look at Daniel Wexler's books if you dont beleive that this was a tough time for courses.

2.   Cinching their belts meant cutting out all unnecessary costs.   Undoubtedly this included maintenance, including bunkiers.  

3.   Members might not have been the best judge of which bunkers were the least important to their course.   But clubs were not willing and/or able to pay for advice from architects on where to cut costs, and particular on which bunkers to abandon.  

4.   The PGA (probably in part out of genuine concern with saving as much quality as was possible, and in part out of an opportunity to strengthen their organization) lent a helping hand-- One of the foremost architects of the era, advising them on the relative merit of bunkers (and other features.)  
Telling them what should stay, and what they could live without, so they could live at all.  

5.  AWT may have been the perfect choice, since he had been preaching the 'get rid of unnecessary bunkers' mantra for three-and-one-half decades.

In my mind, this cuts a middle ground . . . .

In an ideal world, golf architecture would have been much better off if some of the 1000s of bunkers he marked for wasting were still in existence.

But things were much less than ideal during the depression, and some of these courses might not have survived but for the cost saving measures suggested by Tillinghast, or for survival the courses would have made willy-nilly cost saving decisions themselves-- likely doing much worse damage than AWT.  

A couple of other thoughts

Mike, I dont think it fair to compare Tillie's earlier work to his depression era suggestions.  Times were too different.  His earlier style would have been completely impracticle and unaffordable during the depression.   I dont consider compromise in dire times to be selling out.  

Bethpage was different, a government project.  So like many of this era, the grander the better.    Bunkers equalled jobs.  Isnt this what the WPA programs were about?  

And on the other side . . . it is simply not feasible that Tillinghast was only concerned with great architecture when he marked over 10,000 bunkers for destruction.  How many did he suggest they build?   Cost cutting had to be a major goal of the project.  . . . Not that this was a bad thing, given the times.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on March 26, 2004, 12:26:57 AM
I think some totally miss-understood or intentially are mis-characterizing what Tilly did on the bunker removal.

The written record is pretty clear -- Tilly only recommended the removal of really bad architecture -- allot of crummy old fashioned cop bunkers -- with a few choclate drops on the side.  

Here is a quote from Tilly on this matter,

"While, as I have said, the courses generally are structurally and strategically improved over those of a few years back, yet there are enough of the Cheap-John, amateurish sort, rather cluttered with sand pits that cost money to maintain for no other purpose than to discourage the very players at golf, who need encouraging most.  When speaking of these abominations in my reports to the P.G.A. for brevity’s sake I simply call them D.H.’s (short for Duffer’s Headaches).  I am thoroughly delighted by the reaction of green committees everywhere to our doctrine of the elimination of these relics of golf’s dark age."

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: DMoriarty on March 26, 2004, 12:41:49 AM
I think some totally miss-understood or intentially are mis-characterizing what Tilly did on the bunker removal.

The written record is pretty clear -- Tilly only recommended the removal of really bad architecture -- allot of crummy old fashioned cop bunkers -- with a few choclate drops on the side.  

Here is a quote from Tilly on this matter,

"While, as I have said, the courses generally are structurally and strategically improved over those of a few years back, yet there are enough of the Cheap-John, amateurish sort, rather cluttered with sand pits that cost money to maintain for no other purpose than to discourage the very players at golf, who need encouraging most.  When speaking of these abominations in my reports to the P.G.A. for brevity’s sake I simply call them D.H.’s (short for Duffer’s Headaches).  I am thoroughly delighted by the reaction of green committees everywhere to our doctrine of the elimination of these relics of golf’s dark age."

Mr. Wolffe,

If AWT's sole concern was improving the courses, then . . .

1.  Why did they keep track of the bunkers removed and the overall savings?  

2.  Why didn't he recommend the addition of bunkers where such addition would improve a course?   Surely there was at least one golf hole out there that could have been improved by a well placed bunker.  (I am assuming that he did not regularly recommend new well-placed bunkers, but I would be happy to be corrected-- that would really shove a stick in the "sell out" spokes.  

3. Given the times it seems logical that the PGA was providing this service so courses could survive.  Was this the case?  Are the letters from the PGA Professionals on file?  What kind of help were they looking for during the depression?   I find it hard to believe that they were considering capital expenditures aimed solely improving the course during these dire times.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 26, 2004, 03:46:27 AM
Tom MacWood,

First, don't believe that everything you read is factual.
Second, the author could hold a sympathetic view.
Third, analyze the numbers.
Fourth, could AWT's numbers be inflated, or generous estimates ?

How would AWT know, in a given year, that 7,000 bunkers were removed ?

Were they vaporized on the day he was there ?

Did the clubs diligently report back to him on their decision with details down to each and every bunker they removed ?

If he recommended removal, how long before the club voted to act on his recommendation, and how long before a contractor was retained and the work completed ?

You did read where the world was created in seven days, didn't you ?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: ForkaB on March 26, 2004, 04:39:33 AM
Pat

Once again you get your FACTS wrong!  The world was created in SIX days.  On the seventh day, TE Paul rested.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 26, 2004, 07:01:13 AM
RW
Do you consider some of Tillinghast's work really bad architecture--like Hermitage?

Is Hollywood really bad architecture?

To be honest I'm surprised to learn cop bunkers survived into the 1930's--which courses still had cop bunkers?

I am certain Tilly fixedsome some very bad courses, but I also do not believe bunkers 140-yards-&-in should be condemmed. I have no problem with many of these bunkers. And I don't believe Tilly, Ross, Thomas, MacKenzie, Macdonald, Colt, Travis and most others of that era did either. These men all considered the duffer when designing their golf courses--in fact I believe it could be argued these courses were made less interesting for the duffer by eliminating these hazards.

I love Tilly's bunkering scheme at Brook Hollow, SFGC and Bethpage (and tyhe bunkering schemes at Cypress Point, Valley, El Caballero, Bel-Air, Hollywood, NGLA, Pine Valley, Inwood, GCGC, Seminole, etc)--I don't want an originization or architect pulling a reverse Johnny Applebunker from coast to coast.

If times were temporarily tough recommend bunkers be unattended until economics improved...its cheeper than grassing them over or filling them in....then again its tougher to quantify when trying to present your positve contribution...and it wouldn't create work for those carrying out the more drastic recommendations.

Wouldn't you be concerned by an architect making wholesale recomendations during a single short visit?

Pat
That is why I seek out multiple sources.

Ask Tilly how he knew the number...perhaps he was lying. The PGA professional could easily report back when the work was complete. If he was lying, I think it would add support to the idea the PGA's was more about painting positive perception for their 'bunker' program, less about helping duffers and/or improving architecture. Tilly's transgression would be more than compromising his architectural principals in that case. I don't believe Tilly was a fraud...which is what you are implying.

David
I don't have problem with your first four points, but #5 I don't believe is accurate. Tilly wrote tons of articles over the years -- I've read quite a few of them (RW is rpobably read all of them). I do not believe it is accurate to say he was preaching get rid of all unnecessary bunkers during that period of time. The DH stance was a late development during his tour when it became a consistent message--this was several years into the Depression. Although he certainly was on the bandwagon condeming all the cop bunkers...but that was large bandwagon and a completely different story IMO.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: DMoriarty on March 26, 2004, 03:12:31 PM


Well, I must be onto something, since both sides disagree with me.  

David
I don't have problem with your first four points, but #5 I don't believe is accurate. Tilly wrote tons of articles over the years -- I've read quite a few of them (RW is rpobably read all of them). I do not believe it is accurate to say he was preaching get rid of all unnecessary bunkers during that period of time. The DH stance was a late development during his tour when it became a consistent message--this was several years into the Depression. Although he certainly was on the bandwagon condeming all the cop bunkers...but that was large bandwagon and a completely different story IMO.

Tom,  I dont know whether point 5 is factually accurate or not.  You guys seem to disagree on the fact.  You do agree though that AWT advocated getting rid of certain bunkers early on.  

Nonetheless, it makes no difference whether AWT ever before advocated getting rid of all unnecessary bunkers.   If he was trying to help courses survive by telling them what bunkers were the least necessary, then he was not a sell-out in my eyes.   Desperate times call for desperate measures.  

Mike, one more thing on Bethpage . . .

I have a hard time characterizing the bunkers at Bethpage as 'cop bunkers.'  My understanding of cop bunkers is that were located in places where only the duffer would find them.   I dont know Bethpage as well as you, but I recall bunkers being located in strategic positions for the better golfer.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 26, 2004, 04:29:36 PM
In what I hope is not yet another vain attempt:

On what criteria was Tillie's compensation based? If it was salary, how did they determine it and did it change at all from one year to the next?

Thanks
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on March 26, 2004, 07:03:13 PM
Let me respond to another mischaracterization of Tilly's work for the PGA.  It was not just "DH" removal.  Tilly also provided significant design and re-design recommendations on tree planting, bunkers, greens, fairways, tees, complete holes, etc. etc.

As Phil Young has already stated, Tilly was a paid consultant of the PGA of America.  His advice was provided at no charge to the clubs and courses of PGA Professionals -- membership had some privlidges.

What follows is another of one of his letters.  If there is sufficient interest, we will endeavor to post all of his letters on the Tillighast web site.  Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.



Saint Paul, Minnesota
April 30th 1937

President of the PGA

Dear Sir:

  This is the third rainy day in succession.  I am leaving for Rochester this afternoon and tomorrow I will be at the Mayo Clinic again, leaving immediately after for northern Wisconsin.  I am scheduled to make a golf talk at Rochester tonight.

  Before leaving Saint Paul I was able to visit two additional courses at the urgent request of PGA members Herb Snow and Jock Hendry, at Hillcrest Golf Club and Town and Country Club respectively.

  Hendry's problem concerned the 12th hole, where a new green is planned.  I located this for him, with definite instructions for contouring and bunkering, and also located a new teeing-ground for the 13th, a natural, which will make a fine new hole.

  At Hillcrest I inspected the reconstruction work on the new 17th and 18th holes, which I planned for them when I was last here.  I found that my instructions had been followed faithfully and two very good holes have been developed.  Here I was accompanied by Snow, G.W. Anderson (Chairman of the Green Committee and city champion on numerous occasions) and Stan Graves (Greenkeeper)

  My next report will be sent to you on Monday evening, after my arrival in northern Wisconsin.

  I find that we have another PGA member at Rochester (in addtion to Ernnie Wilmot at the Country Club) Herb Thienell at Soldiers Field and I will call on him.

Very truly yours

  A.W. Tillinghast

        AWT


Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 26, 2004, 07:31:46 PM
David
Removing bunkers was not a major theme in Tilly's writing (pre 1936). He was not a fan of the geometric cop bunker, but every architect of that era condemmed the old fashioned cop.

IMO Tilly went through periods where his bunkering preferences changed. In the early 20's he produced two of the most heavily bunkered courses in America -- SFGC and Brook Hollow (200 to 300 bunkers). In the mid 20's he toned it down to more moderately bunkered courses and wrote that some courses were overbunkered. But then at Bethpage in the mid-30's he produced bold massive bunkering again.

I would buy your "trying to help courses to survive" scenerio if he had been an advocate throughout the Depression. He was the editor of Golf Illustrated (and an active contributing writer) during the Depression--I've yet to find an article where advocated reducing bunkers. And Bethpage is physical proof of his mindset at that time. He walked off Bethapge, into the PGA offices and the bunker became public enemy number one.

Sean
I don't believe anyone knows exactly how Tilly was paid.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 27, 2004, 06:01:51 AM
Phil Young said in post #82;

"As a result, the one to benefit from this was the PGA! Membership rose, the fledgling tour of paid tournaments were funded, Pros got their jobs back, and Tillinghast didn't receive one extra dime for any of this, beyond what the PGA was paying him."

Sean;

What is it exactly you're asking about how the PGA paid Tillinghast? Phil Young's explanation seems pretty clear to me.

Tom MacW and DavidM;

Are you trying to determine exactly what Tillinghast's bunker removal project for the PGA meant to him personally regarding bunkering generally?

If so it seems to me that's a subject that may be pretty hard to pin down at any point in time. The use of bunkering, their placements and the economies of them is an interesting issue with various architects from the pre-WW1 and Golden Age era and into the depression.

If you're interested in that you should compare some of George Thomas's thoughts on the subject contained in his proposal for half-strokes for putting. One of the primary reasons for that was to allow the building of more golf holes of those distances considered to be in the "half par" range!

Thomas felt if that was done more bunkering would not need to be used in architecture as much and consequently more courses could be built for less money in both construction and on-going maintenance and golf could prosper more.

Thomas also felt that excessive bunkering was unnecessarily penal for the handicap player vs the better player who he felt it generally didn't effect as much and so was less relevant and architecturally and strategically useful. But Thomas's desire to design more holes in the half par range really just had to do with a calculation of the likely strokes it would take a good player to reach a green vs what a handicpper was capable of. This did not depend on the reduction of bunkering primarily but to Thomas that was a benefical result. So many of those early architects were into economy and efficiencies in architecture.

It also seems to me that over the first half to 2/3 of the last century bunkering that did not directly relate to the games of all players eventually came to be questioned (certainly be green committees) and much of it was removed by architects and green committees who didn't see the point of it enough to continue to pay to maintain it. So many of Ross's so-called "top shot" bunkers were in that category and most of them were obsoleted over time.



Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: A_Clay_Man on March 27, 2004, 08:24:16 AM
rather cluttered with sand pits that cost money to maintain for no other purpose than to discourage the very players at golf, who need encouraging most.  

Dear collective, One of the fascinating realities, I have witnessed from this website, is that no matter who you are, and how great you think, there always seems to be one or two issues where even the "greatest" didn't "get it".

I've highlighted the above quote, to ask if anyone else feels this is one of those "mistakes" that may have indirectly resulted in this notion of making the game easier?  


Other thoughts:

Mayo Clinic? Was he ill? Could he have been on top of his game mentally, if he was ill?

Is 10.000 too low a number. Or Was Tillie directly responsible for less and the remainder were copy-cats, following the trend of the day from member clubs?

David, Isn't it when times are tough, and character is tested to the fullest, that the jist of this quote, becomes....sad and somewhat  unacceptable?
Quote
I dont consider compromise in dire times to be selling out.
 

(wasn't this the context of one of Barney's first posts?)
Sounds like following this dogma, it's a small leap to justifying cheating.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 27, 2004, 09:50:46 AM
Adam Clayman,

I find the number of bunkers he's alleged to have removed as inflated, or mathmatially impaired.

The records should indicate which clubs he consulted with, and which clubs implemented or didn't implement his recommendations, thus, this should be a question that could be answered, or at least approximated.

Don't forget what Lee Trevino said,
"the older I get, the better I used to be."  
Exageration is a fact of life and might apply to bunkers as well.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on March 27, 2004, 10:32:55 AM
Adam,

Tilly's health problems at this time were heart-related.

An interesting find at Winged Foot that may or may not be germane to this discussion.

A member passed this on to Rick Wolffe and then to myself yesterday - "Last week, guess what our greenskeeper Eric found buried in his files ? A large plan of the course from 1932, with  detailed bunker-removal markings. The plan was drawn by Lewis Bros. Co. (I think, from memory), who helped build the course in 1923. I haven’t established a Tillinghast connection yet. Maybe his letters, or maybe you, can help. Please let me know if you have any suggestions on that."

It will be interesting to see if this was at Tilliy's suggestion. It is probably not a stretch to think that he was asked about it and gave recommendations, and this a full 5+ years before the PGA tour.

I am hoping to get a look at these in a few weeks and will let you know what I find.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 27, 2004, 10:42:01 AM
Pat
What facts do you base your theory upon?

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 27, 2004, 11:04:31 AM
Tom MacWood,

The fact that nobody has documented a precise bunker count at each and every club that AWT consulted with, combined with the absence of a reasonable time line that would reflect the retention of AWT, scheduling his visit, making his recommendations, the club approving some, all or none of his recommendations, the club's bidding process to obtain a contractor, and the contractors ability to schedule and complete the work while golfers reamain on the course.

You know Tom, real world problems not found in your ivory tower.

Absent the facts from each and every club, the cummulative total would seem to be a guesstimate or exaggeration
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 27, 2004, 12:35:39 PM
Doubting Pat
I see...you have no facts. It seems to me if you are going to call Tilly a liar and a fraud you should have at least a few facts to back up your claim.

Does it make a difference if the count was 5000, 7000 or 10,000 (by the way I believe him)? Does it make difference if he recommended bunkers be removed, from Bel-Air for example, and the club ignored him? (the fact he was aware they ignored his recommendation and it bothered him makes it unlikely he counted these, no? Unless of course he is a liar and fraud.) The general theme of this thread, that Tilly altered or compromised his previous philosophy, is still true.

What is your take on the holocaust and the moon landing?

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on March 27, 2004, 02:42:57 PM
Tom,

Just a minor correction to where you state, "The general theme of this thread, that Tilly altered or compromised his previous philosophy, is still true."

That is NOT the general theme; that is YOUR general theme. Many disagree with your conclusions on this the same as you disagree with mine.

You challenge Pat to state facts yet find it convenient to state an ascertion as one for yourself.

Also, I am attempting to see if I can come up with a reasonable guestimate of the number of bunkers that Tilly SUGGESTED for removal during the consulting tour. This will be based on his letters and reports to the PGA, copies of which I have.

One of the other mistakes (IMHO) being made on this thread is the assumption that almost all of the bunkers that Tilly suggested be removed were. There are a number of letters of his that cite a second visit to a course a year later in which he states that his recommedations were not followed up on.

It will take me a number of days, but I think it is a very important part of this discussion.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 27, 2004, 03:33:36 PM
Phil
The thread is Mike Cirba's...read his original post.

"You challenge Pat to state facts yet find it convenient to state an ascertion as one for yourself." My assertion is based upon facts accompanied by a logical, open and historically grounded perspective.
 
The facts I believe support Mike's original post:

1. The Depresseion began with the great crash in 1929.

2. Tilly had very little design work in the early, mid and late 1930's (not unlike most architects).

3. Tilly was hardly a minimalist when it comes to bunkering through his career (SFGC and Brook Hollow as extreme examples)

4. Tillie was the editor (and contributing writer) of Golf Illustrated during the Depression.

5. Without design work, it is logical to conclude the GI job was his main source of income.

6. Tilly during his GI Editor period did not champion the removal of bunkers or DH's.

7. Tillly's (and Brubeck's) Bethpage designs of 1934-35 (Depression era) were heavily bunkered, with numerous bunkers in the Duffer's zone (175 yds-&-in).

8. Golf Illustrated went under in 1935 and employment opportunities were in short supply.

9. Tilly was in financial difficulty.

10. Tilly was hired by the PGA in 1935 by his close friend Jacobus, pro at Ridgewood. Tilly was a member of Ridgewood, a boldly bunkered course he designed in 1928.

11. The PGA attempted to exentuate the value added by PGA affiliation. The Tilly program was designed to maximize that value.

12. Tilly began a focused compaign against the DH after joining the PGA.

13. Tilly claimed to have elimated 7000+ bunkers at the 1936 PGA meeting...each bunker being quanitifed with a dollar figure resulting in total dollar savings for the program.

14. Other cost savings measures were more difficult to quantify and were not emphasized at the annual meetings.

You (and anyone else for that matter) are free to disagree, but IMO your opinion is based more upon Tilly the legend than the facts. Tilly was a great architect, I can see why you would want to try to preserve and protect his image. My view, the truth is always more interesting and this episode does not deminish his major accomplishments.

I wish you'd spend more effort preserving and protecting his designs (and being more critical of changes to his designs) than trying to put a positive spin upon a dark period of his design career...and a dark period generally for golf architecture and the country.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 27, 2004, 04:13:03 PM
I see...you have no facts. It seems to me if you are going to call Tilly a liar and a fraud you should have at least a few facts to back up your claim.

You have no supporting facts to back up your claim either.
You seem opposed to doing the research that would verify or nullify the 7,000 figure, probably because it would render your conclusion false.


Does it make a difference if the count was 5000, 7000 or 10,000 (by the way I believe him)? Does it make difference if he recommended bunkers be removed, from Bel-Air for example, and the club ignored him? \

Of course it does.
You can't attribute bunkers that he MIGHT have suggested be removed, to the actual number of bunkers that were removed.

One also has to ascertain, on a club specific basis, what bunkers he actually recommended for removal, and what bunkers the club might have removed on their own.

Are bunkers that the club removed without AWT's recommendation to be counted in your quest toward 7,000 ?



(the fact he was aware they ignored his recommendation and it bothered him makes it unlikely he counted these, no?

No, not at all, he might have reported that he recommended that a specific number of bunkers be removed, rather then the actual number that were removed, primarily because I doubt the clubs reported the entire scope of their work back to AWT on a regular reporting basis, especially since the process for bunker removal has a time lag attached to it.

Unless of course he is a liar and fraud.)

You keep calling him this, which is typical of the extreme and erroneous conclusions you habitually draw

The general theme of this thread, that Tilly altered or compromised his previous philosophy, is still true.

I don't know that I agree with that, did you speak to him regarding his philosophy during that time period ?

What is your take on the holocaust and the moon landing?

More realistic then yours

When you say that Bethpage Black was heavily bunkered, could you list the number of bunkers that AWT built there ?

Was it 50, 100, 200 ?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 27, 2004, 05:02:33 PM
Pat
My view that Tilly altered his philosophy in 1935 (due to personal circumstances) would not change if he never removed a single bunker. The fact is Tilly said he removed 7000+ and he also went on a written anti-DH campaign (PGA magazine) -- that IMO is sufficient evidence of his new philosophy (five years deep into the Depression).

Actually my opinion would change, or expand, from someone who compromised his views as a result of difficult personal circumstances to compromise and fraud.

It would be prudent IMO to support your assertions that Tilly was a liar and a fraud with at least some solid facts. Your factless desperate attempt illustrates to what length you will go to prove I am wrong...I'll save Tilly's reputation by claiming he was a liar and a fraud...with friends like you...

Your usual practice, due to factual bancruptcy, is to try to disqualify those presenting facts you don't like....this is an interesting twist on that theme...trying to disqualify Tilly...the star of this thread.

I would estimate Bethpage-Black had 80 to 90 bunkers...a number being of the huge variety...equivalent to two, five, ten or more conventional bunkers. Why?

An interesting exercise: compare the total sand area of GCGC vs Bethpage-Black which would be greater?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 27, 2004, 05:08:46 PM
Tom MacWood,

Your theory falls apart in the face of the facts, so now you try to switch the discussion from the number of bunkers to the size of the bunkers.

This doesn't surprise me, and is intellectually dishonest or disengenuous on your part.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 27, 2004, 07:30:37 PM
Pat and Tom:

Stop the arguing. It's been going on for about four pages, isn't getting anywhere and has frankly gotten trivial. You've both each made your own point about ten times over and there's no more point to be made.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 27, 2004, 07:34:55 PM
Pat
Sorry to hear my theory falls apart in the face of facts....I was under the impression I was one of the few presenting any facts. Have you presented any facts?

I know you'd prefer these things be black and white, unfortunately heavily bunkered courses come in all shapes and sizes. Tilly and Burbeck's model was the heavily bunkered PVGC--some believe they succeeded in creating a similar heavily bunkered golf course, evidently you do not.

Here is an exchange betwen Lester Rice and Joe Burbeck that I think is apropos:

Rice: "There's one job I don't think I'd like. I'd hate to rake those little deserts of sand I found so conveniently located."

Burbeck: "They are tremendous aren't they? I have thought about dividing come of the larger ones with footpaths so heel prints won't be so numerous. We have a man who does nothing but rake the traps on the Black course, day after day, week after week. It takes him three days to complete a round. It costs us $120 a month or $750 for the season just to keep those bunkers fairly smooth."
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 27, 2004, 07:45:02 PM
It's been a long time since I looked at all that Bethpage/Tillinghast/Burbeck stuff but isn't it true TIllinghast himself basically gave Burbeck credit in writing for the idea of emulating PVGC or it's basic look at Bethpage Black? I seem to remember reading that in some of the old material of that time. Of course it'd be interesting to know how or how much Joe Burbeck was aware of PVGC and of course why.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 27, 2004, 07:46:00 PM
Tom MacWood,

You accused AWT of overbunkering Bethpage Black, and then when pressed to define overbunkering or to recount the number of bunkers at Bethpage Black you were vague and guessed at the number of bunkers, and then, quite strangely, asked about a comparison between the square footage of the bunker floors between GCGC and Bethpage Black, a totally unrelated subject, that attempted to divert the discussion away from your false conclusion that AWT overbunkered Bethpage Black.

A theory you need in order to support your theory that AWT was practicing architecture out of two sides of his mouth.

P.S.

The quote you cite would seem to support my position that Bethpage Black wasn't overbunkered as evidenced by the fact that Burbeck was willing to create even more bunkers through the division of existing ones.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 27, 2004, 07:59:27 PM
Pat - there is no question that Tillie practiced architecture out of both sides of his mouth. Reducing bunkers on the one hand in the name of maintenance or playability, while nearly contemporaneously building vasts acres of sand at Bethpage.

What seems to be in dispute is whether this constitutes a compromise of his design philosophy.

Tom MacW has relied on evidence, and evidence is what makes up facts. You often confuse facts with evidence, and you are doing so again here. Facts are merely reasonable inferences drawn upon evidence.


Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 27, 2004, 08:06:25 PM
SPDB,

What you fail to understand is the "will or mood of the owner".

If one owner says I have all the resources necessary to build an extravaganza, and another owner says, I'm lacking sufficient resources to survice, and if I don't do something to cut my costs, I'll have to sell the club, the goals and function of the architect are different.

The performance of AWT in achieving those goals in no way compromises his architectural integrity, style or beliefs.

He simply had different masters giving him different marching orders.

Instead of facts and evidence, try using common sense.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 27, 2004, 09:31:02 PM
Pat
You are mistaken...I've never claimed Bethpage was over bunkered...I don't believe I've ever said any golf course was over bunkered.  :)

You asked me how many bunkers Bethpage had...I said 80 to 90...I'm sorry I didn't produce an exact figure.

You appear to be saying Tillie altered his philosophy--in this case creating a feature he criticized, the duffer's headache--depending upon what his master requested. I'm glad we agree he compromised.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 28, 2004, 04:48:24 AM
Tom MacWood,

Contrary to SPDB's blind belief in your numbers,
Bethpage Black only has 70 bunkers today, and probably had less then 60 when it opened.

When you consider that holes # 10-11 now have 14 bunkers between them and that the re-configured 18th has 11 bunkers, it leaves the rest of the golf course with a paultry 45 bunkers.

You maintained that while AWT was eradicating bunkers on the PGA project, he was constructing them plentifully at Bethpage and elsewhere, a fact not borne out at Bethpage, where one could say he was rather frugal in the number of bunkers he created.

The goals of his mission with his project with the PGA was entirely different then the goals of his mission when he designed a golf course.

I see no conflict, no sellout, just different projects for different purposes with different goals

But, we do agree that he was a great architect.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 28, 2004, 07:33:56 AM
90 bunkers....with a margin of error of two up or down (based on the old aerial).....as opposed to your margin error of thirty.  :)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 28, 2004, 09:08:05 AM
The recent spate of threads on Tillinghast, initially on the question of him "selling out" by his PGA bunker removal project of the Depression years, and followed by a good thread from Tom Doak on the question of the effectiveness of the NUMBER of bunkers on any golf course ("Are More Bunkers Better") and another by Tom MacWood on the usefulness of the Tillinghast Society ("The Tillinghast Society") are all fine subjects to discuss. How some of those subjects have been analyzed and discussed on those threads, though, is a little disappointing, at least to me.

Assumptions and then apparently conclusions are proffered and then defended to the death with either no particularly good evidence to support those assumptions or conclusions but much more often without analyzing correctly, in my opinon of course, what really is pretty damn good evidence The latter, to me, shows some weakness and lack of logic not in analyzing without enough evidence but in how to analyze good available evidence. The latter is what becomes most maddening on this website to me. There's obviously nothing at all wrong with anyone maintaining their own opinions and even diverse ones from others after long discussion but one would hope they really are considering what both others are saying and producing and also the extent of the available evidence (apparently factual!). Often, on here, it doesn't seem as if that happens as well as it should.

Let's look again at the question of TIllinghast "selling out" during his PGA bunker removal project of the Depression years. What was Tillinghast "selling out'? Most on here who're suggesting he was selling out are suggesting he was selling out his architectural principles, presumably architectural principles found on his other courses and perhaps his architectural principles of some former era! What evidence are those suggesting he was selling out his principles supplying to really prove that point? Some say because his lot was not good during the depression. That's interesting, of course, but is no proof whatsoever he was selling out if not supported by some inconsistency in his architectural principles from one era to another.

I don't think any of those who've suggested his principles changed much regarding even bunkering can support that contention. It's incredible to me that a few on here have been arguing for pages about relative numbers of bunkers on various courses to prove their point. I think Tom Doak's thread goes a long way to proving that relative numbers of bunkers on various courses and various sites can be highly misleading and consequently a really poor way to compare or analyze this question of Tillinghast selling out by simply using comparative and relative numbers of bunkers from one course to the next. On that subject alone, do those who are making that assumption not realize that different courses are designed and built for different purposes and for different types of play and players? Apparently not! Do the numerous bunkers and massive sand waste carry areas of PVGC mean that course was overbunkered? Of course not--it was designed that way because the course was designed ONLY for the very good player. Crump, the inspiration of that course, did NOT want poor players to come there and said so many times. And if they did come there he wanted them tortured---(presumably so they wouldn't come back!). Does that make PVGC some abberation of beautiful and effective architecture and something far less than ideal? Not to me it doesn't although it apparently does to some on here since they feel that ANY course that does not architecturally accomodate every level shows that something is lacking with it architecturally! It was dedicatedly designed NOT to accomodate every level and frankly sailed to the top of the world architecturally as much for that reason as any other!! It was considered the ultimate of a great course for good players and that fact should not make the course suspect architecturally---at least not in my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of most for decades! Otherwise why has the course been so admired and ranked so highly for so long?

But the thing that really disappoints me with some of the discussion on these threads is Tillinghast's own writing and how it's there in extraordinary detail and explanation but yet it's not being analyzed or at least not properly or comprehensively enough by those who're discussing this subject. Frankly, Phil Young and even Rick Wolffe who are supplying this great info should defend their positions on Tillinghast even better because Tillinghast articles and the logic of his articles definitely allows them to defend him better, even on this specific subject of "selling out".

Chapters #28 & #32 defend Tillinghast's postion on this bunker removal project so well it's almost as if he was here today completely and effectively rebutting those who're suggesting he was selling out!

1. Are the numbers of bunkers on any course relevant to this discussion?
Not really when one realisitically considers the potentailly differing design intentions of various courses and how different that can be in the minds of the client and the architect!

2. Is the placement and design of those bunkers relevant to this discussion?
Definitely! Tillinghast not only talks about actual placement yardage regarding various bunkers (DH's and such) but he even actually DRAWS us a comparison (Chapter 28 in the "Course Beautiful) between a hole that shows WHERE AND HOW they exist and where and how they don't. He even goes on to explain that basically these DH's are the result of the penal architectural philosophy of the "Dark Ages" that was so repugnant to those such as Macdonald, Wilson, Flynn, Mackenzie, Thomas et al. He even goes on to explain how they don't effect the good player and how they unnecessarily penalize the poorer player. Those comparative drawings in Chapter 28 are most all that we need to show us not only if Tillinghast's principles were inconsistent but how. Just let anyone on here show us an example of when or where Tillinghast ever bunkered a golf course like his drawing on the left (in chapter 28)----an example of how not to bunker a golf course unless the architect is a proponent of "Dark Age" short crossbunkered penal architecture. Was Tillinghast a proponent of that "Dark Age" short crossbunkered penal principle or philosophy at some point early in his career? Not that I'm aware of!

Tillinghast also talks about the whole idea of "scientific" architecture (or sometimes it was referred to by them as "Modern" architecture)  throughout his numerous articles on golf architecture (as Flynn and others did) that specifically contemplates the efficacy for all levels of golfers evidenced by his drawing on the right in chapter 28 of proper and "Modern" bunkering arrangements----eg the proper way to bunker a golf course for all(Chapter 28 is entitled "The simplicity of Modern Bunkering")! One just might also logically assume that "simplicity" might mean economy in Tillinghast's mind on certain types of golf courses!

Furthermore, and again, I don't think it's fair to Tillinghast or any of the others to compare the bunkering placements or patterns or numbers on some courses such as Bethpage Black, SFGC or Brook Hollow or PVGC or Oakmont or NGLA or a number of other course of their ilk and original design intention to courses that they clearly designed for other purposes---eg the so-called "Members Course". And in the name of archtiectural accuracy and competent discussion of architecture it isn't a valid or accurate comparison either!

I don't really know if Tillinghast was selling out his principles in the 1930s or not because I really don't know what bunkers on which courses he did recommend for removal. But I do know if they were those that were consistent with holes that had bunkering numbers and placements like his drawing on the left in chapter 28 he wasn't selling out. And he wasn't being inconsistent in his architetural philosophy either! At least it isn't an accurate comparison to arrive at the conclusion he was selling out!

But at the very least use what he wrote to analyze better what he recommended and may have done. The extent, as well as the detailed explanations on both architecture and architectural principles offered by Tillinghast are probably the most comprehensive and informative ever done in the history of golf course archtiecture. Behr's collection of essays are fascinating too but less actual architectural examples then ones of architectural philosophy through the feelings of a golfer.  And of course it's pretty hard to accuse him of doing something negative, inconsistent or of "selling out" without offereing evidence of what actually was recommended by him and done on the courses he visited for the PGA.

I'd also like to say that the photos of Bethpage Black that Mike Cirba offered on the Tillinghast "selling out" thread, presumably for the purpose of showing what DH's are to the duffer do NOT show what Tillinghast considered to be DH's. The diagonals on some of those bunkers placements alone are anything but what he explained were real "Dark Ages" DH's but furthermore, and again, we should all know that Bethpage Black, much like PVGC and some of the others mentioned on GOlfCLUBATLAS was DEDICATELY NOT designed or intended for the "Duffer" to play. And that fact is about as provable as it needs to be, in my opinion!  

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: A_Clay_Man on March 28, 2004, 09:08:29 AM
Pat- Using common sense, and the Burbeck quote
Quote
We have a man who does nothing but rake the traps on the Black course, day after day, week after week. It takes him three days to complete a round.
Would you agree that it is somewhat easy to conclude, that Burbeck thought BB was over-bunkered?

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 28, 2004, 09:32:57 AM
I'd also like to say I do understand the real motivation of Mike Cirba for posting the Tillinghast "selling out" thread (and those such as David Moriarty for posting the "Jumping the Shark" thread) and the motivation of Tom MacWood and Pat and many others in discussing it. Presumably it's to be more even-handed in analyzing any architect of any era, particularly our own era but also to prevent needlessly glorifying those of a former era. That's admirable and certainly should always be encouraged on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.

But looking back at archtitecture and architects and the things that happened with it and them of a time long past, or any time long past, is tricky business. There always needs to be a true understanding and also a willingness to go to the max to COMPLETELY strip away the prism of the ensuing years that we know and understand but that those of that time we're looking back at never could know and understand (the ensuing years after they were gone certainly including our times).
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 28, 2004, 09:44:42 AM
TE
I take it you have not been following the thread....chapter 28 and 32 have been addressed....I'm sorry you are disapointed, I know haven't been.

On your point #1, I agree with you...you'll have to ask Pat where is going there.

On your point #2, I think your history lesson is off by a few years.

That article (Chapter 28) was written in 1936...I don't believe the cop bunker was a problem at that point. How many of the 7000+ bunkers Tilly removed (or recommended be removed ) were cop bunkers? I don't believe George Thomas's and Alister MacKenzie's bunkers at Bel-air and Valley were of that variety.

Re-analyze the article in the context of 1936 and a landscape dotted with courses designed by Strong, Ross, Raynor, Flynn, Alison and ironically Tilly himself.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 28, 2004, 10:46:54 AM
Tom MacW:

Chapters #28 and #32 have been touched on in this thread (from what I've read), in my opinion, but they certainly have not been addressed as well as they should be if one considers those chapters in their entirety. A few contibutors have picked a few points out of those chapters to defend and support various assumptions they're trying to air and support but even that, in my opinion anyway, gets a bit into taking things out of context if one considers everything that Tillinghast is talking about and trying to explain in those chapters.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 28, 2004, 10:56:53 AM
TE
Have you read the entire thread?

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 28, 2004, 11:07:14 AM
Adam Clayman,
Pat- Using common sense, and the Burbeck quote
Quote
We have a man who does nothing but rake the traps on the Black course, day after day, week after week. It takes him three days to complete a round.

Would you agree that it is somewhat easy to conclude, that Burbeck thought BB was over-bunkered?

Absolutely not.

If I had just one man to hand rake bunkers at many courses it would take him three days to rake all of the bunkers.  
That's why they invented Sand Pros.

Burbeck's comment is in a maintainance context, not an architectural context.

Have you ever played Bethpage Black ?

Which bunkers would you deem "overbunkered" and as such advocate their removal ?

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 28, 2004, 02:17:58 PM
"TE
Have you read the entire thread?"

Tom:

I think so but perhaps not close enough. What does it seem like I missed?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 28, 2004, 05:05:54 PM
TE
I have no idea why you were disappointed in the way the thread was analyzed (perhaps you don't agree with the conclusions)...I thought it was for the most part a very good exchange....a thought provoking exchange that uncovered a number of new bits of information. And explored the entire episode in a historical context.

I would disagree with your view that "Assumptions and then apparently conclusions are proffered and then defended to the death with either no particularly good evidence to support those assumptions or conclusions but much more often without analyzing correctly, in my opinion of course, what really is pretty damn good evidence." That is mouthful. There was quite a bit of good information and the conclusions proffered were done so logically.

In fact if there is any reliance on suspect evidence and/or shaky analysis --  your reliance on #28 and #32 are two prime examples.

Article #32, "Duffers Headache", is actually the merger of two articles: Our Green Committee Page (1920) a monthly feature in Golf Illustrated and an article for the PGA magazine (1936) "From the Gulf to Puget Sound". The title "Duffers Headache" was an invention of the editors of The Course Beautiful in 1995 and is in my opinion misleading.

The first part of the article is clearly protesting the old-fashioned cop bunker and is from 1920 (ironically 1920 was the year Tillinghast revised SFGC and designed Brook Hollow). The latter part of the article deals more with the PGA mission (1936).

Reading them as one continuos article is a mistake. Everyone condemned the cop, not everyone condemned bunkers within 175 yards of the tee (The DH)--including Tilly himself in a prior life. Adding the last paragraph regarding the DH (from 1936) is misleading...Tilly's definition of a DH as found article #28 is clearly not the cop bunker. There weren't a hell of lot of cop bunkers which survived to 1936.

In article #28 Tilly puts forth his definition of the Duffers Headache and the Duffers Range. As far as I know he never differentiates between members courses, public courses and championship courses or any other type of course in his 1936 PGA articles. Most championship courses are also member courses by the way. What were the Valley Club, Bel-Air and SFGC designed for--championship or members courses?

Testing all these various courses based on his bunkering formula was a bad idea IMO, and resulted 7000+ bunkers being exterminated from all types of courses. (Tilly's bunkering formula being 175 yds-&-in was the Duffer's zone...no bunkers in that area. The 2nd Duffers zone is from 300 to about 400 yds on long par-4s...again no bunkers.) Written in 1936 this is not about the old fashioned cop or the 'Dark Ages'...again there weren't 7000+ cop bunkers in the USA in 1936 (and certainly not at Bel-Air or Valley). I'd say you are off by a few years on your analysis of this article.

How would Shinnecock Hills of 1936 faired under this DH test--not well IMO or about as well as Hollywood, Bel-Air and Valley Club did (not exactly Cop bunker havens)?

Where was Tilly's DH condemnation from years 1930 to 1935 in the Depression?

If anything these PGA articles, when contrasted against his previous work and writing, IMO prove Tilly had clearly gone through a philosophical transition in 1935--compromised.

The question is why...what occurred in 1935 (that didn't happen in 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934) that sparked a new found interest in eliminating the DH?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 28, 2004, 06:12:05 PM
Pat - I have no "blind" belief in Tom MacW's "numbers" as you self-servingly and insultingly posture. Whatever the conclusion Tom has come to, he has at least provided evidence to support his claims, something that is conspicuosly absent in your posts, instead relying only your "common sense."  If that's true, it then appears as if common sense is the least common of all the senses.  ;D

You offer very specific claims on the mindset and motivations of Tillie, without reference to any evidence.

Tom Paul - you offered a very decent analysis, and cautioned against assumptions and conclusions. But in the very next post claim you understand the "real" motivation which is an effort to be evenhanded with criticisms. That seems like an awfully big presumption and conclusion.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 28, 2004, 06:15:49 PM
By the way, for the record, my favorite architect has long been and continues to be, Tillinghast.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 28, 2004, 07:48:09 PM
SPDB,

If you think Tom MacWood's contention that AWT overbunkered BPB, stating that he designed and built up to 90 bunkers, when slightly more then 60 may have existed, represents the facts, then you need to take a refresher course in math.

Neither you or Tom MacWood have provided one iota of  evidence to support your absurd claim that AWT was paid to remove bunkers on a per bunker basis.

And, that's a fact.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on March 28, 2004, 08:21:08 PM
I am not sure what Tom M. and some others are trying to prove.  It seems to me that there is allot of "data mining" simply for the sake of arguing a point.  

It also seems very silly to defend an argument by demanding answers to unknowable questions like -- how many bunkers did Tilly remove? And how much money did Tilly make in 1934, 1935 and 1936?

I don't know how many he removed and how much he was paid?    What great knowledge would be proved if I could recite exactly how many he did remove and how much he was paid to the penny?

I also don't know how many grains of sand are in the Glacier bunker at Bethpage.  I guess since I don't know these things I don't know anything else either.

I think it is very interesting to study and try to interpret Tilly's design philosophy and how it may have evolved.  I would say that Tilly's philosophy did evolve.  I think the best way to interpret this is by studying Tilly's body of work.  I think Tom M. is on to something in pointing to specific courses and design features.  I am convinced that Tilly did experiment and I can point to specific features on his early courses that were not found on his later courses.  I think Pat's or TePaul's point that the original design objectives of a course and the project budget have the greatest impact on what is ultimately designed.   I think it is very fair to point out that Tilly's body of work and writings espouse strategic bunkering of the fairway rather than random bunkering.  As Phil Young pointed out earlier, Tilly first questioned the randomness of a penal fairway bunker on the Old Course at St. Andrews.  However, in another reflective writing, Tilly reversed his criticism and praised the quirks of St. Andrews.  Clearly, Tilly gave fairway bunkering allot of thought and he wrote allot about the proper placing of fairway hazards.  He also wrote that golf course should be flexible to meet the increasing distances of the game and noted it was far cheaper to move a bunker and tee than to rebuild a green.

In regards to Brook Hollow, I understand that it was originally heavily bunkered as a function of: 1) an original design intent to create a challenging course in the likeness of Pine Valley and; 2) a substantial construction budget.  Bethpage Black's design intent was to create a similar challenge.

However, one should also evaluate the fairway bunkering at Bethpage.  It is not cluttered with random sand pits short of the drive zone.  Rather, the fairway bunkering was placed in oblique lines and diagonals -- a very characteristic Tilly feature.

I would very much disagree with Tom's assertion that Tilly did not remove allot of primitive "Cop" bunkers and other "cheap-john" artificial traps in the mid 1930's.  Frankly, I am not happy with Tom's "data mining" and very simple or sophomoric interpretation of Tilly's design philosophy.  

I am not sure how Tom knows that  "There weren't a hell of lot of cop bunkers which survived to 1936."  I don't know this to be true, nor can I prove it false though.  However, as I said in previous posts, if you read the letters Tilly wrote after 1936, Tilly said there were allot of "simple" golf courses cluttered with sand pits. Tilly specifically called these sand pits "relics of golf's dark age."  

As I also said before, the letters should be read in full to really interpret whether "Tilly sold out."  If you want to believe my read of the letters, Tilly did not sell out.  On the contrary, he provided a great and invaluable service to hundreds of golf clubs and courses in America.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 28, 2004, 09:04:44 PM
Pat
I hate to correct you again, but I did not say Bethpage was overbunkered. What I said was Bethpage was heavily bunkered.

The irony being as Tilly was touring the country for the PGA condemming the DH and overbunkered golf courses, one of his greatest and most heavily bunkered designs was being introduced to the world (with a number of well placed DHs).

RW
Phil gave Tilly comments about "poorly placed bunkers as far back as 1901 when he referred to the "pits" at St. Andrews"  as evidence of his long standing objection to DH's. IMO he took Tilly's comments out of context. Tilly objected to St.Andrew's blind bunkers postioned where a well struck ball would come to rest....it had nothing to do with DHs. He went to say that those familar with course play short of these hazards--a common complaint from many first timers to the Old course. I also doubt if Tilly's architectural thoughts were finely tuned in 1901.

Personally I am not caught up the exact number of bunkers Tilly removed, what Tilly said he removed is more important to me. I have no reason to believe he was not being as accurate as possible.

Tilly describes the DH as being both in the center of play and on the perimeter. The DH bunkers he removed at Belmont--Tilly said--were on the sides. This is supported by his scematic in 'The Simplicity of Modern Bunkering'. Bethpage has a number of bunkers in these zones.

Which golf courses did Tilly inspect with old fashioned cop
bunkers...do you think they make up many of the 7000+?

As I said before sold out is too strong for me....IMO he compromised or altered his architectural views due to difficult personal circumstances. It is something many of us would have done.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 28, 2004, 10:13:26 PM
Pat - I dearly wish you would stop falsely attributing stuff to me. The only thing i have said is that Bethpage contained vast amounts of sand. I also said Tom M. has throughout this thread pointed to evidence, something you have failed to do.

Nor have I made the claim, as you indicate, that Tillie was paid on a per bunker basis. I have only asked (repeatedly) on what criteria was Tillie paid. I'm looking for answers and your false accusations are highly frustrating and only serve to short circuit the discussion, which many would like to continue in the dispassionate manner that existed before you waded in.

My question is a reasonable one, and not a conclusion. So far we have the following evidence:
1. Tillie's claims as to the bunkers he removed.
2. The estimated dollar savings generated by his work.

The logical inference is that there may be a connection, all the same there might not. Should I refrain from asking the question?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 28, 2004, 10:31:04 PM
SPDB remarked;

"Tom Paul - you offered a very decent analysis, and cautioned against assumptions and conclusions. But in the very next post claim you understand the "real" motivation which is an effort to be evenhanded with criticisms. That seems like an awfully big presumption and conclusion.'

Sean:

Does that really seem like a awfully big presumption and conclusion? The reason I said that was from Mike Cirba's remark in the intial post of this entire thread;

"If Tom Paul bemoans the fact that Wayne Stiles was responsible for the removal of many cool Ross bunkers at Gulph Mills in 1940, then I don't see any reason that we shouldn't cite loss of key features due to the work of one of the most brilliant architects of all time."

Presumably Mike Cirba is talking about Tillinghast. Neither MikeC, Tom MacW, PatM nor you or I can ask Tillinghast what his real motivations were for recommending the removal of bunkers for the PGA Project during the Depression but at least any of us can ask Mike Cirba what his "real" motivation was for posting this thread. That's really not such an awfully big presumption and conclusion on my part. I simply repeated what he clearly said about four days ago!

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on March 28, 2004, 10:35:53 PM
TE Paul - You're right, I apologize. Perhaps that was Mike's intent in starting this thread, but I, for one, have no intention of discussing Tillie by way of validating criticisms of modern architects. I'm trying to stay focused squarely on Tillie, not in any relative way, either. If only Pat M. would get out of the way, we could get somewhere.  ;D

There are a lot of regrettable things about the way this topic started (chief among them, the title) which i'm sure Mike meant off handedly and not as an indictment.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on March 28, 2004, 10:43:13 PM
Tom Paul;

As I mentioned in another thread, you're correct in assuming my major reason for asking this question.  

I also hoped to learn more about the subject from others who have more information and insight than I do.  

I didn't necessarily mean to use you and Stiles's work at GM as an example, but I recall that you were unhappy about his recommendations in 1940 and it seemed consistent with Jamie's complaints about Tillinghast's work at Tavistock.

Part of me wondered...what happened in those days?  Yes, I know it was the depression, but most of the major classic, "Golden Era" architects were bunkerists to the extreme, Tillie included.  All of a sudden they were out there recommending their removal.

Was it simply economic pragmatism, or was there a sea change in architectural philosophy that culminated in RTJ Sr.'s redesign of Oakland Hills, where no bunkers are to be found until the 250 mark, and then only for the accomplished player?

 

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on March 28, 2004, 10:46:10 PM
Sean;

Forgive my foray into the New York Post style of journalism, but sometimes a thread needs a good, controversial "hook" to elicit discussion.

I had hoped that the body of my question would fairly discuss the topics at hand, and 100+ generally educational responses later, I'm quite certain that my muckraking title was worth it.

Thanks for your contributions.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 28, 2004, 11:44:31 PM
Tom MacW:

I'm afraid I just don't understand what point you're making with what you said in post #142 regarding chapters #28 & #32.

What difference does it make when those articles of Tillinghast's were written or whether they were merged at some later point? The only thing that needs to be shown is where he was inconsistent about his ideas or principles on bunkering in what he called (at any time) the duffer's range of app 140-175 from the tee (as shown in his drawing in chapter #28)? Did he propose that style or principle of architecture of bunkering and crossbunkering at some earlier period and then condemn it in 1936? I can't see that he did in anything he built or admired or wrote about prior to 1936 except for some courses that he understood weren't intended for the duffer.

I think you might have asked me where he makes a distinction between a championship design (a design for very good players) and what I call a "member's course"? He doesn't that I know of but isn't that distinction completely obvious to you? And if it isn't obvious to you, well, then, I don't know what to say about that.

Just look at PVGC, a course that practically everyone, including Tillinghast, had great admiration for. Have you ever seen PVGC Tom? If not, it has bunkering and waste area or something equally penal on just about every single hole between the tee and app. 140 to 175 or more yards off every tee (the duffer's range)! Are you going to say that shows some inconsistency in Tillinghast's principles of architecture or some compromise on his part because he did not at any time condemn that architectural principle at PVGC or the removal of those bunkers, waste areas etc?

Does that sound like a course that was designed to accomodate the duffer who Tillinghast claimed generally couldn't hit the ball 140-175 yards?

Does that sound like a different type design to you from one that doesn't have any penal areas until app 240 yards out as Tillinghast suggested on his drawing on the right in chapter 28 that would not penalize the duffer and dispirit him?

And I can't see what you're fixation is with what you call the "cop bunker". I don't see that word mentioned in any of those Tillinghast articles at any time. In those articles he was talking about any bunkerng in the range of the duffer---eg bunkering app 140-175 yards off the tee whether or not that was something you'd define as a "cop bunker".

MikeC:

I did say I was sorry to see my club take Stiles's advice in the 1940s to do away with our Ross "top shot" bunkers that were about 120-140 off many tees. And I would be just as disappointed in their lose if Tillinghast recommended their removal. But that doesn't mean that Tillinghast at one time proposed the utility of bunkers like that and then at a later time (during the PGA bunker removal project) recommended their removal! And if he never proposed their utility and then later recommended their removal, where is his inconsistency and where was he selling out his principles?

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 29, 2004, 06:29:16 AM
The reason it matters is because people come along decades later and take his comments out of context.

The article was titled Duffers Headache in 1995 by the editors which IMO is misleading because most of the article is from 1920 and deals with the old fashioned cop. The duffers headache was mid-30's invention of Tilly's. The DH are conventional bunkers place from the tee to the 175 yds mark (and starting at about 300 yds in his secondary duffers zone). In effect he wanted to create two hazard free zones--which IMO is as goofy as the mathimatical cop bunker arrangement...in reverse.

In 1920 Tilly was not opposed to conventional bunkers in these two DH zones....as illustrated by his work at that time. In 1935-6 he was recommending any bunker in these zones be officially designated a duffer's headache--cross, side or central. As he explained when removing side bunkers at Belmont.

In 1920 Tilly was bunkering freely. In 1936 he was not. Merging them together under this title causes confusion...as illustrated by your use of the artilce. What was occuring 1920 architecturally, economically and socially was different than what was occuring 1935.

Regarding my view that it was the cop bunkers Tilly was referring to, he described these bunkers: "Yet on hundreds of courses we find old-fashioned bunkers marring the scenery at a point of one hundred and forty yards from the teeing ground, hazards which extend squarely across the line of play ..." He describes them as old-fashioned and extending squarely acrosss the line. But the most important clue is 140 yards...that was the magic yardage for the first cop...see Travis's sketch in the first few pages of Shackelford's Golden Age. 1920 was a particularly bad year for the cop Travis, Colt, Alison, MacKenzie and Tilly all condemmed it in books or in articles. (Another reason why it is dangerous merging these articles and taking them out of context)

Regarding championship vs members, unless Tilly makes the distinction when removing bunkers then I'm not sure what difference it makes. As far as I can tell Tilly did not discriminate. And many courses of that era had championship aspiration, perhaps not national championships, but regional championships. The big name architects rarely designed strictly 'membership courses', there was always some championship quality, hybrids if you will--Bel-Air, Valley, and Kirtland being a few examples of this on this PGA tour.

What is Cypress Point championship or member...would you want Tilly's Dufferometer pointed at that this wonderful design?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 29, 2004, 08:14:17 AM
Tom MacW:
I probably should not have said I'm disappointed in this thread. Actually I only said I was disappointed in the way some make assumptions and reach conclusions, but maybe I shouldn't be--after all it just creates a greater dynamic on here.

In one post you said;

"The first part of the article is clearly protesting the old-fashioned cop bunker and is from 1920"

And in another one you said;

"In 1920 Tilly was not opposed to conventional bunkers in these two DH zones....as illustrated by his work at that time"

To most that must look like a contradiction on your part. However, I see what you're trying to do and the distinction you're apparently trying to make between bunkering you refer to as old fashioned "cop bunkering" and bunkering in the zone you say Tillinghast (and others) LATER claimed was the DH zone. The fact is both those bunkers were basically in the same area--although perhaps the DH area may have extended it a little which, in my opinion, only goes to strengthen what Tillinghast may have been claiming all along---eg the intent and effect of bunkering in these areas only serves to penalize the duffer and not the better player. That's why I see nothing misleading about those articles or when they were written or merged.

If you refer to Tillinghast's left drawing in Chapter 28 it doesn't seem to me it would matter much to a duffer if he was facing bunkering on that drawing (DHs) or "cop bunkering"---basically it's about the same thing for him to overcome which is so obvious clearly Tillinghast probably didn't feel the need to make a distinction (as you are) because basically there isn't one (to the duffer anyway).

Tillinghast said in chapter 28;

"The zone across the fairway out to 175 yards is literally infested with traps (sometimes the midtrap is missing).......In brief they trap only the very best efforts of that great 90% of our golfers, who are striving to break 90. To the "hundred gaffers" they are headaches. To the greenkeeper they are nuisances and to the club budget they are serious drains."

I'm not aware that in 1920 or before Tillinghast was ever into designing bunkers like any of these. If he suggested them or supported them on a course such as PVGC the reason for that is pretty obvious to me anyway. That reason which most all understood was the course was not intended for duffers. That's no guess, a designer like Crump made that patently clear. That concept was also picked up by Flynn (on certain projects) when he included what he came to call "interrupted fairways". Flynn even advertised in writing that concept on at least one of his designs. And he included the concept on a number of others---including Kittanset and Shinnecock. In some cases those "interrupted fairways" (which we're fairly certain were a result of Flynn's Pine Valley influence) were let go later and turned into fairway area. Why? It's pretty obvious to me which was confirmed by Kittanset's long time super the divisions between those "interrupted fairways" were in what these articles call the "Duffers" zone!

I believe you're trying to make some distinctions here (some actually playable difference between what you refer to as "cop bunkering" and the DH zone) that basically didn't exist to prove a far different point that Tillinghast was "selling out". He may have been but the way you're going about trying to prove it doesn't make a lot of sense---at least not to me. That's basically what I'm saying about this thread. But it probably has been an interesting discussion because of all of that.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: A_Clay_Man on March 29, 2004, 08:38:47 AM
MAybe the thread should be titled "Was Tillie wrong?"

Quote
To the "hundred gaffers" they are headaches. To the greenkeeper they are nuisances and to the club budget they are serious drains."

In my best Talmudic voice, I ask..."So why were they there in the first place?"

Since it had to cost money to "cover" these up, in a parralel universe, leaving them alone would've satisfied all but the gaffers.

Isn't the level of frustration experienced, and selectively overcome by the 'newer golfer', (pc for; Duffer, gaffer) the "litmus test" that creates what eventually becomes a "golfer"? And therefore, easying the gaffers path, is what led to duldrums in gca?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Neil Regan on March 29, 2004, 09:06:14 AM

In my best Talmudic voice, I ask..."So why were they there in the first place?"



From an article by Leighton Calkins in American Golfer, 1910: (http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1910/ag34e.pdf#xml=http://www.aafla.org:8080/verity_templates/jsp/search/xmlread.jsp?k2dockey=/mnt/docs/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1910/ag34e.pdf@aafla_pdf&serverSpec=localhost:9920&querytext=%28%28%3Cword%3E+cop+%3Cand%3E+%3Cword%3E+bunker%29+%3Cand%3E+%28+Journal_Title+%3Ccontains%3E+American+Golfer+%3Cor%3E++Journal_Title+%3Ccontains%3E+Golf+Illustrated%29%29)
Quote
I have laid stress in previous articles on the great need of thorough trapping. With most of our American courses it would be a good thing if you could go around with a kind of pot-bunker pepper-pot and shake out traps and pits by the hundred; because it would be better thus to sprinkle them about hit or miss than not to have them at all. [/color][/b]I suppose most people thought Garden City rather copiously trapped during the Amateur in 1908. Yet nearly a hundred more traps have gone in since.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 29, 2004, 09:09:08 AM
TE
The geometric cop bunker is not conventional by modern (modern being the 1920’s) architectural standards. Conventional  bunkers within the 175 yard zone are not the same things IMO…..as illustrated beautifully in Travis’s diagram (see Shackelford’s Golden Age) and hundreds of golden age designs. If you don't find a distinction between the two, no wonder we don’t agree on this thread.

You are not aware of Tilly placing bunkers within 175 yards of the tee (or in the second hazard free duffer’s zone) in 1920 or before? Shawnee, SFGC, Brook Hollow, Philadelphia Cricket and Norwood are few off the top of my head.

As I have said a number of times 'selling out' is too strong for me….compromising his previous design beliefs and practices is more accurate IMO.

Speaking of championship tests and the Depression, it is interesting to compare and contrast how the big 3 approached it in the mid-30’s.

ANGC--minimal bunkers with severe greens
Pinehurst #2--minimal to moderate bunkering with severe greens
Bethpage-Black--tons of sand and flattish greens (greens possibly due to Burbeck’s involvement and Tilly’s PGA exit)

In fact I don’t recall the minimalistic ANGC getting much press in Golf Illustrated (as opposed to American Golfer) while Tillie was editor…not sure what to make of that.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 29, 2004, 09:21:45 AM
Here's a quotation from my own files of my club that was part of a report (for improvements to the course) by Wayne Stiles in 1940;

"Traps--Please note that the traps which I have suggested should be eliminated are shown in green crayon and any new traps additions to greens or fairways are shown in yellow crayon.

I feel there are quite a number of traps on this course which were placed originally according to the old ideas of trapping, and at the present time only penalize the older players and the women members, and are not considered advisable in the new thoughts of golf course construction. In addition there would be quite a saving during a period of a year in the upkeep of these traps, cost of sand to keep them in proper condition, and hand trimming of the grass around the edges. Personally I would much rather see a course trapped to penalize the long wild player from the 200 yard mark on, and still further narrowing the fairway at the 250 yard mark to penalize the players who can't keep on the course rather than the short player, who can never reach any of the greens on the long holes in two shots."

This is the very same bunker removal project Mike Cirba referred to in the intial post on this thread that took Ross's so-called "Top Shot" or "Fore" bunkers completely off our course in 1940.

It's remarkable how similar Stiles's wording and logic is to Tillinghast's in Chapter 28 and 32 of "The Course Beautiful". Does this mean Stiles's was "selling out" too?

It might also be instructive to carefully consider Stiles's words and the reasons for them instead of jumping immediately to the assumption or conclusion that he too was selling out his principles--as has been leveled on this thread against A.W. Tillinghast! Again, Stiles said that type short bunkering was the "old ideas of trapping"! (Tillinghast referred to that type of short bunkering as "relics of golf's dark age").

Tom MacW:

It didn't seem to matter to those architects of that time what those short bunkers were called---eg "cop bunkers", "Top Shot", "Fore", or "DHs". Whatever they were called at any time their basic effect on a particular level of golfer was the same and as you can see what Stiles and Tillinghast and obviously other architects said about them was essentially the same---eg they were penalizing those that shouldn't be penalized and were consequently obsolete ("The old ideas of golf construction") in architectural thinking of that time and were also needlessly expensive for those reasons.

Interestingly, in the last two years under our restoration project Gil Hanse very much wanted to restore those old Ross "top shot" bunkers---a few of us on the committee did as well.

But the rest of the committee, the members and the board did not want to do it. The reasons they gave was they unnecessarily penalized a level of golfer they didn't want to penalize and for that reason they were too expensive to restore (on average about $8,000 each to restore!) and maintain. And no one at my club was aware of what either Tillinghast or Stiles had said about bunkers of that type in that yardage range and their expense some six to seven decades before.

Nevertheless, I'm sorry Stiles recommended they be removed 64 years ago and I'm sorry Gil wasn't able to restore them. They probably would've been unnecessrily penalizing to a level of player at my club and expensive to restore and maintain but they were, in my opinion, an interesting feature of a particular era who's time apparently passed by many decades ago! Nevertheless, I did support their restoration, though that was not to be.

But the more specific point regarding this thread is it doesn't look to me like Stiles or Tillinghast were selling out their principles as you apparently are claiming Tillinghast was. It looks to me as if ideas on architecture from both numerous members and architects of that time was changing and had changed! This is the proper way to accurately look at the thinking and motivations of an era, in my opinion!

And of course, if we in 2004 want to restore bunkers of that type today we probably have every right and reason to do so--but for OUR OWN reasons!

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on March 29, 2004, 09:23:25 AM
Tom,

As I haven't been able to post in a few days, I do want to make a few comments on your current observations.

You make the point that you believe I have taken some of Tilly's writings out of context. Whether that is so or not, aren't you the one who stated on numerous occasions throughout this thread that have never read an article where Tillie condemns DH's BEFORE the 30s or were even aware of them?

Yet in analyzing the validity of using a few chapters from the Tillinghast trilogy of books, you state (correctly) thatsome of these are amalgamations of Tilly's writings combined into one article, including a portion of one from 1920!

How can you write, ""The first part of the article is clearly protesting the old-fashioned cop bunker and is from 1920"
and yet state you don't know of this type of article being written?

What I have done in quoting from various articles, including the one from 1901 where Tilly condemns some of the bunkers at St. Andrews, was not to state that these were his final words on the subject and words to be considered carved in stone, but to give examples of where he made comments and wrote specific articles on the subject of improper bunkering and that hen had held these views for many years. These were done to answer YOUR CONTENTION that he had not written or believed these ideas before the 30's.

Now you are not only stating he did but are quoting them! Tom, how do you reconcile this very apparent contradiction?

You also have made the ascertion that I am blindly trying to protect the reputation of Tilly. How can you state this based upon what I have written here? Whether you agree with my conclusions or not, if you knew me even the smallest amount, you would never state this. I reasearch questions even when I have come to a conclusion in the past on a subject because if someone raises a salient point it is important to examine the whole picture amd how this point may effect the conclusions previously arrived at. One never knows what may be discovered by doing so.

A case in point. When the question of Burbeck was raised in 2002, I was contacted by a number of people including those at Bethpage. Because of the recent history that I had written about Bethpage and the Black, they wanted to know if I had found anything in my researches that might shed light on this. Had I found anything that might end the controversy.

Instead of stating that, "it's all in my book use that," I traveled to New York from my home in Georgia and began research anew, approaching the subject from the beginning with an open mind. This is when I discovered that Bethpage Blue was designed with a "REEF Bunker," a hole type conceived, designed and built solely by Tillinghast. This was & is the true smoking gun answer because it proves that Tilly was designing at Bethpage, that he was doing so from the beginning, and that he was there throughout the entire project. Sincee then, there were a number of other proofs that I found and and will be bringing out in a book later later this year where I hope to answer this question to everyone's satisfaction.

I tell you all of this not to "toot my own horn" so to speak, but to educate you as to the veracity of my research. You may disagree with my conclusions till they ski in Hades, but as far as my motives in this are concerned I feel that you have made statements that needed to be answered.

The question

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 29, 2004, 10:00:20 AM
Phil
You did take the article out of context...the blind pots in the driving zone at St.Andrews are not duffers headache's...if anything they are tiger's headaches.

Those pot bunkers and the cop bunker are two different animals.

Burbeck and Bethpage have been covered before...in fact I looked at that issue in what I hope was an object manner....lets not muddy the waters. As far as I know architects don't copyright their designs and therefore don't have exclusive rigths...even if they are original ideas.

TE
You don't differentiate between the bunkers within 175 yards of the tee at Cypress Point, Seminole or Shinnecock Hills and the cop?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 29, 2004, 10:45:02 AM
"TE
The geometric cop bunker is not conventional by modern (modern being the 1920’s) architectural standards. Conventional  bunkers within the 175 yard zone are not the same things IMO…..as illustrated beautifully in Travis’s diagram (see Shackelford’s Golden Age) and hundreds of golden age designs. If you don't find a distinction between the two, no wonder we don’t agree on this thread."

Tom MacW:

It is not the point whether or not I find some distinction (you're making) between what various bunkering is or once was called within the same basic range, although I do understand your distinction. I just don't think you're making a cogent or accurate point on the subject of this thread by offering that distinction as some reason for why Tillinghast was "selling out" during the PGA bunker removal era! The point is it doesn't appear that Tillinghast or most of the other architects or golfers of the time he advocated their removal saw a distinction between them (or what they or you call them).

This thread is not about distinctions we make today about various bunkering in that range in the 1930s, it's about whether or not Tillinghast made those distinctions between between bunkering of different eras and if he did make those distinctions---why he did.

He very well may have done that but I think I've offered some good logic for the reasons why he did that and it doesn't appear to me he was "selling out" although one may accurately conclude his architectural principles (and those of other architects of the era of the 1930s and 1940s vs earlier eras) were changing. If one reads an article like Chapter #28 it appears Tillinghast (and others) of that time were quite proud of what they considered to be a more modern or sometimes even called "scientific" style of architecture for certain courses.

You said;

"As I have said a number of times 'selling out' is too strong for me….compromising his previous design beliefs and practices is more accurate IMO."

I'm not buying that---at least not for the reasons you're giving. Why are you finding it so hard to understand they may've thought they were improving architecture?

You said;

"Speaking of championship tests and the Depression, it is interesting to compare and contrast how the big 3 approached it in the mid-30’s.

ANGC--minimal bunkers with severe greens
Pinehurst #2--minimal to moderate bunkering with severe greens
Bethpage-Black--tons of sand and flattish greens (greens possibly due to Burbeck’s involvement and Tilly’s PGA exit)

Yes, it is interesting to compare and contrast those courses. If one does that accurately they might find differing ideas and principles on those courses and maybe even the reasons why.

ANGC and Pinehurst #2 have generally always been considered great courses but one can hardly deny that they are very different in many ways from something like PVGC or Bethpage (apparently intiended to be a PVGC mimic in some respects).

And all those courses are again quite different in architectural principle from the likes of an Oakmont. But all those varying courses have basically all been considered great and the fact that all those courses may be vastly different in style or even architectural principle I hope doesn't mean to you that someone compromised or "sold out" their priniciples.

The differences in architecture generally--- and the differences in architecture of the same era and certainly different eras fascinates me, particularly if it turns out over time to be considered great. Difference in architecture is most of the fabric of the whole subject to me. But I certainly hope you aren't about to imply with this,

"In fact I don’t recall the minimalistic ANGC getting much press in Golf Illustrated (as opposed to American Golfer) while Tillie was editor…not sure what to make of that",

that that means Tillinghast was trying to hide the fact that he might be selling out his architectural principles! It's very likely Tillinghast admired the architecture of ANGC and Pinehurst #2 as in many ways it exhibited those very principles that Tillinghast specifically wrote about in Chapter 28 (read carefully what he said about architectural reliance at the green end in that article).

But that also should not mean that he didn't also admire the vastly different architecture of a PVGC, again probably partly mimiced at his Bethpage Black.

Architecture, particularly good architecture, is definitely not a "one size fits all" deal, Tom. It is possible for architects to do very different things for very different reasons from era to era or even in a single era!

And architecture was changing in many ways and these men were changing it. It's no secret at all that they changed many of the courses of others, even those other courses of some of the greats of their own time.I'm not aware of a single architect back in that day or really before about 20 years ago who was into restoration or even sticking with the style of another.

That's why the more I think about it the more I like what we did with my course recently which was to try to restore both Ross and Perry Maxwell! Did we compromise some architectural principle or sell out for doing that? I dont' think so.


 





 
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 29, 2004, 11:02:50 AM
"TE
You don't differentiate between the bunkers within 175 yards of the tee at Cypress Point, Seminole or Shinnecock Hills and the cop?"

I didn't say that--you did or you're implying it with these questions.

What I said is the important thing on this thread is whether or not those golfers and those architects of the era we're discussing here did! And if they did why did they---(differentiate between those bunkers in the DH range)?

I've tried to tell you that various courses were looked at differently this way and why they were looked at differently.

Pine Valley virtually has DHs (or whatever else you want to call all that penality for duffers) from the tee to up to 200 yards out on most every single hole while ANGC or a Pinehurst #2 doesn't have anything like that and basically never did!

Do you see some inconsistency in principle there Tom? Did someone sell out their principles? And if you think so would you care to explain why?

Perhaps that may explain to you why Tillinghast never recommeded placing fairway from the tees up to some bunker around 200-240 out on courses like PVGC or CPC or some of the others you mentioned and why he did recommend that on some other courses.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 29, 2004, 12:37:38 PM
The only reason I bring up Chapter 32 is to show that you and Phil are both mistaken in using it as proof Tillie was opposed to bunkers in the 175 yard zone prior to 1935. He was opposed to the formulaic unnatural cop bunker in 1920....and he was not alone, everyone opposed it....but yet Tilly and Colt, Alison, Travis, Ross, MacKenzie, Wison, Flynn, Thomas, often placed bunkers within that zone though out the 1920's and beyond. There is and was a distinction between opposition to the cop and advancement of free bunkering.

Your comparison between PVGC and #2 is irrelevant to Tilly's philosophical change. Certainly there were different styles, but no one that I am aware promoted hazard free zones that Tilly began promoting in 1935-36. I'm not argueing that architectual ideas don't differ, or that architects styles don't evolve. What I'm attempting to do is to shed light upon the reason's Tilly's architect took such a major turn in 1935.

I am focused upon Tillinghast's mission that resulted in the eradication 7000+ bunkers, showing how his design attitude (more accurately his re-design attitude) changed dramatically in 1935 and exploring the circumstances that may have been responsible for that compromise.

The reason I am skeptical that he was improving architecture is because the duffer did not just appear on the scene in 1935....the duffer had been a concern of almost every great architect of that period--and long before 1935. Tilly understood prior to 1935 the limits of the duffer and that the duffer deserved interesting if not thrilling golf--not a zone of nothingness.

Once again this is what we know that appears to support the theory that he compromised due to difficult circumstances:

1. The Depresseion began with the great crash in 1929.

2. Tilly had very little design work in the early, mid and late 1930's (not unlike most architects).

3. Tilly was hardly a minimalist when it comes to bunkering through his career (SFGC and Brook Hollow as extreme examples)

4. Tilly was the editor (and contributing writer) of Golf Illustrated during the Depression.

5. Without design work, it is logical to conclude the GI job was his main source of income.

6. Tilly during his GI Editor period (during the Depression) did not champion the removal of bunkers or DH's.

7. Tilly's (and Brubeck's) Bethpage designs of 1934-35 (Depression era) were heavily bunkered, with numerous bunkers in the Duffer's zone (175 yds-&-in).

8. Golf Illustrated went under in 1935 and employment opportunities were in short supply.

9. Tilly was in financial difficulty.

10. Tilly was hired by the PGA in 1935 by his close friend Jacobus, pro at Ridgewood. Tilly was a member of Ridgewood, a boldly bunkered course he designed in 1928.

11. The PGA attempted to accentuate the value added by PGA affiliation. The Tilly program was designed to maximize that value.

12. Tilly began a focused campaign against the DH after joining the PGA.

13. Tilly claimed to have eliminated 7000+ bunkers at the 1936 PGA meeting...each bunker being quantified with a dollar figure resulting in total dollar savings for the program.

14. Other cost savings measures were more difficult to quantify and were not emphasized at the annual meetings.

In your opinion what is the reason Tilly opposed the DH in 1935-6 and not before...what happened in 1935-36?

As far the top shot bunker is concerned, I don't believe Tilly's PGA tour resulted in the removal of 7000+ top shot bunkers, in fact we know he went after other bunkers--side bunkers, bunkers en echelon within 175 yards, bunkers in the 2nd duffer zone, etc. In fact on one course alone eliminated over 90 bunkers...I'd be curious to know what course that might have been.

Do you think Stiles bunker removal plan saved Gulph Mills from possibly extinction?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 29, 2004, 01:07:08 PM
Tom:

I'm really surprised at you. All those things you just listed again don't prove a damn thing about Tillinghast "selling out" his principles or compromising them as you've been saying all along. Bascially you've mentioned all those things you just listed before and they've all been logically countered, in my opinion.

A number of those architects, including Flynn built courses throughout their careers some of which included penal areas across that so-called DH zone and other courses that had nothing like that. The reasons why they did both is pretty evident, and doesn't need to be written in some article somewhere to be evident!

I don't know what this fixation of yours is with the "cop bunker". What you're apparently describing was that really bad looking geometric thing from the real dark ages of architecture that looked something like the squared off water hazard in front of a horse jump.

One can see from architectural writing that bunkering that complicated the duffer's life between the tee and 140-175 yards out is what these architects and golfers of that era were interested in doing away with on particular golf courses, and it didn't seem to matter to them what they looked like or what they were called.

That is, again, on golf courses that were interested in the duffers plight. GMGC has always had a good number of duffers, probably about the same percentage and of the same capabilities that Tillinghast described in Chapters #28 and #32 and a lot of them from my club apparently played PVGC. They knew and understood the reasons for the differences, Crump knew, Thomas knew, the Wilsons knew, Flynn knew and certainly Tillinghast knew!

And no, GMGC did not think that removing Ross's top shot bunkers back in the 1940s or today would save the club from extinction. If that's your assumption or conclusion or anyone else's that too would be wrong. The majority of the members, committees and board didn't like them for the very reasons both Tillinghast and also Wayne Stiles, who I just quoted CONTEMPORANEOUS to the time he recommended it, gave.

That's a fact, notwithstanding that someone like me was sorry they ALL made that decision to remove them in 1940 and not restore them in 2002!

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 29, 2004, 04:11:39 PM
TE
The only reason I brought up the cop bunker was because you and Phil brought it up originally (as proof of Tilly's early DH tendencies) and IMO you both were misreading it and taking it out of context.

I've yet to find your logical counters, perhaps I missed them....in your opinion what is the reason Tilly opposed the DH in 1935-6 and not before...what happened in 1935-36 that makes his transformation logical in your view?

Of my fourteen points which points are inaccurate or illogical....are there some points that I have missed that might explain his transformation in 1935-36?

With all due respect we are not talking about Flynn's design practices or Ross's design practices...we are talking about Tillinghast's. No doubt everyone of these architects created designs of varying bunker styles--minimal (not as common), moderate and heavy.

But as far as I know Flynn and Ross were not recommending elimination of bunkers on several hundred courses from coast to coast--Flynn courses, Ross courses, Thomas courses, MacKenzie courses, Travis courses, Alison courses, Raynor courses, etc. Nor were they championing a formula to eliminate bunkers from 0 to 175 yds and then 300 to 375 yds.

Perhaps you discovered something I've yet to find....you said there were others advocating this plan at the time...any particular architects and/or articles you can cite?

Have you seen the partial list of courses Tilly advised on his tour...I'd be interested in your view of which courses were member courses and which were championship courses. But on the other hand as far as I know Tilly never differentiated between courses in this way on his tour....isn't that your idea?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mark_Fine on March 29, 2004, 05:00:59 PM
Give or take, there are over 300 pages of text typed out here.  Wow!   Unfortunately, I'm still trying to figure out if anything was concluded ???  Can someone summarize?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 29, 2004, 06:30:10 PM
"TE
The only reason I brought up the cop bunker was because you and Phil brought it up originally (as proof of Tilly's early DH tendencies) and IMO you both were misreading it and taking it out of context."

Tom:
I didn't know I brought up the cop bunker originally. Frankly, I've never been particularly sure what the definition of a cop bunker is, although I thought it included a small bunker in a mound. But somehow I think you'll probably tell me all it ever was was a geometric cross-bunker.

It really doesn't matter who brought it up first--what matters to me is you seem to make a big distinction between what you call a "cop" and various other bunkers that basically resided in the same area. This is important because that area really did have a big effect on duffers as Tillinghast claimed it did. Would you at least acknowledge that obvious fact of golf?

"I've yet to find your logical counters, perhaps I missed them....in your opinion what is the reason Tilly opposed the DH in 1935-6 and not before...what happened in 1935-36 that makes his transformation logical in your view?"

Perhaps you did miss them. For the reasons Tilinghast opposed the DHs in 1935-6 I suggest you reread chapters #28 and #32 of 'The Course Beautiful" and I believe you'll find the exact reasons--he was afterall quite specific in those chapters. I suppose what you're referring to about what happened 1935-6 was when Tillinghast went to work for the PGA removing bunkers. And I don't know that he did have a transfirmation about bunkering in that area that became known as the DH area.

It seems you're claiming he had a transformation because he never wrote about the subject before. I don't know if that's true and even if it was I don't buy that logic that because he may not have written about it before that he changed his mind about it. But even if he did, so what? As he and others both said and wrote ideas on golf architecture were changing.

It almost seems that to you if an architect's ideas or even his ideas about architectural principles change it implies he's selling out of compromising his previous ideas or principles about something. I don't believe I'd necessarily buy that either without knowing more about why they changed.

"Of my fourteen points which points are inaccurate or illogical....are there some points that I have missed that might explain his transformation in 1935-36?"

I don't believe I said your fourteen points are inaccurate or illogical. We all know the crash in 1929 led to the Depression, Tillinghast was the editor of GI in 1935, That he took on a bunker removal project for the PGA and we know all the other things you mentioned in those fourteen points.

What I did say is I don't think your assumptions or conclusion that those points indicate that Tillinghast was "selling out" or compromising his architectural principles do indicate that, and they certainly don't prove that, in my opinion.

It's too bad you don't want to even discuss other architects regarding this subject of DH area bunker removal. I think what I offered as evidence from Wayne Stiles shows the very same feelings Tillinghast had. Why wouldn't that imply at least some truth to what he was saying (almost the very same things Tillinghast was saying or do you suspect that Stiles too was compromising and selling out his previous architectural principles but for some reason you don't want to admit that?  

I think you should at least acknowledge that close similarity as it might say something important about what the feelings were and perhaps even the principles were of that time and the reasons why.

 


 

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 29, 2004, 06:37:11 PM
Mark:

To summarize---Tom Macwood has concluded that Tillinghast's PGA bunker removal project in the mid 1930s indicates TIllinghast had compromised his architectural prinicples although he did say "selling out" may be too strong a term. Some of us are telling Tom we don't think the reasons he's given do indicate or prove the conclusion that Tillinghast was compromising his architectural principles. The rest of the seven pages of this thread are the usual mincing of words like what is and isn't a fact, failing to acknowledge various points, accusations of this and that---you know, all the usual GOLFCLUBATLAS.com stuff!   ;)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mark_Fine on March 29, 2004, 06:43:23 PM
Thanks for the summary!  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 29, 2004, 06:45:47 PM
You're welcome Mark. Here take the baton, he's all yours!  ;)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 29, 2004, 07:22:10 PM
TE
I've been trying to figure out the reason for our disconnect, and it just dawned on me the reason...I had assumed you were familar with Tillinghast and his design practices...you are not. If you aren't familar with his design practices over the years you obviously are not going to see the inconsistancy or compromise.

I've cited SFGC, Brook Hollow and Bethpage and you've explained it away, in your opinion those courses are of the PVGC championship variety as opposed to membership courses. Even if I agree with your description of those courses (which I don't, especially SFGC and the other Bethpage courses), there are scores of other courses that Tilly designed, nearly all his courses, from 1912 to 1936 that had bunkers in the 0 to 175 yard range.

Here is partial list: Shawnee, Quaker Ridge, Fresh Meadow, Ridgewood, Berkshire Hills, Beaver Trail, Newport, Illinois, Five Farms, Wyoming Valley, Lakewood, Binghampton, Forest Hills Field, Philadelphia Cricket, Winged Foot, Southward Ho!, Fenimore, Golden Valley, St. Davids, Sunnehanna and Norwood. All these courses have bunkers in that zone...it was career long practice...and the Depression did not stop that practice...see the Bethpage courses.

It also explains why you put so much stock in those two articles (the confusion with dates not withstanding). If you were familar with his designs (and the cop bunker for that matter) you would have immediately understood in what context he wrote chapter 32 (1920) and not confuse it with his later PGA transformation (exemplified in Chapter 28 -1936). Its hard to see a compromise if you can't recognize a change.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 29, 2004, 07:37:59 PM
Tom MacWood,

175 yards is hardly the distance that DH or top-shot bunkers were placed in the 20's and 30's.

In prior discussions you agreed that DH or top-shot bunkers were within a distance of 140 yards from the tee.
Where are you getting the extra 35 yards from, especially when you consider the carry distances in those times ???

If you want to distort the definition and use of those bunkers to fit your argument, that's okay, but it only means that you're drawing a flawed conclusion based on a perversion of the facts and definitions to suit your argument.

Many top shot or DH bunkers were placed well within 100 yards of the tee.  175 yards is more then a stretch, it's a deliberate distortion.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 29, 2004, 07:53:31 PM
Tom:

Whatever you say. I guess Tillinghast sold his soul to the devil then! Obviously Wayne Stiles did too. What an era all those former wonderful architects going around compromsing their principles because Tom MacWood has concluded they did. Last time I played Philly Cricket I didn't notice DH bunkers--wonder what happened to them? I'll check with Wayne and the Flynn redesign plans we have for Philly Cricket from him. Maybe he took out all those early Tillie DH bunkers. Do you blame him, all his other contemporaries were compromising their architectural principles or selling their architectural souls so I guess he figured he better get in that act too.

;)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 29, 2004, 08:07:39 PM
Tom:

My grandfather used to own the land St David's G.C. sits on, sold it to the club---but I haven't noticed DH bunkers there either. I wonder who put them in or removed them? Did Tillinghast put them there or did Ross? Or maybe Tillinghast removed Ross's or was it the other way around? Maybe my grandfather removed them, one definitely never knew what he might do next, particularly in the depression years when he got so depressed he up and moved his entire family to France including putting my six year old dad in a French boarding school which he definitely never forgot--hated those frogs for the remainder of his life. You can use any old cockamamee story you want about why my grandfather compromised his principles and I'll probably agree with you, facts don't need to come into it at all. I wish my dad was still around so I could ask him who put those DH bunkers in at St David's or who might've removed them. There's little question in my mind my dad would say the f... French and their compromised principles did it!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 29, 2004, 08:08:53 PM
TE
Let me recommend the third book of the Tillinghast trilogy--in fact I would recommend it to any Tilly fan.

It is packed with interesting information on his designs, some excellent articles (pre- and post-PGA) and a great deal of info on his PGA tour, including some of his notes and partial list of the courses he visited. It is a fascinating list.

Mark
I would recommend the first three pages of the thread--lots of new information on both sides of the argument. Actually one of the better threads on GCA in awhile IMO. The last few pages are not nearly as enlightening...very few facts, mostly opinion.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 29, 2004, 08:38:50 PM
“TE
Let me recommend the third book of the Tillinghast trilogy--in fact I would recommend it to any Tilly fan“

Tom;

Thanks for the advice but I have the third book in the trilogy. I have all three books and I’ve read them all. Why don’t you give the same advice to Rick Wolffe since you found so much interesting info in there about Tillinghast and he doesn‘t seem to agree with your conclusions either? Tell him he should read the book too and maybe he’d learn some great new facts about Tillie too. What does he know---he only helped write the books?


Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on March 29, 2004, 10:05:15 PM
Tom MacWood,

175 yards is hardly the distance that DH or top-shot bunkers were placed in the 20's and 30's.

In prior discussions you agreed that DH or top-shot bunkers were within a distance of 140 yards from the tee.
Where are you getting the extra 35 yards from, especially when you consider the carry distances in those times ???

If you want to distort the definition and use of those bunkers to fit your argument, that's okay, but it only means that you're drawing a flawed conclusion based on a perversion of the facts and definitions to suit your argument.

Many top shot or DH bunkers were placed well within 100 yards of the tee.  175 yards is more then a stretch, it's a deliberate distortion.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 29, 2004, 10:42:25 PM
Pat
The 175 yds comes from a Tillinghast article from 1936 where he diagrams the location of DHs--not top shot bunkers, but all bunkers. He also designated a second DH free zone that starts at about 300 yards. DH was an all incompassing term.

TE
Ross's St.David's was designed in 1927. Its predicessor at another site was the work of Tillinghast who redesigned an even older course (Crump played out of St.D). Ironically Tillie did de-DH Ross's course on his PGA tour.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 30, 2004, 08:42:07 AM
Tom MacW;

In one last effort to defend Tillinghast from your claims he was compromising his architectural principles or selling out during his PGA bunker removal years, claims you say you’re supporting and backing up on here, I’d offer another article or so from his writing supporting his ideas in earlier years about removing bunkering in what has been described as the DH zones.

I do appreciate the danger of taking something out of context or out of chronological order. However, that doesn’t seem to be happening here or if his writing is out of chronological order it doesn’t seem to be of concern to this particular subject. All that really needs to be known and factually established on this subject is when he developed his ideas regarding the so-called DH zone, what he was referring to exactly (what types of bunkering in that DH zone) and why he felt the way he did about it and what the did about it.

Although you say you were not the first to bring up the subject of the old fashioned “cop bunker” on here you’re the only one who appears to make a serious distinction regarding it and other types of bunkering within that DH zone that may or may not have been candidates for removal during the 1930s or at any time before that.

You cited a drawing by Travis to describe and inform us of what was considered to be that old fashioned “cop bunker” denigrated by the Golden Age architects and how it was roundly unpopular with architects of the Golden Age. Tom, we know all that. That’s certainly no revelation of yours on here. Matter of fact, that old fashioned “cop bunker” that’s shown on Travis drawing in Shackelford’s book was perhaps one of the major contributors to the beginning of true quality golf architecture in America! It was generally completely squared off, completely artificial in appearance and completely penal to the duffer in golf. It was probably exactly what Macdonald had in mind when he concluded that early American golf needed truly good and good looking architecture when he uttered the words “The very soul of golf shrieks”.

I see why you’re trying to make a distinction here between that old fashioned geometric “cop bunker” and other types and looks of bunkering that resided basically within that so-called DH zone (even if it was so-called beginning in 1995!) which came to include the area from the tee to eventually 175 out according to Tillinghast. Of course that area did include the 140 area the old cop bunker was generally considered to be in.

You seem to have fixated on that 140 yard area of the old cop, and the reference to the old cop by Tillinghast as proof that that was ALL he was referring to bunker-wise within that general DH area. You say that all the Golden Age architects hated that cop bunker and erased it from golf architecture. Of course that’s true beginning even before the teens.

But Tillinghast appears to include far more than just that cop bunker for removal in the DH zone in the name of lightening the penality and increasing the enjoyment for the duffer and creating what was commonly referred to by him and others as a form of more “scientific” or “modern” architecture. Tillinghast’s ideas on this was two-fold---to lighten the penal load on the duffer of the old geometrically penal architecture of the very early era and to increase the challenge and interest for the good player by creating architecture (bunkering included) that was more meaningful and thoughtful and challenging for the good player, something that he explained geometric/penal architecture never really was for the good player.

Tillinghast’s articles that appear to deal with bunker removal and repositioning deal with more than that if read in their entirety. Those articles deal with the reorienting of greens to produce a more interesting and challenging axis enhanced by sometimes a single greenside bunker he refers to as a “Master bunker”. Tillinghast talks about the importance of using slope and contour in both the approach and on the greens of these new “modern architecture” greens. He talks about (and draws) another bunker on the side of the fairway at a distance for the good player’s drive that divides the fairway strategically in relation to the green and green-end and what’s been done there architecturally (in this new modern or scientific sense). And finally Tillinghast refers to the duffer’s own problems with his game as reason enough to allow him to try to proceed along the hole (as drawn) more or less unencumbered by bunkering until and unless he eventually postions himself for his approach to the green (assumed by Tillinghast, correctly to likely be his third shot---on a longish par 4).And all this good architectural stuff using less bunkers, that everyone knows cost to both make and maintain!

What Tillinghast is explaining and drawing here, Tom, is basically the complete essence of modern quality strategic golf architecture for all. He certainly wasn’t it’s only proponent--in various ways all the best of the Golden Age architects were. Tillinghast, however, may’ve been the architect to write about it, explain it and draw it the most comprehensively for those of his era and us today to understand it, and how and why it was meant to work. And not just to understand it but also how and why it evolved the way it did.

Let’s looking again at  your mention, even apparent fixation, with the old fashioned “cop bunker” and what you’re apparently trying to prove about Tillinghast with the mention of it or the distinction you‘re trying to make between it and other types of bunkering in the DH zone off the tee. It seems you’re claiming he may have advocated the removal of the old fashioned “cop bunker” very early in his career (as did all the others) but not the removal of other types of bunkering in that same basic zone (DH zone off the tee) until the PGA bunker removal project in the mid 1930.

It does not appear to me that’s at all factual. And to see why one probably needs to read his article entitled “Sans Sand Pits” and in its entirety. Again, it does not matter when he wrote that article, all that matters is whether what he said in it regarding any type of bunkering within that DH zone was a candidate for removal by him at some time before his PGA bunker removal project.

Quotation from that article to follow;


Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: A_Clay_Man on March 30, 2004, 08:59:18 AM
Tom Paul- What if the term "selling-out" was specific to Behr's concepts of placing the obstacles along the line of charm.
Aren't those the principles that were sold?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 30, 2004, 09:08:31 AM
“However an idea had been born. For a number of years, I had been reconstructing many courses of the earliest American period and of course ancient pits were being filled in and obliterated. The antiquated cross bunker, hideous to view and quite worthless as a hazard (my words, clearly this is the old fashioned geometric/penal “cop bunker”) was the first to go. Then the builders of courses began to appreciate the fact that any man who could slice a ball only about one hundred and forty yards was experiencing enough tribulation without burying him to his neck in a sand pit (my words, clearly he was referring to sand bunkers in the DH zone that were not “cop bunkers” as otherwise why would he have gone on and mentioned this?).
   And so it was that while pits in certain zones were being erased from the picture, others were showing up in equal or greater numbers in other zones but placed to trap the not-quite-good-enough efforts of the best players rather than the miscues of the duffers, as formerly”.

The “idea” that Tillinghast refers to that had been born appears to have been born during his visit to Fort Sam Houston with the idea of building some type of course there during the same time he was visiting San Antonio regarding building Brackenridge Park G.C. The “idea” Tillinghast refers to was born because he would not be able to build any sand pits on that military course as it would have to share it’s use with cavalry drilling!! This visit to Fort Sam Houston and basically the bunker-less “idea” (to be applied to the DH zone later) occurred to Tillinghast in 1915!

Of course you can continue to not believe him, Tom, or to say he never applied this “idea” until hired by the PGA in the mid 1930s but it doesn’t look like the facts support that at all---and since they don’t it basically shoots down your contention that he sold out his architectural principles or compromised them in the mid 1930s.

I fully expect you to not really acknowledge any of this, to claim it’s all out of context or else it doesn’t square with facts and timing somehow. You need to continue to claim these things to support your assumptions and conclusions about Tillinghast compromising his architectural principles in the mid 1930s, contentions that appear to be getting more and more bogus!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 30, 2004, 09:12:27 AM
Adam:

I don't know what you mean by that post.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: A_Clay_Man on March 30, 2004, 09:27:19 AM
TP- The term "selling-out" implies some principle has been lost. Weren't those Kop spion bunkers, and likely many of the DH's that were removed, key components to the principles Behr held, as it related to the sport of golf?

Didn't this "clearing out of the middle", change the course of alot of the gca that followed? Even if it wasn't until the mid fifties?

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: A_Clay_Man on March 30, 2004, 09:44:43 AM
Tom-
Quote
“However an idea had been born. For a number of years, I had been reconstructing many courses of the earliest American period and of course ancient pits were being filled in and obliterated. The antiquated cross bunker, hideous to view and quite worthless as a hazard (my words, clearly this is the old fashioned geometric/penal “cop bunker”) was the first to go. Then the builders of courses began to appreciate the fact that any man who could slice a ball only about one hundred and forty yards was experiencing enough tribulation without burying him to his neck in a sand pit (my words, clearly he was referring to sand bunkers in the DH zone that were not “cop bunkers” as otherwise why would he have gone on and mentioned this?).
   And so it was that while pits in certain zones were being erased from the picture, others were showing up in equal or greater numbers in other zones but placed to trap the not-quite-good-enough efforts of the best players rather than the miscues of the duffers, as formerly”.

This was an idea, maybe not a good idea? For one reason, slicing the ball 140 yards is natural, and is a key component to overcoming the challenge that comprises most of the thrill in executing golf shots. Take that challenge away and what do we get?

What we got today, a bunch of subjective whinny customers, who'd rather blame the arrows than the Indian.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 30, 2004, 10:07:29 AM
"......and likely many of the DH's that were removed, key components to the principles Behr held, as it related to the sport of golf?"

In my opinion, not at all. Penal cross hazards in that short DH zone were not something Behr believed in. The line of charm idea is quite different and very much in other areas than what's been referred to here as the DH tee shot zone.

"Didn't this "clearing out of the middle", change the course of alot of the gca that followed? Even if it wasn't until the mid fifties?"

Ahhh, an entirely different but very fundamental point, in my opinion. Yes, "cleaning out the middle", as you say, was something Behr didn't generally subscribe to. Basically Behr believed the middle COULD BE an excellent place to create the "Line of charm" or "line of instinct" concept (although it could be and was often moved from the middle). To do that effectively Behr believed in maximum width and he also was not a subscriber to using much rough in golf architecture. Behr, again, was basically a maximum width concept architect.

But Behr's ideas on penality, particularly for the duffer level, were extremely interesting basically explained by his remark that the architect should not create something with the intention of penalizing his (the duffer's) generally poor shots;

"It is not the job of the golf architect to inform the (Duffrer) of his faults, that's the job of the golf professional."

In a phrase Behr believed the architect should find a way to let the spirit of the duffer soar by creating what the duffer felt to be his own strategic freedom of expression!

Behr's line of charm, properly placed, basically created four distinct functional options--over, in front of, or to either side! That obviously is the max and quite different from architecture that relies on degrees of angles of what you call a "cleared out middle".

Behr also appeared to dabble with the idea of creating hazards that were relatively small (large hazards inside fairway lines took up a lot of space!). The reason for that is he didn't really believe in concentrating on actual penality only the awareness and enough concern with it to make the golfer think! Thinking, to Behr as to many of the others was the inspiration to strategic golf. There was another reason I think he dabbles with the concept of smaller features centrally placed. He felt if the central hazard was small enough and the golfer got in it (even if it was on his line of instinct) he would be less likely to blame the architect and more likely to take responsibility himself for his lack of judgement.

All this Behr believed would lead to what he called "Permanent architecture"---architecture golfers would be less inclined to be critical of and want to change. But he also felt it should look natural too as golfers were less inclined to complain about something that wasn't artificial looking and, again, less likely to want to change it.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on March 30, 2004, 10:15:05 AM
“However an idea had been born. For a number of years, I had been reconstructing many courses of the earliest American period and of course ancient pits were being filled in and obliterated. The antiquated cross bunker, hideous to view and quite worthless as a hazard (my words: Yes I agree clearly this is the old fashioned geometric/penal “cop bunker”) was the first to go. Then the builders of courses began to appreciate the fact that any man who could slice a ball only about one hundred and forty yards was experiencing enough tribulation without burying him to his neck in a sand pit (my words: clearly he was referring to “cop bunkers” again….140 yds is the clue. What he appears to be saying is that other bunkers that were being created to replace the cops were also being questioned after 1915. For example many of the cops at GCGC were filled in the center creating two bunkers left and right.)

  And so it was that while pits in certain zones were being erased from the picture, others were showing up in equal or greater numbers in other zones but placed to trap the not-quite-good-enough efforts of the best players rather than the miscues of the duffers, as formerly” (my words: it sounds like all is well, why the need to erase 7000+ bunkers...including a number from his own golf courses?)

What year was this article written?

After reading this article you could easily get the impression Tilly refused to build bunkers within the Duffer zone throughout his career…strangely that wasn’t the case, even as late as 1936 at Bethpage.
 
How many courses like Ft. Sam Houston did Tilly build between in 1915 and 1936? None, to my knowledge.

No one is disputing Tilly said golf courses in 1936 were overbunkered....we know that from his numerous articles, interviews and actions.

And assuming this desire to build bunkerless or bunker free zone (rebuild would be more accurate) courses was rekindled in 1936 from a much earlier desire…what was it that sparked this rebirth? In other words the question that this thread poses in the first place….what was the reason(s) Tilly altered his career long design practices?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on March 30, 2004, 11:53:04 AM
Tom MacW;

I had my final reply to you typed and ready to go but lost it. I'll redo it eventually.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on March 31, 2004, 08:59:37 AM
One wonders if Tillinghast would have removed Hanse/Kittleman's "Abruptment" bunker on the 17th hole at French Creek?  

It's about 140 yards from the tee, is a cross bunker in the middle of the fairway, almost fits the definition of a "cop", with a rectangular shape, and beyond that, it blocks a clear view of the green on the long par three.

Driving past it this weekend with the kids in the car, they seemed to think it was pretty cool, even if Tillinghast apparently wouldn't have.   :P  ;) ;D
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 01, 2004, 05:25:21 AM
MikeC:

I think that kind of "One wonders if" or "What if" thinking ascribed to what Tillinghast did or may have done in the depression is not really right and not particularly fair to Tillinghast, his principles or the times and the courses he may have removed DH bunkers from compared to those courses that may have had DH bunkers in that zone that for whatever reason he may not have recommended their removal from.

When you take an example of a hole like French Creek's #17 and then assume he would have recommended the removal of that enormous cross bunker ONLY because it might sit in that 140 or 175 yard zone from the tee you're beginning to hypothesize for no constructive purpose whatsoever.

I've tried to tell Tom MacWood that it's entirely possible, probable actually, that Tillinghast, or any of those architects of that time who were recommending to certain clubs that some DH bunkers be removed may not have been doing that with the sort of global or "one size fits all" mentality you two may be ascribing to him (them).

It's probably appropriate at this time to remind you all of something that Pat Mucci mentions on here from time to time. That is architects do not exactly come into clubs either in the Depression or today completely uninvited and unexpected and both recommend and effect the kinds of changes that are completely foreign or unacceptable to a club. If that does happen or did in the depression then that wouldn't be right, in my opinion, and it certainly would be more than a little strange. There's generally a good reason for an architect to be there and effecting the things he might recommend, such as it's probably in line with what the club or membership would like to do for whatever reason, cost. playability etc.

The larger point here is there really is different types of architecture for different purposes and different memberships and their different wants and needs and there always has been. Good architects, like a TIllinghast and generally clubs and memberships are aware of that and things generally happen accordingly.

I think it would be wrong to say that Tillinghast would have offered the very same DH advice to a club such as Ross's little "member's course" Gulf Stream GC as he would have to one like PVGC if the club simply asked him what he thought about DH zone bunkering in a vacuum which again, no club is particularly likely to do.

I think the two of you on a subject like this need to begin to get used to making some distinctions between the differences of various architecture at various clubs because there really can be huge differences in purpose et al. That fact is as clear to me now as night and day!

Try and get this sort of "one size fits all" mentality out of your heads---and that includes either way--for or against DH zone bunkering. I doubt Tillinghast had that sort of "one size fits all" mentality about DH zone bunkering at any particular time and at every single golf course and because he didn't it seems pretty historically and actually inaccurate to accuse him of compromising his principles.

But if a Tom MacWood is going to continue to suggest this I think what he needs to do next is actually prove that Tillinghast did design bunkering in that zone on some of the courses he said Tillinghast did and that he later recommended their removal because looking at the evolution of some of the courses Tom says this happened, to be honest I don't see that at all!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 01, 2004, 07:01:21 AM
TE
There is absolutely no question Tilly designed bunkers in the 0 to 175 yard zone and did throughout his career. Just leaf through the Tilly trilogy, look through Dan Wexler's two books or look through old American Golfers or Golf Illustrated you'll find plenty of evidence. This is not to mention HHA which oftren falls into his second zone....Quaker Ridge, Fenway, Ridgewood, Norwood, Baltusrol, Five Farms, etc.

Here are a few I snatched off the Internet.

(http://Http://www.tillinghast.net/images/p26_L.gif)

(http://Http://www.tillinghast.net/images/p96_L.gif)

(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3398%3A7%3B523232%7Ffp58%3Dot%3E232%3B%3D%3A27%3D%3C%3A3%3DXROQDF%3E23234%3A3678%3B53ot1lsi)

The Mucci doctrine does not appear to be a major factor in this case. At the 1936 PGA conference Tillie anounced he had advised 370 courses (7000+ traps removed) in a little over a year. Also scores of other courses requested his service but he and the PGA refused because they didn't have PGA affiliation.That is almost one a day...perhaps more than one a day, if he took a day or weekend off occasionaly. Of the courses that did not invite him, there were sure plenty to pick up the slack. Also some ignored his reommendation (Bel-air for example), but obviously plenty listened.

You appear to be conveniently ignoring a number of facts: the fact that Tilly had almost no design work through the five or six years of the Depression (Bethpage)...and there were few prospects, the fact that he had lost his job as editor of Golf Illustrated in 1935, the fact that he was in financial straits (described by some as destitute), the fact that he'd filed for bankrupcy and lost his home, the fact that there few other jobs available during the Depression (Golf Illustrated's rival publication American Golfer went under too). All these things should be considered IMO when evaluating Tilly's reversal of form.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 01, 2004, 08:30:49 AM
Tom MacW:

We been through all this before. I don't think anyone said Tillinghast didn't design bunkering in the DH zone at some courses throughout his career. The question would seem to be why at some and not at others?

And when you use again these same reasons as evidnence why he must have compromised his principles in the depression;

"You appear to be conveniently ignoring a number of facts: the fact that Tilly had almost no design work through the five or six years of the Depression (Bethpage)...and there were few prospects, the fact that he had lost his job as editor of Golf Illustrated in 1935, the fact that he was in financial straits (described by some as destitute), the fact that he'd filed for bankrupcy and lost his home, the fact that there few other jobs available during the Depression (Golf Illustrated's rival publication American Golfer went under too). All these things should be considered IMO when evaluating Tilly's reversal of form.”

I’m not ignoring those facts at all. I’m questioning your assumptions and conclusion that they prove he compromised his architectural principles. No architects had much steady work during the despression, and the depression was clearly not normal times for any architect or frankly most any golf club and particularly their memberships.

The time has come for you do get realistic Tom, to start considering historical facts and realities and start to both acknowledge and begin to admit that facts even for golf architecture during the depression years was changing too. My own club is a good example and it’s not unusual. What were the good architects of the “Golden Age” doing in the depression? They certainly were not constructing the amount of new courses they had been. We should take a look at that as it may prove something else. Maxwell, Flynn, probably Ross, Stiles etc. what were they doing? Were they all compromising their design principles too if they also removed bunkering and redesigned the golf courses of other architects? Perhaps you think so.

You’re the one who has said on here that you really aren’t particularly interested in what memberships think---that all you’re interested in is researching architecture and perhaps supplying memberships with that research information today. There’s nothing wrong with that--it’s a valuable service, I’m sure. But if you have no real interest or concern in  understanding why memberships and architects too do certain things at certain times, particularly such an unusual time as the depression years, what you’re going to begin to assume and conclude in an historical context is not going to be particularly accurate. What you may need now is a really good education in what was happening during the depression years---all of it. For many, including both architects, clubs and entire memberships those were anything but normal times and it showed!


 




Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 01, 2004, 08:47:10 AM
TE
You are starting sound like Pat Mucci.

You just said in your previous post:"But if a Tom MacWood is going to continue to suggest this I think what he needs to do next is actually prove that Tillinghast did design bunkering in that zone on some of the courses he said Tillinghast did and that he later recommended their removal because looking at the evolution of some of the courses Tom says this happened, to be honest I don't see that at all!"

Now you say, "I don't think anyone said Tillinghast didn't design bunkering in the DH zone at some courses throughout his career."

If you look through his career you will conclude it was the rule not the exception. You won't find too many Fort Sam Houstons.

Frankly I don't know what you are talking about. The entire theory that he compromised is based upon historical facts. The realities of Tilly's career design portfolio and common practices (I've given you numerous examples). The fact that his PGA tour recommendations were a braek from his career long practices. And the fact of his personal circumstances and the economic realities of the time.

Put yourself in his shoes, I doubt there are many of us who wouldn't have done the same....what choice did he have?

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on April 01, 2004, 11:27:10 AM
Tom MacWood,

Don't you get a little suspicious, when in 1936, considering the modes of transportation and winter, that it's alleged that AWT visited 370 golf courses, spending the day walking and analyzing them, in a little over 365 days ?

Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 01, 2004, 12:54:39 PM
Pat
When Tilly reported to the PGA in 1936 he had been touring for about 13 or 14 months. According to the reports at the time (and in Graffis's book) once Tilly reached a city or town, he would set up shop and then hit the individual clubs within that city...then on to the next city.  It is described as a one day evaluation and recommendation for a golf course...perhaps Wolffe, Trebus & Wolffe may know if he possibly visited more than one club per day.

The last of three Tilly books has a very interesting map of his two extended tours....retracing his movements. It is mind blowing...if he didn't get paid per bunker he should have been paid per mile.

What Tilly said appears to be confirmed by Graffis and confirmed by Wolffe, Trebus & Wolffe's map (who I assume relied upon Tilly's reports and letters). Are you saying they are all wrong?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on April 01, 2004, 01:40:27 PM
Tom MacWood,

YES.

Get his log.

Let's start with, what 370 courses did he visit ?
Then get the dates he visited each one.
Do you have the documentation that reflect his recommendations to all 370 of these clubs ?

You're not suggesting that he just provided oral or general recommendations, are you.

With less then 260 working days in a year, and 365 days in a year, I don't believe the numbers.

The laws of physics provide that an object can't be in more then one place at a given moment in time.

Nor can two objects be in the same place at the same time.

Or, are you saying that AWT just drove through the gates, looked at the course from the clubhouse, made his suggestions and drove on to his next appointment.

One would think, that a professional of his stature and with his credentials would have toured the entire golf course, every hole, by foot, and thought about it, rather then suggesting off the cuff remarks on the spur of the moment.
And, that he would have spent some meaningful time with the PGA Pro on site and the club's representatives.

Common sense says that the numbers may be inflated or inaccurate.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 01, 2004, 02:45:53 PM
Patrick;

I know of someone who has all of the letters (and Tillie's recommendations on each course) but I don't want to divulge their name unless they feel comfortable coming forward here.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 01, 2004, 02:53:22 PM
Since Tilly and Graffis are dead, I suggest you contact the Wolffes and/or Mr.Trebus...perhaps they will assist you in confirming the numbers or help you prove Tilly was inflating them....after all they have many of the letters and they produced the map retracing his tour. If you are interested in the subject you should pick up their third book....it is very well done.

I have no reason to believe he was lying...from my understanding of how he worked and where he went, those numbers seem quite plausable.

I get the impression it was a quick procedure...as you can imagine it was a wildly successful and popular service....I have the exact same concerns.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 01, 2004, 04:33:19 PM
One of the problems inherently common to many of the comments on this thread, is that they are attempting to present as “facts” statements that are suppositions without anything backing them up. For example, the statements regarding exactly how many courses Tilly visited or not, as well as how many bunkers he recommended (and yes, that is ALL that he did was make recommendations) be removed from different courses.

His tour began, and all of what follows is directly from copies of his letters and reports sent to George Jacobus at the PGA, copies of which are in my possession, on 8/15/35 when he stopped in Schenectady, New York, remaining there until the 17th. These are the courses that he visited and his recommendations:

15th – Edison CC – New hole arrangements 13-18
          Wolfort’s Roost CC – Redisgn of holes 9-11
           Van Rensselear CC – Meeting with a promise to  
           return later

16th – Colonie CC – New 4th & 6th greens
           Troy CC – New 9th & redesigned 3rd & 4th  
           Mohawk GC – New 8th hole & 7th green
           Also did an interview on the radio in the evening and
           an interview for the local paper.  

17th – Amsterdam Muni – Redesigned 2nd, 16th & 17th holes
          Lafayette CC – meeting
          Drove 130 miles to Jamesville for an overnight stay.

18th – Drumlins CC – Redesigned 7th, 8th, 12th, & 14th.
           Drove 95 miles to Rochester in the evening.

19th – Rochester CC – critical review of entire course.
          Evening meeting with the Western New York PGA
          Section. 14 NEW REQUESTS for him to visit.

20th – Irondequoit CC – New 3rd green, redesigned 4th
          Lake Shore CC – Redesign of all greens and elimination
          of “Pallellitis”

21st - Genesee Valley Muni – New short 5th, new 6th green,
          new 18th hole.
          Durand Eastman Muni – “Grotesque Greens”,
          prepared “complete plans” for redesign

22nd – Drove 90 miles to Syracuse
           Bellevue CC – new 5th & 6th greens
           Syracuse Yacht Club – New 4th green, new 7th hole.
           Meeting with the local PGA section in the evening.

23rd – Drove 160 miles to East Aurora.
          Churchville GC – Redesigned 14th & 17 the & 2 greens
        Stafford CC – Bunker removal & minor reconstruction of
        greens.
        East Aurora CC – Bunkering of 2 holes, 3 & 6, Fescue
         fairway problems.
           

Here we are then, the 9th day of a trip where he is supposedly planning on recommending removal of bunkers because he has either changed  his beliefs as an architect or is trying to make work for himself, and only NOW for the first time suggests removals of bunkers?

Also, as you can see, he was making visits to SEVERAL courses every day, and on some occasions in the future, would stop at as many as five!

He was also doing radio & newspaper interviews and conducting meetings at nearly every stop for the local PGA section pros. At each of these he was inundated with requests that he stop at their courses. In addition to this, he was signing up new members for the PGA.

And then late every night, unless he was driving on those well-lit superhighways of his day, he would be writing his letters and reports. And, lest we forget, he was leaving drawings done at many of the courses as well.

No wonder that he wrote from Rochester that, “He was rather tired tonight…”

It is time to stop speculating and pronouncing such as facts and to appreciate that his motives were not financial other than a paycheck from the PGA alone, and that he had not sold out his soul to try and make work for himself. He couldn’t have done the work as he was far too busy!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 01, 2004, 04:42:55 PM
Philip;

Then what do you personally make of his contention that he was responsible for the removal of "7,000", or "10,000" bunkers?

Was it simply Tillie's vaunted hyperbole and exaggeration?  

Was he trying to look good to the PGA by claiming mass cost-savings that weren't actually realized?

Most of the "recommendations" above sound like expenses, not savings, wouldn't you say?

What's your take?  Did he recommend removal of  7-10,000 bunkers or not?  

If not, why would he claim to the PGA that he had?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 01, 2004, 05:17:06 PM
Yes, he probably did recommend the removal of that many bunkers.

His letters do not give numbers of the bunkers that needed removing, but they do allude to large numbers at individual courses.

My purpose in putting up that information was to try and show the reality of what he was doing. There has been a great deal of history writing going on in this thread without any true facts being given.

As has been shown a number of times on this thread, Tilly had a long history of belief that bunkers designed SOLELY to impinge on the play of poor players were poor designs and bad for the game.

What is forgiotten are the large numbers of golf courses built around the country in the teens and twenties by very poor designers who were meeting the demands of the times. This is where a good number of DH's could be found. Yet the issue isn't so much the number or locations as they are his attitude toward the work he was now doing & whether he was "selling out" by doing it.

Going through his letters & putting the reality of what he did daily, between course examinations, meetings before and after these, drawings (that he did NOT get paid for), evening meetings with local PGA sections, media interviews, letter and report writings, signing up new PGA members and then LONG drives over poor roads, what he did may very well have been among the great accomplishments in the history of the game as well as helping to save the PGA of America during its time of greatest crisis.

This was not a sell out which, after all, is the question that was raised.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 01, 2004, 05:27:14 PM
Philip;

Then why do you think that so many of Tillie's courses (as evidenced by many drawings, such as the one's presented by Tom MacWood above) featured bunkers in the area of 175 yards and closer to the tee?

Do you think it gives the weaker or senior or high-handicap player greater pleasure to be able to take on one of those DH bunkers and succeed, or should they always been firing at wide green fairway?

At what point in his career would you say that TIllie moved to a more formulaic bunkering pattern (only challenging the expert in their driving zone) as opposed to the type of diverse bunkering strategies we see exhibited above?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: DMoriarty on April 01, 2004, 05:45:44 PM
It is time to stop speculating and pronouncing such as facts and to appreciate that his motives were not financial other than a paycheck from the PGA alone, and that he had not sold out his soul to try and make work for himself. He couldn’t have done the work as he was far too busy!

Mr. Young,  

I have no interest in presenting anything as fact that isnt, but I for one do not know the facts.  Perhaps you and/or Mr. Wolffe can answer the following questions which will no doubt broaden my understanding of the situation . . . .

--  Why was the PGA doing what they were doing? I have heard the meta-answer-- that the PGA was trying to save itself by providing a service to the member courses-- but what exactly was the service they were trying to provide?  

--   Was the PGA trying to show the clubs how they could save money without ruing their courses?

--  What types of services were the Professionals at the clubs asking for?   Are the letters from the PGA Professionals on file?  (I find it hard to believe that they were considering capital expenditures aimed solely improving the course during these dire times.)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 01, 2004, 06:14:10 PM
You ask some good questions and I hope that I can provide some of the answers.

From the beginning of the organization of the PGA of America in the teens, they were waging an uphill battle to gain membership and provide services that would justify the dues.
At this time, most pros mad a meager living and to get money out of them to join an Association that didn't benefit them as a group and as individuals would never have lasted.

From certifying the pros, to providing methods of standardized teaching methods, and more, they provided services to the membership.

Still, the money was slow in coming in as was the growth in membership. Though many tried, it was difficult for the club pro to get his club to pay his dues. With the depression most of those clubs who were, stopped doing so. The financial crisis faced by the organization grew through the 30s despite the best efforts to cut costs.

The typical statement to the organization as to why members were dropping out was because they couldn't afford the dues.

The idea for the free course consultant service was pure genius. A world-class architect, maybe the greatest of all and known by everyone, would look at their course for free. His purpose to help the club save money in maintenance costs and design modifications. The only catch was that their pro had to be amember of the PGA!

The number of requests for this service was overwhelming, with people showing up at member clubs while he was there asking him to come to theirs. The letters of appreciation from golf clubs and pros alike show just how much this service was appreciated.

The number of member pros grew quickly, as did the payment of dues.

The PGA had shown to American golf clubs that their member pros were invaluable to them and were more than just a person to show a member how to swing a club. It was the beginning of pros taking a management position within the clubs, thereby increasing their compensation.

Most of the recommendations made were of the type that would make the course better, more enjoyable, and would fund itself through maintenance savings.

There were a significant numebr of agronomy problems that Tillinghast dealt with as well, showing that the club pro could call on the PGA to help them in this area as well.

Where actual design work for renovation or additions were asked for, if it could be done at the time of the visit, Tilly would sketch a drawing on his ever present pad. If more elaborate drawings were needed, a recommendation to use for a local architect that was a PGA member was made, and many of his letters mention these gentleman.

This was a service of vision. How many times do we look back at what a businessman has accomplished, many times by providing unexpected free services, and say that he was a man with vision ahead of his times.

That is what George Jacobus was. Because of this idea the services provided, the PGA of America was put into a position where it could survive the tough times then, the tough war years, and develop an organization that is united and strong to this day.

Without this service they may not be around now.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on April 01, 2004, 08:14:20 PM
Mike Cirba,

Do you feel, in 1936, that bunkers were routinely placed at the 250 yard mark ?  The 230 yard mark ?

Bunkers at 175 in 1936 would require a carry of 185 or more, depending on their height relative to the tee and fairway.

Don't think in terms of today's golf, but golf in 1936.

Philip Young,

If AWT was visiting a golf club to find ways to cut down maintainance costs, wouldn't he have to look at more then just bunkers.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 01, 2004, 08:33:30 PM
Tom MacW:

If you're implying in post #192 something contradictory, I don't see it. Show me some courses he designed bunkers throughout the DH zone and then came back in the mid 1930s and recommended they all be removed.

You also seem to suggest that any bunkering within 175 yards of a tee he recommended the removal of. I don't see that either. Do you really believe that? And if you do, you're going to have to prove it because I don't think that's remotely true. You also named a few courses such as Phiily Cricket, St David's and Wyoming Valley (at least some of those I recall you mentioning) where he designed bunkering throughout that DH zone. I know those courses, played them all a number of times and never saw that. Even on aerials of a few I didn't see anything like that.

You said:

"Frankly I don't know what you are talking about. The entire theory that he compromised is based upon historical facts. The realities of Tilly's career design portfolio and common practices (I've given you numerous examples). The fact that his PGA tour recommendations were a braek from his career long practices. And the fact of his personal circumstances and the economic realities of the time."

No, I don't think you do see what I'm talking about as clear as it seems to be so there's no reason to repeat it. I do realize your THEORY is based on historical facts, but they're historical facts that don't prove your theory. So consequently that's all it is as far as I'm concerned---a theory!

You base your theory on historical facts such as the crash, the depression, his PGA tour, the fact that Tillinghast, as well as most all architects, were basically out of work during the depression. Most of them probably were completely out of work but a few such as Maxwell also did a good deal of redesign work in the 1930s That included three separate redesign visits to my course in the 1930s. But none of that  proves Tillinghast or any of them compromised their architectural principles or sold them out.

The manner in which you seem to be going about trying to prove your theory is something akin to saying if someone was in the vicinity of Dealy Plaza on Nov 22 1963 they must have been an accomplice in the murder of Pres. Kennedy!

Interesting list offered by Phil Young of a part of Tillinghast's PGA odyssey and what he recommended. Seems to me there was much more advice offered than the removal of DH bunkering.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: DMoriarty on April 01, 2004, 09:48:48 PM
Mr. Young,

Thank you for your detailed answer.  It seems the AWT visits turned out to be quite beneficial for the PGA.

However, I am more concerned with what benefit the courses requested and/or received.  

Given the dire times, it would seem that the courses needed to figure out a way to lower their costs so they could survive.  Course changes were likely inevitable--  clubs would have to cut costs or perish.  The PGA program gave them an opportunity to follow the cost saving suggestions of one of the world's great architects.  As you say above:

 
A world-class architect, maybe the greatest of all and known by everyone, would look at their course for free. His purpose to help the club save money in maintenance costs and design modifications.  

This was certainly a great benefit to the clubs and to golf in general-- just think how many courses might have been ruined or "NLE" if the members and Pro had been left on their own to determine the changes.  

Yet there must be another side to this coin. . . .  

Given the PGA's money-saving goal and the extent of the changes made (ex. 7000-10000 bunkers removed), it is inconceivable to me that every recommended change improved the architecture of the course.  While in golf architecture cheaper often does mean better, this is not always the case.  

Don't you think it possible, or even likely, that sometimes AWT may have made recommendations which slightly lessened the quality of the architecture, for the sake of saving the club.  

Surely AWT was not selling out if he was simply recommending what was necessary to increase the course's chance of survival.  



Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 01, 2004, 10:13:59 PM
TE
"Show me some courses he designed bunkers throughout the DH zone and then came back in the mid 1930s and recommended they all be removed."

You are sounding more and more like Pat Mucci...you read Tilly's article in 1936, and his new found DH philosophy. Must every club remove every bunker in that zone for it be a departure? 7000+ bunkers gets your attention.

"I do realize your THEORY is based on historical facts, but they're historical facts that don't prove your theory."

Isn't that the point...basing a theory on solid facts. I've also considered what you and Phil have offered and based upon my historical perspective frankly your view of Tilly (the legend) doesn't compute and ignores the facts in 1935-36 (and I've explained why), I don't find the two articles you've presented compelling--taken out of context--and that is about the extent of your facts.

You continue to emphasize the lack of work for architects and the hard times...isn't that my point? I'm not claiming that Tilly should have had super human martyrdom skills and rejected the PGA oportunity at his own demise. I'm simply point out he was human and forced compromise.

Phil
Thank you for sharing the small window into Tilly's tour.

When I first read your post with the dates and actions, I thought Phil is making the point the number of bunkers Tilly claimed was an exagertion (and therefore his compromise was exagerated). But also that the number of courses Tilly visited on his whirlwind tour was most likely accurate. The consclusion being he was preaching a new design philosophy...promoting the DH free zones...but was actually not following though, and in fact distorting what he did.

But then in your next post you say....yes, he probably did recommend the removal of that many bunkers. Very confusing from my point of view. You then claim your purpose in putting up that information was to try and show the reality of what was going on. How can you show the reality of what is going on by deliberately misleading or twisting the truth?

Who were these very poor designers in the teens and twenties?

Tilly was a great architect...for those of us who love his work, his golf course designs were great accomplishments in the history of the game, not his PGA tour...that was the low point of his design career IMO. And the low point for most architects, and most citizens in general....it was not a good period for anyone. Not to say he did not give every ounce of his energy during the tour....he clearly gave it his all.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 01, 2004, 10:26:35 PM
Pat, you wrote, "If AWT was visiting a golf club to find ways to cut down maintainance costs, wouldn't he have to look at more then just bunkers."

Tillinghast was visiting courses and giving free consulktation services because he was INVITED to do so. He was invited in the extreme number of cases with specific questions and/or problems already in mind by the club. His answers and suggestions usually could be implemented in ways that were inexpensive and many of them, such as bunker removal, would provide for substantial savings to the club in maintenance costs. This was a by-product of his suggestions and not the goal for inspecting.


Mr. Moriarity, you wrote, "Yet there must be another side to this coin. . . ."

Why? Do you mean one purposefully planned or as a natural by-product of the service?  

You next wrote, "Given the PGA's money-saving goal and the extent of the changes made (ex. 7000-10000 bunkers removed), it is inconceivable to me that every recommended change improved the architecture of the course.  While in golf architecture cheaper often does mean better, this is not always the case."

I agree completely. Babe Ruth struck out an awful lot of times. Likewise, not every hole of every Tillinghast course is a work of art. I would imagine that some bunkers should have stayed. How many & where... I could never say.  

You next wrote, "Don't you think it possible, or even likely, that sometimes AWT may have made recommendations which slightly lessened the quality of the architecture, for the sake of saving the club."

This is a supposition that I can neither agree or disagree with as I never saw any of the courses that had bunkers removed before, or most of them after. I will say this, he recommended removal of bunkers at a number of courses that chose NOT to do so. This means that some disagreed with his opinions.  

You also wrote, "Surely AWT was not selling out if he was simply recommending what was necessary to increase the course's chance of survival."

What has been missing from most of the posts is the recognition that Tillinghast was giving advice that he truly believed to be right, necessary, and in the best interests of both the club and the game of golf.

His motivations were of the highest order. As I have shown he was working extreme hours and he was not a young man. This is one of the causes for the heart problems he suffered mid-way through the tour and his poor health from then until he died. He actually did give his all for the game. One might actually say that it broke his heart.  


Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 02, 2004, 06:55:44 AM
"You continue to emphasize the lack of work for architects and the hard times...isn't that my point?

Tom:

I don't know, that hasn't sounded much like your point thus far. That certainly has been our point though. Your point simply sounds like Tillinghast sold out his architectural principles or compromised them by doing something he shouldn't have done.

Reading Tillinghast's point regarding bunkering in the DH zone it sounds as if he felt he was improving architecture by shifting an unnecessry burden of penality from the duffer (who he seemed to believe didn't really need it because of his own inherent limitations) to areas where bunkering would have more of an impact on better players (he apparently believed DH zone bunkering had almost no effect on the good player). It sounds like Tillinghast felt this was actually a perscription for better architecture for all---modern or scientific architecture as it was sometimes called. And in the process it sounds like he felt he was removing costly bunkering of no real utility in a very dire time when that could help alleviate the financial burden on various clubs.

"I'm not claiming that Tilly should have had super human martyrdom skills and rejected the PGA oportunity at his own demise. I'm simply point out he was human and forced compromise."

By claiming he sold out or compromised his principles it certainly sounds like your suggesting or implying he should've had super human martydom skills. But if you're not suggesting that and you're merely saying he was doing about the same thing as most of the others were (if they even got that chance in the depression) then maybe we are on the same page here!

Most of the Irish didn't exactly have three squares a day during the potato famine---did that mean they all sold out or compromised their culinary principles?

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 02, 2004, 09:29:17 AM
TE
”I don't know, that hasn't sounded much like your point thus far.”  

I have said all along that Tilly was affected by the economic realities and difficult circumstances. No design work for years (excepting Bethpage); bankruptcy; lost  home; lost job; few if any job prospects. Hard times = need to compromise


”It sounds like Tillinghast felt this was actually a perscription for better architecture for all---modern or scientific architecture as it was sometimes called.”

If this was the case, if he really believed he was improving architecture by creating DH free zones, then is it logical to conclude his career long philosophy, up through 1935, was unsound (and the philosophy and practices of Macdonald, MacKenzie, Ross, Travis, Thomas, Flynn, Raynor, etc., etc, were also flawed)?

In other words he did not compromise, the opposite, he finally saw the design light in 1936 and his career up until that point had been marred by ill conceived bunkering ideas.


”By claiming he sold out or compromised his principles it certainly sounds like your suggesting or implying he should've had super human martyrdom skills.”  

No, what I am saying is Tilly was human.  He possessed the human frailties, weaknesses and fears we all possess.

”Most of the Irish didn't exactly have three squares a day during the potato famine---did that mean they all sold out or compromised their culinary principles?”

No. But if they began claiming food was bad during the famine…I’d accuse them of compromising. Or if they began eating their young….I’d accuse them of compromising.

The Donner party…now there were some compromisers.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 02, 2004, 09:56:35 AM
Tom M.,

It seems that no matter what is written, unless it agrees with your pronouncement of what is factual you will follow it up with a phrase such as, "How can you show the reality of what is going on by deliberately misleading or twisting the truth?"

Where do you get off claiming the I am DELIBERATELY misleading or twisting the truth?

Maybe I am doing nothing more than answering a question posed with ACTUAL facts? Could it be that YOU are MISREADING what I have written and the REASON for it?

I wote about Tilly's first nine days and the actuality of what he did because of these following ascertions:

1- Maybe he had exaggerated the number of courses that he actually had visited
2- Maybe he "sold out" and was drumming up more work for himself
3- That Tilly had, for some strange reason, overnight changed his design philosophy & beliefs, and had decided totell everyone everywhere to remove bunkers
4- A number of posters have mentioned his letters and reports, using them as proof of their ascertions, and yet have not actually seen or read them

What the small portions that I copied show is that Tillinghast:
1- Visited far more courses than most here on site can conceive. In addition he only visited courses wher he was INVITED to.
2- It was impossible for him to drum up more work for himself. He was doing far too much as it was. Also, he was leaving completed plans at many places in addition to his advice, all at no charge. How is this getting him more work after the tour? He was also only addressing problems that the clubs themselves wanted discussed. He was NOT examining courses in their entirety unless asked to.
3- If Tilly saw that he could make all of this money by saying "remove these bunkers!" even though he didn't believe it, when did this "revelation" occur to him? Why did he wait NINE days and numerous courses into his trip to suggest this for the first time? Could it be that he was examining courses and recommending work BASED SOLELY ON WHAT HE BELIEVED THE COURSE NEEDED?
4- Tom MacWood, have YOU ever seen and read even a good portion of the letters and reports that Tilly sent to Jacobus at the PGA? If not, how can you state in any way what he was doing and why? And before you reply and avoid answering the question by asking something along the lines of, "Since you raise it Phil, have you?" I can state that I have read EVERY one of them and have copies of them in my possession. In addition to this, I have examined the letters and correspondence sent from Jacobus to Tilly kept in the PGA archives in Florida. IT is because of this that I feel fairly confident that I am not DELIBERATELY MISLEADING OR TWISTING THE TRUTH!

Have I made any similar ascertion against your character because you write early in this post that you had never even known of an article that Tilly wrote before the mid-30s where Tilly actually wrote about removing bunkers of the DH type, yet several posts later, try to correct someone who had quoted from the article titled "Duffer's Headaches" correctly stating that it was a combination of two articles, ONE OF THEM FROM 1920!!!!!

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 02, 2004, 10:08:38 AM
(apologies to those who've seen this on the other thread)

Tillinghast was responsible for all sorts of atrocities.

I've been doing some research myself and as you can clearly see in the illustration below, here is Tillinghast on a visit to Canada, where a particular club wouldn't let him remove Willie Park Jr.'s bunkers at less than 175 yards from the tee.  

Like many courses of the time, it was built next to adjacent railroad tracks, and in the case in question, Tillie had tied the Green Chairman's daughter to the tracks demanding more bunker removal as ransom for her safety, until local authorities intervened.

(http://www.seeing-stars.com/Images/People/DudleyDoRight.jpg)
 
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 02, 2004, 10:12:40 AM
Mike,

I am stunned! I've been duped!

Oh Tilly, how could you have done this? I'd recognize your moustache anywhere!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 02, 2004, 10:18:38 AM
Phil;

And that's just his golf-related misadventures...

Don't even get me started on the debauchery of his personal life!   :o


(http://www.flyingmoose.org/moose/spank.jpg)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 02, 2004, 10:44:04 AM
Phil
I assume you consciously chose that two week period. You went on to say “Here we are then, the 9th day of a trip where he is supposedly planning on recommending removal of bunkers because he has either changed  his beliefs as an architect or is trying to make work for himself, and only NOW for the first time suggests removals of bunkers?”

You began that post by saying one of the inherent problems with this thread was, among other things, the number of bunkers claimed removed (by the way it was Tilly’s claim). And then in your next post you said “Yes, he probably did recommend the removal of that many bunkers.”

In my book that is misleading.

“Have I made any similar ascertion against your character because you write early in this post that you had never even known of an article that Tilly wrote before the mid-30s where Tilly actually wrote about removing bunkers of the DH type, yet several posts later, try to correct someone who had quoted from the article titled "Duffer's Headaches" correctly stating that it was a combination of two articles, ONE OF THEM FROM 1920!!!!!”

What are you talking about?

You attempted to use the DH article as proof Tilly was talking about DH’s long before 1935…you said the “Duffers Headache” article in The Course Beautiful was from 1920. I then pointed out that wasn't exactly accurate, the article you were using was actually a merger of two articles and the portion from 1920 dealt with cop bunkers not the DH.  And that the title was a recent invention of the editors. I also pointed out to you the cop and DH were two different animals.

Perhaps not an attempt to mislead...but at the very least confused.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 02, 2004, 11:03:23 AM
Tom,

Let me give you an example of misleading.

You wrote, "I assume you consciously chose that two week period. You went on to say “Here we are then, the 9th day of a trip where he is supposedly planning on recommending removal of bunkers because he has either changed  his beliefs as an architect or is trying to make work for himself, and only NOW for the first time suggests removals of bunkers?”

You began that post by saying one of the inherent problems with this thread was, among other things, the number of bunkers claimed removed (by the way it was Tilly’s claim). And then in your next post you said “Yes, he probably did recommend the removal of that many bunkers.”

You DELIBERATELY left out some of what I wrote, including the first and primary phrase that was the subject of the post.

Let us look at EXACTLY what I wrote. "One of the problems inherently common to many of the comments on this thread, is that they are attempting to present as “facts” statements that are suppositions without anything backing them up. For example, the statements regarding exactly how many courses Tilly visited or not, as well as how many bunkers he recommended (and yes, that is ALL that he did was make recommendations) be removed from different courses."

I then talked about the number of courses that he visited as this is something that can be given an exact number. Why? Because his letters list them all. I gave the start of the tour DELIBERATELY because it should be apparent to a reasonable person that he was NOT going from course to course telling them to remove bunkers and create work for himself in addition to his recommendations. The proof ofthis is that he did not recommended removing a single bunker until the 9th day.

You next write, "And then in your next post you said “Yes, he probably did recommend the removal of that many bunkers.”

You leave out the pertinent fact that I was asked if I believe that he had recommended the removal of 7-10,000 bunkers. That was MY REPLY TO THE QUESTION! What am I not supposed to answer it?

Then you DELIBERATELY choose to leave out where I state that I can't state for certain the exact number of bunkers removed because Tilly didn't number them in his letters and I never saw the courses before this work was done. What is disengenuous and deliberately misleading about stating "I DON'T KNOW?"

You also leave out where I did write in a previous post, "Tom MacWood, have YOU ever seen and read even a good portion of the letters and reports that Tilly sent to Jacobus at the PGA? If not, how can you state in any way what he was doing and why? And before you reply and avoid answering the question by asking something along the lines of, "Since you raise it Phil, have you?" I can state that I have read EVERY one of them and have copies of them in my possession. In addition to this, I have examined the letters and correspondence sent from Jacobus to Tilly kept in the PGA archives in Florida. IT is because of this that I feel fairly confident that I am not DELIBERATELY MISLEADING OR TWISTING THE TRUTH!"

So once again I ask, have YOU ever read or examined these letters? ON what basis then are you able to state what was in his mind and was his purpose for making the recommendations that he did?



Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 02, 2004, 12:18:06 PM
Phil
You are correct I did leave out parts of what you wrote...I was concentrating my response only upon your misleading comments....the part where you implied the bunker removal numbers (given by Tilly and used by many of us on this thread) were not factual...remember you statement about the problems with this thread.....? Oddly in your next post you appear to contradict yourself....the numbers are now factual in your opinion. How is that not misleading....or at least confusing?

No one that I am aware of said all he did was make recommendations to remove bunkers...but this thread is focused upon Tilly's design philosophy and in particular his bunkering philosophy...so for obvious reasons that is the point of emphasis. And it was the point of emphasis for Tilly...see his claims to the PGA and his numerous articles on the subject. While interesting and poignant, what does Tilly's  hardships on the road have to do with his design philosphy being altered?
 
I haven't read the letters.

Would reading the letters alter the fact that Tilly promoted DH free zones in 1936. Would the letters change Tilly's bunkering practices pre 1935-36? Would reading the letters tell me if he exagerating his claim of removing 7000+ bunkers or not? Would reading the letters alter the fact that Tilly was going through difficult times? How would the letters prove or disprove the theory that Tilly compromised his bunkering philosophy? Do the letters give different reasons for his de-bunkering actions than the reasons he gave in his numerous articles in 1936?

I made my claim based upon a number of factors (I've listed many times) in combination with (I hope) logic.

Who were these very poor designers, you referred to, in the teens and twenties?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 02, 2004, 01:52:59 PM
Tom M.

I am sorry I did not get a chance to post this earlier.  But I recall that you stated the chapter called Duffers Headaches was misleading because it merged two articles together.  I presume you drew this conclusion from the bibliography which lists two articles -- one from 1920 and one from 1936.  I am afraid you may have made some wrong interpretations from the bibliography.  Substantanially the entire article came from the 1920 article.  The passages from the 1920 Green Committee page, which appear in the chapter called Duffers Headaches is reprinted below.  The paragagraph from the 1936 article is also reprinted below.  As you will see the last paragraph is the only piece of the article that comes from 1936.  As you will also see Tilly was espousing the placement of hazards beyond the range of the duffer in 1920 and preaching the use of diagonal land oblique lines in the placing of his bunkers.  I think someone earlier so ably described his philosophy as clearing the center of the fairway.

I hereby request from Judge TePaul summary judgment in behalf of Mr. Tillinghast that he did not sell out his design philosophy.  We also request the judgment be granted with prejudice.



32. DUFFER’S HEADACHES
Golf Illustrated, Our Green Committee Page, Vol. 13, June 1920

The golf architect devotes about three quarters of his time to the planning of improvements and extending old courses.  Green Committees in all parts of the country are keenly alive to the realization that holes of faulty design and construction, monotonous holes and those which expose players to danger, must be eliminated.  A featureless and poor hole has no place on a modern course.  To be sure there is always an element in every club which is opposed to changes, but nowadays those who attempt to deter the work of modernizing courses are of the great minority.

However, it is very proper that the rank and file of golfers should be given some idea of the demands which the new holes will make of his limited skill.  The player of very ordinary ability naturally fears that a stiffened course may present fearsome features to rob his rounds of pleasure.  As a matter of fact the golf architect of today is a good friend of the duffer.  Let us consider a first class two-shot hole for example, a hole which is calculated to call for a full brassey after a well-hit drive.  The actual yardage of a hole of this type will vary with conditions, some turf yielding far greater distance than others.  But let us assume that the hole in question is located on an inland course of average speed, and that under normal weather conditions the best players are compelled to use wood for both shots to cover the four hundred and sixty yards between teeing-ground and green.  The length of this hole alone will place the green beyond the range of the duffer’s two healthiest swipes, and if the fairway were absolutely barren of hazards, the “three-figure” man will require three strokes and possibly more.  His poorly played shots are vexations enough without digging pit-falls to add to his sorrows  Yet on hundreds of course we find old-fashioned bunkers, marring the scenery at a point about one hundred and forty yards from the teeing ground, hazards which extend squarely across the line of play and which call for a drive to carry the trouble from crack and duffer alike.

Now it is safe to assert that in the average golf club there are fully twenty-give per cent of the players who cannot average one hundred and forty yards in carry, and a goodly number who cannot make the distance at all even with the long-flying balls of the present day.  With such a hazard, many a player must of necessity drive off in desperate effort, feeling in his heart that certain disaster awaits him, yet hoping that some lucky chance may yield a fair shot for his second.

The experts certainly will give the hazard no thought.  They can half-hit their drives and still carry well over.  In brief, the hazards of yesterday trap only bad shots, while those of the present gather in the “nearly good” ones of the fellows who formerly hooked and sliced their long ones without punishment.  We are building hazards, or designing our holes to include natural ones, in such a manner as to grade the carries, with suitable rewards for each successful effort.  The scratch player is forced to hit his longest and best to negotiate the carry which will open up the green to the best advantage for his second.  Often enough he is called on for a carry of one hundred and eighty yards or more, fully forty or fifty yards longer than before; while the medium and poor players have to contend with a greatly shortened carry and likely none at all.


The Professional Golfer of America, From the Gulf to Puget Sound, The P.G.A. Examines Courses, pp 22-23, June 1936

While, as I have said, the courses generally are structurally and strategically improved over those of a few years back, yet there are enough of the Cheap-John, amateurish sort, rather cluttered with sand pits that cost money to maintain for no other purpose than to discourage the very players at golf, who need encouraging most.  When speaking of these abominations in my reports to the P.G.A. for brevity’s sake I simply call them D.H.’s (short for Duffer’s Headaches).  I am thoroughly delighted by the reaction of green committees everywhere to our doctrine of the elimination of these relics of golf’s dark age.
 :o ::)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 02, 2004, 02:08:00 PM
Rick;

Where's the part where he professes innocence to tying the daughters of Green Chairmen to the tracks?   ;)  ;D

Thanks for sharing.  

It seems to me that Tillinghast was particularly speaking of center-line carry hazards at the 140 yard range (aka "cross" or "cop" bunkers), because it is clear that he did create diagonal and side bunkering at those ranges on his own courses.  Would you agree?

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 02, 2004, 05:33:23 PM
RW
Thanks for explaining...I had read both articles in the original magazines. I believe the 1920 article 'Our Green Committe Page' was a monthly feature, I do not believe it was titled Duffer's Headache...at least not in the Golf Illustrated I have seen.

I agree with Mike, that 1920 article deals with the dreaded cop....the whipping boy of all architects in 1920. The 1936 paragraph...deals with the poor mistreated duffer's headache.

I prefer compromise to selling out....I'm affraid Judge TE would have to recuse himself in this case. It would be impossible for him to rule against a Philadelphian.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: DMoriarty on April 02, 2004, 07:39:21 PM
Mr Young,

I think we are mostly in agreement.  

But what I fail to understand is your continued refusal to acknowledge that AWT may have occasionally (and slightly) compromised the integrity of architecture in order to save courses.  

To my mind, this would neither be evidence of a sell-out nor an indictment of AWT.  Getting rid of a few decent bunkers is most certainly the lesser of two evil (the other evil; allowing the courses to grow broke.)

You next wrote, "Don't you think it possible, or even likely, that sometimes AWT may have made recommendations which slightly lessened the quality of the architecture, for the sake of saving the club."

This is a supposition that I can neither agree or disagree with as I never saw any of the courses that had bunkers removed before, or most of them after.

I didnt ask you for proof positive, just whether this was a possible or even likely scenario.   Surely you are expert enough on AWT to speculate just this little bit.  

___________________

Team Cirba:   Did AWT build any other heavily bunkered, depression era courses other than Bethpage?  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 02, 2004, 08:38:17 PM
"I prefer compromise to selling out....."

Tom MacW:

Well, aren't you being the super fair fellow and historical analyst!? Frankly, I'm thankful and sometimes impressed by some of the raw research you throw in here---the raw data, in other words. Analyzing it in the correct historical perspective is sometimes another matter, in my opinion! I think the thing you need to do one of these days, Tom, is serve on the green committee of a club somewhere. I have a very strong feeling it might afford you a very valuable and perhaps somewhat different perspective on this entire subject, both now and historically!  :)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 02, 2004, 09:51:31 PM
TE
There are many who gather more info, I'm OK at that. My location has its limitations. My love is historic perspective....that is why I enjoy writing essays like Arts and Crafts, Alison in Japan, Depression era (ANGC, Bethpage & Ohio State), etc.-- presenting golf architecture in a more worldly perspective. Delving into cultural and economic influences. Why not expand my horizons while at the same time exploring golf architecture. But certainly I can do better...I would appreciate any concrete criticism you can lend...if you don't have anything concrete, a blanket criticism will suffice.

You are correct I have no desire to become a green committee man....I'll leave that to you and Pat.

David
As far as I know the Bethpage courses were the only new projects Tilly had during the Depression. Although the Red is not as severely bunkered as the Black, it is well bunkered, including bunkers in the dreaded DH Zone. Both courses were completed while Tilly was on his PGA tour.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 02, 2004, 11:28:19 PM
"I would appreciate any concrete criticism you can lend...if you don't have anything concrete, a blanket criticism will suffice.

You are correct I have no desire to become a green committee man....I'll leave that to you and Pat."

Tom MacW:

I'm sorry to say I guess I'd have to read that as just sarcastic, but perhaps it isn't entirely. I hope not and if not I'll take the suggestion and try and either offer something concrete or even a blanket criticism. Criiticism, don't forget, isn't always negative as most today assume it is.

I've always viewed you as an excellent researcher, in the sense that you seem capable of coming up with really valuable material. Sometimes the way you seem to analyze it though, really does make me scratch my head. You confuse me even further by writing articles like the five "Arts and Crafts" pieces which are definitely about the best in the history of this webasite but then the sort of lazy logic you've been using on this thread makes me wonder how you managed to put together those "Arts and Crafts" pieces as well as you did.

I guess in some very limited way I can see your continuous point that you really have no concern about the feeling of a membership of a golf course either historically or today as that keeps your research pure or unadulerated or some such logic. Pat occasionally accuses you of viewing this subject from the vantage of an ivory tower and tonight I agree with Pat on that more than ever.

Maybe I'm wrong about this but it appears to me you've viewed and analyzed this subject of Tillinghast in the depression and his PGA project without a scintilla of feeling for whatall went on in that era. It looks to me as if you view it only in that cold comfort of your perspective in 2004 looking back at that difficult era long past. I don't think that's a good way to look at history--I think that creates a revisonist historical perspective, and you say you enjoy delving into this subject from an historical perspective.

But nevertheless, and despite all the disagreements we've had on here you certainly are one of the most valuable contributors on here for years and for various reasons, in my opinion. The disagreements we've had and the discussions we've all had over those disagreements (as well as the agreements and consensuses) has made for the really good dynamic that makes this website so interesting.

The primary thing I'll keep fighting for on here, though, is when any of us look back on some age long past and try to analyze it accurately that we do all we can to first strip away everything that we know that came after that age that they who lived and worked back then never could've known. Then, I think, we'll be able to look at that era more, or most accurately. We need to feel that we're almost able to truly feel and almost smell that time (sans what evolved after it!).

And when you keep reiterating you have no interest at all in memberships of golf clubs or in green committees or in the dynamics of green committees, the very thing that's the stewardship of clubs, courses and architecture, I've got to say I view that as a cop-out, even a reason for lack of understanding both today or of any time. You should try to understand those things too--because it lends perspective to this entire subject either today or in any age or era!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 03, 2004, 12:15:16 AM
"lazy logic you've been using on this thread"

"Analyzing it in the correct historical perspective is sometimes another matter, in my opinion!"

"Sometimes the way you seem to analyze it though, really does make me scratch my head"
 
"the feeling of a membership of a golf course"

"without a scintilla of feeling for what all went on in that era"

"to analyze it accurately that we do all we can to first strip away everything that we know that came after that age that they who lived and worked back then never could've known"

Interesting criticisms, can you give any specifics....what specifically was lazy about my logic...what historical perspective did I miss...how does a feeling for the club membership pertain to this thread....what do you understand or feel about this era that I have missed...how has my knowledge of what came after this age specifically effected my analysis?

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 03, 2004, 07:02:21 AM
"Interesting criticisms, can you give any specifics....what specifically was lazy about my logic...what historical perspective did I miss...how does a feeling for the club membership pertain to this thread....what do you understand or feel about this era that I have missed...how has my knowledge of what came after this age specifically effected my analysis?


Tom MacW:

Looking back on this thread it appears my posts on all those general points started at Post #133. I could cut and paste them all here on page #10 but it'd probably be easier to just click back to page #6.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 03, 2004, 07:37:19 AM
TE
Those are not minor criticisms...IMO the least you could do is present specific examples for each point....giving post and page numbers on a 220+ post, muliti-page long thread with tens of thousands of words and countless points and counter points has a ring of insincerity.

I'm certain we could all benefit from constructive criticism...please specify.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 03, 2004, 09:08:03 AM
Tom MacW:

What's lazy about your logic?

Go back and refer to your fourteen points that you maintain support your conclusion that Tillinghast compromised his design principles during the mid 1930s PGA redesign project that ends with this remark (to Rick Wolffe) of yours,

"I wish you'd spend more effort preserving and protecting his designs (and being more critical of changes to his designs) than trying to put a positive spin upon a dark period of his design career...and a dark period generally for golf architecture and the country."

While those fourteen points you listed are no doubt true in and of themselves I can't see that a single one of them proves or should convince anyone that it follows those are the reasons Tillinghast compromised his architectural principles!

What you tend to do, Tom, is start by assuming it's a certainlty, a given, in fact, that Tillinghast DID compromise his architectural principles and then you set out to find the reasons why!

That to me is lazy logic. Matter of fact, it's extremely poor logic and the type of logic that's prone to creating real revisionism in establishing an accurate historic record in the evolution of architecture.

To me it's more likely, and certainly more logical to contemplate the fact that Tillinghast may even have been improving architectural principles, perhaps even creating new and better architectural principles. It appears he certainly thought so! It certainly doesn't seem to me that any club or any golfer was resisting at that time what he was proposing. If that's the case (one that should be investigated, and one you seem unwilling to acknowledge and appear to compeletly avoid) the interesting and perhaps accurate historical facts and reasons of what was going on then may become apparent by asking WHY?

When one does that the historical record and the reasons things happened as they did becomes more precise and more relevant, in my opinion!

The problem with your general thinking on the history and evolution of golf architecture seems to be that if something that was once created (other than perhaps those "cop bunkers") is removed at some time in the future that some architect must have compromised his principles or his former principles. This is just not a healthy or accurate premise to start with in my opinion, but it seems to be one you constantly start with.

Much of the reason you may do that is because you really don't seem to care at all about what memberships and the golfers who played the courses we study thought about them at particular times.

That to me is a real perscription for myopia and an inability to put the history and evolution of golf architecture into the proper historical perspective, certainly when it comes to why Tillinghast did the things he did at any point in his career!

But I know you---what you'll continue to do is simply avoid facing potential realities of that time and you'll continue to hold to your premise (which is your conclusion) that Tillinghast had to have compromised his principles. It seems that you entered into this discussion with that premise as a given.

Nothing you've said to date convinces me that's a given (it certainly may be possible but not necessarily a given), and certainly nothing you've produced so far appears to have convinced a number of others who do know the details of that era that it's a given that Tillinghast sold out or compromised his architectural priniciples.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 03, 2004, 09:29:24 AM
Mr. Moriarity,

You wrote, "But what I fail to understand is your continued refusal to acknowledge that AWT may have occasionally (and slightly) compromised the integrity of architecture in order to save courses."

Let me correct this. I have not refused to acknowledge this, when I stated that I had never seen any of the courses pre-Tillinghast recommendations, I meant only that I had no ability to cite case in point for this.

I agree that he probably did hurt some courses architecturally with some of his recommedations, but this would only be because of what I would have considered good architecture. Remember, he believed that ALL of his recommendations were sound.

Probably, every great surgeon has had someone sue them for malpractice. Why then wouldn't Tillinghast or McKenzie or Ross create or recommend something that was poor in concept?

I believe what you state is valid on this point and has merit, but just stating it is not enough, what is needed is the examples that prove it. That is not meant as a criticism of the statement, but rather as a request to show the examples to learn from.

Tom M., you wrote, "As far as I know the Bethpage courses were the only new projects Tilly had during the Depression. Although the Red is not as severely bunkered as the Black, it is well bunkered, including bunkers in the dreaded DH Zone. Both courses were completed while Tilly was on his PGA tour."

This is incorrect. Tilly began his tour in the Middle of August of 1935. At that point in time all of the courses had been completed. The Blue Course was opened in April of 1935, the Red Course was Opened for play in May 1935. The Black Course was originally scheduled for opening in June of 1935 and was awarded the 1936 Public Links Championship based upon this, but because it had not been seeded in 1934, the Public Links ended up being played on the Blue and Red courses. Seeding on the Black was completed in the spring of 1935 and the grass had grown in sufficiently to allow Jimmy Hines to play a test round on the course in June of 1935. What is fascinating about this round is that he became the first person to reach the long par 5 seventh hole in two. The article in the Farmingdale Post that mentions this states that the hole was measured at 600 yards from the championship tees that he played from, with him hitting a driver and three-iron OVER the green. It is evident that the trees guarding the right fairway corner were not around yet.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 03, 2004, 11:50:28 AM
TE
It sounds like you don't care for my conclusions....I'm not sure where the lazy comes in. I don't believe there was any laziness involved in digging up all the info or analyzing all of it.

The comment after the 14 points was directed at Philip.

"While those fourteen points you listed are no doubt true in and of themselves I can't see that a single one of them proves or should convince anyone that it follows those are the reasons Tillinghast compromised his architectural principles!"

If you accept the individual points...in particular if you accept that Tilly was hardly a minimalist when it comes to bunkering through his career (with numerous bunkers in the DH zone) and you accept he took drastic philosophical turn late in 1935 (not 1930, '31,' 32, '33, '34 or early '35)....than what is the logical reason he took a turn?

"What you tend to do, Tom, is start by assuming it's a certainly, a given, in fact, that Tillinghast DID compromise his architectural principles and then you set out to find the reasons why!"

I started where everyone else started...common knowledge was that the PGA was just a continuation of Tilly's long and storied design career. Actually it wasn't something people discussed or wrote much about....there wasn't whole lot of information on the program. I first began looking at it when I was researching Bethpage-Burbeck-Tilly, following Whitten's article. It opened up a chapter Tilly's life that I really didn't know that much about or seen written about...a period that is usually glossed over when reviewing the history of golf architecture...not exactly the high point in architecture. The more information I uncovered the more it pointed to what I eventually concluded. I can tell you I certainly didn't start there...your acusation doesn't make much sense.

I'm afraid you will continue to be disappointed if you don't appreciate revisions to the historic record...there are a lot of myths and misconceptions out there, and there will continue to be revisions as more info is uncovered and thoughtfully analyzed . You yourself have corrected a misconceptions at PVGC. If the facts don't hold up any attempts to rewrite history will fail...I don't think you have anything to worry about, unless you've got some emotional investment in the myths.

I look forward to any effort presenting the case that Tilly was in fact creating a new and better architecture.

"It certainly doesn't seem to me that any club or any golfer was resisting at that time what he was proposing."

I'm not certain how many club's resisted (we do know Bel-Air). I agree it was certainly popular (who wouldn't want free advice  from a world famous architect)  and it does appear many followed his recommendations. As for why,  I've acknowledged many of these clubs were under financial distress....the PGA and Tilly presented a compelling case ...it makes perfect sense that most clubs would accept the advice.

I accept all that, but I don't believe that reality alters the fact that Tilly went through a philosophical change in late 1935. The question remains, why is it in 1935 Tilly believes duffers shouldn't have to negotiate bunkers? Don't they deserve some interest and an occasional thrill...he provided it for them before...if times are tough why not temporarily retire some bunkers for economic reasons with the thought of bringing them back at a later date. Perhaps you will present the case that DH-free zones are in fact a brilliant idea. But as far as I can tell...that idea has not caught on today, nor was it accepted in the grand era prior the Depression. Even MacKenzie's minimalistic design of ANGC had bunkers encroaching into the DH zone.


"When one does that (..investigate historical facts and the reasons for what was going on...) the historical record and the reasons things happened as they did becomes more precise and more relevant, in my opinion!"

I agree, that is why I attempt to look at these issues as comprehensively as possible...when researching a subject I look at as much non-golf background info as golf information....be it Robert Moses massive biography, numerous histories on Japan, discovering  Hutchinson educational  background (a colleague of William Morris), or HGH's garden designed by Jeckyl, or that GeoThomas lived in a home designed by Price or CB Macdonald owned a cottage on Bermuda designed by Stanford White. In this case reading Graffis's huge history on the PGA and finding contemporaneous articles on the program in the NY Times adding to all the stuff on Tilly, Burbeck, Jacobus, etc.

I don't draw conclusions easily, but when I do, I have confidence in what I conclude. On the other hand I've been wrong before, and I'm sure I'll be wrong again.

"The problem with your general thinking on the history and evolution of golf architecture seems to be that if something that was once created (other than perhaps those "cop bunkers") is removed at some time in the future that some architect must have compromised his principles or his former principles. This is just not a healthy or accurate premise to start with in my opinion, but it seems to be one you constantly start with."

That is an over simplistic generalization. It ignores my opinions on entire courses or individual holes at Pebble Beach, County Down, Dornoch, Garden City, Maidstone, Muirfield, Westward Ho!, LACC, Moraine, Inwood, Kasumgaseki, Royal Melbourne, Woking, Shinnecock Hills, Gulph Mills, etc.

My goal is to document history, if club politics is part of the history, I include it. IMO what the USGA wants at Bethpage or Merion, or the decision processes today at Aronimink or Yale should have no effect on documentng those course's architectural history. I'll leave that up to others.

You've addressed "lazy logic" and "analyzing it in the correct historical perspective" now we can move on to "without a scintilla of feeling for what all went on in that era" and "to analyze it accurately we do all we can to first strip away everything that we know that came after that age that they who lived and worked back then never could've known".  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 03, 2004, 12:07:46 PM
Phil
I'm sure you are right, it was May 1935 that the Red opened....I was looking at something in the Long Island Forum from the 40's...I think the author (Chester Blakelock park commissioner) may have gotten the date of the official opening of the clubhouse mixed up with the Red...or maybe the Red was opened in May, but officially opened in August.

Whatever the date, the answer to David's question is to my knowledge the same..the Bethpage courses were his only designs during the Depression.

Who were these very poor designers, you referred to, in the teens and twenties?

What do you make of the whirlwind approach to advising these clubs...sometimes taking on more than one club per day?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on April 03, 2004, 12:12:20 PM
I've said it before on this thread, and perhaps its overly legalistic but facts, more often than not don't exist in the absolute, and more usually facts are merely inferences reasonably drawn upon available and supporting evidence (in the mode of more probable than nots).

The following are some uncontested "facts", followed by some reasonable inferences which I think can be drawn from the circumstances.

The PGA offered Tillie out as a service. I dispute that this was a "free" service - since it was, in part, an effort to keep clubs from canning their Pros, and saving the money. Nor do I think that the altruistic characterization of the PGA/Tillie as saving clubs is on point. If clubs indeed were saved (and there is no evidence of this), it was merely incidental to their primary objective - keeping Pros employed.

Tillie was paid for his services by the PGA. Tillie recommended or claimed responsibility for thousands of removed bunkers. The PGA quantified estimated annual savings from Tillie's work. The PGA was clearly pleased with the success of Tillie's work.
The logical implication of the above facts, in my mind, gives is that the more bunkers removed, the greater the savings, the better the evidence to present to clubs looking to axe their pros. The more successful the project. A reasonable inference therefore, to my mind, is that there is some connection to bunker removal and Tillie's compensation (or at  least continued employment) and the scale of the project, either explicitly or implicitly. I have seen nothing that can destroy that inference. It is not a fact, but in the absence of any countervailing evidence, the inference is at least as strong as the inference that there was no connection.

These are theories, albeit theories based on evidence I find persuasive. I can't say definitively that it was the case, nor can those opposing this theory say definitively that it wasn't the case. But because it can't be expressed as certainty rather than possibility or probability should it, therefore, not be expressed at all? Real historical research is a process of asking these questions.

 

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 03, 2004, 01:08:04 PM
Tom,

When I referenced the poor designs of golf courses from the teens & twenties, and in fact I should have mentioned them as being even earlier then that, I had no particular architect in mind. I was restating what Tillinghast felt about the designs of courses that punished the poor player for no other reason than that he was a poor player; that the hazards were placed in positions that good and accomplished players would never have to take into account.

For example, he often was critical of the designers of courses both before and during his time. An example of this is where he wrote, "The designers of old time courses either closed their eyes to the evil or else were powerless to find a remedy." This was in reference to courses that were constructed with the sin (in his mind) of having parallel fairways.

It is in this same vain where he condemned as poor design the misuse of bunkers whose sole pur[ose was to punish the poor player without regard for theaccomplished player that I was refering to.  

As far as his "whirlwind approach" I would liken it to a doctor who sees a patient for the first time and who is being asked to give a second opinion on a diagnosis. He has the test results in front of him as these were taken by the other doctor, and so is able to give a learned opinion.

Tillinghast was looking, for the most part, at finished golf courses and being asked his opinion of what changes would he recommend to improve the course. Most of the time, he was being asked about specific proposed changes and/or problems. With the finished course in front of him, it should have been an easy thing for someone with his knowledge and experience to make an informed recommendation even during a short visit.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 03, 2004, 01:38:56 PM
Phil
I thought you mentioned the names Emmet and Travis (among others) in a previous post...the names are gone now for whatever reason. Did you have second thoughts about describing these men as poor architects?

Could you give some examples of courses that had bunkers that only punished poor players?

Would you want a doctor giving you one quick look see and then recommending surgery?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 03, 2004, 02:15:21 PM
Tom, you wrote, "Phil, I thought you mentioned the names Emmet and Travis (among others) in a previous post...the names are gone now for whatever reason. Did you have second thoughts about describing these men as poor architects?"

Are you implying that I actually did mention their names and then erased them? That didn't happen. If I had meant to use those or any other names of specific architects I would have.

You asked, "Could you give some examples of courses that had bunkers that only punished poor players?"

As I have said now several times, and I hope that it will sink in this one, I never saw any course pre-Tillinghast. ALL of my comments have been based upon what he has written and stated. He said that there were poor courses and designs, even referring to a number of them as having been "evil" because of how poor they were.

One of the main evils he cited from very early times, was the putting of hazards, especially bunkers, in spots that would only effect the poor player. This thread has been debating his reasons and attitudes for doing so, not that they were never actually there! Why is it because I state that these were there that you are challenging me to name the courses. That is ludicrous and silly. You have written about poor bunkers yourself, referring to "cop bunkers." Am I to challenge their existence simply because you mention them?

You also asked, "Would you want a doctor giving you one quick look see and then recommending surgery?This might be your most absurd question. Why take a simple illustration out of context. You are intelligent enough to get the point that I was making. Why would a man of Tillinghast's ability need more than a few minutes look at an EXISTING hole to decide if he feels that something needs be done to it. You know that was all I was saying.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 03, 2004, 03:29:11 PM
Phil
This thread began what feels like a month ago.....however I do recall you mentioning Emmet and Bendelow (perhaps not Travis) in one of your posts as examples of poor architecture. No big deal, if you thought better of it...more power to you...then again maybe my memory is shot.

I dont like the doctor analogy either...mine or yours.

If you aren't exactly sure how these hazards presented themselves--the ones that only punish duffers--and you are not certain what courses they were on...how can you judge the merits of Tilly's mission from an architctural point of view?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: DMoriarty on April 03, 2004, 03:58:22 PM
I've said it before on this thread, and perhaps its overly legalistic but facts, more often than not don't exist in the absolute, and more usually facts are merely inferences reasonably drawn upon available and supporting evidence (in the mode of more probable than nots).
. . .
The PGA offered Tillie out as a service. I dispute that this was a "free" service - since it was, in part, an effort to keep clubs from canning their Pros, and saving the money. Nor do I think that the altruistic characterization of the PGA/Tillie as saving clubs is on point. If clubs indeed were saved (and there is no evidence of this), it was merely incidental to their primary objective - keeping Pros employed.

SPBD-- I agree with your characterization of the uncertainty of facts, but wonder about your inferences.  

-- If the clubs werent charged, it was a free service.  Sure, the PGA was hoping that the service would convince the clubs that the PGA was useful and worth the fees, but hoping for a benefit from a freebie doesnt make the freebie not so.

-- Same goes for your denying that Tillie/the PGA were working to save clubs.  No one said that they were acting altruistically.   Nor did anyone deny that the PGA was primarily interested in saving the PGA.  I suggest that the PGA's motivations are quite beside the point.  IMO, the key issue is:

What did the clubs expect from Tillie when they invited him to consult.

Given the dire times and the types of changes eventually made, the only logical inference is that most of the clubs were looking for advice on how to save enough money so that they could survive the times.   It is simply inconceivable that most of the clubs would be looking for anything else.  Considering substantive (and expensive) improvements during the depression would have been mad.  

Your post acknowedges as much, since essentially you are arguing that the clubs were pleased with the PGA because the PGA showed them how to save money.  

-- There is no evidence that clubs were saved?   I disagree.  The fact that many of these clubs survived the depression is circumstantial evidence that at least some of these clubs were saved.  The huge list of clubs that didnt survive (see Mr. Wexler's excellent works) further supports that surviving this period was difficult.  

But even if it were impossible to prove whether any clubs were saved, this changes nothing.  If the clubs were looking to save money (presumably to survive) and the PGA was trying to advise them how to do so (for whatever reason), then the clubs' goal and PGA's service were in sinc.

Quote
A reasonable inference therefore, to my mind, is that there is some connection to bunker removal and Tillie's compensation (or at  least continued employment) and the scale of the project, either explicitly or implicitly. I have seen nothing that can destroy that inference. It is not a fact, but in the absence of any countervailing evidence, the inference is at least as strong as the inference that there was no connection.

This is by no means the most plausible inference.

The number of removed bunkers was likely the easiest way to quantify the amount of money that the clubs were saving pursuant to AWT's suggestions.  [You repeatedly reference saved money but fail to explicitly mention that it was the clubs that were saving money, not the PGA.]   TWA and the PGA likely used these figures to further prove their worth.

That being said, it is a huge leap in logic to next conclude that AWT was being paid by the bunker.  He was being paid for helping the clubs save money.  It is a mistake to assume that professional compensation is always linked to client success.

Also, if the PGA was paying AWT a commission, wouldnt it make more sense to tie his compensation to the number of pros who kept their jobs after AWT consulted at their courses?  After all, you do allege that this was the PGA's primary interest . . .  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: DMoriarty on April 03, 2004, 04:11:57 PM
Mr. Young,

Please, call me David.  

I think that we are still not quite connecting . . .  

As I understand it, you are saying that Tillinghast was primarily concerned with improving the architecture.  

What I am suggesting is that perhaps Tillinghast's primary concern was advising the clubs how to save money (therefore saving the clubs) while doing the least damage possible to the courses.  

  Certainly sometimes AWT's suggestions would both improve the architecture and save money.  But it seems a fair inference to assume that, at least sometimes and for good reason, AWT intentionally diminished the absolute quality of the course in order to save the course.  

Another way to look at is that AWT may have suggested what was best for the course in context of the extreme economic times.  Surely some of his suggestions might have been different if the clubs had invited him to suggest capital improvements in better economic times?

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 03, 2004, 06:42:07 PM
"I accept all that, but I don't believe that reality alters the fact that Tilly went through a philosophical change in late 1935. The question remains, why is it in 1935 Tilly believes duffers shouldn't have to negotiate bunkers?"

It appears that Rich Wolffe has clarified that the majority of that article was written in 1920 a full fifteen years before 1935. Reading that section he wrote in 1920 it's certainly clear to me what area he's speaking of and who he's speaking of. Perhaps he didn't use the term "duffer's headaches" in 1920 but it's quite clear that's what he's speaking of. You may choose to conclude he was ONLY speaking of the very old fashioned "cop bunker" but I don't believe that's all he was speaking of in 1920. You also have cited a number of courses where you claim Tillinghast built bunkering throughout that area (DH zone) at Philly Cricket, St David's and Wyoming Valley. I'm sorry but I don't think that's true---I don't think that's accurate so the evidence you're using to support your conclusion isn't correct, in my opinion. I've looked at some of the old aerials of those courses and I don't see bunkering scattered through that DH zone.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 03, 2004, 06:48:22 PM
It would also do you well to read in it's entirety chapter #36 In "Reminiscences of the Links" and you might get a very different impresson of how Tilliinghast felt different courses were designed for different levels of players and some were not for the duffer, a point I made earlier in the context of this thread--- and something you seemingly denied on this thread in an earlier post. The examples he gives in that article are NGLA and PV. That article was apparently written in 1917! It seems to me Tom that a number of your assumptions and conclusions on this thread are just not completely supported by fact!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 03, 2004, 07:34:28 PM
David,

It's Phil here also.

You wrote, "As I understand it, you are saying that Tillinghast was primarily concerned with improving the architecture. What I am suggesting is that perhaps Tillinghast's primary concern was advising the clubs how to save money (therefore saving the clubs) while doing the least damage possible to the courses.  "

Actually, I wasn't saying that at all. I was stating what Tillinghast was doing. Nothing else.

His letters are very clear in that he only went to courses that asked and invited him to come, and that these courses, for the most part, had pre-set agendas of problems or areas of concern that they wanted advice from him on.

He spent his time addressing the issues raised to him. Now I am not suggesting that he didn't walk into a course and not say something that he might have seen that in his opinion needed addressing. Many times these may have been Duffer's Headaches type of bunkers, or green sizes and tee locations. He was a man who was not afraid to speak his mind and state his opinion.

He was of the belief that what he was suggesting was for the good of the course. I can't say either way if his recommendations were or weren't as I have never seen any of these courses pre-Tilly.

I feel very strongly that unless a person has, that to claim that Tilly had an agenda to create work for himself, or had a changed his philosophies in course design overnight for reasons unknown, or worse, to create work when he had none, and had done so with the knowledge of George Jacobus, is trying to rewrite history.

His letters are clear as to the attitudes and beliefs that he was approaching these courses and club committees with. They were consistent with his long-held beliefs of design and what he personally believed for many years was right for the game.

As I said before, I have no doubt that some of these suggestions may not have been the right ones simply by the laws of numbers. You can't be right all of the time. I do believe that the vast majority of suggestions, probably in the extreme, were the right thing to do for the clubs that they were recommended to. After all, as we can appreciate from his courses that we see today, he was among the very best, if not the best, architect of all-time. That is tough to go against. Still a number of courses did not take his advice.

As far as intentionally diminishing the quality of a course to save it, I have a hard time believing that. The areas where most money was saved in maintenance costs, were the elimination of bunkers and shrinkage of greens. From his reports it appears that he didn't go to any course and say, "you have 100 bunkers, to save money let's cut that to 60" and start filling them in. The same things with the greens. He made references to suggesting that greens be shrunk at courses where he believed they were too large by design and making the hole of lesser quality. The by-ptoduct that they would save money in mowing costs being a plus.

I hope that makes sense.

Tom, your memory is shot. It never happened.      
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: DMoriarty on April 03, 2004, 09:05:46 PM
Phil,

First,  I am not claiming that "Tilly had an agenda to create work for himself, or had a changed his philosophies in course design overnight for reasons unknown, or worse, to create work when he had none."   Nor does my hypothesis suggest or even support such a claim.  

I am simply trying to reconcile AWT's suggestions with the presumed directive to save the clubs money.  

You wrote, "As I understand it, you are saying that Tillinghast was primarily concerned with improving the architecture.". . .

Actually, I wasn't saying that at all. I was stating what Tillinghast was doing. Nothing else.

But right in the same post you say that AWT was of the belief that he was doing what was best for the courses.  Further, you also write that you dont believe AWT ever intentionally compromised the quality of the course for the sake of saving clubs money.   Taken together, what else could these mean, except that you think he was always trying to improve architecture, at least with regard to the architecture about which the club sought his advice.  

Quote
. . . these courses, for the most part, had pre-set agendas of problems or areas of concern that they wanted advice from him on.

He spent his time addressing the issues raised to him. . . .


This is the key, I think.  What was the primary issue facing courses during this time period??  With what type of problems did the need guidance?  Generally, what service was the PGA offering the courses?

It seems to me that the only plausible answer to all of these questions is that many of the courses were primarily concerned with saving money.

What leads me to this conclusion?
--  Everything I have read on this board (including your posts and Mr. Wolff's) leads me to believe that the service provided by the PGA  was consultation on saving money.
--  Everything I know about the depression and golf during this period leads me to believe that, if golf courses needed help with anything during this period, it was saving money.
--  This is the only way I can think of to reconcile his recommended changes, as described, with his own work (such as Bethpage.)

Quote
As I said before, I have no doubt that some of these suggestions may not have been the right ones simply by the laws of numbers. You can't be right all of the time. I do believe that the vast majority of suggestions, probably in the extreme, were the right thing to do for the clubs that they were recommended to. After all, as we can appreciate from his courses that we see today, he was among the very best, if not the best, architect of all-time. That is tough to go against. Still a number of courses did not take his advice.


While this is most likely true, I think it largely beside the point.

Quote
As far as intentionally diminishing the quality of a course to save it, I have a hard time believing that. The areas where most money was saved in maintenance costs, were the elimination of bunkers and shrinkage of greens. From his reports it appears that he didn't go to any course and say, "you have 100 bunkers, to save money let's cut that to 60" and start filling them in. The same things with the greens. He made references to suggesting that greens be shrunk at courses where he believed they were too large by design and making the hole of lesser quality. The by-ptoduct that they would save money in mowing costs being a plus.

This is just too clean a result for me accept, especially given the messy circumstances of the depression.  I think it highly improbable that Tillinghast believed that every single money-saving suggestion also improved the architecture.  It seems much more probable that he was trying to do what was best for the course given the constraints of the money-saving mandate.  

This certainly does not mean that he would say 'lets get rid of 60 out of 100 bunkers,' or that he would say 'shrink all the greens 10%.'   If this was the case there would be no reason for hi to even make field visits.  

It seems more likely that he would suggest changes which did the least damage, and for which there was at least some justification (ex. higher handicappers hit into the bunker more than low handicaps.)

For me it comes down to this:  As I understand it, almost all decisions made during this period were guided at least in part by the dire depression economy.  I see no reason to exempt Tillinghast's decisions from the shadow of the collapsed economy.   If he wasnt considering the financial needs of the clubs, his advice would have been worthless.  In fact, he would have been doing them a serious disservice.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 03, 2004, 09:12:49 PM
TE
Philadelphia Cricket: 1, 5, 6, 7, 12 & 17

Wyoming Valley: 1, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12 & 17

St.David: American Golfer article by WP Smith profiles an unnumbered hole with a bunker in the DH zone.

Phil
You might be right...then again my memory is usually pretty good.

David
Trying to measure the impact of the PGA tour is difficult. The goal was to illustrate their value to PGA affiliated clubs, because of that they refused to help clubs who had let their pros go...clubs who were under the most pressure.

If you look at the clubs in upstate NY that Tilly visited (thanks to Phil) I don't recognize half those courses...I have my doubts if many survived on that trip. Maybe this is a bizzare exception...but who knows.

No doubt many clubs did parish during the Depression, but Daniel's books illustrate the differing reasons many clubs died. Some extravagant clubs who opened near 1929 were in the most serious jeopardy, and the golf course was not always the lone expenditure or main reason.

Some courses yielded to real estate pressures...especially in large expanding metropoli...and sometimes clubs sold and  moved farther out. Some were resorts that were doomed. Many of these course died during or after WWII.

Another consideration by 1936 the economy was actually starting to improve. There was also federal funds that were available for golf courses ($10,500,000). The PGA abandoned the program in 1937...even though it was wildly popular.

But measuring the effectiveness of the PGA program does not alter Tilly's architectural compromise in 1935--the main issue of this thread. The DH free zone ran contrary to Tilly's career portfolio. And even if you would could establish the economics of the PGA tour in 1936-37...the early years of the Depression ('30, '32, '32, '33, '34) were the most devistating, but it was status quo for Tilly during these years...something changed in late 1935.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 03, 2004, 10:09:37 PM
"TE
Philadelphia Cricket: 1, 5, 6, 7, 12 & 17
Wyoming Valley: 1, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12 & 17"

Tom:

That is simply not the case. If that's what you've been referring to as Tillinghast (or anyone else) designing or scattering bunkering in the DH zone you've been barking up the wrong tree on this thread. If that's DH zone bunkering probably more than 3/4 of the holes in the world have DH zone bunkering and always have!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 03, 2004, 10:33:31 PM
TE
See Tilly's article "the Simplicity of Modern Bunkering" (8/1936) for guidance.

I gave Tilly the benifit of the doubt and only included bunkers in the first Duffer's Range--most likely a mistake considering 7,000+ bunkers were wiped out.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: DMoriarty on April 04, 2004, 12:44:11 AM
But measuring the effectiveness of the PGA program does not alter Tilly's architectural compromise in 1935--the main issue of this thread. The DH free zone ran contrary to Tilly's career portfolio. And even if you would could establish the economics of the PGA tour in 1936-37...the early years of the Depression ('30, '32, '32, '33, '34) were the most devistating, but it was status quo for Tilly during these years...something changed in late 1935.

Tom, while I disagree with your reasoning, I agree that it does not matter whether the PGA program was successful.  If the goal of the PGA program was to suggest to the PGA member clubs how they could save money during the depression, then it is innaccurate and/or unreasonable to infer that AWT compromised his professional integrity as an architect by offering such advice.  

What Tillinghast thought best for a club with plenty of money has little or nothing to do with what he might have thought best for a club trying to survive by cutting expenses.  

Building many gigantic bunkers at Bethpage made sense, because the project was funded by state money and was putting people to work.  In constrast, recommending the same thing for a course struggling to survive in the midst of the depression would have been a serious dereliction of his professional responsibilities.  

Just as an architect must consider the flow of the land, he must also consider monetary constraints.  If clubs needed to slash their maintenance budgets, what else could he do but advise them how they could do it with the least amount of damage to the course.

As an aside, I wouldnt necessarily disconnect financial woes from real estate pressures.  Many affluent clubs survived on some of the most valuable real estate in the country.  Less affluent clubs or courses didnt make it and were turned into houses.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 04, 2004, 12:52:55 AM
David
"Tom, while I disagree with your reasoning, I agree that it does not matter whether the PGA program was successful. If the goal of the PGA program was to suggest to the PGA member clubs how they could save money, then it is innaccurate and/or unreasonable to infer that AWT compromised his professional integrity as an architect by offering such advice."

Who said anything about professional integrity? My view is he compromised his design practices.

"What Tillinghast thought best for a club with plenty of money has little or nothing to do with what he might have thought best for a club trying to survive by cutting expenses."
 
Where did you get the impression he reviewed each club's financial standing?

"Building many gigantic bunkers at Bethpage made sense, because the project was funded by state money and was putting people to work. In constrast, recommending the same thing for a course struggling to survive in the midst of the depression would have been a serious dereliction of his professional responsibilities."
 
What about the poor duffer?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 04, 2004, 08:26:00 AM
"TE
See Tilly's article "the Simplicity of Modern Bunkering" (8/1936) for guidance."

Tom:

I've read that a number of times!

"I gave Tilly the benifit of the doubt and only included bunkers in the first Duffer's Range--most likely a mistake considering 7,000+ bunkers were wiped out."

Yes, you did only include those bunkers in the so-called first "duffer's range" and that certainly was a mistake given the 7,000 bunker number. A more accurate analysis of DH bunkers shows he was clearly speaking of much more than that, certainly including bunkers on other parts of holes for sure. That number obviously included bunkers in what he explained was the second DH zone (on his long par 4 diagram). It also apparently included bunkers on other parts of some holes that were not DH zone bunkers---just bunkers that weren't very good or very well placed (in his compromised opinion of course!).

Those beautiful multi bunker sets in the second DH zone (or lacy interior bunker grass lines) on holes #4 and #7 (two quite similar par 5s) at Philly Cricket were changed in the 1930s, although the placement of those bunkers were probably not in what Tillinghast was referring to as the second DH zone---they happened to be in (and still are in) an area a good player needs to deal with!

But Tillinghast didn't change those bunkers on those holes at Philly Cricket in the 1930s. Strong evidence points to the fact that Flynn changed them because we have copies of Flynn's redesign plans of those holes.

Flynn recommended a routing progression change on those holes where the 4th would become the 7th and the 7th the 4th basically making the 9th the 6th and the 6th the 9th.

Obviously the club didn't go with that recommendation of Flynn's. We're not sure if Flynn was invited to make these redesign recommendations by the club or whether Flynn just showed up over there with his ideas and plans and inserted himself on the club. Perhaps the pro asked Flynn to come by for the PGA Bunker Removal project since Tillinghast was somewhere else at that point madly wiping out bunkers and selling his architectural principles! We do know though that those Tillinghast bunkers on those two holes were changed in look and apparently somewhat in design in the 1930s!.

I guess Flynn figured that he didn't have that much work in the depression either and since Tillinghast was out their selling out and compromising his architectural principles he better compete with him by getting into redesigning some of Tillie's previous work!  

;)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 04, 2004, 10:41:19 AM
TE
Being familar with the article you realize I was simply noted the holes at Philadelphia Cricket, Wyoming Valley and St. Davids with hazards within the first Duffer's Range (0-175 yds). I didn't want to complicate matters by counting bunkers in the 2nd zone, although clearly there were such bunkers on one and six for example (that still exist today!) and I reckon more than half the Hell's Half Acres (HHA) Tilly designed fell into that zone (including the one at PC). My goal was to establish Tilly's common paractice of placing bunkers in that zone (PC, Wyoming Valley, Sunnehanna, SFGC, Forest Hills Field, etc) and the subsequesnt departure from that practice in late 1935.

I find that article (The Simplicty of Modern Bunkers) very interesting. The first part of the article deals with very sound strategic thinking...orienting greens and hazards for risk reward. The next part deals with his thoughts on bunker free zones (Duffers Range), and he begins by saying "It is this thought that is a part of the PGA doctrine, which has been assigned me to preach and to make my point as understandible as possible."

He then goes on explain the idea using a couple of diagrams--before and after if you will. His thoughts on strategy are very sound and consistent with his previous designs. The DH free part is not consistent with his previous designs.

He then ends the article with this paragraph:
"It will be noticed that all other pits, which are shown on Figure One, are removed entirely from the scheme of Figure Two and these areas are designated Duffers Ranges. No one really cares a lot what the poor old duffer does anyhow? He is not a serious factor in golf. But he is a mighty important one. He wants his pleasure and we contend he should have all that posssibly may be brought to him as he golfs as best he can. These superfluous pits are not only unpleasant but they are very expensive to maintain. Why sould the golf courses of America have so much money wasted on their construction and maintenace for no other purpose thant to drive away from the clubs and the game the very men, who are so vitally necessary to the existance of the game."

After reading this I'm not certain if Tilly is the friend of the duffer or not. How does elimnation of features from this entire zone make the game more interesting for the duffer? IMO it does not.

Was Tilly driving duffers away from the game throughout his career by giving the duffer something to think about? I don't think so.

It is interesting to note he refers to bunkers that must go as 'pits' and the ones that stay are 'traps'.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mark_Fine on April 04, 2004, 05:07:20 PM
About 300 pages of text earlier I asked for a summary of this never ending debate.  Anyone care to bullet point what this post has revealed (to this point) to the rest of us who don't have 3 hours to read it to catch up  :)

Thanks,
Mark
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 04, 2004, 06:45:22 PM
Tom MacW:

Reading particularly your last post I think you and I just have very different thoughts on what Tillinghast did during his career design-wise both before and during the PGA project. You see him cluttering up the so-called first DH zone with bunkering, perhaps something like his drawing on the left in Chapter 28 and perhaps using bunkering in the second DH zone as in that left drawing. I don't see him doing that or advocating that except perhaps on a course with the design intent of a PVGC or an NGLA (and he said as much in one of his articles in answer to Taylor's apparent complaint about courses like that---probably being not democratic enough to accomodate the duffer). Tillinghast's answer to Taylor on that subject chapter 36 is courses like that are simply not designed or intended for duffers!! So there's nothing inconsistent there. And he wrote that article in 1917!!

And, again, if you're talking about a single bunker on the side of a fairway, or even one eating slightly into a fairway on one side diagonally or whatnot in a range that may be within 175 yards from the tee a duffer may use, that is simply not the DH zone bunkering he was referring to in my opinion although it may be in your opinion. There is definitely plenty of room around bunkers like that!

And you can't decide if Tillinghast's proposals are for or against the duffer? That's pretty fundamental Tom. Perhaps you should go back and read the logic of what he's saying and probably always said about duffers (unless of course the course was for another purpose which you also seem to have a hard time either understanding or acknowledging).

I think you're tryijng to fit Tillinghast into some preconceived definition of yours and he doesn't factually fit into that definition, in my opinion.

On some courses the duffer was not a factor or a consideration and Tillinghast understood that and the courses he was a major consideration Tillinghast appeared to feel he should be given a break on penality and I don't think he had some huge change of architectural principles that way as you obviously think he did.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: DMoriarty on April 04, 2004, 08:50:42 PM
TomM:
 

Who said anything about professional integrity? My view is he compromised his design practices.
 
While I am not sure what you mean by design practices (and I am not sure you are sure either), I dont see how tending to his clients' needs in dire times compromises his 'design practices' or anything else.
________

Where did I get the impression he reviewed each club's financial standing?!?

Tom, this was the depression.  The PGA's mandate (as near as I can tell) was to advise courses on how to save money.   I think it would have taken something less than a full audit to figure out which of the clubs were hurting financially . . .
. . . it is at times like this when I begin to wonder whether you are more interested in arguing than conversing.  
 
Tom, you may not have noticed, but the "poor duffer" doesnt enter into my hypothesis at all.  In fact I think both you and Mr. Young are mistaken by focusing on this poor duffer.   This should be about whether AWT did what was best for the courses under the circumstances.

Different contexts call for different design solutions.  And the depression was certainly a different context.    
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 04, 2004, 10:17:45 PM
What a crumy day in Baltimore.  I was to play Five Farms East with brother Stu and we chickened out with the weather -- cold, wind, & rain.   Where is the Spring?

Since there are many posts interpreting the initial purpose of Tilly's PGA Consulting Tour I thought it would be beneficial to reprint the following article from the last book in the Tillinghast Trilogy, Gleanings from the Wayside.  

I think it is a correct interpretation that one of the primary and "very public" reasons for Tilly's service was to advise on ways to save money in maintaining golf courses.  I would conclude that this was was certainly the very "public face" of the service and the way "to get in the door" at the host clubs and courses.

I can certainly speculate that Tilly MAY have sold this to George Jacobus as the primary reason or benefit of the service.  HOWEVER, I can also speculate that the primary purpose in Jacobus's mind was to provide a benefit to PGA professionals, which would keep them current on the payment of their membership dues, and also keep them in good stead with their employers.

I would also suspect that there was a fair amount of "MEDIA HYPE" on "DH" removal -- the large number of bunkers Tilly condemned.  I would think most would agree that this is what a news reporter would highlight or headline in a story.  I would also conclude from my read of the Tilly letters, that the a small percentage of the courses Tilly visited had the largest percentage of the DH bunkers removed.

All this being said, when you read all the letters, Tilly went far beyond the stated purpose of just advising on ways to save money.  As was already posted and proven, the bulk of Tilly's advice was on the re-design and design of greens, tees, bunkers, fairways, trees, etc. etc.  The DH removal was just one of many many types of recommendations that Tilly made.

Ironically, the vast majority of Tilly's design recommendations had significant costs to implement.  Heck, even the removal of the so-called DH's cost money to remove!

Perhaps Tilly couldn't help himself.  And I have concluded that HE REFUSED TO SELL OUT AND DID WHAT HE KNEW BEST -- WHAT A GOLF COURSE ARCHITECT DOES -- DESIGNING AND RECOMMENDING!

What follows is the "public face" of the PGA tour, which was published two months after the start of Tilly's tour.


34. WHAT THE P.G.A. COURSE SERVICE REALLY MEANS
Professional Golfer of America, October 1935

LET us briefly  regard the newly instituted service of the Professional Golfers' Association, extended without fees to golf courses throughout the United States wherever a P.G.A. member is affiliated.

It is a sincere gesture from the professionals to do something more for the game from which they derive a livelihood -- something which will gradually improve courses generally by making them more pleasurable for more people.  Obviously this is a far-sighted policy for as more players are attracted to the game, naturally the field of the professional is broadened.

Expert advice, which emphasizes a concentration on vitally important details and the elimination of obsolete and unnecessary features, must direct budgets to doing the most good.

When I was selected and retained by the P.G.A. to visit courses throughout the country, solely to advise them and help them with their various course problems, I was little prepared for the spontaneous reaction to the plan.  It is amazing.  In the middle of August of 1935 I started through New York State, apart from the Metropolitan district, in response to requests from P.G.A. members, and within fifteen days I had been called on to visit no less than twenty-six courses to help solve their problems. These examinations extended from Schenectady as far west as Buffalo.  In every instance I was accompanied in the examinations by the club's pro and greenkeeper, and in most cases by green committeemen and officials.  On two occasions I was contacted by local golf architects and course builders, who expressed their pleasure and satisfaction.

Let it be thoroughly understood that the P.G.A. does not  propose to make plans and construct courses.  Where any considerable work in this direction may be involved our policy will be to recommend reliable local experts and in everyway help them with advice and suggestions, a fact that stimulates their activities and which evidently is being appreciated.

In three districts of the P.G.A. I addressed meetings of member professionals with greenkeepers and green committeemen from their clubs and afterwards animated and informally, general discussions of many interesting points, which were mingled with various questions and my opinions.

The following incident may be indicative of the early success of the service.  The secretary of a P.G.A. district advised me of the requests for my presence (and may it be borne in mind that the service is rendered only on request) and stated that a certain pro had remarked that it would scarcely be worth while for me to travel forty miles to his course, – “for my club has no money.”

His course is not included in the twenty-six already noted but I did travel the forty miles just to explain to him that our intention was not to devise plans for the spending of money but rather to save it.  Finally he asked me to visit three of his greens that needed recontouring.  I was able to show him how one of them could be changed at little cost, how another needed only the introduction of one guarding pit, and in the other instance an entirely new green in a perfectly natural location would improve the hole and cost no more than the fixing up of the old green, which was wrongly placed.

“Why I can do all that this fall!” he exclaimed and not have to ask the committee for any money at all.  That detour seemed very worth while to me.

Certainly one of the greatest benefits to the average golfer to be accomplished under the new service is the elimination of what I term "Duffers' Headaches," the many traps placed only to catch the poor shots of poor players.  These add aggravation and are of no value, for modern planning seeks only to make the par shooters mind their P's and Q's.  Yet these ancient relics (and unfortunately some of later vintage) are scattered about many courses serving to add to the up-keep to a marked degree for usually they demand an unholy amount of handwork.  At one place these "Chocolate drops" and sand pits ran about in a perfect riot and utterly destroyed the natural beauty of an otherwise beautiful course.  But above all else they brought dismay to poor golfers and were very expensive to maintain.  After only a rather brief discussion with the chairman of the green committee, who accompanied the professional and the greenkeeper, his notations sealed the doom of no less than twenty-five of these monstrosities and I believe that more will follow as a natural consequence.  The course was built in 1915, which of course was nearer the period when hazards said to the humble golfer, "You must" rather than "You may."  One must surely understand by this what the P.G.A. service really means when it is declared that it will make golf more pleasurable for more players.

The service was extended to all parts of the United States and as rapidly as possible routes were established.  To reach as many clubs as request the service, applications were made by P.G.A. members, either through the sectional association or to the national headquarters.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 04, 2004, 11:29:16 PM
TE
I don't believe I have claimed Tilly cluttered his courses with DHs. Anyone familar with Tilly's career and designs would recognize I gave examples that were heavily bunkered (SFGC, Bethpage-Black & Brook Hollow), moderately well bunkered (Sunnehanna & Philadelphia Cricket) and modestly bunkered (Golden Valley or Binghampton).

They all shared a common thread...they possessed bunkers in the Duffer's Range. Some had a single bunker in that range, others multiple bunkers in that zone...but they all had DH's.  And IMO they added interest ...especially for duffers.
MacKenzie, Ross, Flynn, Colt, Thomas, Macdonald appear to agree, since they also incorporated features in this Range.
 
It seems now you are now shifting to an idea that Tilly's Duffer's (Bunkerless) Range has been mis-represented or was possibly exagerated....that Tilly in 1936 did not really have a problem with bunkers in this zone. I would say 7000+ bunkers removed might not support that idea.

Not a huge change? At least now you are acknowledging it was a change...compromise.

What happened in late 1935 (and not in '30 thru mid '35) that led to this change in philosophy?

David
I'm most interested in facts and solid information (and I frankly haven't seen any new facts in a while on this thread)...if you have any to add I'd be most interested. I have no idea if every club was in the same poor economic shape...logic would say some were in relatively good shape others were on the brink....what have you uncovered?

Tilly called them Duffer's Headaches...not Treasurer's Headaches or Money Pits. Do you reject Tilly's architectural reasons for removing these bunkers? Are you under the impression his architectrual reasononing was actually a cover for economic reasons?

What happened in late 1935 (and not 1930-1935) that explains his new bunkering philosophy?

RW
You said that Tilly may have sold the PGA on the idea...what gives you that impression? The Bethapge courses would appear to be the antithesis of the DH free philosophy and he did not promote these ideas during the Depression, rigth up 'til 1935, as editor of Golf Illustrated?

What happened in late 1935 that led to this new practice?

You, and everyone else, appear to be ignoring Tilly's personal financial situation.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on April 04, 2004, 11:37:48 PM
Tom MacWood,

Which DH bunkers, bunkers within 140 yards of the tee, did AWT design and build at Bethpage Black ?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 05, 2004, 12:05:30 AM
As a follow-up to my last post, I will post the first three letters from Tilly to PGA President George Jacobus.  

One can draw their own interpretations.  I would note that I can't see any hint that the original intent of this tour was to save golf courses from financial ruin.  I see some but not allot of support for the "public face" of the tour as being focused on saving golf courses money.  On the contrary, right from the get go of his tour, Tilly is recommending new greens, tees, holes, etc.  Granted, Tilly notes that his recommendations are economical and sound, from an architectural perspective.  But they still will end up costing these clubs resources to implement.  

These letters also may provide some interpretative support to my earlier hypothesis, that George Jacobus's real intent behind Tilly's Consulting Tour was to promote the PGA of America and its member Professionals.

There are a few interesting connections -- note the reference to the GE official who invented the Schenectady putter and the steel shaft.  This guy may be the real culprit behind the need to lengthen out golf holes and relocate bunkers back to the drive zones.

Tilly's first letter to Jacobus follows:





Schenectady, NY August 15th 1935

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

I am located at the Mohawk Hotel, where I will be until Saturday morning, the 17th inst. Am arranging as many by-way stops and contacts as possible with P.G.A. members en route to Rochester, where you have dated me for Monday, the 19th.  That night I will be at the Seneca Hotel, Rochester.

Yesterday I stopped at the Albany Country Club, where I immediately contacted Tom Creavy and talked with H.B. Weatherwax and the chairman of the Green Committee, A.R. McKenzie, explaining fully the nature of our service.  They were enthusiastic and want me there.  I advised them to apply to you and assuming that they will do this, I promised to go over their course with them next week, on my return trip.

On my next arrival at Schenectady, I telephoned C.S. McBride, who evidently was highly pleased.  We arranged a schedule for today.

This morning I went with McBride to the Edison Country Club, where Alex McIntyre is pro’.  Accompanied by him, McBride, Bob Mitchell (green-keeper) and A.F. Knight (inventor of the Schenectady Putter, the Steel Shaft and an official of the General Electric Co.)  I carefully investigated their problem.  This concerned a new arrangement of the last holes from the 13th, -in.  They all seemed to be greatly satisfied with my recommendations, particularly the economy and simplicity of my plan.  They were most cordial and expressed their genuine appreciation of the P.G.A. service.  Here I put the entire morning before reaching a conclusion.

At noon, Jack Gormley called for me and took me to Wolfert’s Roost Country Club.  Here I talked with H.J. Crawford and others of the green committee as well as their greenkeeper, J. Louis Gregory, who informed me that his first work was under me twenty five years ago.  At Wolfert’s Roost their problem concerned two one-shot holes in sequence, the 9th and the 10th and the 11th, a truly bad hole of 276 yards.  My solution requires only the construction of one new green and three new teeing grounds.  Here again they are genuinely pleased with the service and very openly voiced their gratification.

Next I went with Gormley to a second of his clubs, The Van Rensselaer Country Club, a new course.  There I met the chairman of the greencommittee, Ray Delahant and the prime mover of the organization, John J. Nyoff.  As time pressed I promised to return later for I had promised to call at the Colonie Country Club, where the pro’, Harry Yorke, had requested our service through McBride.  I arranged to consider his problems with him on the course tomorrow morning and in the afternoom I go to the Mohawk Country Club, where Jas. Thomson is professional.

Sufficient to report that so far our service has been warmly welcomed by everyone.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 05, 2004, 12:09:20 AM
Here is the second letter of his tour.

Schenectady, August 16th 1935

President of the Professional Golfers’ Association

Dear Sir:

This morning I accompanied Harry Yorke over the nine holes course of the Colonie Country Club and at his request located a new sixth green, provided a sketch showing contours and levels and instructed him concerning preparation of compost.  I also did the same thing for a new fourth green.

Went to the Troy Country Club and had a fine conference with Eddie Schultz, President of the P.G.A. in this section.  He is in hearty accord.  This course was laid out by the late Walter J. Travis and unfortunately presents some strenuous climbs of hills.  Schultz desired me to find a way to eliminate some of this if possible.  I did this by giving him a new eighth hole (which will be their ninth) and arriving at the higher level by dog-legging through a long swale.  This will necessitate a new arrangement at the third and fourth, - all quite economical.  I am to return there to go over the ground with Schultz and the chairman of his green committee, who is out of town now.  Schultz combines the management of the course and greenkeeping with his professional duties.  I will include this with the requested service at the Albany Country Club as I return, together with two more requests from the Albany Municipal course, where Jerry Dwyer is pro’ and also at the Western Turnpike (Bill Rapp. – P.G.A. Member)

At the Mohawk Golf Club I was very warmly welcomed by the course manager and professional, Jim Thomson, a particularly energetic and capable man.  His chief problem was an new eighth hole, which I laid out to his great satisfaction, and bunkering his new seventh green.  This is the most important course in this district and I had a good talk with the president of the club.  On my return through here I am to recommend more improvements.

This evening I talked briefly of the P.G.A. service over the radio from the General Electric studios.  Eddie Schultz was included in this.

We are to have quite a write-up in this evening’s paper, I am told, and I requested McBride to mail you a clipping.  (Tomorrow’s paper, -correction)

I have had no new instructions from you and look for some message when I arrive at the Seneca Hotel at Rochester on Sunday evening.  Tomorrow I leave for Syracuse and Rochester making contacts with P.G.A. members en route.  Better advise me by wire on Monday, Seneca Hotel, Rochester, if there is anything to take me to Buffalo.  Otherwise I will give such service as may be desired in the Rochester district and start back.

The P.G.A. is very strong here and all are loyal and enthusiastic.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast                
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 05, 2004, 12:40:31 AM
Here is the third letter.  I would point out that this letter lends some credence to the hypothesis that "golf course maintenance cost savings" was part of the pitch to get in the door.  Note what happens at Amsterdam, NY where John Lord was the PGA pro.

I am glad that this thread has motivated me to look at these letters again.  I noticed another very interesting find in this letter.  Tilly makes reference to Lafayette CC in Syracuse NY and states that it is "a course that I planned some years ago,"

I have no knowledge of this course and do not think it is listed under Tilly's design credits.  Can anyone shed any light on Lafayette?

The third letter, of 392 letter that we have in our archive, to Jacobus follows. Now, as I said before we will try to post all of these letters on the Tilly web site in the near future for all to study and interpret.




Syracuse, August 17th 1935

President of the Professional Golfers’ Association

Dear Sir:

Although working over the courses throughout the past three days has been blazing hot, never the less I have managed to cover a lot of ground.  This morning I left Schenectady and went to Amsterdam, particularly to contact John H. Lord, pro’ at that place and formerly president of the district association.  When McBride had asked him if he wanted the P.G.A. service he replied that, - It would be a waste of Mr. Tillinghast’s time as his club had no money to spend”.

Lord received me cordially and repeated the above comment.  I explained in detail the aims of the P.G.A. and told him that our desires were not to suggest drastic changes but rather to take suggestions that might enable clubs to improve conditions, gradually and to a definite program, at little cost and probably saving money.  He quickly reacted to this and made the request that I go over his course with him to advise him on certain work that he had in mind, - work to be accomplished with his maintenance resources.  I did this at length, instructing him how to improve the second green and more particularly an extended sixteenth hole to a perfectly natural green and the bunkering of a shortened seventeenth.  He became quire enthusiastic and exclaimed, - “Why I can do all this within the year”.  He surely is in hearty accord with our work now.

I determined to break my journey to Rochester by stopping here and it seems lucky that I did so.  I telephoned the Lafayette Country Club, a course that I planned some years ago, to try and locate Bill Davidson, who was pro’ and greenkeeper at that time.  I was pretty sure he was a P.G.A. member.  At Lafayette I found a pro’ named Nordonne, who informed me that he had been a member of the P.G.A. until this year but had dropped out because of some trouble.  Of course I did not press him for details and expressed my regret that I could not extend the P.G.A. service to Lafayette under the circumstances.  He gave me the club where Davidson is now located and I was gratified to find that he is the present president of this section’s P.G.A.  He came in immediately to the hotel and told me that on receipt of your letter he had arranged for a gathering of professionals, greenkeepers and green committeemen for next Thursday night, here at Syracuse, for the purpose of having me address them.  I told him to make this definite by all means and this he is doing.  This is mighty good and as I see my program now it shapes as follows.

Tomorrow (Sunday) morning (at Davidson’s request) I am going over his course with him at Drumlin to solve several of his problems.  Then I will proceed directly to Rochester, arriving at the Seneca hotel tomorrow evening.  Monday I will be with the Western N.Y. men at the Rochester Country Club.  Possibly I will have some word from you directing my attention to requests from the Western N.Y. section.  If this does not reach me I will contact as many as possible out there on Tuesday and Wednesday, returning here for the meeting of Thursday.  Friday I will retrace my journey to Schnectady and Albany to finish service already requested but postponed by lack of time.  Next Saturday and Sunday will find me doing this and possibly Monday.  I will keep in touch, advising you of my address to get… (last two words unreadable).

Yours very truly

A.W. Tillingast


Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: DMoriarty on April 05, 2004, 01:49:33 AM
You want more facts?  There are plenty of facts which undermine your premise--  Just because you dont accept or even acknowledge them doesnt mean that they dont exist.

What 'facts' support your theory that AWT suddenly changed his bunker philosophy and/or his design principles in 1935?  Seems like stretched conjecture based loosely on the number of removed bunkers, and the fact that he managed to secure employment in his profession during the depression.  Not convincing.

In the interest of getting all the facts on the table, perhaps you will answer a few questions I have about AWT's design principles/bunker philosophy, as it was before 1935:

-- Was it part of AWT's pre-1935 design principles/bunker philosophy to offer designs that his clients could not possibly afford to pay for and/or maintain?
-- Was it part of AWT's pre-1935 design principles/bunker philosophy to ignore the specific requests and "problems" of his clients?
-- Was it part of AWT's pre-1935 design principles/bunker philosophy to reject all other course bunkering schemes but his own, and to recommend to everyone who asked that these non-Tillie bunker schemes should be replaced with Tillie bunker schemes?


Tom, you judge AWT as if he spent his career in some magic bubble free from the circumstances of the world.  But AWT was neither designing in a classroom, nor was he scetching holes for a magazine design contest.   He was working for clients and with constraints.  

What happened in late 1935 (and not 1930-1935) that explains his new bunkering philosophy??   Perhaps he had no new bunkering philosophy, perhaps he just had a different set of constraints within which to work.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: DMoriarty on April 05, 2004, 02:13:37 AM
Mr. Wolffe,

Thank you for posting the letters.  I look forward to reading more.  

A couple of quick points.  

-- There is a difference between the PGA's goal and the service they provided.  It is entirely consistent for them to consult on saving money (their service) in the hopes of strenghening their organization (their goal.)

-- Cost saving changes could very well save money in the long-run even if they cost money to impliment.  

-- It would be nice to know more about the "problems" that AWT was trying to solve.  

-- Unfortunately, I think Tom MacWood has baited you and Mr. Young in the inenviable position of arguing that AWT's post-1935 suggestions were stylistically and functionally identical to his pre-1935 work.  Yet this defense is unnecessary because Tom's attempted syllogism collapses under his own faulty logic.  

Consistency does not require that one treat unlike circumstances alike.  That is stupidity, not consistency.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 05, 2004, 07:03:22 AM
David
"-- Was it part of AWT's pre-1935 design principles/bunker philosophy to offer designs that his clients could not possibly afford to pay for and/or maintain?"

I really don't know...I don't believe an architect would enjoy much success if he produced designs his clients could not afford. Based on the economic climate pre 1929, I doubt his practices created much of an affordability issue. To my knowledge he didn't specificly write about affordability pre-1935.

Throughout his entire career...pre- and post-Depression...I would describe his bunkering style as strategic and unincumbered. He presented hazards that required options and thought for all levels of play. As far as I know, the only courses he designed during the Depression were the Bethpage courses--they were a continuation of this style.

In 1936 he began writing about the Duffer's headache, promoting (and executing) this new architectural philosophy that was a departure from his previous designs. Limiting the options and thought of the duffer, by eliminating hazards that effected their play.

This new philosophy in fact condemmed his previous practices, and the practices of George Thomas, Dr.MacKenzie, Donald Ross, etc. When he suggested Bel-Air remove bunkers (a request they igonored)...is it your impression they could not afford the bunkers?

The fact is the economy was worse in 1930 than it was in 1936-37. Have you found any evidence of Tillinghast's DH bunker philosophy/affordibility concerns while editor of Golf Illustrated in the early to mid-30's?  The economy was slowly improving by 1936 and the Federal gov't had begun to provide relief...there was light at the end of the tunnel. Why not present the bunker reduction as temporary, as the economy improved bring back some of these retired bunkers. But that is not what Tilly did, he adopted a new philosophy, presenting these bunkers as bad architecture....period.

"-- Was it part of AWT's pre-1935 design principles/bunker philosophy to ignore the specific requests and "problems" of his clients?"

I don't know if he ignored requests pre-1935. As far as I know he never went on a barn storming tour prior to 1935. Is it your impression that the clubs in 1936-37 requested he remove 7000+ bunkers? It was my impression that he promoted the idea and they followed his advice (in many cases).

"-- Was it part of AWT's pre-1935 design principles/bunker philosophy to reject all other course bunkering schemes but his own, and to recommend to everyone who asked that these non-Tillie bunker schemes should be replaced with Tillie bunker schemes?"

This is a confusing...I'm not sure I understand the question. Prior to 1935 his new designs reflect a fairly consistent personal style...as does his redesign work. On the other hand that style and bunkering sceme shared many similarites with Ross, Flynn, MacKenzie, Raynor, and Macdonald, etc.....so I'm not certain what the question is asking.

On his tour Tillinghast did not discriminate...MacKenzie, Ross, Thomas, Travis, Alison, Raynor, were all guilty of placing DH's on their golf courses...as was Tilly himself. The idea of the DH was a departure for all these gents....even those who designed courses during the Depression -- Ross (the revamped Pinehurst #2), Flynn (Shinnecock Hills), MacKenzie (ANGC), Thompson  (Capilano) and Bethapge (Tillinghast).

If my theory is illogical, I'd like to know what happened in late 1935 (and not 1930-1935) that explains his new bunkering philosophy?  What were these new constraints in 1935, that did not exsist in 1930-34?  What happened in 1935...surely you have a plausable explantion?

PS: I don't know what syllogism means or how mine collapsed  (I'm still waiting for you to explain what exactly is faulty). As far as baiting is concerned, if asking for a reasonable and logical explantion is baiting, then yes I am baiting.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 05, 2004, 07:27:02 AM
"It seems now you are now shifting to an idea that Tilly's Duffer's (Bunkerless) Range has been mis-represented or was possibly exagerated....that Tilly in 1936 did not really have a problem with bunkers in this zone. I would say 7000+ bunkers removed might not support that idea.
Not a huge change? At least now you are acknowledging it was a change...compromise."

Tom MacW:

I don't see any purpose in continuing this. I didn't say Tillinghast didn't have a problem with bunkers in the duffer's range---clearly he did and said so in no uncertain terms a number of times, and seemingly not just beginning in 1935. Maybe he didn't call them DH zone bunkering in 1920 but he described the same thing . If Rick Wolffe is correct about chapter 32 Tillinghast described his philosophy about penalizing needlessly the duffer in 1920! And it appears in that article he described that zone. Possibly your getting confused by thinking if a bunker is ever found in that zone by Tillinghast he’s being contradictory. The point seems to be he intended to give the duffer a very good way to negotiate it where other architectures may not have. And you also seem to assume that any bunkering he felt excessive in that first DH zone had to be an old fashioned cop bunker. I don’t think that’s so. Was Ross’s top shot bunkering, for instance, in that zone cop bunkers? Clearly it was not given your definition of an old fashioned cop bunker. My own course had those top shot bunkering in that zone on about 13-14 holes and generally in the middle that the duffer would logically have to carry over.

I think you are misrepresenting and exaggerating the number of bunkers Tillinghast removed from this first DH zone in the PGA project. It’s my understanding that Tillinghast removed 7,000 excessive bunkers from courses in all areas of holes, not just that first DH zone. It appears he removed them from the first DH zone, the second and possibly on green-ends where he thought them needless and not good strategic bunkers for anyone.

For these reasons I don’t see the change and certainly not the compromise in Tillinghast’s architectural philosophy or his principles that you seem to. And certainly it seems 1935 was not the first time he thought of this idea about not needlessly penalizing the duffer---the 1920 article appears to make that pretty clear. Obviously there were some serious financial exigencies in the depression----but would Tillinghast have done the same thing earlier if those same financial exigencies existed then? It appears from everything he said earlier on the subject he would have.

So I just don’t see that he was compromising his architectural principles. I do not agree with your conclusions on that!  



Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: ForkaB on April 05, 2004, 07:35:29 AM
Getting back to the original question.....

No.

As Lloyd Cole said or implied on this or another thread (don't have the time to scroll back through this one to find out...), most interesting people evolve over their lives and do not hold to the same standards or even principles that they held at ages 15, 35, 55, 75 ad infinitum, hopefully....).

Why for god's sake do we really care if Tillie had different ideas about bunkering in 1935 vs. 1915?  I would much more care if he did not.  The letters that Rick W. kindly copies show to me a man who is very much at one with himself and trying his best to improve the conditions of US Golf, in the context of his time.  To compare the design issues and opportunites of the new build of Brook Hollow in the 20's with those of "improving" some "minor" course in upstate NY in the mid-30's is like trying to compare the making of a single malt and the re-formulation of a decent but non-historic blend.  Each task has a vastly different scope and different ambitions and possiblities.

Give Tillie a break.  As far as I can see on this thread, the boy done good.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 05, 2004, 08:02:14 AM
Tom:

Reading your replies to particularly David Moriarty I think you probably are interesting in facts and sold information, as we all are. We all seem to have the very same facts and information on this thread---there doesn't seem to be any discrepencies in that. The differences in your assumptions and conclusions from most everyone else on here seems to be in how you're interpreting those facts.

You seem fixated on the fact that Tillinghast may have first called this zone or duffer issue "Duffers Headaches" in the mid 1930s. It doesn't really matter when he came up with that phrase or even who came up with it if he was talking about virtually the same issue in 1920, for instance. I don't understand why you can't understand that--it certainly seems to have been pointed out to you numerous times.

As to why he concentrated on removing that type of bunkering in the Depression rather than earlier---that's not hard to understand either, in my opinion and in the opinions of others---the times of the Depression seemed to require or perhaps even demand it.

"The golf architect devotes about three quarters of his time to the planning of improvements and extending old courses. Green committees in all parts to the country are keenly alive to the realization that holes of faulty design and construction. monotonous holes and those that expose players to danger, must be eliminated. A featureless and poor hole has no place on a modern course. To be sure there is always an element in every club which is opposed to changes, but nowadays those who attempt to deter the work of modernizing courses are of the great minority.
However, it is very proper that the rank and file of golfers should be given some idea of the demands which the new holes will make on his limited skill. The player of very ordinary ability naturally fears that a stiffened course may present some features to rob his round of pleasure. As a matter of fact the golf architect of today is a good friend of the duffer."

Does that sound to you as if Tillinghast thought up this subject and issue of needlessly penalizing the duffer in the mid 1930s since those remarks above were written in 1920?

It certainly doesn't to me and it doesn't appear to sound that way to most everyone reading and contributing to this thread. Again, in my opinion, although you seem to have the same solid facts and information as the rest of us you appear to be interpreting them incorrectly.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 05, 2004, 10:30:30 AM
Rich
Not 1915 vs 1935....1935 (Bethpage) vs 1935 (PGA tour)

From 1915 thru 1935 Tillie incorpated the DH....in late 1935 for some reason in he promoted their removal....why, what sparked the change in late 1935?

TE
The 1920 article begins with Tilly explaining to duffers that stiffening golf courses will not mean less pleasurable or interesting golf. The mid section of the article deals with the dreaded Cop (Travis, Colt, Alison, MacKenzie all wrote similar cop condemnations in 1920).

The end of the article deals with hazards that are not designed to trap bad shots, but hazards that are meant for shots not nearly good enough. I don't read that he believes the duffer should not be faced with any hazards (the Duffer Range free of hazards). In fact he says the medium to poor player will have to contend with a greatly shorter carry (than 180 yds) or non at all. He does not appear to be promoting a prohibition of Duffers Headaches in 1920. Most importantly his actions and practices speak even louder than his words.

What is your threory on 1935, what happened in late 1935 that sparked the change in philosophy?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: ForkaB on April 05, 2004, 10:44:12 AM
Tom

"Not 1915 vs 1935....1935 (Bethpage) vs 1935 (PGA tour)"

Different strokes for different folks............

"From 1915 thru 1935 Tillie incorpated the DH....in late 1915 (assume you mean 1935, RG) for some reason in he promted their removal....why, what sparked the change in late 1935?"

Ob la di, ob la da, ob la daaaa, ladidadi life goes on.....
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 05, 2004, 11:28:20 AM
"TE
The 1920 article begins with Tilly explaining to duffers that stiffening golf courses will not mean less pleasurable or interesting golf."

Tom:

I realize that but stiffening golf courses for whom? That's basically the WHOLE point for you to begin to come to grips with on this thread.

Tillinghast, as can be clearly seen in that article from 1920 and others on the same subject both before and later and into the 1930s is talking about stiffening the challenge for the "crack" golfer and lightening the challenge for the duffer who really doesn't need the challenge of bunkering through DH zones because his own game is challenge enough to him---eg he can't reach the example hole even with his two best shots anyway!

In 1920 he's explaining bunkering should be generally removed from both the first AND second DH zone because it only effects the duffer (who doesn't need it) and it DOES NOT effect the crack player who DOES need bunkering in areas (such as the 175-250 yds he specifies) which is basically NOT in the area that effects the duffer if he hits three good shots to this example green (the bunkering in the second DH zone he also recommends removing as it too only effects the duffer who DOES NOT need it and it DOES NOT effect the crack player. So consequently he speaks of turning green angles including their slopes and contours and perhaps bunkering  one side of a green  (MASTER BUNKER he mentions and draws on his "modern" example hole) to challenge basically the crack player coming at it in two and the duffer hopefully coming at it in three shots.

This is Tillinghast's perscription for his ideas on "Modern golf" architecture which he speaks about as far back as 1917 (that I'm aware of) right on through the 1930s.

You seem to be missing this entire and very important point as well as when he said it and what he said in this quest of yours to prove he compromised his archtiectural principles in the mid 1930s.

I'm glad this thread did continue---because as it goes along it seems more info, facts and evidence flows in proving just how wrong you are in this assumption and conclusion of yours that Tillinghast compromised his architectural principles by thinking all this up and proposing it during the PGA project in 1935..

Matter of fact, I think I'm beginning to see better just how futuristic Tillinghast's architectural principles really were and starting from what appears to be a very early time!

And again, your contention or implication that Tillinghast bunkered up DH zones as some other architects did at any time does not appear to be supported by facts. That is, of course, unless the golf course was NOT intended for duffers in the first place which also seems to be a fact that you're having a hard time coming to grips with or for some odd reason unable to acknowledge!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: ForkaB on April 05, 2004, 11:44:25 AM
"The course was built in 1915, which of course was nearer the period when hazards said to the humble golfer, 'You must' rather than 'You may.' "

This Tillie quote, from one of the letters reproduced by Rick W. above, says so much in so few words, that I shall not even try to embellish it.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on April 05, 2004, 11:44:40 AM
Tom MacWood,
Tom MacWood,

Which DH bunkers, bunkers within 140 yards of the tee, did AWT design and build at Bethpage Black ?

Did you know the answer to this question when I first posted it ?

Can you answer it now ?

Why did you avoid answering it ?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 05, 2004, 12:50:10 PM
"If my theory is illogical, I'd like to know what happened in late 1935 (and not 1930-1935) that explains his new bunkering philosophy?  What were these new constraints in 1935, that did not exsist in 1930-34?  What happened in 1935...surely you have a plausable explantion?"

Tom MacW:

You're getting just unbelievable. You've already had a whole bunch of people give you the answers to those questions generally, explain them to you and now you want a specific economic history lesson?

First of all, it seems pretty clear that Tillinghast didn't develop a new bunker philosophy in 1935, as you keep claiming he did. How much evidence do you have to be given to understand that? Can't you see the meaning of what he wrote on that subject in 1920??

Why the PGA project in 1935 instead of 1930-1934? Did it occur to you that following the stock market crash in Oct. 1929 the country and it's economy may not have come to a complete stop the next day, the next month or even the next year?

Look at what happens to a country this size in the recent stock market downturn (particularly that high-flying NASDAQ) a few years ago and how it effected golf. Did projects stop the next day, the next month or the next year? No they didn't. It's taken about 1-4 years for that downturn to filter through to it's eventual effect on projects--and it might not be over yet!

The same with the depression. Just because the PGA project didn't take place until 1935 doesn't mean at all that Tillinghast didn't have the bunker removal philosophy he had in 1930 or even 1920. He put it into practice in 1935 because the PGA for various reasons asked him to. The opportunity arose for another reason or other reasons that may've had very little to absolutely nothing to do with Tillinghast's philosophy on bunker placement which he may've held for years.

You seem to assume he couldn't possibly have held that philosophy previous to 1935 simply because he didn't do that much about it until then which seems an extraordinary thing for you to say particularly since he said much earlier that was his philosophy on bunkering.

Maybe it was even the complete converse of what you've been implying about his compromised principles. Maybe the struggling PGA and their pro members understood in 1935 that Tillinghast did have that philosophy much earlier---a part of a philosophy he'd been writing about for years called "modern golf architecture". Maybe that's one of the reasons they picked him for their project!

And I doubt it's accurate to say that things were picking up in golf or generally in 1935. By that time the cycle of the drying up of private capital generally had probably really taken hold and that's why the government stepped in with their "make work" programs such as the WPA which were responsible for a lot of golf course construction projects that probably never would have been otherwise. That wasn't true everywhere though. Some clubs never did struggle much during the depression. My own must have been one of them. They certainly didn't take advantage of WPA programs but they seemed to be able to hire Perry Maxwell to come in and redesgin three separate time throughout the decade of the 1930s.

You ought to do yourself and all of us a favor here and either begin to accept the truth and logic of most of what's been said contrary to your Tillinghast "compromised principle" conclusion or at least just drop it.



Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 05, 2004, 12:55:24 PM
Pat
That question was answered pages ago.

TE

"I realize that but stiffening golf courses for whom? That's basically the WHOLE point for you to begin to come to grips with on this thread."

The stiffened course would produce more pleasure for all levels of play...as opposed to formulaic cop hazard courses with a trench at 140 yrds followed by second trench at 280 yds and so on.

"Tillinghast, as can be clearly seen in that article from 1920 and others on the same subject both before and later and into the 1930s is talking about stiffening the challenge for the "crack" golfer and lightening the challenge for the duffer who really doesn't need the challenge of bunkering through DH zones because his own game is challenge enough to him---eg he can't reach the example hole even with his two best shots anyway!"

In 1920 he wrote that "the medium or poor have to contend with a greatly shortened carry or likely none at all." This is supported and illustrated by his courses from the early 1920's--SFGC, Brook Hollow, Philadelphia Cricket, Fresh Meadow, Binghampton, Wyoming Valley etc. Some holes with bunkers in the Duffer Range, other holes without bunkers in that range. In 1936 he is promoting no bunkers in that range (they are bad architecture)....a clear departure from 1920 (and 1917) and his entire career up through Bethpage.

"In 1920 he's explaining bunkering should be generally removed from both the first AND second DH zone because it only effects the duffer (who doesn't need it) and it DOES NOT effect the crack player who DOES need bunkering in areas (such as the 175-250 yds he specifies) which is basically NOT in the area that effects the duffer if he hits three good shots to this example green (the bunkering in the second DH zone he also recommends removing as it too only effects the duffer who DOES NOT need it and it DOES NOT effect the crack player. So consequently he speaks of turning green angles including their slopes and contours and perhaps bunkering one side of a green (MASTER BUNKER he mentions and draws on his "modern" example hole) to challenge basically the crack player coming at it in two and the duffer hopefully coming at it in three shots."

A very creative interpretation (and incorrect IMO) of his 1920 remarks, an interpretation which is not supported by his designs and design practices at the time. I'm not accusing Tilly of preaching one thing and practicing another, I'm claiming he compromised his career design practices in 1935.  Again you are confusing condemnation of cop bunkered courses with his later Duffer's Range proposals.

"This is Tillinghast's perscription for his ideas on "Modern golf" architecture which he speaks about as far back as 1917 (that I'm aware of) right on through the 1930s."

If anything Tilly's 1917 response to Taylor confirms his compromise in 1935. If anything Taylor is closer to Tilly the PGA consultant than Tilly in 1917.

Tilly wrote in this article: "The thoroughly modern courses are the most popular in America and those who first opposed reconstruction along the up-to-date lines, are loudest in their praise, after testing the new conditions. The duffer knows now that the new golf courses give him more geniune pleasure and zest for his game. No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries (the cop). The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations 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 and 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 condemmed and funnel like greens advocated. Even some of the most exacting course are very popular among the most mediocre players."

This is one of the best arguements available for why his PGA DH strategy is a poor one.

"You seem to be missing this entire and very important point as well as when he said it and what he said in this quest of yours to prove he compromised his archtiectural principles in the mid 1930s."

I don't think so.

The question remains.....what in late 1935 caused the change? Any theories?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 05, 2004, 01:20:43 PM
"In 1920 he wrote that "the medium or poor have to contend with a greatly shortened carry or likely none at all." This is supported and illustrated by his courses from the early 1920's--SFGC, Brook Hollow, Philadelphia Cricket, Fresh Meadow, Binghampton, Wyoming Valley etc. Some holes with bunkers in the Duffer Range, other holes without bunkers in that range. In 1936 he is promoting no bunkers in that range (they are bad architecture)....a clear departure from 1920 (and 1917) and his entire career up through Bethpage."

Tom MacW:

This is getting tedious but what do you suppose Tillinghast was saying when he remarked in 1920 "the medium or poor have to contend with a greatly shortened carry or likely none at all."?

Do you think he said something in 1935 during the PGA project that was inconsistent with that?

I think what you may need to do next is reread the first part of that paragraph where that remark of Tillinghast's came from (in 1920) and I think you'll see that this was the SOLUTION! This was part of his idea for "modern architecture" that he really put into practice during the PGA project but apparently held for years!

" In 1936 he is promoting no bunkers in that range (they are bad architecture)....a clear departure from 1920 (and 1917) and his entire career up through Bethpage."

Do you really think Tillinghast was advocating removing every single solitary bunker from the tee to 175 yards out during the PGA project? Perhaps you are, and perhaps this is why you're having a hard time grasping this subject and coming to terms with the fact that Tillinghast might not have been compromising his architectural principles.

I'm quite certain you cannot possibly prove that he recommended during that PGA project that every single solitary bunker be removed in that tee to 175 yard range!  

And for God sake don't through that 7,000 bunker number at me again as proof of that, even if you can prove that every single one of those 7,000 bunkers were ONLY in that first DH range from the tee to 175 yards out which his articles and correspondence proves was NOT the case!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 05, 2004, 01:25:54 PM
Based on his designs in 1920 and his writing in the 1920 and 1917 articles...he is saying that duffer will no longer be faced with mandatory carries (cop cross bunkers)...when he is faced with a carry it will be a much shorter carry and in many cases no carry at all....an alternate safer route...a thought provoking choice as opposed to no choice a la 1936 or the cop.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 05, 2004, 01:34:10 PM
"as opposed to no choice a la 1936 or the cop."

Of course you'll need to prove he meant no choice whatsoever in 1936 by recommending removal of every bunker on every course from the tee to 175 yards out.

Tom, I think even you realize at this point that never happened and he never remotely recommended that, at any time in his entire career even during the PGA project!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 05, 2004, 01:42:16 PM
Tom MacW:

Let me ask you a pretty simple question about your philosophy on Tillinghast;

Do you think by 1936 when you CLAIM he recommended the removal of ALL bunkering from the tee to 175yds out during the PGA project, thereby compromised his architectural principles that he'd also come to believe that PVGC was a golf course that was a great example of old fashioned really shitty architecture since it basically had NOTHING BUT bunkering and waste area from tee to approximately 175 or more yards out?

And if you don't think he felt or thought that way would you mind explaining to me why not?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on April 05, 2004, 07:15:30 PM
Tom MacWood,

I must have missed it, could you tell me on what post # I could find your answer ?

You seem to be avoiding the question rather then answering it
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 05, 2004, 08:25:14 PM
Tom MacW asks again:

"The question remains.....what in late 1935 caused the change? Any theories?"

Tom;

I'm afraid that question will always remain with you. You and many others, including me, are reading the exact same material and most everyone seems to be coming to a far different conclusion than you are on this subject. Practically the opposite conclusion, I might add. Their conclusions or theories if that's what you call them that are pretty much in on this thread after about 12 pages. I guess that's just the way it's going to remain.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 05, 2004, 10:50:30 PM
Are we done yet?   ;)

Nice to see a thread reach 12 pages of activity without one mention of Rees Jo#*&s.   ;D

To answer Mark Fine's request for "cliff notes", here's what I've learned...

I asked the politically insensitive question...did AWT "sell out" during the depression years by removing bunkers (as a cost saving measure) from courses that were clearly designed to be heavily bunkered (i.e. Hollywood), when his own design history included many bunkers in the driving zone for all levels of players.

I asked this because he took the only work available...as a paid representative of the PGA who were looking to expand their own influence at a time when clubs were cutting the services of professionals for austerity purposes.  The PGA was clearly looking to use Tillie for their own ends...to give clubs something of value in implicit exchange for retention of PGA members on their staffs.

From an architectural perspective, I was also seeking to understand if Tillie was simply so pragmatic to understand the economics of the situation and adjust his ideas accordingly or if he actually had a change of heart and felt that bunkering for the high-handicap man had no real place in course design.  

After a plethora of posts, I believe that some of both was true.  

Generally, I think that Tillie recommended removal of some bunkers that added to the pleasurable enjoyment of the game for the high handicapper.  After all, who wants to hit into an open field?  Where's the fun and challenge in that?

I raised the question of whether Tillie would have removed the 140 yard from the tee "Abruptment" bunker from French Creek at the time and the answer based on his philsophical writings of the time seems to be a clear "yes".  While others questioned the relevance of that example, I think it is clearly germane.  

The Old course at neighboring Stonewall is another modern example where bunkers cut into blind ridges (which don't affect the expert player except through visual intimidation and blindness) would have also been grassed over during this period.

Experts in Tillinghast, such as Phil and Rick Wolffe provided some great examples of Tillie's writings from the period, where he seems to argue that the high-handicap man has enough problems without having to deal with forced carries and bunker headaches.

In a way, Tillie seems to have been the foreshadowing architect (more than any other from the Golden Age) for the type of architecture later popularized by RTJ Sr. and others where the first bunkering that shows up is in the driving zone for the scratch player or longer driver.  Clearly, if one looks at his "championship" courses, one sees evidence of this approach.

It is this evolution of architectural thinking that interested me mostly, and the reason for my question in the first place.  I've always found it a bit preposterous to believe that one day we were in a Golden Age and the next (after the depression and WWII) we were in the "dark ages" without some type of transitory examples.

I believe that it's clear that the thinking of Tillinghast and others (who might they have been?  Maxwell, perhaps?) was already becoming preoccupied with the games of the top players, and less concerned about the rest of us, except for the somewhat patronizing approach of "clearing the middle".  

Does this make Tillie a prophet, or simply a rational man who understood the games progress and was willing to accommodate his approach despite earlier efforts clearly incongruous with the new, "modern" game?  

Probably some of both.

Thanks everyone...this has been fun.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: DMoriarty on April 06, 2004, 02:38:52 AM
What happened in 1935 [to change his bunkering philosophy]...surely you have a plausable explantion?
[my parenthetical]

Surely I do.  His bunkering/design philosophy did not change.   Searching for cause when no change occured is illogical.  

Quote
If my theory is illogical, I'd like to know what happened in late 1935 (and not 1930-1935) that explains his new bunkering philosophy?
 

Your theory is illogical because he did not have a 'new bunkering philosophy'/ design philosophy.

And let's be clear, the bulk of AWT's work did not occur during the depression.  In fact "as far as [you] know, the only courses he designed during the Depression were the Bethpage courses--."  

So the Bethpage courses are your sole basis for repeatedly alleging that AWT had one design/bunker philosophy during the depression but before the PGA project, and a different design/bunker philosophy after.  

Quote
What were these new constraints in 1935, that did not exsist in 1930-34?

Incredible!  I cannot believe that you actually are asking me to contrast the constraints AWT faced at Bethpage with the constraints AWT faced as a consultant for the PGA.  

Okay, here goes . . .

I am no expert on the subject, but it is my understanding that AWT's marching orders at Bethpage required him to build the finest public golfing facility in America, and to create jobs.  If I am not mistaken AWT's Bethpage Project created almost 2000 construction related jobs, and was funded by the Works Relief Project Act of 1935(?).  This was hardly a constrained environment in which to work.

In contrast, I think it fair to say that not many of the courses at which Tillie consulted had the financial recources that Bethpage had at its fingertips.   In fact, at least some of the clubs for which AWT/PGA consulted were flat broke and did not think they could afford to make any changes.
 
Further, at Bethpage AWT was designing his own original courses (except the Green I think) on a huge blank canvas.  In contrast, for the PGA, AWT was addressing those specific problems for which he was invited to consult.  

There must be more constrasts with Bethpage, but just those two get the point across.  

If the Bethpage projects prove anything about AWT's design/bunker philosophy, it is that he was flexible enough to work with in the constraints of the project at hand.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 06, 2004, 05:14:35 AM
Mike Cirba:

That's an interesting theory of yours that Tillinghast with his PGA bunker removal project in the DH zones during the depression was ushering in what you call the "dark ages" of golf architecture (without a time of architectural transition) and was perhaps the immediate precursor to the age of RTJ et al who were supposedly (according to you) becoming more interested in the expert player and less interested in the handicapper or duffer. That's a theory I don't happen to agree with at all.

It looks to me as if you base that theory or assumption on the fact that Tillinghast or architects who basically "cleared out the middle" architecturally were patronizing the handicapper or duffer and actually removing fun and enjoyment from his endeavor. That I also disagree with and pretty much completely with the notable exception of something like a good fairway width inclusive application combined with something like Max Behr‘s “line of charm“ theory!)

I believe that the history of golf and golfers of that time can prove that the duffer or handicapper definitely did not generally feel the way you do about this issue and probably felt diametrically different from the way you do now or your theory. Your theory also seems to be based on the supposition that more bunkers are generally a prescription for better, more interesting and ultimately more fun golf and architecture and particularly in the mind of the duffer or handicapper. That's also a contention or theory I don't agree with and doubt many others did as well.

Tillinghast wrote in 1917;

“"The thoroughly modern courses are the most popular in America and those who first opposed reconstruction along the up-to-date lines, are loudest in their praise, after testing the new conditions. The duffer knows now that the new golf courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for his game. No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries. The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations 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 and 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 course are very popular among the most mediocre players."

(I removed the “THE COPS” remark from that quotations because they were Tom MacWood’s inclusion and although they were  a type of bunker within the DH zones they were certainly not the only type or the only ones Tillinghast was referring to, in my opinion).

You should note in that quotation from Tillinghast (early on--1917) that he is NOT prescribing completely “clearing out the middle” for handicappers and duffers or anyone else. And he definitely is not prescribing removing ALL bunkers from the area of the tee to 175 yards out as Tom MacWood seems to think he was and did.

Tillinghast did mention some bunkering to be left at a shorter range. But most importantly Tillinghast is prescribing a form of architecture that allows any golfer to test the limits of his capability. This is undeniable in his remarks “No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries. The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations…..” Again, "The hazard lines that GRADE the shots to the limitations...." If that’s not an example AND a prescription that EVERONE can “bite of as much as he can chew” if he wants to according to his ability then what is it? Is that partonizing the duffer by removing challenge and enjoyment from him?

It seems to me what Tillinghast was saying in this vein, and way back, not just about bunkering but also about green angles and shapes and contours and the use of the clever “MASTER BUNKER” is the beginnings of the use of some really good diagonals in golf architecture---something that is both fun and interesting for all---duffer and expert alike. Of course he goes on to point out that duffers and handicappers will need to figure this out and not get completely stubborn about it and try to bite of MORE than they can chew---something he mentions some still continue to do---perhaps because they'd become used to those obligatory carries they struggled with from the old fashioned architecture Tillinghast referred to.

Again, Mike, this theory and architectural application is definitely NOT patronizing the duffer at the expense of the expert player. Matter of fact, it certainly appears to be treating him the same by offering him something he too can deal with but always according to his abilities! This is of no real difference to the way the expert is being treated architecturally!

Of course by all foregoing I'm only trying to look at the at the subject only from the perspective of golf and golf architecture and not economics generally or even of any dire time.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 06, 2004, 06:56:24 AM
David
You are right if his bunkering style never changed, it is illogical to claim it was compromised. You appear to be in the minority...even TE admited there was a change.

How do you explain the DH's at Shawnee (1911), Somerset Hills (1917), SFGC (1920), Philadelphia Cricket (1922), Fenway (1924), Ridgewood (1929), Bethpage (1936) vs his PGA bunker philosophy in 1936 (as illustrated in his 'Simplicity' article)?

"So the Bethpage courses are your sole basis for repeatedly alleging that AWT had one design/bunker philosophy during the depression but before the PGA project, and a different design/bunker philosophy after."

It appears you are saying Bethpage is not consistant with his PGA philosophy...what gives? Not the sole reason, first of all there was more than one course at Bethpage. Second Tilly was a very active writer during the Depression, sharing his architectural philosophy/concerns on a monthly basis and also had editorial controll of Golf Illustrated...as far as can find not a word about this bunkering philosophy he adopted in 1936 (and wrote about...resulting in the removal of 7000+ bunkers). One need only look at his entire career portfolio to see the 1936 change in philosophy regarding the DH.

Where was the concern for the duffer in 1935 at Bethpage-Black and Red?

I was asking what economic constraints existed in late 1935 that did not exist in the early years of the Depression visa vi his designs (Behtpage-Black and Red) and writing (architectural theories-Golf Illustrated). If you are claiming it was marching orders and budget at Bethpage, are you saying Tilly didn't actually believe what he was writing in 1936, that DH bunkers within 175 yards were acceptable as long as the budget was sufficient.

Pat
When describing the DH and Duffer's Range during his PGA tour remember Tilly described it from 0 to 175yds....4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 18....6 and 12 are close, but I think they might be right outside the Duffer's Range from the back tees. I did not include bunkers within the second Duffer's range.

Mike
Nice attempt to summerize this in a very thoughful way and bring this to a gentle close.....oh well.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on April 06, 2004, 08:25:25 AM
Maybe this thread ought to go away, but it seems like it will do so without any resolution. I started the thread averse to any idea that Tillie had compromised his design ideals, and if he had it was only because desparate times call for desparate measures.

As the evidence came across it appeared to me that there were some real questions that should be asked about whether any of this was necessary, whether it was generated by Tillie (as Rick Wolfe seems to suggest), and, most importantly to my mind, whether Tillie was compensated with any sort of reference to the scale of work done, or the computed "savings." The latter question is the most serious, because it would give Tillie a direct financial stake in the amount of work done, thereby giving him the incentive to produce more work, even where it might have been unneccesary.

I've been accused of speculating, or that this (in the words of David Moriarity) is "by no means the only plausible inference." I consider the concession that it is plausible satisfaction enough, since I never claimed it to be the most plausible.

Moreover, I disputed whether this was a really "free" service, which again David disagreed with. Viewed at the entire history of the Tillie Tour, the objectives of Jacobus, the recommended work, the only conclusion is that the tour was designed to give clubs a value add by retaining their PGA Pros. Presumably, many were in danger of losing jobs. Therefore, it is not remarkable to come to the conclusion that the work would only be "free" if the maintenance savings outweighed the costs incurred by keeping the PGA pros employed.

My dog in this fight is a bit different from Tom Mac.'s but I think we share common cause. The evidence raises real questions - and interesting ones - to dismiss them as lacking any foundation is to ignore both the reality of the depression and the evidence itself. I would think Phil the Author would have more than a passing interest in exploring this question deeper, seeing as how he's a Tillie historian.

These are the types of in-depth examinations that produce the full complement of history. To dismiss them out of hand is to sanitize the history for fear of looking deeper.

My only regret is that I don't have the time to discuss the issue deeper.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 06, 2004, 08:46:05 AM
TE
"as opposed to no choice a la 1936 or the cop."

What was his recommendation in the ‘Simplicty’ article....where does he say he gives immunity to some courses in ‘36? Bad architecture is bad architecture….if it is bad architecture in ‘Simplicity’ isn’t it bad architecture everywhere.

If the formulaic cop arrangement is goofy, it seems to me the opposite formula with bunker free Duffer Ranges is equally goofy. Formulaic golf architecture is not a good idea IMO.

A golf course which provides no hazards for the duffer to encounter (off the tee and down the fairway in another designated zone) would become mundane very quickly IMO and severely limit choice….thankfully Tilly never designed a golf course like this.

Trying remove the sand from PVGC would be an exercise in futility, like knocking down the dunes at Cypress Point.

”I'm afraid that question will always remain with you. You and many others, including me, are reading the exact same material and most everyone seems to be coming to a far different conclusion than you are on this subject. Practically the opposite conclusion, I might add. Their conclusions or theories if that's what you call them that are pretty much in on this thread after about 12 pages. I guess that's just the way it's going to remain.”

I haven’t been keeping score, but there seems to be a number of conflicting opinions. As far as I know you (and those who agree with you) have yet to come up with an explanation for the change in late 1935. IMO its not difficult to see what happened in late 1935 that would force a compromise…if I were in his shoes I’d probably do the same.

In reference to Mike’s theory….Ohio State was built in late 1930’s without a single DH…totally ignoring MacKenzie’s fairway bunkering  plan. The hazards begin at 220+ yards.

I love what Tillinghast wrote in 1917…”The duffer knows now that the new golf courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for his game.”…” Even some of the most exacting course are very popular among the most mediocre players"….a beautifully written response to why Taylor and DH free zone idea were wrong.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 06, 2004, 10:56:15 AM
Mike Cirba:

That's an interesting theory of yours that Tillinghast with his PGA bunker removal project in the DH zones during the depression was ushering in what you call the "dark ages" of golf architecture (without a time of architectural transition) and was perhaps the immediate precursor to the age of RTJ et al who were supposedly (according to you) becoming more interested in the expert player and less interested in the handicapper or duffer. That's a theory I don't happen to agree with at all.

Tom; As the 20's progressed, and just before the market crash, more and more "championship" courses were being built, whether Flynn's Shinnecock or Ross's continued tinkering and finalization of Pinehurst #2, or the elongation and reconfiguration of Pebble Beach by Egan.  There is no question that with golf becoming not only popular to play but also to watch (i.e. Jones's Grand Slam) that many of the premier architects of the Golden Age were interested in building tournament venue courses and were beginning to advance design concepts more centered around the games of the top players than the average duffer.  

Many of the earliest courses built by the Golden Age designers were bunkered in irregular, almost random type designs as evidenced by Garden City, Oakmont, Hollywood, NGLA, and Tillinghast's own early work at Shawnee and others.  While Devereaux Emmett might have been the king of the cross-bunker, Tillie took that concept and made it his own with his "hell's half acre" approach, which had to have been fearsome and intimidating for hackers and average players.  While strategic thinking was beginning to predominate, it is also true that many courses also had an "edge" of "penality" for all players, and while a constant diet of forced carries was not good, certainly bunkering extending diagonally into the target areas of ALL players was a regular theme.

Something dramatic happened between then and the courses built from 1935 onward through the Jones era.  Until the recent revival in classic methodologies, was there a course built between 1935 and 1980 that had bunkering built at less than 220 yards from the tee??
     

It looks to me as if you base that theory or assumption on the fact that Tillinghast or architects who basically "cleared out the middle" architecturally were patronizing the handicapper or duffer and actually removing fun and enjoyment from his endeavor. That I also disagree with and pretty much completely with the notable exception of something like a good fairway width inclusive application combined with something like Max Behr‘s “line of charm“ theory!)

I agree that width is a good thing that offers all type of golfers room to play "around" hazards.  However, if there are NO hazards lurking until the 220 yard mark, it become hitting into an open field for the guy or gal who can't strike it further than 200.  I think Tillinghast's (and others like Wayne Stiles at your club) removal of bunkers in that range did DEcrease the challenge, interest, and enjoyment for lesser players.  

I also find it unbelievable to accept that all 7000! bunkers Tillie removed (over 20 per course, on average) were useless "carry" bunkers at 140 yards that adversely and unfairly punished the hack, although I'm sure some were.  It seems more to me that he probably removed bunkers in areas that wouldn't affect the best players in the less than 200 yards and 350 yards zones.
 

I believe that the history of golf and golfers of that time can prove that the duffer or handicapper definitely did not generally feel the way you do about this issue and probably felt diametrically different from the way you do now or your theory. Your theory also seems to be based on the supposition that more bunkers are generally a prescription for better, more interesting and ultimately more fun golf and architecture and particularly in the mind of the duffer or handicapper. That's also a contention or theory I don't agree with and doubt many others did as well.

Tom, I think that much of the interest and enjoyment for all levels of players at courses like NGLA and Cypress Point includes the fact that while they are and remain playable for all levels of golfers, they also include hazards in the "hackers range", which force all golfers into decision making processes and strategies.  The "clearing out" of all bunkers before the "expert zone" (ala Oakland Hills after RTJ Sr) make those courses perhaps easier for the duff, but also much less interesting.  

Tillinghast wrote in 1917;

“"The thoroughly modern courses are the most popular in America and those who first opposed reconstruction along the up-to-date lines, are loudest in their praise, after testing the new conditions. The duffer knows now that the new golf courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for his game. No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries. The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations 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 and 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 course are very popular among the most mediocre players."

Tom, I agree that what Tillie is describing here is exactly ideal.  However, I don't agree that the removal of all bunkers at less than say 200 yards accomplishes this and in fact runs directly counter to his ideal that "hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations of each".  

You should note in that quotation from Tillinghast (early on--1917) that he is NOT prescribing completely “clearing out the middle” for handicappers and duffers or anyone else. And he definitely is not prescribing removing ALL bunkers from the area of the tee to 175 yards out as Tom MacWood seems to think he was and did.

Tom, it's difficult to imagine that he didn't prescribe clearing out the middle of ALL bunkers 175 yards or closer when he recommended the removal of 7000 bunkers, don't you think?  

Tillinghast did mention some bunkering to be left at a shorter range. But most importantly Tillinghast is prescribing a form of architecture that allows any golfer to test the limits of his capability. This is undeniable in his remarks “No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries. The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations…..” Again, "The hazard lines that GRADE the shots to the limitations...." If that’s not an example AND a prescription that EVERONE can “bite of as much as he can chew” if he wants to according to his ability then what is it? Is that partonizing the duffer by removing challenge and enjoyment from him?

No, it doesn't but once again I wonder how many bunkers were left in the "duffer's range" with over 7,000 slated for the dustbin of history.

It seems to me what Tillinghast was saying in this vein, and way back, not just about bunkering but also about green angles and shapes and contours and the use of the clever “MASTER BUNKER” is the beginnings of the use of some really good diagonals in golf architecture---something that is both fun and interesting for all---duffer and expert alike. Of course he goes on to point out that duffers and handicappers will need to figure this out and not get completely stubborn about it and try to bite of MORE than they can chew---something he mentions some still continue to do---perhaps because they'd become used to those obligatory carries they struggled with from the old fashioned architecture Tillinghast referred to.

Tillie loved angles and was one of the pioneers of this thinking.  I just think he figured that the hacker was better off playing short of hazards (by necessity because he could no longer reach them) and sort of sneaking up on the target, unimpeded by actually having to confront anything too dramatic.  It was a more "modern", if somewhat patronizing approach, and it was continued by RTJ and others that came later.  

Again, Mike, this theory and architectural application is definitely NOT patronizing the duffer at the expense of the expert player. Matter of fact, it certainly appears to be treating him the same by offering him something he too can deal with but always according to his abilities! This is of no real difference to the way the expert is being treated architecturally!

Tom, I think the movement of bunkers away from the target zones of the weaker players had their origin in the late 20's through equipment changes (the sunset of hickory, the sand wedge), the increasing popularity of tournament golf, and it is evidenced in Tillie's thinking and PGA work during that time.  It reached it's zenith near Detroit in 1951 and became the accepted style for many years to follow.  If Tillinghast wasn't the originator of this thinking, he certainly seemed to have passed the baton.  

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on April 06, 2004, 02:34:01 PM
Tom MacWood,

Does AWT ever refer to DH's at shorter ranges ?

175 yards in the early 30's is well beyond the carry distance of a duffer, especially when you consider the carry had to be in excess of 175 to clear the bunker.

Even today, a carry of 175-185 yards would not be deemed the carry of a "DUFFER", but the carry of a golfer with decent skills.

Why does 140 yards and in seem geared more toward the DUFFER ?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 06, 2004, 02:52:28 PM
Several similar questions have been asked, and in a fashion that implies a proof that Tilly had changed his philosophy in 1935.

These are:

"You said that Tilly may have sold the PGA on the idea...what gives you that impression? The Bethapge courses would appear to be the antithesis of the DH free philosophy and he did not promote these ideas during the Depression, rigth up 'til 1935, as editor of Golf Illustrated?"

"Have you found any evidence of Tillinghast's DH bunker philosophy/affordibility concerns while editor of Golf Illustrated in the early to mid-30's? "

I think this quotation from his article, "The Oblique in Golf Design," written for Golf Illustrated in 1932 should clear that up.

"In brief, the oblique lines make it possible for every class of player to extend shots only to the limitations of power, thus making it easier for the duffer to enjoy golf more, but at the same time calling for greater effort for the scoring of par and "birdies" than in the times when carries were obligatory and greens were faced at right angles and accepting, without great favor, shots from either side of the fairway...

I have said before, and repeat it here, that I believe many of the courses are extreme in length, extreme in putting areas and over bunkered through the fairway."

After reading that, I don't know how anyone can say that Tillinghast had changed his philosophy, or that something changed in 1935, or that he hadn't believed in removing bunkers for a long time. HIS words are quite clear on that, and yes, they were written for Golf Illustrated in the early 30's.

By the way, when the entire article is read, it becomes impossible to claim that "Duffer's Headaches" were incorporated into his design at Bethpage. Large carry bunkers of an oblique nature, that have an area of safe fairway that the short or duffer may safely reach, are able to play these holes. "Golfers of varying ability, grading all the way down to the duffer, like this type of hole, too, because it allows them to select an easier route than the one taken by others of greater skill and strength."

The Red and Black Courses at Bethpage are filled with examples of oblique hole designs, yet the bunkers that imping on where the better players my attempt to play to will only effect them. not the duffer who will be playing to a spot in the safe and open area of the fairway.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 06, 2004, 03:23:59 PM
Phil;

I guess a couple of questions spring to mind.  

By the time Tillinghast wrote the article on obliques in 1932, the country was well into the Depression after the crash of 1929 and Tillie's lament of overbunkering was probably at least partly borne of the economic realities.

Knowing Tillie's courses well, would you think he'd call a course like San Francisco Golf Club "overbunkered through the fairway" by 1932?  

But, more to the point of his "oblique" contention, Patrick raises a great point above that a carry of 175 yards was well-beyond the carry of the duffer in those days, and even probably in the average duffer's range today.  

I understand what you are referring to with Tillie's use of obliques at Bethpage, where on the 5th, or 7th for instance, the hacker could play well left while the better player might try the longer carry on the right side.  That's all well and good.  But still, it's a fairly good carry to reach that left side, especially for someone who's best shots carry maybe 150 yards.

Also, his Hell's Half Acre concept (which he used on the 4th) is hardly an example of an oblique hazard, but more a takeoff on the original, full-carry,  "cross-bunker" idea, only on steroids.

But more to the point...Of the 7000 bunkers he removed from other architects courses, I'm assuming by his "DH" writings that he recommended removal of most every bunker inside 175 yards on those courses.  I'm also assuming that there were not 7,000 full-carry, cross-hazards with no way to play safe inside 175 yards at any time in our history.  

Would you agree?  


Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 06, 2004, 04:41:13 PM
I thought it might be relevant to include a portion from the ongoing "Bunker Restoration" thread that coincidentally talks about similar issues.

Jim Thompson - "My bunker / feature restoration question has always been...Do you restore a bunker in its original location because it was there? (old clubs & balls) or do you place the bunker where it would / should be if the original archtitect had built the course today? (modern clubs & balls)"

Tom Doak - "Jim:  If you are on flat ground, then a fairway bunker may have been placed a certain distance from a tee by an architect who wanted to challenge someone who hit the ball that distance.

But on rolling terrain, it's more likely that the bunker was placed on a good spot topographically, and then the tee was placed in relation to that bunker.  In which case, it's the tee and not the bunker that should be relocated, if it can be.

You're also assuming that architects are placing all their bunkers in relation to the best players of their day ... which is not the case.  A "short" fairway bunker at 160 yards off the tee is still a challenge for the kinds of players who only carry their drivers 160-170 yards.

Joel Stewart - "Tom: The problem we have is that the older members have to navigate the old man bunkers then the championship bunkers then the greenside bunkers.  I'm sure its the same at many clubs but when we talk about restoring some of these bunkers at the 175 yard level the older members scream."


Interestingly, I played Aronimink with two older members who talked about the fact that Ron Prichard restored ALL of the bunkers at the distances Ross built them, including the "old man bunkers".  They said that they and the other senior members felt the course was now more difficult...but also much more FUN!    
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 06, 2004, 07:16:30 PM
Mike,

You wrote, "By the time Tillinghast wrote the article on obliques in 1932, the country was well into the Depression after the crash of 1929 and Tillie's lament of overbunkering was probably at least partly borne of the economic realities."

If Tilly had only written this type of statement in 1932 I would more than absolutely be agreeing with you. The facts are that he had been critical of poor bunker placements and bad use of bunkers whose SOLE purpose was to punish the poor player as it was in areas that typically only he would hit into, and that he had been doing so since at least 1901. He wrote articles constantly over the years where this was highlighted. Are you saying that these were statements of economic realities in 1920 & other years before the Depression? I don't think you are. Why then would you state that they are written for that purpose when they are nothing more than a consistent stand of his.

That they could ALSO be a statement of economic reality because of the time I would agree with, just not that they were intended as such.

The reason for quoting the 1932 article was to answer the ascertions that he had not written any for Golf Illustrated during that time frame. This is proof that he did.

You next ask, "Knowing Tillie's courses well, would you think he'd call a course like San Francisco Golf Club "overbunkered through the fairway" by 1932?"

That's a REALLY big assumption! I wish I could tell you that I did, but as far as the San Francisco Golf Club is concerned, the closest I've ever gotten to it is in my dreams. I haven't even seen that many photos of it for me to give an opinion one way or the other.  

You next wrote, "I understand what you are referring to with Tillie's use of obliques at Bethpage, where on the 5th, or 7th for instance, the hacker could play well left while the better player might try the longer carry on the right side.  That's all well and good.  But still, it's a fairly good carry to reach that left side, especially for someone who's best shots carry maybe 150 yards.

Also, his Hell's Half Acre concept (which he used on the 4th) is hardly an example of an oblique hazard, but more a takeoff on the original, full-carry,  "cross-bunker" idea, only on steroids."

The reason that I wrote about Bethpage in that light was to give answer to those who maintain that the Bethpage courses have D.H.'s throughout. That is so far from the truth! The courses at Bethpage were heavily bunkered, but there is a huge difference, and Tilly always made this distinction, of a large bunker or waste area off the tee. His contention was that it was a means of giving the player an angular advantage for a properly played shot and a price to play for one that wasn't.

At the Bell South Classic this week, I noticed a great example of a bunker that Tilly would have said was a DH and that should be gotten rid of. About 175 yards in front of the tenth tee, a straight 600-yard par 5 hole, on the extreme left side of the fairway is a large bunker.

The only time that this would be in play is when the far back championship tee is in use, and this is only during the Bell South. The other three tees are further up the right hand side and make the hole considerably shorter. For a player to hit it ionto this bunker in normal play, he would be hitting a shot about 50 yards off-line that was only 75 yards in front of the tee. It would truly be a world-class duffer who would hit it in there.

This bunker serves absolutely no purpose or function whatsoever and is a maintenance cost to the club. I can even say that they should get rid of it.

Tilly hated the waste of hazards. Whether bunkers were of the DH variety, COP bunkers, or ones poorly placed for any variety of reason, he disapproved of them. Whether he was correct in his thinking is subjective.

This thread has attempted to state what Tilly was thinking and what was motivating what he was saying. The man isn't here to tell us, but much of what he wrote on these subjects is, and it is being ignored.

If this was a religious subject, and for some we must stress that it is not, we would say that they are "misinterpreting the scriptures," so to speak.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 06, 2004, 07:17:41 PM
Mike C.

What's the record for number of posts?  Do we have a shot at breaking it?  The really big news from this thread may be the discovery of a lost Tillinghast course.  I am not sure why no-one picked this up except Phil Young, who is researching it.  Phil, are you going to break radio silence on this one?

I thought I would post a few more letters on Tilly's visit to San Francisco GC.  I think someone uses this course as an example of Tilly compromising his style on other courses.  However, I think SFGC may be good proof that Tilly updated and tweaked his own work to bring them up to snuff with the new steel shafts and the longer flying balls -- as you will read he apparently made substantial changes to this course.  

Mike, I don't get the argument on the 7,000 bunkers.  (It was actually, 6,978 bunkers removed!  But whose counting) The majority of these bunkers, let's say 6,324, were removed from a small number of the 845 courses he visited, let's say 54 courses.

If you study the sketches Tom M. posted earlier you will note that the bunkers that are placed between the tee and the drive zone are positioned in a very characteristic Tillinghast style -- oblique to the center line of the fairway.

Anyway, here is the first of Tilly's PGA letters on SFGC.  I will post the others after dinner.  There is another important tid-bit in this letter -- apparently Tilly advised SFGC the year before he started this PGA tour.


San Francisco, California
March 5th 1936
(Note; Yesterday’s Report was erroneously dated March 5th)

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

Today I drove to Ingleside at the Request of P.G.A. member William McEwan.  His assistant, Harold Stone, is also P.G.A.

I made a complete inspection of the course of the San Francisco Golf Club, and inasmuch as planned this lay-out it may not seem entirely proper for me to praise it too much.  But as it is regarded here as a truly great course, I will string along.

I was accompanied throughout the day by McEwan, Knox Maddox (President of the club) Dixwell Davenport (Chairman of the Green Committee) Frank Dolp (California Champion) Jim French Jr. (another clubmember and rated one of the best players in the state) and other officials.  At noon, President Maddox presided at a fine luncheon, at which were additional club officials.  Altogether it was a wonderful reception.

It must be mentioned that greenkeeper George Paulson accompanied us throughout the day, and I must compliment this man especially for the able manner in which all of my plans have been carried through, particularly the new first and second holes, as well as the new twelfth, which I designed when here last winter.  Today I gave them a rearrangement of the trapping of the fairway of the fourteenth, which has been the only weakness of the course.  The new plan will bring it up properly.  While I made numerous suggestions for refinements on nearly every hole, they were of minor character and not at all expensive to accomplish.

Dixwell Davenport is also a member of the United State Golf Association’s Green Section and he told me that in a recent letter to national president, John G. Jackson, he told him that, in his opinion the P.G.A. had ‘put one over’ the U.S.G.A. in sponsoring the course services.  Truly it was a day of wonderful compliments.

Very truly yours
A.W. Tillinghast
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 06, 2004, 08:03:54 PM
RW
"The new plan will bring it up properly.  While I made numerous suggestions for refinements on nearly every hole, they were of minor character and not at all expensive to accomplish."

What were some of the refinements he suggested? Did he recommend any changes the previous winter?

In your book you quoted Tilly saying he "removed nearly 8000 bunkers" & at the 1936 PGA conference Tilly put the number 7427.

Were there some courses he gave immunity from the duffer's range theory? If so, how did he detremine when and where?

6000 bunkers from 60 courses that is a lot of bunkers pper course...what are some of the courses that heavy numbers of bunkers were removed?

Phil
That article is about the diagonal hazard and has nothing to do with the duffer's headache or Duffer's Range...in fact the accompanied diagram has a diagonal bunker in the Duffer's range....bad form by 1936.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 06, 2004, 08:28:46 PM
OK -- dinner is over.  I got to stop eating as I am reaching offensive tackle proportions.  Is there a South Bunker GCA diet?  

Here is the second letter on SFG scheduling the return trip there a year later.  

TePaul has already pointed out the importance of politics and green committees, etc, etc, on golf course evolution, which can not be ignored or discounted.  It is interesting to me the politics Tilly describes here -- both at the municipal course level and the private club.



San Francisco, California
February 4th 1937

George Jacobus
President of the P.G.A.
Box 231, Sarasota, Fla.

Dear Sir:

A steady, torrential down-pour is San Francisco’s portion today.  When I tried to look out my window this morning I could scarcely see for sheets of water.  I was scheduled to visit Earl Fry today at the Municipal Golf Course of Alameda, but missing the inspection today at this course will not make any difference for Earl’s position there is controlled by politics and he is rather on “a spot” when it comes to suggesting any deviations from the official routine of the city’s program.  However the chief object of my visit there was accomplished by telephone at eleven o’clock, when Fry advised me of the absolute futility of attempting to get out there today.  I had wanted him to have a chat with him, as he is secretary of the Northern California P.G.A. section and there was one point in particular that I wanted him to rule on as an official.

When I was there last March we had a request from P.G.A. member William McEwan to visit the course of the San Francisco Country Club, the outstanding course here.  I did so and conferred with McEwan and club officials, making certain recommendations.

Yesterday, Dixwell Davenport, Chairman of the Green Committee, telephoned me and wanted to know if I would be able to visit the course again and check up on the work there.  But he explained to me that there had been certain differences between the officials of the club and McEwan and that the situation was strained at present.  Davenport wanted to know if my revisit there to check up last year’s recommendations must depend on McEwan’s new request.  Consequently, I put the decision squarely up to Fry.  He advised me that McEwan was rather peculiar and, although a member of the association, made no effort to associate with his fellows here at any time.  Therefore Fry advised me to go ahead with the visit on the strength of the original request.  I feel that this is a wise decision.

Fry also expressed his gratification over this year’s extension of our service in this section and informed me that the personal reaction of the members, whose courses I have visited, gave the officials of the section great pleasure.

I have five more courses to inspect in Northern California before leaving for the South and I am sending a summary of the work here to president Dewey Longworth and a copy to secretary Earl Fry.

Very truly yours
A.W. Tillinghast
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 06, 2004, 08:40:36 PM
Here is the last of the SFGC letters.  Tom M. asks what did he recommend at SFGC in 1935 the year before his PGA tour.  There is a short mention of a few specifics in the 1936 letter.  I am not aware of any more specifics.

If there are any requests, I will take the time to re-print other Tilly PGA letters.  I read several posts regarding Bel Air and the fact that Tilly's recommendations in 1936 were ignored.  There are some interesting thoughts on club politics in the 1937 letter on Bel Air.  The Bel Air letter also points to Tilly rebunkering or repositioning bunkers in the drive zone, which some could interpret as a modernization or restoration of original design intent.



San Francisco, California
February 6th 1937

President of the p.G.A.
(Box 231, Sarasota, Florida)

Dear Sir:

It was fortunate that I managed to get through with the examination of Beresford yesterday, for no sooner had I returned to the hotel than the hard rain started in again and fresh storms predicted all along the California coast.

This morning it was raining again and a telephone message from Dixwell Davenport advised me that it would be foolish to attempt the visit to the San Francisco Golf Club.  Consequently this was postponed until tomorrow (Sunday).  However at ten o’clock Davenport telephoned again as there were indications of clearing and asked me what I thought about it.  I replied “Let’s go” so I drove to the club.  Of course it was very wet underfoot and sticky.  Out here it is not the falling rain which hinders nearly so much as the bad footing, on the ‘Dobe soil.  However at the San Francisco Golf Club there is a somewhat different soil condition, more sand than usual in these parts, so it is possible to walk around.

Here I contacted P.G.A. members William McEwan and Harold Stone.  I checked on all work, which I recommended last March.  Of course I am particularly familiar with this course as I laid it out some fifteen years ago.  However some of the construction work has not altogether pleased me and gradually this is being corrected.  They have applied for the U.S. Open for 1939 and by that time the course should be altogether satisfactory.

Today I additionally instructed them concerning the raising and contouring of the right side of the 3rd green; the left-front of the 5th and located a new site for the 10th green to the right of the present (one of their own making, which has left much to be desired.)  All other opportunities for improvements were made note of on my last visit and definite records made at that time by the committee.

I am informed that you made a short visit to this course when on your recent visit to San Francisco.

Will it be possible to supply Dixwell Davenport with back copies of the P.G.A. magazine, containing my monthly articles?  He asks for them urgently and says that he had his subscription sent but with no reply.  Will you also advise him if he may subscribe?  He is a member of the executive committee of the United States Golf Association.

This completes my present visit to the Northern California P.G.A. Section and I leave for San Jose tomorrow (Sunday).

Very truly yours
A.W. Tillinghast
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 06, 2004, 09:17:20 PM
Tom,

I made specific reference to his statements where he wrote in 1932 that, " thus making it easier for the duffer to enjoy golf more" and "I have said before, and repeat it here, that I believe many of the courses are extreme in length, extreme in putting areas and over bunkered through the fairway."

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that this is his consistent belief, that courses should be designed with the duffer in mind and that when bunkers are done improperly they effect that player the most?

He was consistent in what he wrote, believed and practiced in his designs and renovations, as well as his recommendations during his tour for the PGA. I guess that you & I will just agree that we disagree.

The discovery that Ricl Wolffe is talking about is a reference to the Lafayette Country Club in upstate New York. In his Third letter to Jacobus, dated 8/17/35, he wrote that he, "Telephoned the Lafayette Country Club, a course that I planned some years ago..."

It turns out that course was sold to new owners a few months ago, PGA Tour player Dudley Hart and his father who have renamed it the Country Club of Syracuse, and they, as well as the previous owners of Lafayette, did not know who the architect of the course actually was. Just in the past few weeks Tillinghast's name had been mentioned to them by someone and this letter provides a source of proof.

They told me when I spoke with them that the greens are "tremendously pitched, almost unfair to the point where they are considering softening them a little." With teh attribution to Tillinghast they feel that they might need to rethink this. We are both doing further research on this.

Actually, it was my humble friend Rick who noticed it and asked me about it; I just made some phone calls. Great discovery Rick!

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 06, 2004, 09:41:10 PM
Phil
It sounds like you may have misunderstood this entire thread. No one has claimed Tilly wasn't considerate of the duffer throughout his career.

He produced designs that gave the duffer choices (bold or safe) and potential thrills....the diagonal hazard is a perfect example of this philosophy...bite off as much as you wish. Removing hazards (and limiting choice and potential thrills) is a departure from his common practice of providing diagonal hazards and bunkers en echelon for the duffer.

"The duffer knows now that the new golf courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for his game.....Even some of the most exacting course are very popular among the most mediocre players." The oblique hazard provides pleasure and zest...the bunkerless Duffer's Range provides a snooze.

Do you understand the difference?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 06, 2004, 10:54:04 PM
As we approach 300 replies, has the length of this thread scared others off?

(shameless attempt to pass the 300 threshold)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 06, 2004, 11:25:21 PM
MIke,

This reply is mostly for you in your hopes of seeing a 300-threader!

Tom, intended or not, why the insult? Yes, I know the difference.

We are having a difference of opinion, that is all. I have understood the thread from the first post. You have been insisting that what Tillinghast believed and practiced throughout his career was changed by insisting that something happened in 1935, and then presenting what you believe to be as proofs, you pronounce it as fact.

Excuse me, but someone can disagree with your conclusions and not have, "misunderstood this entire thread."  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on April 07, 2004, 12:46:35 AM
Phil/Rick,
Lafayette was generally attibuted to Seymour Dunn and in the history of the Tuscarora club, another SD course, they say that he(Dunn) built Lafayette in 1911, ten years before he did their course.
Whatever the outcome, it sounds like the new owners of the course are approaching the situation with care.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: DMoriarty on April 07, 2004, 12:48:20 AM
You are right if his bunkering style never changed, it is illogical to claim it was compromised. You appear to be in the minority...even TE admited there was a change.

Pardon me for not taking your and TE's opinions as gospel.  

Quote
How do you explain the DH's at Shawnee (1911), Somerset Hills (1917), SFGC (1920), Philadelphia Cricket (1922), Fenway (1924), Ridgewood (1929), Bethpage (1936) vs his PGA bunker philosophy in 1936 (as illustrated in his 'Simplicity' article)?

I'm not sure an explanation is necessary. Your underlying premise may be fallacious yet again . . .

I've only played SFGC, Fenway, and Bethpage Black.   On these three at least, I do not recall a single bunker that could be accurately described as one of the DH bunkers that AWT wrote about while working for the PGA.  As an offentimes Duffer myself, I usually notice these things, but perhaps I missed them.  I am sure you can help clear things up . . .

Which of these courses have you played?   Of these, where exactly were the DH bunkers?  

Quote
It appears you are saying Bethpage is not consistant with his PGA philosophy...what gives?
 

Give me a break!  You know that this is not what I am saying.    I have said it again and again and again. . .
 
Again . . . applying the same philosophy to different circumstances rarely produces identical results.

My apologies for my growing frustration, but I have had about enough of "discussing" this with you.  My position is far from complicated; so I refuse to believe that a man of your intelligence cannot understand it.  Yet you repeatedly distort and ignore, failing to address my position for what it is.  

If you disagree with me, by all means let me know where I went wrong.  But can we please get past the endless rhetorical tiddley-winks?  

Quote
Not the sole reason, first of all there was more than one course at Bethpage.

Is this really your first response to my statement you quoted???  A statement which began:  "So the Bethpage courses are your sole basis . . . ."  Do you read my posts?  Or yours?  

Quote
Second Tilly was a very active writer during the Depression, sharing his architectural philosophy/concerns on a monthly basis and also had editorial controll of Golf Illustrated...as far as can find not a word about this bunkering philosophy he adopted in 1936 (and wrote about...resulting in the removal of 7000+ bunkers). One need only look at his entire career portfolio to see the 1936 change in philosophy regarding the DH.

Again, you hold up this fallacious "philosophical change," then question why AWT doesn't mention this 'new philosophy' in his writings before 1936.   Well . . . by my reading he doesnt mention it when working for the PGA, either.  I've reread the Oct. 1935 "What the PGA Course Service Really Means" article and for the life of me I just dont see a departure from what he was saying long before.  

Quote
Where was the concern for the duffer in 1935 at Bethpage-Black and Red?
 Havent played the Red but (as I said above) I dont recall any AWT "DH" bunkers on the Black.  Please identify the DH bunkers (as described in 1935) on the Black.

Quote
I was asking what economic constraints existed in late 1935 that did not exist in the early years of the Depression visa vi his designs (Behtpage-Black and Red) and writing (architectural theories-Golf Illustrated).

I know what you were asking.   You were asking a question which was already loaded with your fallacious conclusion-- that AWT changed his philosophy when he went to work fo the PGA.  

My answer explains:  1) Why your question collapses on its on false premise; and 2)  How the circumstances at Bethpage (with its multiple courses, mind you) drastically differed from the circumstances surrounding the courses at which AWT consulted for the PGA.

As for the writings, I answer that immediately above.  

Tom, do you really think it supports your position to compare the results of a multi-course, government funded, work-creation project (Bethpage) with the results of AWT's consultation at courses many of which could barely afford a PGA Pro?

Quote
If you are claiming it was marching orders and budget at Bethpage, are you saying Tilly didn't actually believe what he was writing in 1936, that DH bunkers within 175 yards were acceptable as long as the budget was sufficient.

Again you are making up facts to support your argument.  What DH bunkers?  What did he write that is contradicted by Bethpage?

_________________________

Phil,  I'd love to see the Bel Air letter(s) if it is not too much trouble.  

If there is a way I can do it without causing you too much work, I'd love to see the other Southern California letters as well.

Could it perhaps be during this Tour that AWT met WP Bell?  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: DMoriarty on April 07, 2004, 02:21:09 AM
. . .
As the evidence came across it appeared to me that there were some real questions that should be asked about . . . whether Tillie was compensated with any sort of reference to the scale of work done, or the computed "savings." . . .

I've been accused of speculating, or that this (in the words of David Moriarity)[sic] is "by no means the only plausible inference." I consider the concession that it is plausible satisfaction enough, since I never claimed it to be the most plausible.

I apologize for any confusion my loose use of languange might have caused . . . you may want to review your previous post and mine before you take this "concession" to heart . . . .  I did not conceed that your inference is plausible. In short, I think I was trying to be polite.

To put it more frankly, I have not read a single fact which remotely supports your inference that AWT was being paid per amount of work performed.  In contrast, there is ample evidence that he was not.  Based on the facts before us, your theory is just not plausible.  This is why I referred to it as requiring a "huge leap of logic."  

Quote
Moreover, I disputed whether this was a really "free" service, which again David disagreed with. Viewed at the entire history of the Tillie Tour, the objectives of Jacobus, the recommended work, the only conclusion is that the tour was designed to give clubs a value add by retaining their PGA Pros. Presumably, many were in danger of losing jobs. Therefore, it is not remarkable to come to the conclusion that the work would only be "free" if the maintenance savings outweighed the costs incurred by keeping the PGA pros employed.

You see a potential benefit to the PGA (continued employment for PGA pros), and conclude that the clubs must have incurred a cost equal to that benefit.   Such an understanding of cost is quite novel, to say the least.  [The previous sentence was my semi-polite attempt at gently telling you that your theory makes no sense.]

Did the consulted clubs legally commit to continue employing the PGA Pros after the PGA consultation?   Did the PGA refuse its service to clubs who had no plans of firing their PGA Pro?  
If the answer to these questions is 'NO,' then the "costs" you describe are purely illusory.

Quote
My dog in this fight is a bit different from Tom Mac.'s but I think we share common cause. The evidence raises real questions - and interesting ones - to dismiss them as lacking any foundation is to ignore both the reality of the depression and the evidence itself.

I dont think this a situation where 'real questions' have been cursorily dismissed as lacking foundation.   On the contrary, a few (particularly Messrs. Young and Wolffe) have entertained all such questions and graciously provided answers and information to the best of their abilities.

But what if those asking the questions endlessly ignore "the reality of the depression and the evidence?"   Doesnt there eventually come a point in the discussion where those doing the asking must step back and examine to what extent their questions have been answered?  

While it is certainly a travesty to leave "real questions" unanswered, isnt it also a travesty to continue challenging that which deeper examination has resolved?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 07, 2004, 06:34:10 AM
David
Of those courses -- Shawnee (1911), Somerset Hills (1917), SFGC (1920), Philadelphia Cricket (1922), Fenway (1924), Ridgewood (1929), Bethpage (1936) -- I've played SFGC (also Winged Foot and Lakewood). I've devoted quite a bit of my time to studying Tilly's design work, when judging his bunkering styles through the years I try to use the original configuration as opposed to how the course might look today.

The answer to your question on the DH's at Bethpage is a few posts back (In your opinion what cicumstances at Bethpage would lead Tilly to ignore his theory that DH's were the bane of the duffer? After all the Black and Red were designed as public facilities. Or is the DH a post Bethpage theory?).

You and I have a disconnect...I'm not certain if it is due to the fact we have a different understanding of Tilly's definition of Duffer's Range or if we have a different understanding of Tilly's work through the years....or maybe both.

I am a huge fan of Tillinghast. I take this stuff seriously and as I've said devoted a great deal of time to research and study of his work. Our exchange is not adding to the debate  or understanding...we are going no where fast.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 07, 2004, 06:41:47 AM
Phil
My opologies. Don't take that as an insult, but an honest observation. You said the oblique bunker article was proof that Tilly was concerned for the duffer earlier than 1935...who said he wasn't concerned earlier than 1935?

I wrote--more than once--that Tilly was concerned thoughout his career for the duffer as were most of the architects of his era (many of whom also placed bunkers within the Duffer's Range).

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 07, 2004, 08:34:30 AM
I’ve changed my mind. I think this thread, despite unusual length has been a good one and has probably gotten better in the last few pages. It also seems the primary proponents that Tillinghast compromised his architectural principles during the 1935-36 PGA project are Tom MacWood and Mike Cirba. Frankly, I’d never exactly thought of that before although even from my own club I’m aware of at least 3-4 waves of redesign of my Ross course from 1933-1940. I’d never thought of those redesigning architects as compromising their principles, although I’ve always thought of those times as good examples of how architects of that time redid the golf courses of other architects with very little thought or consideration to what those original architects did. I believe in most cases those redesigning architects were simply responding to something about the golf course and its architecture that the membership probably felt wasn’t working very well for them for whatever reason.

However, although that appears to have been a fairly general happenstance in that era (at least at my club), the subject of this thread--”Was Tillinghast selling out or compromising his architectural principles” by getting involved in this type of thing in a sort of formal way with the PGA is a bit of a different spin on this general subject of what was going on during the Depression.

Phil said to Tom MacWood:

“We are having a difference of opinion, that is all. I have understood the thread from the first post. You have been insisting that what Tillinghast believed and practiced throughout his career was changed by insisting that something happened in 1935, and then presenting what you believe to be as proofs, you pronounce it as fact.”

I also said that to Tom MacWood a number of threads back and perhaps a number of times. In the last day I believe what Phil just said there is more true than ever. Tom MacWood, in my opinion, is not going about analyzing this question correctly. As Phil apparently does, I too think Tom is both misrepresenting facts and also probably misunderstanding them. I believe this is almost completely distorting the validity of his assumptions, his premise and his conclusions.

Here, in my opinion, are some statements from Tom MacWood and also Mike Cirba that show why this is so, in my opinion;

“Phil
That article is about the diagonal hazard and has nothing to do with the duffer's headache or Duffer's Range...in fact the accompanied diagram has a diagonal bunker in the Duffer's range....bad form by 1936“.

In my opinion, the diagonal hazard within the so-called duffer’s range has everything to do with the so-called “Duffer’s Headache” and the Duffer’s range! How could it not? Matter of fact, it happens to be one of Tillinghast’s very clever prescriptions for how to solve the problems of the previous obligatory carry so unappealing in the so-called Duffer’s Range and at the very same time maintain some challenge and excitement for the duffer within that range. Is Tom MacWood misunderstanding or denying that? If so, why? If Tom MacWood is suggesting Tillinghast later compromised his architectural principles in 1936 then perhaps he should prove that in 1936 Tillinghast came back and recommended removing all his diagonal or oblique bunkering within the duffer’s range that four years previous he‘d suggested was the solution for the problems for the duffer within that range. Did he do that? Not that I’m aware of!!!

Mike Cirba said:

"Tom, I agree that what Tillie is describing here is exactly ideal. However, I don't agree that the removal of all bunkers at less than say 200 yards accomplishes this and in fact runs directly counter to his ideal that "hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations of each".

Mike:

Can you prove Tillinghast recommended the removal of ALL bunkering less than 200 yards from every tee? I don’t think you can do that!

Mike also said;

"Tom, it's difficult to imagine that he didn't prescribe clearing out the middle of ALL bunkers 175 yards or closer when he recommended the removal of 7000 bunkers, don't you think?"

Mike:

No I don’t think so. Did Tillinghast or the PGA say that Tillinghast recommended clearing out 7,000 bunkers from the middle 175 yards or less from tees or was that 7,000 bunkers total on all parts of golf holes he recommended removing? There is a pretty big difference, don’t you think? If either you or Tom MacWood can show me where Tillinghast specifically said 7,000 bunkers in basically that first DH zone (175 yards of less from the tee) and also that he recommending clearing out ALL bunkering in that zone then I’ll sure reconsider this statement of mine. Again, reconsider it and then attempt to find out if he actually did recommend removal of ALL bunkering in that zone including what he may have previously built himself and also suggested in that 1932 article regarding diagonal or oblique bunkering within that zone. There is at least one quote I’ve seen from Tillinghast where he recommended bunkering in that zone, only shorter.

There is another subject that eventually will probably need to be brought up in light of this subject and that’s the subject of tees! In other words, how and when did separate tees for the duffer start to influence and impact this entire question of the Duffer zone?

Mike Cirba:

The question of the so-called championship course is a good one and a very good subject for another thread.


Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 07, 2004, 09:05:09 AM
TE
Phil presented the 'Oblique' article as an answer to my question: "Have you found any evidence of Tillinghast's DH bunker philosophy/affordibility concerns while editor of Golf Illustrated in the early to mid-30's? "

What does the diagonal bunker have to do with DH or affordability? Tilly was proponent of diagonal hazards throughout his career—the 14th at Quaker Ridge (1916-17) as an example.

The Duffer's Range is a waste land of choice; the diagonal hazard is the essence of choice. One is the antithesis of the other.

I know I can't prove he removed every bunker within 175 yards. I can't prove he removed nealry 8000 bunkers either--as he claimed. The theory of compromise is based upon Tilly's writings in 1936 (Simplicity article and his idea of a Duffer's Range) and his own bunker number claims.

If the theory is wrong, that he never compromised or altered his career long design philosophies, I'll be the first admit it....it wouldn't be the first time I'm wrong.

Let's assume I am wrong. I'm all for exploring exactly what he did on the tour. Phil and Rick have his letters and no doubt have studied them closely. They certainly can answer what bunkers he removed from what courses.

Rick said most of the bunkers came from a relatively small number of courses (60 aprox). What are some of these courses (I'm sure we are familar with a number of these courses and their architects)? Where were these bunkers located that he removed....in other words did he follow his Duffer's Range model or some other thought process.

I'm simply looking for the truth...whatever it might be. IMO the more info we have the better able we can draw an accurate and fair conclusion.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 07, 2004, 10:04:01 AM
Tom,

Apology accepted.

You wrote, "TE, Phil presented the 'Oblique' article as an answer to my question: "Have you found any evidence of Tillinghast's DH bunker philosophy/affordibility concerns while editor of Golf Illustrated in the early to mid-30's? "

What does the diagonal bunker have to do with DH or affordability? Tilly was proponent of diagonal hazards throughout his career—the 14th at Quaker Ridge (1916-17) as an example.

The Duffer's Range is a waste land of choice; the diagonal hazard is the essence of choice. One is the antithesis of the other."

Let me explain why this is an answer to the question(s) that you raised. The key is the last sentence from what I quoted when Tillinghast wrote, "I have said before, and repeat it here, that I believe many of the courses are extreme in length, extreme in putting areas and over bunkered through the fairway."

Remember that your question was, "Have you found any evidence of Tillinghast's DH bunker philosophy/affordibility concerns while editor of Golf Illustrated in the early to mid-30's? "

Is this not an article that deals with his "bunker philosophy" when he was an editor at Golf Illustrated in the mid 30's? Does it not speak to a consistent philosophy that he kept throughout his career?

I included the entire paragraph before this sentence because I wanted the context that he stated it understood. This statement enlarged upon his feelings of design and how he felt bunkers and hazards played into a hole designed on an oblique basis. After those specifics he stated his over-riding principle above.

It also needs reminding that your question came in the middle of discussions dealing with why he changed his philosophy in 1935 (a statement that you know that I disagree with) and would then go on to recommend the removal of thousands of bunkers during his PGA Tour.

I ask then, doesn't that statement of belief that "Many courses are overbunkered..." show that when he toured for the PGA he was actually giving advice on bunker removals that had been a part of his philosophy long before the tour was even mentioned? Doesn't it again show a consistency in his philosophy, and prove that this did not change?

Let's assume I am wrong. I'm all for exploring exactly what he did on the tour. Phil and Rick have his letters and no doubt have studied them closely. They certainly can answer what bunkers he removed from what courses.

You also wrote, "Rick said most of the bunkers came from a relatively small number of courses (60 aprox). What are some of these courses (I'm sure we are familar with a number of these courses and their architects)? Where were these bunkers located that he removed....in other words did he follow his Duffer's Range model or some other thought process."

I hope to post the names of some of these courses shortly. I plead only that you have some patience to wait on this info. As you, and others know, I am hard at work on a Tilly bio that my publisher is pressing me to finish. In order to get the information you seek I will have to go through the letters again of which there are 392 of them!

The information contained in them is a maddening mixture of exact details and generalities. At times he would often give exact numbers and details of his recommendations, while others he just wrote in generalities. The reason for this appears to be based upon how long a day he had and how tired he was when he wrote.

One other point to remember is that he would be explaining very little to Jacobus about individual recommendations, and this for reasons, some fairly obvious and others not so. One reason is that Jacobus understood what he was doing and his philosophy. It is an easy thing today looking back over 65 years ago to say that Jacobus was giving his friend a job when he needed it during the Depression. The reality of this statement is that Jacobus own job as PGA presidant and Ridgewood pro was hanging by threads at this time because of the Depression. He would probably, and I admit this is theory and supposition, only have asked Tilly to do this when he was convinced that he would be doing and recommending things that the PGA as a whole could support.

One thing is for certain, neither Tilly nor Jacobus expected the tour to turn into the incredibly popular success that it did. They received letters of praise and thanks from courses everywhere and of every size and importance.

You closed with, "I'm simply looking for the truth...whatever it might be. IMO the more info we have the better able we can draw an accurate and fair conclusion." That is a statement that I support wholeheartedly.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 07, 2004, 11:06:07 AM
Phil
"Is this not an article that deals with his "bunker philosophy" when he was an editor at Golf Illustrated in the mid 30's? Does it not speak to a consistent philosophy that he kept throughout his career?"

No, it does not deal with his "DH bunker philosophy."

The point I, and others, having been trying to make is the DH bunker philosophy of 1936 (clearing Duffer zones of bunkers) was a departure from his previous (career long) bunker design principals (as illustrated by this 1932 article.) He is not advocating removal of hazards to clear a zone for the duffer in this article...just the opposite. This article, if anything, further illustrates his change in late 1935.

He wants to give the duffer genuine pleasure and zest in the 1932 article, not an empty field.

Claiming courses are over bunkered and promoting a philosophy that removes bunkers from 0-175 yds are two different matters IMO. Does he quantify what qualifies as over bunkering...not my knowledge. And if you look at his actual designs--1911 thru 1936--you must conclude either his defintion is fairly severe (hundreds) or he didn't practice what he preached. My guess is the former.

I look forward to the info from his letters....hopefully it will get us closer to the truth.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 07, 2004, 11:32:26 AM
"TE
Phil presented the 'Oblique' article as an answer to my question: "Have you found any evidence of Tillinghast's DH bunker philosophy/affordibility concerns while editor of Golf Illustrated in the early to mid-30's? "
What does the diagonal bunker have to do with DH or affordability? Tilly was proponent of diagonal hazards throughout his career—the 14th at Quaker Ridge (1916-17) as an example."

Tom:

Do you see that word "philosophy" in your question to Phil? Do you know what that means? Don't tell me now that the words "philosophy/affordability" renders the word "philosophy" irrelevant!

Both you and Mike Cirba seem to be contending Tillinghast recommended removal of ALL bunkering in that first DH zone (from the tee to 175 yards out). Once again, that's ALL BUNKERING!! I'm attempting to show he wasn't doing what you say!  I don't care at all how you want to define bunkering, Tom, to me ALL bunkering is ALL BUNKERING, period, end of story!

As far as wanting to get to the truth of all this, and wanting to get into some of the details of the "facts" you've been using to support your assumptions or premise (Tillinghast changed his architectual philosophy or principles) and the conclusions you draw from that (he compromised his architectural principles), that's fine and admirable but why didn't you go get the details of those facts or ask for Rick or Phil or others for them BEFORE concluding Tillinghast had to have compromised his architectural principles?

You said:

"I'm simply looking for the truth...whatever it might be. IMO the more info we have the better able we can draw an accurate and fair conclusion."

You don't seem to be looking for the truth on this thread. What you seem to be doing is attempting to defend your premise and conclusion despite some pretty obvious facts to the contrary.  
 
 


Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on April 07, 2004, 01:32:49 PM
MIke Cirba,

Your pictures are quite nice, although angles can influence perspective

Your conclusions are quite flawed.

Those are not DH bunkers.

The 4th fairway is so wide that it would be misleading to characterize the left side flanking bunker as a DH.
I would also imagine that most "duffers" can't reach that bunker, nor the next one.

P.S.  Why did you delete the pictures ?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 07, 2004, 01:55:41 PM
TE
Tilly ends his article of 1936 'The Simplicity of Modern Bunkering' with this paragrph:

"It will be noticed that all other pits, which are shown on Figure One, are removed entirely from the scheme of Figure Two and these areas are designated Duffers Ranges. No one really cares a lot what the poor old duffer does anyhow? He is not a serious factor in golf. But he is a mighty important one. He wants his pleasure and we contend he should have all that posssibly may be brought to him as he golfs as best he can. These superfluous pits are not only unpleasant but they are very expensive to maintain. Why sould the golf courses of America have so much money wasted on their construction and maintenace for no other purpose thant to drive away from the clubs and the game the very men, who are so vitally necessary to the existance of the game."

It does not appear he is advocating some of the bunkers be removed from the Duffer's Range, but all of them. If he followed through on this model during his PGA tour remains to be seen....but he put forth the theory in black and white, and it is very clear.

"As far as wanting to get to the truth of all this, and wanting to get into some of the details of the facts you've been using to support your premise, assumptions and conclusions, that's fine and admirable but why didn't you go get that evidence or ask for it BEFORE concluding Tillinghast had to have compromised his architectural principles?"

Thanks for the lecture, but putting forth a theory (based on facts) is not the same as stating that theory is fact. After all you've put forth a number of theories yourself (some more theoretical than others)--Crump and PV, Philadelphia school, Maxwell based #7 at Gulph Mills on ANGC, Aronomink is the result of an independent McGovern or that Tilly did not compromise his design principals.

It would be too easy to say you should practice what you preach or that I take it you and Wayne will not be including any theory or educated guesses in your Flynn book. However I hope you do include thoughtful opinion--to do otherwise would be a mistake IMO.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 07, 2004, 02:58:17 PM
Mike Cirba said:

"Tom, I agree that what Tillie is describing here is exactly ideal. However, I don't agree that the removal of all bunkers at less than say 200 yards accomplishes this and in fact runs directly counter to his ideal that "hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations of each".

Mike:

Can you prove Tillinghast recommended the removal of ALL bunkering less than 200 yards from every tee? I don’t think you can do that!

Tom;

No, I can't prove it, but as I said in the initial post here, the amount of bunkering removed from Hollywood and Jamie's contention that Tavistock had some very questionable work done by Tillie at that time led to my questioning his philosophy and intent at the time.

I'd refer you to the Tillinghast quote I copied below that Tom MacWood just posted referring to "Duffer's ranges" as evidence of his thinking at the time.  Beyond that, Rick Wolffe has mentioned that most of the 7,000 bunkers removed happened on something like 70 courses?!?  My word, that's over 100 bunkers a course!  

Frankly, I think Tillie's design methodologies had evolved by that point to something approximating RTJ Sr.'s fairway bunkering schemes that followed, with bunkers only in the range of the expert player or long hitter.   I think Bethpage Black was an anomaly out of Tillie and Burbeck's desire to create something approximating a public Pine Valley.

"It will be noticed that all other pits, which are shown on Figure One, are removed entirely from the scheme of Figure Two and these areas are designated Duffers Ranges. No one really cares a lot what the poor old duffer does anyhow? He is not a serious factor in golf. But he is a mighty important one. He wants his pleasure and we contend he should have all that posssibly may be brought to him as he golfs as best he can. These superfluous pits are not only unpleasant but they are very expensive to maintain. Why sould the golf courses of America have so much money wasted on their construction and maintenace for no other purpose thant to drive away from the clubs and the game the very men, who are so vitally necessary to the existance of the game."
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 07, 2004, 03:27:51 PM
"It would be too easy to say you should practice what you preach or that I take it you and Wayne will not be including any theory or educated guesses in your Flynn book. However I hope you do include thoughtful opinion--to do otherwise would be a mistake IMO."

We will be including plenty of theory and opinion in our Flynn book and we will also be pointing out in no uncertain terms that it is definitely our theory and opinion only and that we cannot prove it if it doesn't seem almost undeniably supported by fact and documented evidence, perhaps even twice. We will be stating, as well, that anyone should draw their own opinions from the things we say and the evidence we're using to support what we say. We don't plan on floating some assumption, premise or conclusion as the truth and then challenging anyone and everyone to disprove it or we shall conclude it to be the truth and we will expect everyone else to conclude it to be the truth as well, as you seem to be doing on here.

Most of what I object to about the way you go about all this is the way in which you tend to look at evidence in such stark and black and white terms to make your assumptions and draw conclusions.

A perfect example is in your last thread where you state following Tillinghast’s quote from Chapter 28 (Simplicity in bunkering); “It does not appear he is advocating some of the bunkers be removed from the Duffer's Range, but all of them. If he followed through on this model during his PGA tour remains to be seen....but he put forth the theory in black and white, and it is very clear.”

He did not put forth that theory in black and white terms and it is not clear as you say it is. If he followed through on this model during his PGA tour certainly does remain to be seen, something you should have said all along, particularly if you’re going to content he compromised his architectural principles. But no, you keep insisting that there was this big change in his architectural philosophy and his principles in 1936.

Those two hole diagrams in that article are just that, hole diagrams, used as an example of “modern architecture” and not something he ever said should have been used on every single hole on every single golf course in the tee to 175 yard range. Is this what you’re using to assume and then conclude he recommended ALL bunkering be removed in this zone on all courses? Is this what you’re using to conclude that 7,000 bunkers were removed from that first DH zone alone in his PGA project? If so that’s extraordinarily poor logic and deduction, in my opinion!

You might have looked in Tillinghast’s very next article (Chapter 29) which is basically an extension of this very subject in Chapter 28 ("Simplicity in Bunkering") and you would have seen this;

“It may be recalled that my last article (Simplicity of bunkering, Chapter 28) definitely declared that greater interest was being introduced to our modern golf by a simplified method of trapping, which rewards placements of tee-shots, on one side of the fairway or the other. Of course it must not be construed to infer that I contend that this system should be invariable.”

Does that sound to you like he recommended that ALL bunkering in the tee to 175 yard first “Duffer zone” should be removed as you just reiterated as fact above for about the fifth time? It does not! Again, “OF COURSE IT MUST NOT BE CONSTRUED TO INFER THAT I CONTEND THAT THIS SYSTEM SHOULD BE INVARIALBE!”


And what have you and Mike Cirba been contending Tom? You’ve been contending that his system and his recommendations were invariable, that he was recommending that ALL bunkering be removed in this zone, despite the voluminous evidence others were offering you to the contrary.

And he goes on to imply that all this basically conforms to that fundamental tenet of architecture known as variety! Article 29--”Tucking in the Traps” was written, by the way in September of 1936 a month after the article you quoted from above (Chapter 28, "Simplicity in Bunkering"). Both were written for the “Professional Golfer of America” so please don’t try to contend again that this is being taken out of context.

If this doesn't disabuse you two of carrying on this contention that he recommended ALL bunkers in this zone should be removed then I just can't imagine what would. It really does seem ironic that it's Tillinghast's own words written almost 70 years ago that're able to counter your claims about him. It's almost as if he is contributing to this discussion on Golfclubatlas today!

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on April 07, 2004, 03:54:53 PM
Mike Cirba,

In light of the financial times, do you believe that courses had AWT visit them, make his suggestion and that they acted immediately and removed all of those bunkers in time for him to report back to the PGA a few months later.

The scale of the work, cost of the work, timing of the work and time of reconstruction of the work would indicate that something is drasticallly amiss.

I'll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 07, 2004, 04:29:35 PM
We will be including plenty of theory and opinion in our Flynn book and we will also be pointing out in no uncertain terms that it is definitely our theory and opinion only and that we cannot prove it if it doesn't seem almost undeniably supported by fact and documented evidence, perhaps even twice. We will be stating, as well, that anyone should draw their own opinions from the things we say and the evidence we're using to support what we say. We don't plan on floating some assumption, premise or conclusion as the truth and then challenging anyone and everyone to disprove it or we shall conclude it to be the truth and we will expect everyone else to conclude it to be the truth as well, as you seem to be doing on here.

Tom; the reason this thread is in the form of a question is to engender debate and fact-finding.  I think perhaps both Tom Mac and I stated our opinions very strongly, but I am not sure we claimed to have all the answers or where we didn't welcome additional information or other's views.  

Golden Age architects generally bunkered the hell out of their courses.  Tillinghast's shift at this period, whether a result of philosophical evolution or pragmatic economics seems to be a significant change from both his predecessors and from his own resume of prior courses.  To recommend the removal of
SEVEN THOUSAND bunkers is pretty dramatic stuff on any scale.  

I think it was totally appropriate to question what his thinking and motivations might have been during this period.


Those two hole diagrams in that article are just that, hole diagrams, used as an example of “modern architecture” and not something he ever said should have been used on every single hole on every single golf course in the tee to 175 yard range. Is this what you’re using to assume and then conclude he recommended ALL bunkering be removed in this zone on all courses? Is this what you’re using to conclude that 7,000 bunkers were removed from that first DH zone alone in his PGA project? If so that’s extraordinarily poor logic and deduction, in my opinion!

You might have looked in Tillinghast’s very next article (Chapter 29) which is basically an extension of this very subject in Chapter 28 ("Simplicity in Bunkering") and you would have seen this;

“It may be recalled that my last article (Simplicity of bunkering, Chapter 28) definitely declared that greater interest was being introduced to our modern golf by a simplified method of trapping, which rewards placements of tee-shots, on one side of the fairway or the other. Of course it must not be construed to infer that I contend that this system should be invariable.”

Does that sound to you like he recommended that ALL bunkering in the tee to 175 yard first “Duffer zone” should be removed as you just reiterated as fact above for about the fifth time? It does not! Again, “OF COURSE IT MUST NOT BE CONSTRUED TO INFER THAT I CONTEND THAT THIS SYSTEM SHOULD BE INVARIALBE!”

Tom...I think Tillie's words and clear disdain for Duffer bunkering at this time IS pretty clear and black and white.  I don't think it's much of a leap of faith to conclude that many of the 7000 bunkers recommended for removal were bunkers that affected these players solely.  

And, to draw a distinction, I think what Tillie is referring to when he says that "this system should not be invariable", was not Duffer's Headaches at all, but instead the idea that every hole should have a "master bunker" in the driving area of the scratch man, which directed play and strategy and created a preferred side of the fairway.

It seems that Tillinghast was beginning to get into a more formulaic method of design, primarily to build courses that defended well against the advanced player, yet allowed the hack to get around pretty unscathed (the "easy bogey, hard par" concept later espoused by RTJ Sr.), but at that, he didn't want to make things too cut and dry and was intelligent enough to understand the achilles heel of conformity in what he was otherwise arguing for.



And what have you and Mike Cirba been contending Tom? You’ve been contending that his system and his recommendations were invariable, that he was recommending that ALL bunkering be removed in this zone, despite the voluminous evidence others were offering you to the contrary.

Tom, the only evidence I have is his contention that he recommended 7,000 bunkers for removal at the same time he was writing of his disdain for bunkers that only affect the hack.  

I also know the historical evidence of the before and after images of Hollywood, for instance.

I'm not sure anyone offered any evidence that he didn't remove this bunkering during this time...the letters from Phil have been pretty general to this point.  


Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 07, 2004, 06:38:27 PM

Mike C.

Don't hold out my SWAG (sohisticated wild ass guess) on the number of bunkers and number of courses Tilly visited.  I would give my guess an accuracy probability equivalent to a guess at the number of jelly beans in the jar.  

Whether it was 7,000 or 8,000 may not be worth hanging any hat on.  I would also point out that Tilly recommended the construction of hundreds if not thousands of new bunkers.  So is the 7,000 or 8,000 bunkers removed, net of the new bunkers constructed?

In regards to Hollywood CC in NJ, I am not sure if Mike C. is inferring that Tilly recommended that 100 or more bunkers be removed.  We do not have any record of Tilly visiting Hollywood CC in NJ on his PGA Tour.  Tilly did visit Hollywood CC in Hollywood, CA on his PGA tour.  Tilly also designed Norwood CC on Hollywood CC's prior location in Eatontown, NJ in the early twenties sometime.

To give everyone some more flavor to his tour, I will post the following letters.  Please note that he is recommending the construction of new greens and bunkers.


Chicago, Illinois
November 4th 1936

President of the P.G.A.
Dear Sir:

The weather turned very cold today.  I went to the Oak Park Country Club at the urgent request of P.G.A. member Ren Smith (who succeeded his brother Horton there)  It will be recalled that I made certain recommendations at Oak Park just a year ago and already Constructor Eddie Dearie has completed both the Sixth and Fifteenth greens, and I am pleased to report that these are regarded very highly indeed.  Dearie had followed my instructions to the letter.

Today I was wanted to check the work on the Eleventh and the Seventeenth, both greens being now in the process of reconstruction.  I gave them the finishing touches and also instructed concerning the recontouring of the mound work on the left-front of the Fifteenth green.  Dearie accompanied me today as well as W.C. Spears (chairman of the green committee) and W.W. Hodson (of the committee)

It is also interesting to know that Dearie informed me that another piece of work, which I sketched at another Chicago course last year, had been completed and that a beautiful hole was the result.  This is the new home hole at Ridgemoor, outlined in my daily report of November 9th 1935.

Certainly it is very heartening to find our service is proving something more than mere recommendations, but that it is reality of completed work.


Very truly yours
A.W. Tillinghast

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 07, 2004, 06:40:51 PM
White Plains, NY
July 8th 1936


President of the P.G.A.
Dear Sir:

Today I made an inspection of the course of the Old Oaks Country Club at Purchase, together with Willie MacFarlane, Joseph Wolfe (Chairman of the green committee) and greenkeeper King Troensgaard (a very capable man).

Originally I planned this course for the Progress Country Club but after the work started I was dismayed when the committee insisted that the starting and finishing holes should not be close to the clubhouse, - a most remarkable choice.  Now recently the original club consolidated with Oak Ridge, where Macfarlane had been professional for years.  He came over to the new course after the consolidation.  Immediately he announced that the start and finish were wrong, a conclusion that recent committees had realized well.  They wanted me to suggest a rearrangement, which would bring the course back something close to my original plan.

I accomplished this by reversing the play of the long Eighteenth; and also that of the present first, breaking this up into two holes and thus starting and concluding play exactly where it always should have been done by a combination of parts of Ten and Eleven and the extending of Twelve to a par 4 length.

I also visited the adjoining club, Century, where I had a fine chat with Dan Mackie, and at his request looked over the Thirteenth (a new hole which has been severely criticised and believe not without reason) and studying the extension of the Second hole to make it a real par 5.

This day has been of peculiar interest and I believe, of considerable value.

A.W. Tillinghast
July 8th 1936
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 07, 2004, 06:42:14 PM
Saint Paul, Minnesota
April 30th 1937

President of the PGA

Dear Sir:

  This is the third rainy day in succession.  I am leaving for Rochester this afternoon and tomorrow I will be at the Mayo Clinic again, leaving immediately after for northern Wisconsin.  I am scheduled to make a golf talk at Rochester tonight.

  Before leaving Saint Paul I was able to visit two additional courses at the urgent request of PGA members Herb Snow and Jock Hendry, at Hillcrest Golf Club and Town and Country Club respectively.

  Hendry's problem concerned the 12th hole, where a new green is planned.  I located this for him, with definite instructions for contouring and bunkering, and also located a new teeing-ground for the 13th, a natural, which will make a fine new hole.

  At Hillcrest I inspected the reconstruction work on the new 17th and 18th holes, which I planned for them when I was last here.  I found that my instructions had been followed faithfully and two very good holes have been developed.  Here I was accompanied by Snow, G.W. Anderson (Chairman of the Green Committee and city champion on numerous occasions) and Stan Graves (Greenkeeper)

  My next report will be sent to you on Monday evening, after my arrival in northern Wisconsin.

  I find that we have another PGA member at Rochester (in addtion to Ernnie Wilmot at the Country Club) Herb Thienell at Soldiers Field and I will call on him.

Very truly yours

  A.W. Tillinghast

        AWT
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 07, 2004, 06:49:22 PM
MikeC;

From the evidence I've seen from Tillinghast and others throughout this thread I guess we just don't agree on that evidence, what he wrote about this entire subject and what it means during the depression and in an historical context. Such is as things are.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 07, 2004, 06:57:52 PM
Here is the after letter on Hollywood.  California that is.  Near Beverly, Hills that is, movie stars ....


Los Angeles, California
February 19th 1937

President of the P.G.A.
(Box 231, Sarasota, Fla.)

Dear Sir:

Just a year ago to the day I made examination of the course of the Hollywood Country Club.  Today, at the request of P.G.A. member Les Madison, I inspected the course to check the work already do and to make additional recommendations.

After a conference with club manager, George Stark and the president, Al Wiese, I walked over the course with Madison and greenkeeper Bob May.

I was gratified to find that may of the recommendations, which I had made previously, had been carried through and that each had proved entirely satisfactory.  The 6th green had been corrected; the new 7th teeing ground is now about competed and I O.Ked it; the D.H.’s on both 9 and 10 have been eliminated; the new 11th teeing-ground is in use; the return to the original 12th teeing-ground has improved that hole; the --th green has been built as directed; the new arrangement at the 16th had been observed completely and a fine hole results.

In addition I recommended the eventual rebuilding of the 2nd green to remove objectionable terraced levels and also the grassing of the big sand pit on the left; a lowering of the level of the 4th teeing ground as well.

The turf on both fairway and putting-greens shows decided improvement and the advice concerning the spiking of the previously tight greens with sharp sand in the compostings, has proved most beneficial.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 07, 2004, 08:06:48 PM
Here is the before for Hollywood CC in Hollywood, CA.

Note, Tilly designed a new 16th green on a new site.  This was noted in the previous letter as a new "--th green"

Hollywood, California
February 19th 1936

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

Yesterday my scheduled visit to the Stockdale Country Club had to be postponed on account of rain.  The early morning rains, cleared for a while, but I was advised that the long drive over the Cahuenga Pass, would be ill advised.  Later in the morning the rain started in again.

Today it was raining again when I went out to the Hollywood Country Club, at the request of P.G.A. member Les Madison.  However it was close at hand so I took the chance.  When we were going over the course it came down again in torrents but by lunch time it stopped and we completed the examination during the afternoon.

I was accompanied by Madison, his assistant, Lester Bolstad, and the green keeper, Bob May.  Later I conferred with the club’s manager and several officials.  After covering the entire lay-out I had given them definite instructions concerning an entirely new green for the fifteenth (on a new site) and a change of the sixteenth from the teeing ground.  In addition to pointing out many unnecessary pits (D.H’s) I showed them out to draw sand up into the slopes of the greens, which for the most part lack character, and also advised them about introducing much sharper sand with their compostings.  I also advised more frequent spikings to relieve a tight condition, which makes the greens difficult to hold with lofted irons.

I added some 25 yards to the third hole; rearranged the green at the sixth; raised the left side of the ninth; selected a new teeing ground for the eleventh and suggested a remodeling of the seventeenth green.  Much may be accomplished here, gradually and at no great cost.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 07, 2004, 08:28:30 PM
Here is an interesting one.  Perhaps not conclusive proof of Tilly's change in philosophy in 1935 and his "mass production cookie cutter formula" for the clearing of all bunkers between the tee and the majic 175 yard mark.  But we may be getting closer.  Pardon my irreverance.

What may really be of interest on this one is that Virginia CC was a significant redesign project after Tilly's PGA tour was concluded.  Tilly and Billy Bell collaborated on the work I think in 1938 or 1939.  I think it is reasonable to conclude that Tilly was building his professional network on his PGA tour, which would open doors for he and Billy Bell when they went into partnership together.

There is another interesting connection with Virginia CC that Tommy Naccarato is researching.  But I will not break my radio silence on that one and leave it to Tommy.


Hollywood, California
February 21st 1936

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

Today I visited the Virginia Country Club, at Long Beach, at the request of P.G.A. member Larry Gleason.  With him and the greenkeeper, W.W. Beaver, I made an examination of the course, afterwards conferring with John Halbert, president of the club, Charles Kerr, secretary, and several other members of the executive committee.

The course is typical of others in this section, with adobe soil.  Seaside Bent, inclined to be grainy, covers the greens, while the fairway is Bermuda base.  I found numerous misplaced sand traps of the D.H. sort, and in not a single instance did the guarding pits meet the greens properly.  In many instances the pits presented large floor areas, to which the sand was confined.  Several of the greens were too large for the short shots, which come to them and of course I recommended cutting these down to fair proportions.

In a number of cases I suggested making the grassed hollows of the too-large pits.  My recommendations here may be said to have been very general for they covered no particular holes in detail, other than the ninth, tenth and sixteenth (greens) However I answered many questions, mostly asked by greenkeeper Beaver, whom I found a capable man.  However, Larry Gleason was keenly alive to the wrong conditions and his great desire to know of proper corrective measures surely indicated his worth.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 07, 2004, 09:09:01 PM
I always liked this one on Beresford CC a Donald Ross original design, which is now called Pinensula CC.

Hey, I just noticed that if you hold these letters up to a mirror and shine a black light on them, there is a secret message from Tilly to Jacobus, that reads, "A successful day with the scapel -- 47 DH's condemed short of the 175 yard mark.  There was one DH at 180 yards from the back teeing ground, but within 175 yards from the forward tee.  As per our "ultimate plan" no mercy was spared and it was slated for extermination."


San Francisco, California
March 7th 1936

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

Another full day with examinations of two courses, due to an added request to an already full schedule.

This morning I drove to San Mateo to visit the course of the Beresford Country Club at the request of P.G.A member Willie Nichols, who came to this country some years ago from Montrose in Scotland (hard by Carnoustie).  He was sent out here some fourteen years ago to this Beresford course by Donald Ross, who planned it at that time.  Unfortunately some of the holes were badly done by the local builder and in no sense resemble the original Ross conceptions.

I made such suggestions as seemed proper and particularly selected sites for greens for the Tenth, twelfth and Thirteenth.  This is in no sense any reflection on the original Ross plan but only made necessary because those original plans had been sinfully juggled.

Before leaving Beresford I conferred with the club’s president, Edger Sinton, who seemed highly appreciative.

The afternoon found me at Ingleside at the Public Course, operated by a company headed by Thomas S. Hutton, who accompanied me in my examination, together with Julius Lazzerini, the greenkeeper, Harold Beer (P.G.A.)  There are three P.G.A. members retained at Ingleside and it was at their request that the service was rendered.  The third professional is Ed Holbrook.

Here they had a very serious problem, a dangerous congestion at the Eighth, Twelfth and Thirteenth.  I solved this for them by relocating the entire Seventh hole (a one-shotter) which made it possible to extend to the Thirteenth from a new angle.  The entire rearrangement will be accomplished solely by the building of a new Seventh green, directions for which I gave them in detail.  I also gave them requested advice at several other holes, but after a complete examination I found the course generally, entirely adequate,

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 07, 2004, 09:22:39 PM
Interesting comments by Tilly on Lakeside, a Max Behr design.  Perhaps Tilly showed some deference to great architecture and left the cookie cutter in the car.


Hollywood, California
February 22nd 1936

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

The scheduled engagement for today at Hillcrest was postponed by secretary Patterson at the request of the chairman of the green committee, who was especially desirous of being present at the time of my visit there.  I will go there on Monday.

Today I went to the Lakeside Golf Club at the request of P.G.A. member Eddie Loos.  This is one of the best course I have examined in southern California, - well laid out and constructed with very pleasing contours, and in a condition that reflects great credit on greenkeeper Herb Wilson.  I refrained from criticism here because there is little to find fault with (only minor details)  I did however remark that the greens frequently were much larger than seemed necessary, but as the size of greens is a matter of personal opinion, I do not press my own inclination to those of smaller areas.  My suggestions to cut down the size of some greens are consistent with a policy of reduced maintenance costs, but certainly a too-spacious green often does destroy the value of the hole when only a small shot is necessary.  I was very pleased to be able to praise Lakeside to those to whom I afterwards talked, players and officials.

Eddie Loos requests the P.G.A. service in the spring for his course at Lake Shore, Chicago, where he is during the summer.  Here is a staunch P.G.A. member and one of long standing.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 07, 2004, 09:46:52 PM
Here is the "after letter" on Bel-Air.  

A point worth noting is Tilly's reference to the detailed written reports sent to the PGA office.  We believe these reports include design sketches and identify all the DH's recommended for removal.  If we could find these reports an accurate count of the jelly beans in the jar could be made.  Phil Young has been to the PGA archives and hopes to rediscover them soon.

I am running out of steam, does anyone want to see the Riviera letter?

Los Angeles, California
February 17th 1937

President of the P.G.A.
(Box 231, Sarasota, Fla.)

Dear Sir:

First, this morning, my visit took me to the Bel-Air Country Club, where P.G.A. member Joe Novak is located.  The report on file at our office will show that I made a complete examination of this course on the 7th of February, 1936.  In the meantime, however, there has been a complete change in the personnel of the club officials.  Ray Thomas, who was president last year and who was very anxious to see all the recommendations, which I had made, put through, is no longer in office.  I conferred with him today.

It seems that the new chairman of the green committee is most reluctant to touch the course in any way.  Naturally I was disappointed to find that nothing had been accomplished.  This feeling is shared by both Mr. Thomas and Novak and it was with a view of having the new officials “see the light” that my visit today was occasioned.  I could only refer to my former report and I carefully avoided showing any chagrin because nothing had been done.  However I did give a lot of satisfaction to point out the first green, which today was nearly unplayable because of the seepage from the hill on the left.  My report of last year had recommended the introduction of a grassed hollow into this slope, which simple expedient would have remedied the present evil at very little cost.

It has been said that “You may lead a horse to water but you may not make him drink.”  I can only make recommendations but certainly I show no irritation if they are passed over, as in this case.  However I am informed that there is a very strong sentiment among many of the players, favoring the recommendations I made and it is likely that eventually they will materialize.

Later I paid a visit to the Riviera course at the request of P.G.A. sectional president, Willie Hunter.  I was glad to encounter there our mutual friend Harry Hampton.  Riviera is rated as one of the outstanding course of this district and my first views of it tent to confirm this fact.  However, as Hunter wants me to go over the entire course with a critical report for future reference, the completion of my inspection there will have to go over tomorrow and this will be done.  Hunter cancelled all engagement for this.

The Rivera soil conditions are much better than any I have observed in this district, the sub-structure of shale carrying off the water readily in marked contrast to the usual ‘Dobe.  The course today slowed little evidence of the recent storms and aside from being on the “slow-side” the turf was very playable indeed.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 07, 2004, 10:04:47 PM
Here is the "before letter" on Bel Air.  

I would think that this letter could be used as the "smoking gun" to support the theory that Tilly applied a cookie cutter approach of eliminating all DH's short of 175 yards.

Unfortunately, I do not have any familiarity with Bel Air and would ask the question did any of Tilly's recommendations ultimately get implemented?  I would ask if any short fairway bunkers were removed and rebuilt farther out in the drive zone post 1936?


Los Angeles, California
February 7th 1936

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

Today, accompanied by sectional secretary Patterson, I visited the Bel-Air Country Club at the request of P.G.A. member Joe Novak, who went over the entire course with me together with greenkeeper Clarence Hazlett.  Afterwards I conferred with ray Thomas, president of the club, who requested a written report of my findings, which I prepared and sent to Novak.

I had no criticism to offer concerning the arrangement of the various holes so far as placements of greens or teeing grounds were involved for the course is well laid out.  But I made numerous recommendations to eliminate misplaced and unnecessary (D.H.) pits and in some few instances the introduction of others, placed out at a proper range.  At the short third, the eleventh and fifteenth I showed the proper method of drawing sand closer to the greens.

On the left of the first green there exists a long, unguarded hill-slope. I recommended the introduction of a large grassed hollow here to help the shot value and also to keep water from seeping to the green, which is troublesome at present.  I also instructed them concerning a slight rearrangement of the ninth green, which falls away too much on the front.

I estimate that the elimination of unnecessary pits and the reduction of the size of others (far-flung areas that do not function) will reduce the required amount of sand fully twenty five percent, and maintenance costs to a corresponding degree.

The program for tomorrow has been changed at the request of the chairman of the green committee at Hillcrest, who is called out of town until next week and he is very anxious to seem me when I visit the course.  Instead I go to the Hacienda Country Club at the request of P.G.A. member Art Roux.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 07, 2004, 10:19:23 PM
RW
Thanks for sharing those letters....especially if you have to type them out yourself.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 07, 2004, 10:42:31 PM
I always liked this one as it sheds some light on the determination of his personality.  It also shows his keen interest in agonomy.  Tilly was a champion of the Greenkeeper and founder/supporter of the USGA Green section.

Houston, Texas, January 3rd 1936

The President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

Yesterday was given over to the long drive here from New Orleans, 406 miles.  I will scarcely attempt this distance again in one day for it is a bit too much.  The hard storms throughout the night of the first had flooded the low lands and for some miles the going was extremely bad.  For one stretch of probably five miles the road was entirely submerged and the water was over the running-boards.  Nothing to do for it but to keep the wheels moving ahead.  There was no going back.

Today I went over two courses, - the River Oaks Country Club, at the request of p.G.A. member Jack Burke, and the Houston Country Club at the request of the president of the Texas section of the P.G.A. – Willie Maguire.

At River Oaks I was accompanied around the course by Jack Burke (an old friend of mine, Greenkeeper Jack Maguire and H.A. Kipp (a member of the executive committee and an engineer who had collaborated in the original preparation of plans.  My general observations concerned the elimination of unnecessary traps, the gradual correction of sharp slopes by blending and softening, the rearrangement of hazards about numerous greens but in particular the reconstruction plan for the fifth, a hole of 348 yards, which had been recently partially destroyed by the breaking of a levee bank during a flood.  The rearrangement of the second green also received special attention.  This course furnished another illustration of a gradual skimping of green mowing, which in many instances had pulled the greens entirely away from the guarding traps, which never had been quire close-up.  Apparently they appreciated the service very much and expressed satisfaction.

I was particularly pleased with my inspection of the course of the Houston Country Club, which was made in the company of Willie Magure, his greenkeeper C.P. Welti and E.G. Goforth, Chairman of the Green Committee.  Maguire’s long experience in developing Bermuda turf and winter greens of Bermuda base is will proved here.  Indeed he has produced the best greens of this type that I have ever observed.  A very valuable conclusion is this; - Instead of introducing Italian Rye with the Bermuda, for winter greens, he uses instead Red Top, Meadow Fescue and Blue Grass.  A fine putting turf is the result and these strains do not linger in the spring, battling with the Bermuda, but quickly disappear and the summer greens rapidly find themselves.

I made many suggestions, particularly on the hole of the first nine, excepting the 6th, 8th and 9th.  These holes; - 1, 2,3,4,5 and 7, were those which do not equal the holes of the last nine and it was concerning these that they particularly wanted me to cover with my advise.  This I did completely, particularly rearranging the third.  There were numerous unnecessary pits of obsolete types and these of course were condemned.  I also made a sketch for rearrangement of the fourth green, which was much too big for the shot.  I may remark that the eighteenth hole here is one of the best to be found anywhere, and altogether I found the course generally of unusual charm.

Tomorrow I continue on to San Antonio, to resume my schedule for Texas and Oklahoma.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast



Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 07, 2004, 10:58:06 PM
I guess it would be a stretch to say Tilly saw an early proof of the little red book.

Austin, Texas, January 7th 1936

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

The second cold wave of the winter caught me here today, and rain came with it.  However I was able to give my attention to the two requests from this city.

First, at the request of P.G.A. member Harvey Penick, I went to his course at the Austin Country Club.  He wanted specifically guidance in the location and building of a new green for the eleventh hole, one of 112 yards.  I gave him all the information he desired and the new green will be built about twenty yards back of the present.  After general comments regarding the softening of slopes and the elimination of unnecessary pits, I went with his brother, Tom Penick, P.G.A. member who I located at the Austin Municipal Golf Course.

There I was met by City Manager Guiton Morgan, the city engineer J.E. Motherall and Walter Seaholm, also of the City’s engineering department.  After discussing the proper fairway irrigation system with them, I investigated particularly certain holes, which they find necessary to improve and at the same time open up additional lengths.  The course at present measures but 5737 yards.

I recommended a new teeing ground and green for the two hundred yard third hole; a new green back of the present fourth, lengthening that hole 40 yards to 470; a new teeing ground and green for the seventh, lengthening the hole some 30 yards to 435; sketches for contouring the sixteenth green and drawing pits into the greens of the seventeen and eighteen.

The city officials expressed their great satisfaction and heartily commended the assistance of the P.G.A., coming to them through their professional.  I then prepared to depart for Waco, where I will arrive tonight.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 07, 2004, 11:16:04 PM
Rick:

Thank you from me too for putting so many of Tillinghast's PGA tour letters up here. His theme from those letters during that tour seems to be sort of equally divided between identifying and/or making recommendations for holes the club has identified as weak or problematic in some way as well as identifying and condemning DH and other useless bunkers as well as resizing greens and correcting drainage problems and the slope of greenside bunkering to meld into the green sides correctly.

It seems obvious, as well that he's intent on both specifically identifying and naming those at each club that're of help or can be--eg green chairman, President, pro and superintendent.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 07, 2004, 11:22:52 PM
This is another favorite and perhaps appropriate on the eve of the Masters.  On his way to Augusta, Tilly pays an unexpected visit on Donald Ross.  Tilly afraid that Donald will blow the whistle on his "selling out," slips the Don a package with his share of the PGA greenbacks.  Oops, sorry, I am slipping again.

It may be interesting to contrast this letter to the article Tilly says he plans to write.  Not to plug Gleanings from the Wayside, but the article appears as Chapter 35, "The Masterpiece of Donald Ross."



Augusta, Georgia, December 6th 1935

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

Getting an early start this morning, I drove to Pinehust, North Carolina (altogether only 12 miles off the direct route to this place)  I was fortunate to find Donald Ross at home and for quire a while I sat in his house and discussed with him the P.G.A. course service.  As you recall, he was not inclined to favor this when it was first proposed.  However he had read in the current number of the P.G.A. magazine the remarks I made at the recent annual meeting at Chicago, and as a consequence he already had regarded my work in an entirely different light than at first.  After I had gone into detail and fully explained our motives and told of the exact nature of my activities since the start he expressed his entire approval and further added; - “If you can encourage worthy young golf course architects and builders to carry on the work properly after you and I are gone, it will be very worth while.”

His welcome was most cordial and he insisted on showing me every hole on the Number 2 course, where next year’s P.G.A. National Championship will be played.  We analyzed the various holes together.  Donald is certain that this is his greatest piece of work and he is tremendously proud of it, as he may well be for it is a truly a great course, without a single weak hole,- without a doubt one of the greatest of all American courses.  I whole-heartedly congratulated him on his great achievement and he was pleased when I told him that I would write a story about the course for a future number of the P.G.A. magazine.  I believe that such a story will prove of great interest to the professionals of the association, throughout the country.  I enclose a card of the course for your inspection.

After leaving Pinehurst I continued my journey to Augusta, Georgia, where I arrived tonight.  In the morning I will drop in on Dave Ogilvie and also at the Augusta National.  I will now arrive at Macon exactly on scheduled time (for I was half day ahead) and my next report will be sent you on Monday night, after I have conferred with George Norrie.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 07, 2004, 11:44:54 PM
"Tilly afraid that Donald will blow the whistle on his "selling out," slips the Don a package with his share of the PGA greenbacks.  Oops, sorry, I am slipping again."

After the subject of this 14 page "discussion", that's beautiful!

So the great Donald Ross after perusing one of the PGA articles (PGA "Number") that we've all been perusing changed his mind and approved of what Tillinghast was doing on his tour!?

Perhaps at this point Tom and Mike should make their case that Donald Ross was also "selling out" or compromising his architectural principles for complimenting Tillie on what he was doing!  ;)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 08, 2004, 06:39:19 AM
TE
Do you think Tilly recommended a few pits or DH's be filled in at Pinehurst #2?

It sounds to me that Ross was more concerned about the ramifications of a mission that gives architectural services away for free. And it turns out his concerns were warranted because very few clubs hired architects to carry out the work--according to Graffis (one notable exception being PCC-Spring Mill, where Flynn was brought in to carry out Tilly's changes).

In December 1935 his new architectural ideas had not been disclosed in detail via articles--those came in 1936. In his early article (Oct. '35) about his PGA service he mentions generally DH's but his specific idea about a Duffer's ranges came well after their meeting.

I wonder if anyone knows or if there is record of Ross's side of the story....it would be interesting to compare.

Most of Tilly's ideas were excellent during this period. The idea of orienting greens and the master pit found in Simplicty and Tucking (by the way I agree with Mike C's interpretation, this article has nothing to do with Duffers range) is excellent...he seems to have adopted many of Tom Simpson's ideas.

In the PGA service article he mentions a club (built in 1915) in Upstate NY is which he removed 25 choclate drops and pits...any idea what course....any chance it was Ross's Irondiquoit?

RW
Are the letters complete...in other words do the number of courses Tilly was said to have vistited match the number in the letters or are there gaps?

One of the reasons I ask is Tilly claimed to have removed 90+  bunkers from a single course...if I was to guess I would have said that was Hollywood, NJ. He did advise in North NJ  according to your partial list of courses in the last Tilly book.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on April 08, 2004, 07:17:05 AM
Tom MacWood,

Hollywood isn't in North Jersey.

Are you sure you're not confusing the west coast club with the east coast club ?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 08, 2004, 07:26:20 AM
"TE
Do you think Tilly recommended a few pits or DH's be filled in at Pinehurst #2?"

Tom MacW:

No, but it wouldn't surprise me if you do!   ;)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 08, 2004, 07:27:18 AM
Sorry Pat...I should have said the NYC Metro sphere of NJ that Tilly visited. That is an important distinction....thank you for your imput.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 08, 2004, 07:35:20 AM
"according to Graffis (one notable exception being PCC-Spring Mill, where Flynn was brought in to carry out Tilly's changes)."

Tom MacW:

That's very interesting and something we were not aware of (or at least I'm not perhaps WayneM is). If that's true that's excellent research on your part--if he doesn't have that. I wasn't aware that the changes made to Philly Country were changes recommended by Tillie. I thought the greens at Philly were not draining well and not working well and both Flynn and Perry Maxwell were brought in to correct that problem. Philly's greens today are a most interesting combination of Flynn and Maxwell! But now you're saying TIllie recommended the removal of a bunch of DH bunkers or other things at Philly and Flynn came in and did that? Again, if that's true we'd sure like to see that documnented.

Thanks.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 08, 2004, 07:52:56 AM
"Most of Tilly's ideas were excellent during this period. The idea of orienting greens and the master pit found in Simplicty and Tucking (by the way I agree with Mike C's interpretation, this article has nothing to do with Duffers range) is excellent...he seems to have adopted many of Tom Simpson's ideas."

Tom MacW:

Yes, I'd like this post to show I very much do disagree with you and apparently Mike Cirba too on your interpretation of some of these articles and what Tillinghast meant by those articles.
 
That quotation I gave you yesterday in Chapter 29, in my opinion, very much does relate to the things he said in Chapter 28 (Simplicity in Bunkering which very much does relate to DH zone bunkering among other things) particularly since the sentence in chapter 29 relating to not considering his system invariable begins with the words "It may be recalled that my last article...." The last article he's referring to is "Simplicity in Bunkering".

And he did submit chapter 28 in August and chapter 29 in September.

As you well know I think the thing you need to do more of or do better is to look at Tillinghast articles and what he was doing during that time in its entirety (as Phil and apparently RickW have mentioned before) and stop fixating in a vacuum on these little issues of yours to make some major point like Tillinghast was compromising his architectural principles.

You still don't seem to have admitted that this 7,000 bunker issue you've been thowing around on this thread to help prove your point about Tillinghast may not related to JUST that first DH zone bunkering.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 08, 2004, 09:30:57 AM
I must say that one benefit of this thread has been it's made me go back and reread with a specific purpose the trilogy compliled by the Tillinghast Society of Tillie's voluminous writing over such an interesting time span.

I realize now that Tillinghast's career writing has perhaps given us the most comprehensive written record of the thinking in architecture of a particulalry fascinating time from as many viewpoints as anyone has ever produced in the annals of architecture.

More than ever I now see that when looking at a specific time or a specific subject in history as this thread deals with it's completely important to understand Tillinghast's writing in it's entirety.

For instance, the subject of this thread concerns his PGA tour recommendations and work and I just reread Chapter 30 which deals with things other than DH bunkering---it deals with all the ramifications of slopes and their construction from playability to appearance to maintenance efficiencies!

And this article too was written during and for his PGA tour in the mid 1930s. All this makes me realize more than ever that it's very dangerous in trying to determine an accurate historical perspective what the influence and gist of what he was doing if one focuses too specifically one just one part of it as Tom MacWood seems to have done (DH bunkering and the fact that alone might indicates a compromise in architectural principle).
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 08, 2004, 09:46:26 AM
"Tilly afraid that Donald will blow the whistle on his "selling out," slips the Don a package with his share of the PGA greenbacks.  Oops, sorry, I am slipping again."

After the subject of this 14 page "discussion", that's beautiful!

So the great Donald Ross after perusing one of the PGA articles (PGA "Number") that we've all been perusing changed his mind and approved of what Tillinghast was doing on his tour!?

Perhaps at this point Tom and Mike should make their case that Donald Ross was also "selling out" or compromising his architectural principles for complimenting Tillie on what he was doing!  ;)


Actually, as part of the deal, and to express his thankfulness to Tillie for removing many useless DH bunkers from Pinehurst #2, Ross pledged to the Philadelphian Tillinghast that he would do some future product adverts.

(http://www.i-mockery.com/romhacks/wilford/wilford-quaker.jpg)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 08, 2004, 10:11:39 AM
MikeC:

I'm not sure what you meant and the photos an (X). But you may be wrong again on what Tillinghast may've been doing and saying to Ross in Pinehurst when he stopped in to visit him on his way south during the PGA project.

Tillinghast was probably saying to Ross, in his inimitable way;

"Donald, you're not such a bad fellow afterall for a total independent who never shared anything with any of the rest of us. And if you haven't read between the lines all these years I'm here to tell you that we of the "Philadelphia School of Architecture" aren't in the slightest bit sorry we completely shut you out of our tight little fraternity all these years. You did slip in there somehow with Aronimink in 1929 but I don't think that course will ever cut the mustard compared to what we did in that town!"

Or perhaps, as they neared the end of their careers and sat together that day in Pinehurst, perhaps they hauled out the flasks and laughed about the necessity and effect of hyperbole in golf architecture and architectural salesmanship!

I'm here to tell you that GMGC is a wonderful little members course and always has been but the things Ross said to us in the beginning is an excellent example of some of the most exgregious hyperbole and salesmanship known to architecture.

You appear to be interested in the architectural trends of this era, Mike, and perhaps some of the things that were going on during that time when Tillie visited Ross in Pinehurst. The transitions in architecture from one era to another, if you will, and as you've mentioned or implied on this thread.

I believe that RTJ could've been perhaps the greatest salesman in the history of golf architecture and I think the record will show---when it's properly investigated---that he definitley learned a thing or two about hyperbole and architectural salesamanship, either directly or indirectly, from those two old hyperbole smoothies---Tillinghast and Ross!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 08, 2004, 10:16:56 AM
Tom;

Is the picture not showing up on your PC?  

It's a clear picture of Donald Ross, posed next to a Philadelphia product he has "sold out" for years to shill, Tillie's "Quaker Oats".   Now that we know they secretly met during this timeframe, can their be any doubt they were co-conspirators beyond more than hyperbole and salesmanship.

I also believe Tillie scolded Ross for creating so many top-shot, useless DH bunkers through the years, and Ross clearly saw the light and stopped the practice forthwith.

"And now......you know the rest of the story!!  Page Fifteen"  (http://www.paulharvey.com/graphics/splash/nav2_r01_c1.gif)  ;D
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 08, 2004, 02:11:24 PM
Of course, I could be mistaken but the evidence seems irrefutable that Tillie and Ross were co-conspiring to end the Golden Age.

Still, not everyone is buying it.  For instance, I was sent photographic evidence that asserts that Ross was actually walking the coast of Ireland at the time of the alleged Tillinghast meeting, looking for the perfect place to build his only links course.  (without DH or "top shot" bunkers, of course).

Judge for yourself..

(http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/golfonline/travel/architects/photos/ross.jpg)

(http://tachyonresearch.com/albums/Yoda-in-Ireland/1530_yoda_at_inch_beach_dingle_pennisula.sized.jpg)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 08, 2004, 02:18:23 PM
Mike
I think you might be on to something...I am absolutely convinced the fellow on the oatmeal box is RTJ...the pieces are just now starting fit!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 08, 2004, 02:21:00 PM
Tom;

This is BIG and makes the DaVinci Code look like simple coincidence.   ;)

Shhhhhhhh...we may be in danger.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 08, 2004, 02:27:13 PM
(http://www.golfweb.com/practicetee/architects/images/trentjones.jpg)

(http://www.angelfire.com/ny/lowbrow/images/quak.jpg)

(http://www.hbo.com/sopranos/img/90x94/characters/hesh_rabkin.jpg)


Coincidence?  

I think not.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 08, 2004, 05:47:11 PM
Tom MacWood:

Regarding your post #344 you are truly amazing, in my opinon. I'm surely not going to piecemeal through that post and answer you again because we've been through those very same details and quotations and articles and pieces of them in this discussion on this thread before. I'm afraid I just don't agree at all with the way you analyze articles and the written word. We see two very different things apparently while looking at the very same material.

You continue to maintain that Tillinghast very definitely changed his architectural philosophy in 1935-1936, particularly regarding bunkering for the duffer in that short range off the tee and consequently compromised his architectural principles. I believe you are simply wrong about that and I believe the evidence you're using to support that contention just doesn't support that contention at all.

You base your entire contention on the way you analyze that evidence, and again, I just don't believe you've analyzed that evidence correctly--the very opposite in fact, in my opinion.

And I'm sorry to see you say when I mention how I think you're going about analyzing this evidence in the context of the subject of this thread that sounds to you like a lecture. I certainly have no interest in lecturing you about how you go about research, only to tell you what I think of it and why. This is a discussion, nothing more, in my opinion.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 08, 2004, 08:26:33 PM
I see my lame attempts to introduce some much needed levity to this thread went over like a lead balloon.   :-X

Oh, by the way, I'd like to thank Rick Wolffe for his sharing of some really interesting historical material.  

I still think this thread uncovered some really interesting facts and some passionate, if differing opinions.  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 08, 2004, 08:33:24 PM
Hmmm.  Was Bill Fynn part of the Tilly-Ross sell out?


Harrington Park, N.J. September 21st 1935

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

Arrived home tonight after a week in Philadelphia, reports of which have been mailed you each evening.

Today was spent with the president of the Philadelphia section of the P.G.A. – Ed Dudley.  First I met him at his headquarters, - the old course of the Philadelphia Country Club at Bala.  There I met the superintendent of both the old and new courses, M.E. Farnham, who afterwards accompanied Dudley and myself to the new course at Spring Mill, where we were met later by the chairman of the green committee, - D.W. Bell.  I was requested to select the better of two routes and design of the first hole, which I did.  I examined all parts of the new course, where any problems existed and gave them opinions.  Where several problems, involving major construction, were evident I suggested that the retain William Flynn, a local golf course architect and construction man.  However I gave them suggestions and told the committee that I would be glad to confer with Flynn at any time, being as helpful as possible as is consistent with the aims and operation of our P.G.A. service.

There are several more requests from P.G.A. members in the Philadelphia district (made to Ed Dudley, sectional president) notably Lanarch and Concord, - as well as three from Reading.  The Reading service will be given next week, after the close of the Ryder Cup Matches.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 08, 2004, 08:46:39 PM
Hmmm... Perhaps Tillie was being paid under the table and that is how he came up with the funds to buy the Don.


Harrington Park, N.J. October 1st 1935

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

Yesterday I went over to the south shore of Long Island and went over parts of the Inwood course with Jack Mackie, of the Executive Committee of the P.G.A.  There we were joined by Jack Pirie, at whose request I made the visit for the purpose of advising him about several improvements at his nearby course of the Woodmere Club.  There we partially prepared a model for a new twelfth green but as the chairman of his green committee was prevented from being present, I arranged to revisit the Woodmere course today, when he could be there.

This afternoon I again visited Woodmere and after a careful survey of the site for the new green, completed the model, and met Max Hesslein, the chairman.  With him and Pirie, I examined the eleventh and thirteenth holes, which are to be rearranged and new teeing grounds introduced.  Mr. Hesslein was evidently pleased with our service and intimated that he would like me to again be with them at some future time to advise concerning further improvements.  We said that he would be glad to pay the P.G.A. for the service but I informed him that this was not consistent with our policy and that the service was rendered freely only to such clubs where a P.G.A. member was affiliated.  He then suggested that the club be permitted to make some donation to the Benevolent Fund of the association.  I told him that this matter must remain fro you to decide.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 08, 2004, 09:06:41 PM
The conspiracy hit a snag in Boston, but this was no problem for a guy from Phily and Jersey.  Tilly talked these bush league Boston mobsters in circles and quickly grabbed the territory -- taking Maine and New Hampshire for good measure too.



Boston, Massachusetts
August 21st 1936

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

This morning, at their request, I attended a meeting of the executives of the Massachusetts Section of the P.G.A. presided over by president Dick May of Metacomet.  They gave the P.G.A. course service a warm welcome and after secretary Marty Keane had announced the various requests, a comprehensive schedule was fixed.  It will take me three weeks to finish the section this time and I will have to reach up into Maine and New Hampshire.  We have two requests from the latter state and Keane corrected his misstatement concerning George McQueen of Franconia, who is a member after all.

I ran into a situation here, which at first seemed rather alarming.  The New England Green Keepers’ Association, who have never affiliated themselves with the national association, but keep aloof, resented my visit, not fully understanding our motives.  They are a very serious body of capable and well qualified men.  At the request of the P.G.A. executives here I met a representation of the greenkeepers here at the Somerset Hotel last night.  They were headed by their president, Howard Tarrange, T.W. Swanson and Frank H. Wilson (who had been a chief objector)  I addressed them and in detail explained our motives.  At the finish they all expressed their complete satisfaction and indeed were most friendly, particularly Frank Wilson, and without exceptions expressed the desire that I might visit their clubs.  I was very pleased of course.

This afternoon I visited the course of the Walpole Country Club with Marty Keane.  We were joined there by the greenkeeper Jim Balmayne, S.D. Chamberlain (president of the club) and H.D. Rogers (of the committee)  They wanted me particularly to advise them concerning a rearrangement of their course, which I did completely and their evident satisfaction.

My address here is the Hotel Somerset and all mail may be forwarded to me here.  Even when I go up into Maine and Mew Hampshire in a week or ten days, it will be held for me here pending my return.  Certainly the reaction to our service in the New England section is most gratifying.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 08, 2004, 09:09:13 PM
Tom MacW:

Sorry if you take umbrage at the way I talk about how I think you analyze the evidence (articles, letters, aerials, and basically the known record of this subject) on this thread. But that's the way I see it and don't mind saying it. I'd expect you to do the same.

This is a fairly unusual thread  particularly as we've all had access to a ton of contemporaneous material to read and analyze--most produced by the Tillinghast Society in one way or another and Rick and Phil with all those letters and other material. When the conclusions are as different as ours seems to be I see nothing wrong with bringing up the subject or how any of us analyze historical material and on this subject and thread I sure don't agree with how you're analyzing it.

An example, and without going back through all 14 pages of this thread, originally you seemed to base your conclusion about Tillinghast compromising his principles in 1935-6 on the fact that you claimed he recommended during his PGA tour that  basically 7,000 bunkers be removed from that first DH zone. Mike Cirba seems to have based most of his opinion on this subject on that very fact.

So, I'll ask you again if you can prove that fact and if not why did you say it to base your conclusions about Tillinghast on? That kind of thing gets right to the nub of how one does research and analyzes it, in my opinion.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 08, 2004, 09:20:45 PM
More proof!!!   He is back at Pinehurst.   The PGA most have been a front.  He was probably plotting with Dr. Know -- The Don.


Pinehurst, North Carolina
November 22nd 1936

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

During the annual tournament for the national P.G.A. championship, concluded here today, I have made numerous contacts with our members and have listed a number of requests for our course service.  In the morning I leave for Raleigh and then on to Newport News on Wednesday.  Friday will find me at Hungry Mother Park in the south-west of Virginia for the first consultation with the W.P.A. authorities.

Here follows a general schedule of my travels, which will guide you whenever the W.P.A. asks for our guidance.  You agreed with me that my activities with them would necessarily have to be regulated by my locations.

First week in December in Alabama
Third week in December in San Diego, California
To January tenth Los Angeles, California
To February fifteenth in northern California
Finish southern California and drive to Texas up to March seventh.
To March twentieth in Texas and Oklahoma
To end of March in Louisiana
From first to middle of April in Kentucky
To April 27th in eastern Missouri
To April 30th through Iowa and probably the work in that state will take me until the 7th
May 8th to June 8th Chicago and Illinois district, where requests are very heavy.

Of course I will keep you definitely advised from time to time to mailing addresses.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 08, 2004, 09:36:17 PM
Geeze...  Now they are plotting to soak the taxpayer too!!!


Marion, Virginia
November 28th 1936

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

I am about to take my departure for Birmingham, Alabama, spending the next night at Knoxville, Tennessee.  I have notified Charley Hall of the date of my arrival, by letter, as he requested me to do at Chicago.

I have had another conference with Mr. Burson and the anticipated program at Hungry Mother State Park is well defined.  I think it would be well for you to send a copy of my report of yesterday, to the department at Washington, as Mr. Burson will apply there for it.

My hotel bill here at Marion has been paid by Mr. Charles Lincoln (mentioned in my report of yesterday)  In this particular instance it is rather difficult for the P.G.A. to make an adequate charge to the W.P.A. for my mileage and expenses since I came away from Chicago for this inspection and conference, in as much as I carried on to Pinehurst and my visit here was delayed three days more by the request of Mr. Burson. It would seem to me to be fair for you to render an expense account to the department for 850 miles automobile mileage (the distance from Chicago and to Richmond) and for four days living expenses (for which the government allows you $5 each I believe, but of course actually they amount to more than that.)  This makes no account of my getting back to the regular route of my previous schedule (that is from Chicago to the south)  As I have said this time the accounting is a bit involved but there will be no trouble in the future.

Summing this up briefly, - I think it would be more than fair to the government in this instance to bill them for 850 for mileage @ .05 , - $42.50 with an additional $20 for four days’ living expense, - a total of $62.50

I will spend Sunday at Knoxville, drive to Birmingham on Monday, visit Charley Hall on Tuesday and Dan Gosse on Wednesday.  Thereafter I will pick up recorded requests in that section.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 08, 2004, 10:03:04 PM
Oh that low-down, despicable, rascally Tillie.  Doing his dirty deeds under the cover of the benevolent "Hungry Mothers".  

I've known some hungry mothers in my time, but the most I ever did with them was go to an all you can eat Calabash seafood restaurant in Myrtle Beach, followed by copious amounts of alcohol.  

But that darned Tilly on the other hand...I'm seeing this is deeper and more nefarious than I could have ever imagined.   ;D

Rick...seriously...

When and where do your records indicate that he removed the majority of the "7,000" bunkers.

Tom Paul is right.  My interpretation of his writings at the time and reason for starting this voluminous thread in the first place was to understand what Tillie did and how his thinking about bunkering schemes evolved over time.  To ask it in the form of an inflammatory question only goes to prove that there is nothing like controversial press to get people's attention.  

Clearly, it seems he removed a lot of bunkers that affected the games of the hacker during his PGA work.  My belief is that bunkering in the duffer zone adds interest and challenge for the weaker hitter, so that's my admitted bias.  They used to abound in the earliest courses and over time, largely disappeared.

So, what I'm trying to understand is if Tillie was motivated by a belief that duffer's have enough problems without having to deal with bunkering in their driving zone (as some of his strongly worded writings seem to suggest), or if he removed many of these bunkers in an effort to save money during the Depression years (as he boasted in his writings).  

I originally thought it was probably some of both, but given the number of somewhat expensive changes he suggested to the clubs he consulted (as your letters indicate), I'm clearly starting to believe that he removed them purely on philosophical grounds.

While that clearly suggests he didn't "sell out", it does make him somewhat unique among Golden Age architects in advocating very modern thinking and design methodologies that other's like RTJ Sr. took to heart and expanded on.  

That is, it seems to me that Tillinghast's design philosophy evolved over time to favor the course built with artificial hazards placed in a way to almost solely disturb and test the game of the accomplished player, while offering the hack a way to get around largely unscathed by the architect's plottings.

Would you agree?  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 08, 2004, 10:19:51 PM
Mike
"It is this that is a part of the PGA doctrine, which has been assigned to me to preach and to make points as understandible as possible."

That is from his 'simplicity' article and there are other similar mentions in other articles during this period. IMO it was a job, a job I don't believe he would have taken unless under difficult circumstances, a job that he performed very well, to the best of his ability given the PGA goals. Not the high point for Tilly or golf architecture.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 08, 2004, 10:35:42 PM
Good post MikeC and interesting and thoughtful musings!

You've said a number of times those bunkers in that zone are your personal bias and all with the thought that they both challenge and interest the duffer. But what if they don't? What do you feel about their plight then, and how does that effect your opinion of Tillinghast's philosophy?

I just started a thread about bunkers, an architect's principles and a membership's opinion that directly relates to this entire question and subject.

At some point there comes a time when this interesting but basically unavoidable dynamic must be faced and dealt with by all of us who belong to golf courses and have some responsibilty for dealing with them. If an analyst such as Tom MacWood wants to avoid or not consider this membership dynamic as it relates to architecture and it's preservation or demise then he will be analyzing in a unrealistic dreamworld of some kind of architectural purity, in my opinion.

I think there probably is some value to an analyst just completely staying out of this fray and dynamic but not much value and when he questions an architect's principles, when an architect such as Tillinghast, or any other architect really, can't stay out of that dynamic then I don't think that flies very well.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 08, 2004, 11:01:21 PM
TE
Here is an example. Analyzing what occured at Bel-Air...Tilly recommended a number of Duffer's Headaches be removed...if we believe Bel-Air was one George Thomas's greatest works and one of the great courses in the World....should we place the responsiblity upon Tilly for subjecting B-A to his DH formula or should most of the responsiblity be on the membership for accepting or declining his recommndation?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: ForkaB on April 09, 2004, 03:56:35 AM
Rick

Many, many thanks for reproducing those Tillie letters.  Keep them coming!

It's refreshing to have some primary source material on this site.  What a pity that even these "facts' are not enough to quell the idle and often reckless (and even feckless)speculation of other contributors........... :'(
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 09, 2004, 07:13:54 AM
Rich;

Feckless?  C'mon, no need for swearing in here.  :o ;D
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 09, 2004, 07:21:10 AM
"TE
Here is an example. Analyzing what occured at Bel-Air...Tilly recommended a number of Duffer's Headaches be removed...if we believe Bel-Air was one George Thomas's greatest works and one of the great courses in the World....should we place the responsiblity upon Tilly for subjecting B-A to his DH formula or should most of the responsiblity be on the membership for accepting or declining his recommndation?"

Tom MacW:

Very appropriate question!

First of all, who is “We”? Is it you and me and other contributors to Golfclubatlas today? If so what real right or reason do “we” have to place responsibility on anyone regarding the DH bunkering at Bel-Air? Did you play the course in the 1930s? Did I? Did you even see it? Do you know what the duffer membership of that club felt about their DH zone bunkering? Do you know how any of the membership felt about the financial situation of the club in the 1930s, a financial situation they’re responsible for?

I may not have felt this way a year or more ago but this entire subject always seems to remain a learning experience for all of us. I’m coming to believe that architecture survives or not for a reason. That reason is perhaps the ultimate tenet of all architecture and all good architects---does the architecture and all its particular features serve to give the golfers (the membership) of that club the type of challenge, excitement and pleasure he wants , enjoys and perhaps comes to respect or doesn’t it and why? Those are the things we need to determine on here and to understand and the better we get at determining that the more valuable our knowledge might be in the future for all golf architecture.

From some of Tillinghast’s letters it seems evident that he had a belief and a philosophy regarding what may serve that end of satisfying the duffer best. He also seemed to understand (again from his letters) that if a club or its membership was unwilling to take his advice that that was not the end of the world. Why was that?

Mike Cirba seems to have a different idea about what was best for the duffer than Tillinghast had. You may too. It’s probably not for Mike or you or me or even Tillinghast to decide in the end what was best for the duffer. It’s probably best for the duffer to decide that for himself. And it seems to me that’s probably what happened at Bel-Air and to some of George Thomas architecture despite the fact you may think it was some of the greatest in the world. It happened at my club that way too----twice actually. The more I get into this it seems generally speaking this is what always happens.

For all of us today who are intensely interested in all this the idea is probably to simply understand the reasons for it and refrain from placing blame on someone. This is one of the reasons I’m coming to understand that in the end and over time it’s the membership or something about it that makes the final determination of these things. I suppose the best architects understand this well and design, recommend, create and make decisions accordingly.

This is why I think a good analyst and certainly a good architect should thoroughly understand the dynamics of memberships of clubs, Tom, because if they don’t even in an historic context they’ll be missing  something about architecture that’s extremely important in the end.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 09, 2004, 07:28:24 AM
MikeC:

Since you seemed slightly po-faced that your photos above apparently went over like a lead balloon let me say they didn't with me---wonderful stuff and very creative---I'm still laughing over those amazingly appropriate juxtapositions.

Have you been taking some new miracle humor pills lately or has this thread and subject just gotten to you? And I think Rich's "feckless" is appropriate about now too---it had a certain stutter-step alliteration to it in his post!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 09, 2004, 07:46:43 AM
TE
Do you normally associate the work of George Thomas (and Bel-Air in particular) with Duffer's Headaches?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 09, 2004, 09:00:13 AM
"Oh that low-down, despicable, rascally Tillie.  Doing his dirty deeds under the cover of the benevolent "Hungry Mothers"."

Mike Cirba:

You've got that right. I think Tom MacWood should do some serious investigative research to determine if he thinks Tillinghast had compromised morals too during his PGA tour jouneys!

You know what Cuba Gooding said about the sanctity of single mothers (Hungry Mothers) in his question to Tom Cruise regarding what he'd done to Renee Zellwegger.

"Did you or did you not hijack the pootty?"  
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 09, 2004, 10:06:13 AM
"TE
Do you normally associate the work of George Thomas (and Bel-Air in particular) with Duffer's Headaches?"

Not normally. Do you?

 
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 09, 2004, 10:44:31 AM
"Did you or did you not hijack the pootty?"

Tom;

Great line...just watched it again recently.  That wasn't a direct question to me, was it?  If so, I'm ignoring it.  ;)

Glad to hear that you enjoyed the humor.  After 15 pages I became a little punchy and thought the tone was getting just a bit too heated.  Personally, I laugh each time I see Donald Ross as Yoda.    

To answer your question re: "You've said a number of times those bunkers in that zone are your personal bias and all with the thought that they both challenge and interest the duffer. But what if they don't? What do you feel about their plight then, and how does that effect your opinion of Tillinghast's philosophy?", I tried to answer that question on your related thread by recounting a personal story from Aronimink, where as you know, many bunkers that affect the poor player were restored by Ron Prichard.

To a duffer member complaining about a bunker in their "zone", I'd be tempted to say as an architect, "why should I put them where you can't hit the ball??"
 
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 09, 2004, 11:14:25 AM
"That wasn't a direct question to me, was it?  If so, I'm ignoring it."

MikeC:

No, it was a direct question to both you and Tom MacWood regarding Tillinghast's morals vis-a-vis Hungry Mothers (single mothers) and such during his PGA Tour particularly that stretch from Chicago to Pinehurst or Alabama or wherever he was headed. He seems to suggest in one of his letters Rick posted that he's not being reimbursed for all his expensed by the government or the PGA or WPA or whomever.

So I want to know what expenses he's talking about. Knowing Tillinghast at that time in his life and career when he was down and out, no longer the editor of Golf Illustrated, no real normal work in the depression, probably drinking and smoking too damn much and running himself into the gutter etc, etc---I want to know how much of a life-change was going on with him in this 1935-6 timeframe! I want to know what he was doing at night and such in his downtime when he wasn't condemning DH zone bunkering and destroying golf courses and compromising their architectural principles as well as his own.

Tom MacWood seems to think for some reason he was going through some life change which made him compromise his architectural principles or sell them out, although Tom's admitted the latter may be a bit strong.

So I want to know if he was after some pooty of hungry and single mothers too. If you or Tom could figure that out we may be able to establish a real pattern of behavior here that could put Tillinghast and all he did during this tour and later and the reasons why into real perspective and perhaps shed some light on RTJ's later design style and perhaps the evolution of architecture into the modern age. There could be a potential Mother lode (sorry about that--but perhaps even a Hungry Mother lode) of information here! How cool and interesting would that be?!!

I have this theory that Tillinghast architectural work and poduct can be broken down into two distinct and very idenifiable categories.

1. What he did in the mornings on site when he had a real hangover. Mostly this category is odd, makes no real sense, appears mean spirited and such.

2. What he did in the second half of the day after he'd had the chance to really get back into his flask and get creative, gutsy and adventurous with his architecture. Late Day Tillie architecture is generally markedly better than morning Tillie architecture. Matter of fact there's no comparison at all his late day architecture is so much better!

But we need to delve much deeper, I think. It's possible that Hungry Mother (single mother) pooty just might have an influence on the evolution of golf architecture in America that was heretofore unknown and even unimaginable!!

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 09, 2004, 11:26:13 AM
An ineterestimg side point to the last few posts where "Hungry Mother" has been mentioned.

In 1936, Tillinghast made a detour during his tour going from Chicago to Marion, Virginia, where he laid out a potential course for Hungry Mother State Park!

This park was built with WPA money in 1932 and they decided to try & build a golf course there in 1936 with more WPA money. They were turned down by the government.

Some local officials are doing a search for me through local records to see if they can find the drawings that were done according to his sketches by a local civil engineer who was one of the prime movers in this failed project.

TEPaul, one other point. You wrote, "I have this theory that Tillinghast architectural work and poduct can be broken down into two distinct and very idenifiable categories.

1. What he did in the mornings on site when he had a real hangover. Mostly this category is odd, makes no real sense, appears mean spirited and such.

2. What he did in the second half of the day after he'd had the chance to really get back into his flask and get creative, gutsy and adventurous with his architecture. Late Day Tillie architecture is generally markedly better than morning Tillie architecture. Matter of fact there's no comparison at all his late day architecture is so much better!"

Though you may have meant this tongue-in-cheek or were serious, this side of Tillinghast's life & lifestyle has been wrongly reported and greatly misinterpreted.

I base this on interviews with ALL of his grandchildren, copies of medical records going back to the twenties, and a number of other witness stories. This will be a very surprising part of the biography taht I am doing, and if you'd like to know more, you can read it in November.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 09, 2004, 11:27:14 AM
Tom;

Those files (and pictures) are hidden deep in the vaults of The Tillnghast Society, marked as "EXTREMELYclassified", and Rick's military background generally ensures that they are adequately guarded around the clock by evil sharks with lasers attached to their heads.

However, a few years back, a good friend of mine risked life and limb to get a glimpse of those dark, hidden secret files at my request.  He was gone for some days, I had given up hope, but finally he came back to me and in his dying breath, drew a quick sketch of what he witnessed therein;

It's a little messy, with blood stains and such, but I trust it will serve the illustrative purpose of revealing this dark, debauched period of Tillinghast's life.  It seems that removing DH bunkers wasn't the only "alternative" Tillie was exploring in those years.

(http://www.flyingmoose.org/moose/dd24.jpg)

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 09, 2004, 11:49:10 AM
Hmmm... check this one out..."Darth Tilly" is bringing more architects over to the "Dark Side." -- one A. Douglas Dodge and  R.J. Ross.  Mike C., thanks for the Intel, I always suspected that Yoda was the other Seth.
-----------------------------
Some quick interpretive thoughts.  IMO Tilly's consulting trip was a very Great Thing, which had been largely forgotten, but should be revived for what it meant to golf in America, as America came out of the Great Depression.

Does anyone see the great optimism in this sampling of letters from Tilly?  Almost all of these PGA pros, club presidents, greenkeepers, green chairman were greeting Tilly with great optimism.  They do not appear to be looking at ways to cut cost to save their golf courses from the NLE designation.  Quite to the contrary!  They were looking for ways to make their courses better, which means they would be investing resources, labor and capital to do so!

Tilly's tour may have been the great stimulus, to take the recovering optimism in the economy and jump start the golfcourse industry, which had slowed to a halt and declined in the early years of the great depression.


Mike C.
Tilly was out promoting the retention of local architects.  Wasn't this a good thing?
-------------------
 
Hartford, Conn. September 6-1935
(Note correction.  Report from Greenwich should have been dated September 4th instead of the 5th)

The President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

The morning was given over to an inspection of the Avon Country Club course at Avon, Conn.  At the request of P.G.A. member George Siebert, who accompanied me together with his greenkeeper, r.B. Burnham; Russell C. Dodge, (Chairman of the Green Committee) J. . Henderson, and A.  Douglas Dodge, Architect of the course.  The latter was particularly glad to see me and said he was fully aware of the aid that the P.G.A. service was rendering local course architects.  He asked many questions and was keenly alive to the suggestions that I gave, covering most of the holes that are still unfinished and some inexpensive rearrangements of others.  Altogether this examination and service was very comprehensive and fortunately the rain ceased about noon.

From Avon I went to the Country Club, Farmington, Conn. at the request of P.G.A. member Arthur Reid.  Here again my examination embraced the entire course.  Besides Reid I was accompanied by greenkeeper Wm. Dubie and Harry Ives Bartholomew of the green committee.  Their chief problem concerned a new eighteenth hole, which I made into a one-shotter on account of previous blindless of the second shot, and the lengthening of the seventeenth with new green and teeing ground.  Many other points were covered on numerous holes.

Still another course was covered on this unusually active day, that of the Indian Hill Country Club at Newington, Conn, at the request of Bob Smith, president of this section of the P.G.A.  With him on our inspection was the president of the club, D.H. Cannon and the architect, who had planned a number of courses in this section and who is enthusiastic over the aid of our service.  He asked me to be not sparing in my criticism of his work and was quick to acknowledge the soundness of my recommendations that numerous pits be removed.  Another case of unnecessary penalties for poor shots of mediocre players.

Got back to the Bond Hotel just in time to change my clothes and get a bite to eat before the meeting of the member of this section, numerous greenkeepers and committeemen.  I was particularly glad to see, too, both of the local course architects already mentioned and the interest that they manifested was generally noted.  Altogether the meeting was successful and gratifying.  Robert Smith advises me that already he has six more requests for service in Connecticut that will have to be picked up later  (after the service in Philadelphia trip I imagine) and in addition I have two more courses to investigate tomorrow.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 09, 2004, 12:12:54 PM
Oh, more thing in regard to the hungry single mothers.

As most can see from this sampling of letters, Tilly's schedule was extremely demanding -- from the crack of dawn to after dusk.  Did this guy sleep?   Perhaps he squeezed in some quickies with all the hungry mothers, but he would have had to be really sneaky, as his wife, Lillian, accompanied him on his PGA travels.  
----------------
The grandfather clock in the grand hotel lobby chimed midnight.  In room 102, a typewriter could be heard clacking away from the hallway.  Old Tilly, turned to see his loving Lillian dozing on the recliner.  Tilly rose quietly, mumbled under his breath that he was going to get a new typewriter ribbon.  Five minutes later he was in roon 107 embracing the hootie wife of the Country Club president. She was a buxom one, who earlier that day eyed tillie from the eighteenth green as he was condeming bunkers out in front of the tee.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 09, 2004, 12:14:41 PM
"In 1936, Tillinghast made a detour during his tour going from Chicago to Marion, Virginia, where he laid out a potential course for Hungry Mother State Park!"

Phil:

Hungry Mother is a State Park?? Damnit, I thought we might be onto something here. There's no single mother pooty in a state park that I know of. I hope Tom MacWood doesn't see this but who knows, even if he does he might make some case that stopping by a state park called Hungry Mother might be evidence that Tillinghast exhibited some compromised morals during that time period.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 09, 2004, 12:25:48 PM
"Five minutes later he was in roon 107 embracing the hootie wife of the Country Club president. She was a buxom one, who earlier that day eyed tillie from the eighteenth green as he was condeming bunkers out in front of the tee."

What's the matter with you Rick? That doesn't make any sense--it's not logical. If Room #107 was the wife of the club president she couldn't very well be a Hungry Mother (single mother). Maybe your research is screwed up, maybe Room #107 that Tillie quickied was a Hungry Mother (single mother). It's possible that she too eyed him condemning bunkers earlier in the day and was attracted to him.

Generally single mothers (Hungry Mothers) are attracted to complete sons of bitches (which Tom MacWood might say Tillie was being during this timeframe). That's the primary reason they ARE Hungry Mothers (single mothers).

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 09, 2004, 12:46:54 PM
TE
No, I agree with you, I don't normally associate Thomas with Duffer's Headaches.

Do you disagree with Tilly's assessment or characterization of "numerous" Duffer's Headaches at George Thomas's Bel-Air?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 09, 2004, 01:02:34 PM
Tom:

I guess I'd have to go back and really look at what Tillinghast said about specific bunkers at Bel-Air in 1935 and also really look closely at Thomas's course then. I've never been there and I've never done that with aerials or photos or whatnot. Have you really done both?

All I know is it's probably a lot easier to compromise your principles and sell your soul in LA than it is in Boston or Philly, or Chicago or most any other town in America. There's just a lot more available pooty in LA to steer you down the wrong path and there always has been! It's just much easier to go wrong in LA than anywhere else in America IMO. I think the record might show that when poor Tillie finally hit LA he was at the end of his line. His life was basically over and done with! After that and after he'd sold his last stick of furniture out there they had to take him back to Ohio and deposit him in a little room in his daughter's house where he finally slipped into oblivion and died!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 09, 2004, 01:17:03 PM
TE
"I made numerous recommendations to eliminate misplaced and unnecessary (D.H.) pits and in some few instances the introduction of others, placed out at a proper range."

Bunkers that are meant solely to punish the duffer...I don't think so. Yes I have studied aerials of Bel-Air and to characterize any of those bunkers as DH's is unfortunate.

Hungry Mother Park was just the tip of the iceberg. At the same time Tilly was dispatched to HMP, the PGA also announced they would be developing 500 to 600 new golf courses with the help of the Federal Goverment...with Tilly as the point man.  :o
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 09, 2004, 03:41:17 PM
"Hungry Mother Park was just the tip of the iceberg. At the same time Tilly was dispatched to HMP, the PGA also announced they would be developing 500 to 600 new golf courses with the help of the Federal Goverment...with Tilly as the point man."

Tom MacW:

Is that a fact? Well maybe you are onto something with Tillie and with other more interesting info. I'm basically not buying your premise that he sold his principles or compromised them over DH zone bunkering simply because of what I see him saying previously (which you of course don't agree with).

But you think Tillie was going to be the point man for 500-600 government funded new golf courses do you? That is interesting and would seem to be a real change and departure for him particularly regarding this story that he just hated WPA course construction labor and may have walked away from Bethpage over it.

Produce some solid evidence along this line of thinking and maybe you are on to something about the poor wretch selling his soul and his architectural principles.

Maybe Mike Cirba is onto something too that this was the beginning of the modern age when concern was only for the good player and what interested and challenged the duffer was left in the dustbin.

You probably think I'm trying to outflank you at every turn---but nothing of the kind. Let's see what you've got on this one.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 09, 2004, 04:52:52 PM
TE
I'd be disapointed if you didn't stick to your guns....despite the evidence. I reckon you'll also turn a bilind eye to Phil's finding that Tilly didn't hit the bottle....sad as it is.

If George Crump came back from the dead and told you Colt co-designed PVGC...you'd call him a liar and pour yourself another drink.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 09, 2004, 05:08:37 PM
Tom,

You wrote, "I reckon you'll also turn a bilind eye to Phil's finding that Tilly didn't hit the bottle....sad as it is."

There we have the problem in a nutshell! I NEVER said that! If you CAREFULLY read what I wrote, you would not say that.

In commenting to TEPaul about his statement of Tilly's drinking, I wrote, "Though you may have meant this tongue-in-cheek or were serious, this side of Tillinghast's life & lifestyle has been wrongly reported and greatly misinterpreted.

I base this on interviews with ALL of his grandchildren, copies of medical records going back to the twenties, and a number of other witness stories. This will be a very surprising part of the biography that I am doing, and if you'd like to know more, you can read it in November."

Now where in there did I say that he didn't drink or drink to excesses or have an alcohol problem?  

You will understand better when the book comes out!
 
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 09, 2004, 05:41:14 PM
Tom M., the 500 new WPA/PGA courses is new and interesting info.  Perhaps PGA President George Jacobus was trying to cut a  major deal for the PGA with the WPA, and that is why he let Tillie make these few detours from courses without PGA pros.  

In regard to Bel -Air, someone needs to confirm if the DH's Tillie recommended removing were ever removed.

In reading the letters, Tilly's primary criticism of WPA projects was thay they did not hire a local golf architect for the work and the project suffered.  Here is an example.  I will post another after dinner.  

Deming, New Mexico
March 11th 1937

President of the P.G.A.
(Box 231, Sarasota, Florida)

Dear Sir:

When I registered at the hotel here, the clerk, who plays golf at the local nine holes course here at Deming (no professional) recognized my name immediately telephoned the town officials of my presence.  They, in turn, notified J.Y. Rogers, who is directing a building of a new nine holes under the W.P.A. program.

Mr. Rogers came to the hotel tonight and talked with me until nearly midnight.  He was hungry for information and of course I gave him all possible advice.  However he knew very little about a modern golf course and it is rather pathetic to consider that money, and Government assistance, should be so misdirected.  Certainly the W.P.A. should take immediate steps to check carefully on all contemplated golf course work.

Although there are some six hundred acres available the new nine holes are crowded on approximately forty acres.  While turf (Bermuda) is being provided for the fairways with ditched irrigation, there will be no grass on the putting greens (if such they may be called)  Formerly, on the old course, they used a composition known as Magnatite.  Now they propose to use another similar by-product.  The teeing grounds are to be small platforms inside two-by-fours and of Adobe.  The plans for one of the short holes provided for a shot over trees to a blind green.  The plans for the course were prepared by the local city engineer.

Now there is no sense in all this.  It is an unnecessary revertion to very antiquated and long disused details.   They are doing no better because they know no better.  Certainly the W.P.A. should guard against such waste.

However I went over many details with Mr. Rogers and he told me that I had helped the work tremendously and that certain mistakes, which they were about to make, would be avoided according to my suggestions.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 09, 2004, 05:42:43 PM

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT

This routine report is transcribed on my arrival at Dallas, because my type-writer was packed away in the trunk compartment of my care when at Deming.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 09, 2004, 06:39:23 PM
Phil
Thank God...I was worried there for a while. I don't think anyone will or won't buy your book if you reveal Tilly was a "good" drinker. Just as I don't believe anyone will think less of Tilly's great accomplishments if you find he was forced to compromise his previous design practices under dificult circumstances...after all the result the PGA tour was a mixed bag--some good, some bad.

RW
From your letters my impression is that they weren't removed at Bel-Air.

At the 1936 PGA meeting, Jacobus announced an arrangement between the PGA and the Federal Goverment that would result in 500-600 new public courses. The goverment will furnish the funds and the work will be done with the advice of the PGA.

Tillinghast was to inspect all the proposed sites. Here is a line I wish I had included in my Bethpage essay: "Tillinghast laid out and supervised the construction of the four 18-hole courses at Beth Page State Park, near Farmingdale...."

"According to my understanding," Tillinghast said, "any golf course development with goverment assistance will depend on initiative by individual communities. the exact percentage of the cost borne by the goverment is something of which I am not yet certain."

It sounds like Tilly was a little more realistic about the prospects than Jacobus. Jacobus was probably using the announcement to get re-elected.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 09, 2004, 07:14:50 PM
"If George Crump came back from the dead and told you Colt co-designed PVGC...you'd call him a liar".

I can't imagine why you say that. If George Crump came back and SHOWED you and Paul Turner exactly what he really did do, though, I've no doubt at all you'd call him a liar just like you've implied J.A. Brown, Warner Shelly, Jim Finegan and everyone else from PVGC you keep saying are trying to discredit Harry Colt. Those three people have logged about 150 years in down there and you've never even been there. I've heard of arrogance but that takes the cake!

;)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 09, 2004, 08:21:57 PM
Here is another letter with a slam on the WPA.  Again IMO Tilly was not happy that the WPA would fund construction work but not fund a golf course architect.  


Saint Paul, Minnesota
April 28th 1937

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

This afternoon I visited the course of the Highland Park Golf Course, one of the municipal courses here, at the request of P.G.A. member Winton Christianson.  I made a complete examination of the entire 18 holes accompanied by Christianson, Pat Kane (Greenkeeper) Fred W. Traux (Park Commissioner) Jack Holmes (Superintendent of City golf courses) Don Garland (Chairman of the Green Committee) and H.S. Huron (President of the club)  The synopsis of my findings is enclosed for our office files and a copy prepared for Christianson and the officials.

Recent W.P.A. work here has been more or less wasted,- about 50% effective I should say.  I gave them numerous suggestions, which will improve the very obvious short-comings of the construction of the course, and at comparatively little cost as carried through a period of four or five years.

Tomorrow morning I am scheduled to examine another of the municipal courses here and in addition give opinions on recent construction work on two other courses, one of which I outlined when here last year.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 09, 2004, 09:12:20 PM
Another factual nugget from Tom MacWood;

"Hungry Mother Park was just the tip of the iceberg. At the same time Tilly was dispatched to HMP, the PGA also announced they would be developing 500 to 600 new golf courses with the help of the Federal Goverment...with Tilly as the point man."

Tom MacW:

Before we go on another wild goose chase discussion let’s see you prove Tillinghast was the point man for a 500-600 golf course government project?

TE
I'd be disapointed if you didn't stick to your guns....despite the evidence. I reckon you'll also turn a bilind eye to Phil's finding that Tilly didn't hit the bottle....sad as it is.

From Phil;

“Tom,
You wrote, "I reckon you'll also turn a bilind eye to Phil's finding that Tilly didn't hit the bottle....sad as it is."
There we have the problem in a nutshell! I NEVER said that! If you CAREFULLY read what I wrote, you would not say that.”

Tom MacWood’s reply:

“Phil
Thank God...I was worried there for a while.”

Tom MacW:

I‘d be worried too if I my reading comprehension was as odd as yours is. That’s probably the primary reason this thread is 16 pages long.

Phil:

I have no real idea if Tillie hit the bottle too excess---I'm joking about that but I do like that aura about him--it sort of goes with his times. If he hit the bottle he was by no means alone in his architecture crowd---and in the best of circumstances it probably added to his creativity.  ;)





Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 11, 2004, 12:47:53 AM
TE
Oh ye of little faith. I'm sorry for not making what is tonue in cheek and what is not more obvious.

If you are interested, the announcement was reported in a number of major newspapers (NY, Chicago, etc)...included in the articles was a description of Tilly's responsibilities. I suggest you look it up if you have any doubts.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 11, 2004, 07:52:07 AM
"TE
Oh ye of little faith."

Tom:

I guess you're right about that. I don't know if I'm ready to accuse a man of compromising his architectural principles if that's the case here simply because something was written about him even if it was in newspapers in the great cities of Chicago and New York.

What is the significance to you, regarding Tillinghast, of the 500-600 proposed golf courses to be built under government funding (WPA) during this era if he was the point man? Does it relate to the subject of this thread? And if not I wonder why it was mentioned in the first place. And secondly, does it make any difference in your mind if it was just reported and never done or if it was done?

"I reckon you'll also turn a bilind eye to Phil's finding that Tilly didn't hit the bottle....sad as it is."

I don't know if I would or wouldn't turn a blind eye to that. How about if we first find out where Phil said that? Where did Phil say that?  ;)

You made the statement of the 500-600 proposed WPA courses---if it has any relevence to this thread why don't you produce the info if you know where it is? If it's relevent I'm sure we'd all like to know that.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 11, 2004, 09:38:57 AM
Doubting TE
To be honest I'm not sure what the significance of this proposed project might be, its just another fact to add to what we already know...I prefer to gather as much info as possible. If you don't think it is interesting or significant or pertains to this subject ignore it....that's your choice.

What do you want...you didn't like the exerpts I quoted from the article. I'd give you the date and the newspaper/magazine, but you don't strike me as someone who spends a lot of time digging though old books, magazines and newspapers....so I don't know what good it would do you.

Would you like me to send it to you....along with the rest of my research on Tilly (I think you've already requested all my research on GCGC so someone astute might go over it)? Give me your address...I'll mail you the article.

Phil wrote, first quoting you:

"'1. What he did in the mornings on site when he had a real hangover. Mostly this category is odd, makes no real sense, appears mean spirited and such.

2. What he did in the second half of the day after he'd had the chance to really get back into his flask and get creative, gutsy and adventurous with his architecture. Late Day Tillie architecture is generally markedly better than morning Tillie architecture. Matter of fact there's no comparison at all his late day architecture is so much better!'

Though you may have meant this tongue-in-cheek or were serious, this side of Tillinghast's life & lifestyle has been wrongly reported and greatly misinterpreted."


I opologize for misinterpreting Phil's cryptic remarks....I'm still not certain what the hell he is trying say....do you know?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on April 11, 2004, 09:43:36 AM
Do you guys like to argue, or what? :)

I can tell you I stopped reading this basically two man thread 12 pages ago.  I would love to have analyzed the view stats on the thread to see if everyone else had tired of it as well.

Hell, even Tommy and I halt the ASGCA threads after a few pages!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 11, 2004, 09:56:25 AM
Jeff
If you are interested in history and Tillinghast (especially the latter part of his career) you should read the thread.

 One of the reasons this thread is so long is because RW generously printed out many of Tilly's letters. As interesting as the ASGCA arguement might be, there was actually a significant amount of new information presented on this thread....I realize this might not be everyone's bag.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 11, 2004, 10:00:24 AM
"Do you guys like to argue, or what?"

Jeff:

Yes we do. This is no longer about whether or not Tillinghast compromised his architectural principles, in my opinion, it's about how research is done, how material is read and analyzed and various eras should be looked at to determine the most accurate answers to these sorts of questions. Obviously Tom MacWood and I have some very different ideas on that.

But you're right---enough of all this on this thread. There's probably little question, though, that it'll happen again on other threads!   ;)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 11, 2004, 10:02:28 AM
Jeff Brauer;

Beyond the depth of historical artifacts so kindly displayed by Rick Wolffe here, you'll also get to see some amazing photos and artist's interpretations of some pretty wild coincidences.

Stick with it when you have a week to kill.  ;)  ;D
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 11, 2004, 10:06:14 AM
I very much agree with the last thing Tom MacWood said there. If there're viewers or contributors who aren't interested in various threads or who tire of them simply don't read them! There sure are a lot of threads on here I don't read because I have no interest in the subject or what's being said about it.

So what, why would I complain about them if they interest others? There sure isn't anything about this website that I'm aware of that says everyone should be interested in everything that's discussed on here.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on April 11, 2004, 03:25:39 PM
Tried to reread it.  Perhaps by next Easter.....

If someone sees value in continuing an argument over "selling out" so be it. My mistake.....play shall continue!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 11, 2004, 06:31:37 PM
Well then, as much for Jeff as for a few others is this portion of the speech that Tillinghast gave to the PGA convention in 1936 that I juts came across. For those who maintain that his attitude toward bunkers and removing those whose sole purpose was to punish the poor player and none other was "philosophical change," consider this:

"I am the duffers' Santa Claus, for over twenty years I have championed the cause of the 'forgotten man' of golf, the duffer who cannotbreak 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."
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on April 11, 2004, 08:06:48 PM
Phillip,

Thank you!  From his own mouth, the AWT philosophy!

I think that the Golden Age designers all thought they were helping the average Joe by removing forced carries in favor of diagonal fairways and carries with options around.  Perhaps distance advances and economics accelerated that trend in the 30's, but they did feel that all the time!

Will this still be going next Masters time, or does that settle it?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 11, 2004, 09:54:41 PM
What a great Masters finish!  Now, let me get back to this thread.  Are we even close to setting a record for number of posts and views?

I may be misinterpreting some of the thinking here, but it appears to me that there is unhappiness by some that Tilly recommended the elimination of bunkers between the tee and the drive zone.  One explanation for Tilly's actions that has been pretty much refuted is that Tilly changed his philosophy in 1935 and "Sold Out" due to the depression and other unknown factors.  

It may be worth stating an obvious fact that reconstructing or modernizing golf course was not invented by R.T. Jones.  In fact ,it started shortly after the first golf courses in America were built in the 1890's.

I thought it may be worthwile to post the following article from "Gleanings from the Wayside," in which Tilly talks discuss a solution for renovating an old style short par-4 -- which was fine for the gutta percha ball, but is not much of a hole with the modern golf ball.  The article was published in 1937 and I am sorry I don't have the sketches available to post with it.


42. THE UGLY DUCKLING OF THE COURSE

ONE OF THE GREAT problems presented by course Reconstruction is the hole measuring from 300 to 325 yards.  It is a legacy from the old days of the hard ball, the Gutta Percha, and then, when Bogie was tops and Par was unheard of, this type of hole frequently found its way to innumerable courses and indeed, it was a fairish sort of two-shotter.  Then in 1901 the "Bounding Billie" or the first Haskell rubber-cored ball, put in an appearance and hand in hand with it came greater flights, gradually increasing distances with the passing years as annually there were improved methods of manufacture producing even farther flying balls.  

Undoubtedly this feature has carried golf on to the tremendous popularity, which it enjoys today, but certainly for a time it played havoc with courses everywhere.  It was not difficult to design new courses to meet the necessities of a longer game but to transform certain holes on existing courses, that they might measure up to this new condition, often was perplexing.  

Immediately the ugly duckling of the old brood of holes strutted forth – the length mentioned in the opening paragraph.  In the very early days of the rubber-core few indeed, even under the most favoring condition ever drove to the very apron of the green of such a hole, but they did get close enough to kick the ball up to the pin with almost anything for a second shot.  And, as a matter of fact, the hole got to be known as a "Leveler" for any ordinarily good or even middle-class player would be nicely home with two shots of any description – almost.  He could even top his drive badly and with a long iron be right on the green, or level with the opponent who had really hit one from the tee.  So it came to pass that the rebuilders of holes devised a plan to check this.  They greatly reduced the size of the green, surrounded it with close pits, particularly a most forbidding one directly across the front of the green, and then told the players to drive far enough to be able to hold such a green with a short pitch shot which had plenty of bite.  This helped the situation until finally, with balls and clubs, too, providing greater lengths, some of the long boys began to reach that big front pit from the tee.  These were told to use more judgment and if they were afraid of getting the pit with a driver to pipe down to a spoon, which was admirable advice.  

But all the while the real sufferer was my old friend, the man of the great 90%, who cannot break 90 – and his wife and her friends along with her.  These good people could not get far enough to carry that front pit at all and when they did they were forced to use such a long club that the ball would not hold the small green but go scooting over to the maw of the sand pit in the back – all of which the designers of the hole hailed with unholy glee, declaring that its excellent qualities were thus proved.  But were they right?  

In a measure they were, but to a far greater degree they were, and still are as I see it, very wrong, for they were depriving the great majority of the humbler players of golf of the pleasure in the game, which rightfully should be theirs – because they pay for it.  But enough of playing more on that string!  Those who read this are well aware of my sentiments.  

Now let us regard the ugly duckling, as illustrated by Sketch A.  Is it not possible to take this same length and without robbing it in the least of its testing qualities take from it the features which make it hideous to so many?  I submit Sketch B as an answer.  And what is more--it works by ample test and so must not be regarded as mere conjecture.  

It will be noticed that Sketch B presents its long axis to the left of the fairway, which makes it necessary to place the drive over on that side for the Master Trap on the right-front spells trouble for the second shot coming in from the right and incidentally to the narrows of the green toward another trap, which is only a rear hazard if the unfortunate placement of the drive makes it so.  As a matter of fact this trap on the left is not actually necessary for the Master Trap is the true guardian of the gate.  It must be borne in mind, too, that the entire character of the hole might be changed by constructing the green with its opening to the right and reversing the whole scheme.  The terrain and adjoining holes would influence the selection of this.

Now what is presented to the thought of the player on the teeing ground?  Here he must place his drive over on the left half of the fairway to meet with a proper reception for his second, and as far as possible to reduce the length of his pitch-and-run or chipped approach.  If one, Jimmy Thompson, looks out and really wants to go for the green, he may, BUT, that mighty blow must be played with greater-than-usual accuracy, which is precisely what I propose to make all very long hitters do.  And now let us regard Mr. Humbleman.  He has the opportunity of placing his second shot safely to the open side of the green, without the distressing fear of the old Obligatory route over the "Cross Pit," and feels that he may anticipate a careful 5, which after all is the hope of the 90 shooter.  And if he is very fortunate with his approach he may get a par 4. We give him the same opportunity of knocking over a par as is given the par man to snare his "bird."

It will be noted that Sketch B requires but two pits at the most, instead of four as shown by A. Usually the outside slopes of the old type greens, are very sharp, making necessary constant hand cutting.  The outside slopes of B are drawn out and blended to the ratio of one to six.  Power machines will cut all slopes such as these.  And such maintenance methods save considerable from the budget – which is most desirable, is it not so Brethren?

“Yea Verily!”
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 11, 2004, 10:05:52 PM
Here is another quote from The Course Beautiful, which is from an article written by Tillie in 1923 and which is titled "Giving Individuality to Golf Holes."  IMO the passage captures Tilly's overriding style.  IMO there is nothing to lead me to believe that his style changed in the advice he gave on his PGA tour.

I particularly like his comment that a golf hole "has got to have quality knocked into it until it can hold its head up in polite society."  The full passage from this article follows:


"During the past fifteen years the writer has come in contact with thousands who have their own ideas concerning courses.  During the last five years these lay ideas were advanced in great numbers and along different lines than formerly.  In every section of the country the demand is for sound course, but above all they want to be frank, half the time the builders of new courses have no ideas concerning the character of the holes or their distribution, and without hesitation put this squarely up to the architect, trusting to his reputation to produce something which will be worthy.  But the men who play generally do have very pronounced thoughts concerning the general character of the course as a whole.  They ask for holes which will give them pleasure to play, and nine times in ten there is the dominating thought of the beauties of the course.  The study of these desires seems to be the real secret of modern course building, and one cannot conceive any hole which is not featured along well-defined lines which every hole must suggest naturally.  In planning eighteen holes there are thousands of combinations, each offering a mute appeal for recognition.  It is necessary of course, to decide on the collection which will work out economically and satisfactorily from many angles.  But this is sure: every hole must have individuality and be sound.  Often it is necessary to get from one section to another over ground which is not suited to the easiest construction, but that troublesome hole must be made to stand right up in meeting with the others, and if it has not got anything about it that might make it respectable, it has got to have quality knocked into it until it can hold its head up in polite society."
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 11, 2004, 10:18:42 PM
Phil & TE
Thank goodness you found that quote and we can finally put the issue to rest.

I take it the golfers in NY were very very bad....Tilly delivered those duffers a lump of coal in the form of Bethpage-Black.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Rick Wolffe on April 11, 2004, 10:24:52 PM
I thought this obit that Tilly wrote for C.B. MacDonald would be of interest.  I like the contrasting of his style with C.B's.  Tilly ran this obit in his column for "Pacific Coast Golfer" in May of 1939.  Tilly was an Associate Editor with this magazine in the late 1930's while he was living in Beverly Hills and a partner with Billy Bell.  (Sorry about Tilly's shamless plug for CB's book at the end)

  "Just as April was drawing to a close, Charles Blair Macdonald died in Southampton, Long Island.  He was eighty-three years of age and the first amateur champion of the United States.  He won the title from a meager feild at Newport, Rhode Ilsand in 1895, a year after the U.S.G.A. was formed.  His birthplace was Niagra Falls, Ontario.  In 1907 Macdonald became interested in planning and building of golf courses, although he was a broker by profession, and after securing models of famous holes on British course of that time, he more or less followed these designs in the building of the National Golf Links of America among the rolling sand dunes near Shinnecock, Long Island.  Some years later he designed the beautiful course, the Mid-Ocean, at Bermuda.  Numerous other courses were designed by him, still following his custom of working severly to the artificial construction of replicas of British golf holes.

  I have known Charley Macdonald since the earliest days of golf in this country and for many years we have been rival course architects, and I really mean rivals for in many instances we widely disagreed.  Our manner of designing courses never reconciled.  I stubbornly insisted on following natural suggestions of terrain, creating new types of holes as suggested by Nature, even when resorting to artificial methods of construction.  Charlie, equally convinced that working striclty to models was best, turned out some famous courses.  Throughout the years we argued good naturedly about this and that, always at variance it would seem.  Now he is gone and I can only salute his memory.

  In 1928 he published a most ambitious book of reminiscences,-- "Scotland's Gift, Golf.""
 ;)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 11, 2004, 10:53:09 PM
RW
Thanks again for sharing...that last one is very interesting.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on April 11, 2004, 11:31:50 PM
Some new blood - what about Newport, where DH's dot the frontside, and which was designed 10 years after he began his quest to ameliorate the sad situation of the duffer.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 12, 2004, 06:47:28 AM
"I take it the golfers in NY were very very bad....Tilly delivered those duffers a lump of coal in the form of Bethpage-Black."

Tom MacW:

For some reason and after 17 pages on this thread you can't seem to get your mind around the reality that Bethpage Black may not have been designed for the duffer golfer. Why is that? As I recall you did some research on Bethpage Black, correct? Do you recall that Tillinghast mentioned that Burbeck proposed that Bethpage Black be somewhat of a take-off on the great PVGC? Is there anything that leads you to believe that PVGC was designed for the duffer or to even remotely accomodate him?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 12, 2004, 06:55:12 AM
Rick Wolffe:

Thanks again for typing out all those articles of Tillinghast's. At the very least those articles have shown that Tillinghast was probably the most comprehensive and informative writer on the details of architecture of his time and perhaps of any time and for that we should all be grateful to him.

It seems from Tillinghast's ongoing writing and philosophy of what was most interesting and enjoyable about golf architecture for the duffer and what Tom MacWood and Mike Cirba apparently think was most interesting and enjoyable for the duffer was quite different!
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 12, 2004, 09:35:40 AM
Rick & Phil;

Thanks for sharing!  The last couple of Tillie's writings you guys posted have been VERY enlightening.

A couple of points...

1) Tillinghast clearly did NOT sell out.  It now seems obvious that at least philosophically, he was against troubling the duff with much in the way of direct trouble for a long time, not just after the Depression.

2) Tillie seemed to differ widely from CB in terms of how a course was bunkered and also how much of a course was constructed as opposed to "found".  

3) Tillinghast clearly was the forerunner of architecture that transcended what we know as the "Golden Age" (which, let's face it, included some pretty penal stuff) to the type of courses that predominated in the RTJ era, where courses were mainly about testing the best players first and foremost, while giving the hack a way to get around....the "hard par, easy bogey" type of course.

In that vein, does anyone know of a course that was built between 1936 and 1980 that had individual bunkers (not waste area) less than 200 yards from the tee?

Would everyone agree with my summary?

I think this thread has been really superb and eductional.  Thank you everyone for your participation!  ;D
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on April 12, 2004, 11:34:22 AM
Tom MacWood,

Numerous other courses were designed by him, still following his custom of working severly to the artificial construction of replicas of British golf holes.

Didn't you insist, on another thread, that NGLA wasn't heavily constructed and was natural, despite never having played or walked the golf course ?

I think Tommy Naccarato first joined you and then broke ranks admitting that NGLA was artificial and heavily constructed

And now we have AWT disagreeing with your position as well




Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 12, 2004, 12:57:37 PM
I don't believe anyone has claimed Tilly did not consider the duffer through his career. Tilly often spoke of the duffer, in his 1917 response to JH Taylor (defending the difficulty of American golf courses) he said 'The duffer knows now that the new courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for his game.'

Through his career he provided pleasure and zest by presenting hazards that all levels of golf had to deal with--as did the majority of his contemporaries. Not obligatory carries--like the hated old fashioned cop, but also not an absence of choice--like his PGA tour bunkerless Duffer's Range. The prominent architects of that era understood interesting golf could be found somewhere in between those two extremes. IMO in late 1935 his philosophical view of 'troubling the duffer' was entirely different than 'troubling the duffer' from 1911 to 1935....thus the altered philosophy, compromise.

This thread isn't about Tilly ignoring the duffer pre-1935....at least not for me.  This thread is about how Tilly compromised his architectural philosophy regarding bunkering in late 1935--he claimed the change (compromise) was in the name of the duffer, but based upon the evidence it was actually in the name of the success of the PGA tour (and its mission and goals).  

I found his comments about his long time differences with Macdonald very interesting. Tilly wasn't alone in criticizing Macdonald's reliance on famous models (MacKenze and Fowler are couple other critics who come to mind).  His defense of the NGLA in the exchange with Taylor in light of his late '30 comments is fascinating.

It is also ironic that in the late teens his construction superintendent was Peter Lees--who created Royal Mid Surrey (w/Taylor) and built Lido for Macdonald. Two of the most famous man-made creations in golf. The use of the Redan and artificial mounding found on Tilly's early designs were likely the result of his relationship with Lees.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 12, 2004, 01:46:34 PM
I don't believe anyone has claimed Tilly did not consider the duffer through his career. Tilly often spoke of the duffer, in his 1917 response to JH Taylor (defending the difficulty of American golf courses) he said 'The duffer knows now that the new courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for his game.'

Through his career he provided pleasure and zest by presenting hazards that all levels of golf had to deal with--as did the majority of his contemporaries. Not obligatory carries--like the hated old fashioned cop, but also not an absence of choice--like his PGA tour bunkerless Duffer's Range. The prominent architects of that era understood interesting golf could be found somewhere in between those two extremes.

Tom, I'd agree with you that most of Tillinghast's courses, particularly his earliest ones, presented hazards at all levels.  By definition, the Hell's Half Acre variation of the old cross-hazard that he championed had to strike fear and loathing into the heart of the duff.  

I also think that it's interesting that he moved away from this over time to something like RTJ where the first bunkers seem to be only found where the expert player can challenge them.  The "Duffer's Range" concept seems to be rather dull just by defnition, and hardly worthy of someone like Tillie and his marvelous imaginative creativity.  

I've yet to see someone defend that as interesting architecture.  Some have argued that he didn't remove "all" bunkers in the duffer's range during his PGA stint but concrete examples of that seem hard to come by.  The fact he boasted about the removal of 7000 bunkers seems to fly in the face of that.  

Exactly where might those 7,000 useless, extraneous bunkers have been located.  I think his writings of the time are quite clear that he's talking about largely removing bunkers in the "duffer's range" zone.  
 
 
IMO in late 1935 his philosophical view of 'troubling the duffer' was entirely different than 'troubling the duffer' from 1911 to 1935....thus the altered philosophy, compromise.

This thread isn't about Tilly ignoring the duffer pre-1935....at least not for me.  This thread is about how Tilly compromised his architectural philosophy regarding bunkering in late 1935--he claimed the change (compromise) was in the name of the duffer, but based upon the evidence it was actually in the name of the success of the PGA tour (and its mission and goals).  

I'm finding that sometimes changing circumstances can make an evangelist of anyone.  Frankly, I think that Tillie just was able to rationalize their removal through a combination of his own evolving philosophical approach (to spare the duff), mixed with some potential cost-savings during dire economic times (which he boasted of), and the pragmatism of working with the PGA to create new "modern" courses consistent with their mission of the time.  

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 12, 2004, 01:57:55 PM
"I'm finding that sometimes changing circumstances can make an evangelist of anyone.  Frankly, I think that Tillie just was able to rationalize their removal through a combination of his own evolving philosophical approach (to spare the duff), mixed with some potential cost-savings during dire economic times (which he boasted of), and the pragmatism of working with the PGA to create new 'modern' courses consistent with their mission of the time."

I agree with most of that, although when I think of an 'evolving philosophical approach' I think of a slow deliberate incremental change. In this case we have the Bethpage courses one day (consistant with his long career)....the Duffer's range and duffer's headaches the next day. That would appear to be a dramatic philosophical change.

"It is this thought that is a part of the PGA doctrine, which has been asigned to me to preach, and to make my point as understandible as possible...." --AWT
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on April 12, 2004, 02:22:49 PM
Tom,

I have heard you reference the Bethpage Course (s) as part of your argument.  I also recall (and Rick Wolfe could probably provide) reading that Tillie wouldn't recommend the Black Course as suitable, if it wasn't one of four at the same complex, which weren't bunkered as heavily.  I agree with that, and see no inconsistency in doing one of four tough, one easy, and two in the middle.  

Its not as if every course, even in a depression needs exactly the same treatment, even if most do.  And I don't see in the record that he necessarily recommended the exact same program for all, but recommended an individual program for each, based on his visit.  

Certainly, he probably was only called to ones that were in financial difficulty, looking to save money.  But, what if he went to an old line club that had no need to save money then?  Would he necessarily demand (not that he could or did) bunker removal?

Over time, he probably did develop a more or less standard program, but if he was dogmatic in removing bunkers, without seeing the site, he could have sent out an mass mailing, saying "remove all bunkers 140 yards or closer to the tee," no?

I also believe he could have had the slow change of heart regarding duffers bunkers generally, even while allow BPB to be the exception.  Early in his career, he realized that cross bunkers without options had to go, later that all short bunkers could go, after viewing the results of play, and perhaps sped up by deteriorating economic conditions a bit.

It seems we all sort of agree on the major points.  Perhaps the real question is the use of the term "selling out" in the original post.  At what point does a change of principals become a compromise of principals?  Is it just because it happened a bit faster than you think it ought to have?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 12, 2004, 04:13:08 PM
Jeff;

Yes, I agree with you that the Black Course should be possibly viewed as a "one off", outlier example.  Tillinghast's own writings about it credit Burbeck with the idea of creating something akin to a public Pine Valley, and the degree of difficulty was such that Tillie labelled it a "Tiger" course.  

Still, he was proud that even with the difficulty, players of all stripes were lining up to take on the "Tiger".  

The funny thing about that is (and particularly poignant and ironic to this discussion) that the Black Course became immensely popular over the years, not only for the expert player, but also for the hack, despite forced carries over sandy scrub, deep rough, massive bunkers and the like.

If indeed all that hackers want is an open "duffer's range", free of hazards and trouble, as Tillinghast and others have suggested, then how might they explain this apparent incongruity?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on April 12, 2004, 05:16:20 PM
Mike,

Deep in his heart, Tillie felt he knew what was best for everybody?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 12, 2004, 07:24:59 PM
Jeff
I have heard you reference the Bethpage Course (s) as part of your argument. I also recall (and Rick Wolfe could probably provide) reading that Tillie wouldn't recommend the Black Course as suitable, if it wasn't one of four at the same complex, which weren't bunkered as heavily. I agree with that, and see no inconsistency in doing one of four tough, one easy, and two in the middle.
That is not exactly right, Tilly wrote in the PGA magazine (in '37 I believe) "without doubt were the other courses at Bethpage as severe as Black the place would not have enjoyed the great popularity it has known since the doors were thrown open to the public." The other courses were not exactly walks in the park however. The Red was heavily bunkered and over 6400 yards (In 1934 Tilly was as exited about this course as the Black). The Blue was nearly as long as the Black (just under 6700 ids) and longer than the Red, and also well bunkered (it hosted the '36 US Publinx). The short course the Green was 6200 ids and a Devereux Emmet design. All four courses had bunkers within the so-called Duffer's Range. The Duffer's Range obviously was a post-Bethpage development.

Its not as if every course, even in a depression needs exactly the same treatment, even if most do. And I don't see in the record that he necessarily recommended the exact same program for all, but recommended an individual program for each, based on his visit.
I agree, not every course needs that exact same treatment, I'm certain Tilly prior to the PGA tour agreed too. The formula he developed which resulted in 7000+ bunkers being removed--from courses like Valley club, Bel-Air (recommended) and Tavistock--IMO illustrates the mind set of the tour.

Certainly, he probably was only called to ones that were in financial difficulty, looking to save money. But, what if he went to an old line club that had no need to save money then? Would he necessarily demand (not that he could or did) bunker removal?
Interesting conjecture, but I do not believe that was the case...in fact in the letters I've seen he doesn't refer to any clubs finances. I don't see how he would have the time to review their finances. In fact the clubs in the worst financial straits would there clubs who let their professionals go...he would not assist those clubs. There were old line clubs, new clubs, famous clubs, obscure clubs...he wasn't prejudice. He didn't demand anything...from what I can tell he just made recommendations....some ignored him like Bel-Air.

Over time, he probably did develop a more or less standard program, but if he was dogmatic in removing bunkers, without seeing the site, he could have sent out an mass mailing, saying "remove all bunkers 140 yards or closer to the tee," no?
He did more than recommend bunker removal. I don't think the clubs would see much value in program where Tilly faxed out 500 flyers with a diagram that showed the 1st Duffers Range 0-175 ids, the 2nd Duffers Range 300-375 ids, etc....please remove all bunkers with these zones. One of the main PGA goals was to illustrate value to the clubs.  

I also believe he could have had the slow change of heart regarding duffers bunkers generally, even while allow BPB to be the exception. Early in his career, he realized that cross bunkers without options had to go, later that all short bunkers could go, after viewing the results of play, and perhaps sped up by deteriorating economic conditions a bit.
What do you base this upon? Where is the evidence of the slow change? His Bethapge courses (during the Depression) do not support that theory....Ridgewood his most famous late design (pre-Depression) doesn't support that theory. If anything the his later courses were among his most boldly bunkered.

It seems we all sort of agree on the major points. Perhaps the real question is the use of the term "selling out" in the original post. At what point does a change of principals become a compromise of principals? Is it just because it happened a bit faster than you think it ought to have?
My definition of compromise is a lowering or weakening standard. IMO a change becomes a compromise when it is inconsistent with his career long design practices (pre and post Depression), inconsistent with the standards of his peers and inconsistent with historically accepted design principals to date. You add the timing of the change....mid-Depression, lost job, lost home, lack of work, bankruptcy and the PGA goal...and the change is understandible.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 13, 2004, 12:35:06 AM
To me the continuing commentary of particularly Tom MacWood on this subject is both depressing and appalling. Apparently Tom can't even understand the very Tillinghast remarks he quotes in an attempt to support his nonsensical claim about Tillinghast‘s architectural principles. What he quotes from Tillinghast, particularly about the courses of Bethpage is completely contradictory to what Tillinghast, who built those courses, said about them regarding the duffer and his overall enjoyment (or not) of those varied courses.

"without doubt were the other courses at Bethpage as severe as Black the place would not have enjoyed the great popularity it has known since the doors were thrown open to the public."

Tom MacW;

Does that remark show clearly a different design philosophy and architectural application of Tillinghast’s regarding the Black than other golf courses vis-à-vis the duffer? Of course it does, no matter how much you keep saying otherwise!.

The thing you need to come to terms with on this thread is in 1935-36 Tillinghast never suggested that bunkering in the duffer’s range on ALL courses should be removed and he never suggested that ALL courses should be considered suitable for the duffer. I just cannot imagine why you can’t see this simple fact of the spectrum of architecture. There is nothing inconsistent between what Tillinghast said or did in 1917 and what he said and did in 1935-6 as much as you seem to want to make it so. If for whatever their reasons the PGA had come along in 1917 and asked Tillinghast to do the same architectural things he did for them in 1935-36 (sans the different economic realities) I have no doubt at all he would’ve done exactly the same things!

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 13, 2004, 06:28:53 AM
TE
I acknowledge the Black was super severe--more severe than just about anything he done to date (ironic it was in the midst of the Deperession). And obviously more severe than the other Bethpage courses, but the other courses were not stiffs, they were excellent tests comparable to courses he designed throughout his career. It is the other courses that provide clues to Tilly's 1935 design philosophy and practices prior to his PGA tour. I can tell you he was not practicing the bunker free Duffer's range at Bethpage and he was not consumed with the DH....thus IMO the compromise or weakening of his design standards during the PGA tour.

You always have many interesting thoughts, always well stated, but I'm looking for concrete examples to support your thoughts.

Perhap you correct, he did not recommend every bunker be removed from the Duffer's Range....where in the 'Simplicity' article (or the other PGA tour articles) does he make (or articulate) exceptions?

Whatever his 'true' policy (that you've been able glean)....the fact remains he removed nearly 8000 bunkers...what does the recommeded removal of DH's from Bel-Air and the removal of bunkers from Valley Club tell you about where and when he made these exceptions? Do you agree withthe idea that Thomas (and MacKenzie) were simply punishing the duffer with their bunkers within 175 yards?

Based on your understanding of when and where the exceptions took place....when was the duffer the important consideration that he wrote so often about during his PGA tour, and when is the duffer someone who wasn't quite as important (and didn't require a Duffer's Range or two) or when was the duffer somone who should be presented with hazards, like the hazzards duffers found and enjoyed at the majority of his designs?

Based upon what you know of Tilly's designs was the Duffer's Range a new philsophy? If it wasn't a new philosophy what Tilly courses are examples of it at work?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on April 13, 2004, 08:43:07 AM


The thing you need to come to terms with on this thread is in 1935-36 Tillinghast never suggested that bunkering in the duffer’s range on ALL courses should be removed.

On this point I really have no objection. I think that goes to the essence of what I was trying to get at 44 pages go. It seems possible that there may have been a double standard at play. Where Tillie was paid to design a course, it seems that bunkers, and A LOT of bunkers were a crucial component of his design philosophy.

But where removal of bunkers become a prescriptive remedy, then perhaps he was all for it.

To me that seems like a reasonable inference to be drawn from all of the historical material (or materiel, on this thread).

Quote
If for whatever their reasons the PGA had come along in 1917 and asked Tillinghast to do the same architectural things he did for them in 1935-36 (sans the different economic realities) I have no doubt at all he would’ve done exactly the same things!



I don't know what affirmative support there is for that statement, except your enduring confidence in Tillie. The evidence would seem to indicate otherwise (note: Newport CC reference above). I don't think you can take the economic reality out of this. To my mind it does all the explaining necessary.  But for the economic reality, I doubt Tillie would have become as solicitous of the Duffer.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Phil_the_Author on April 13, 2004, 09:40:00 AM
There is a very important point that has been overlooked throughout this thread; one that keeps being stated over and over and is flat out wrong.

Tillinghast NEVER removed a single bunker!

He RECOMMENDED the removals, and in each case he had to convince at least one person and usually a several person committee.

Were all of these hundreds, and when you consider the number of courses that he visited, possibly as many as 1,550-200 intelligent men, blindly following as sheep to the slaughterhouse? Spending money for work without counting the true costs and effects to their courses?

This is not a blind everything Tilly said is law comment; rather, it is seems apparent to me that the majority of the work was done by men who agreed with Tillinghast's thinking, suggestions and vision.

They spent the money they had and felt that it was money well-spent, be it to add new tees, change holes, change the sizes of greens, or, yes, even remove bunkers.



Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 13, 2004, 10:26:30 AM
Tom MacW said;

"TE
I acknowledge the Black was super severe--more severe than just about anything he done to date (ironic it was in the midst of the Deperession). And obviously more severe than the other Bethpage courses, but the other courses were not stiffs, they were excellent tests comparable to courses he designed throughout his career. It is the other courses that provide clues to Tilly's 1935 design philosophy and practices prior to his PGA tour. I can tell you he was not practicing the bunker free Duffer's range at Bethpage and he was not consumed with the DH....thus IMO the compromise or weakening of his design standards during the PGA tour."

Tom McW;

Again, here are two quotation of Tillinghast, one before 1935 and one after 1935.

From 1917:

“No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries. The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations…..”

From 1937;

"without doubt were the other courses at Bethpage as severe as Black the place would not have enjoyed the great popularity it has known since the doors were thrown open to the public."

Where is the inconsistency of philosophy in those two statements that are twenty years apart? You yourself are suggesting there were bunkers in the DH zone on the other Bethpage courses. Neither you nor Tillinghast is including the Black in this question as it’s clear to see Tillie is suggesting the Black is not designed as a course suitable for the duffer. Does that fact alone mean anything to you about what Tillinghast’s architectural philosophIES may be both before and after 1935-36 regarding different architecture for different levels of golfers? It seems clear he is saying that other Bethpage courses are interesting for the duffer and that those courses have some bunkering in that DH zone. If it’s true that there are some interesting bunkers in that DH zone on the other courses of Bethpage that are graded for various limitations of abilities why are you suggesting that during and after 1935-36 Tillinghast recommended removal of ALL bunkering from ALL courses in that zone as proof that he changed his architectural philosophy, thereby compromising his architectural principles?  It seems you’re saying that based SOLEY on the fact that Tillinghast recommended the removal of 7,000-8,000 bunkers on courses around the nation and you are ASSUMING that a number like that MUST INDICATE that he was recommending the total removal of ALL bunkering on ALL courses in that first DH zone.

For about the tenth time I’m telling you that is not necessarily so---that that fact is not proof of that recommendation on Tillinghsat’s part as much as you and Mike Cirba apparently want to make it so, and this quote of Tillinghast’s above is a clear indication of that.

Now you are probably thinking that Tillinghast said one thing at some courses and something else at other courses regarding DH zone bunkering and that’s another indication of his compromised architectural principles. That is only so if Tillinghast had the same kind of “one size fits all” mentality of architectural philosophy that you apparently do. But he did have that “one size fits all” mentality about architecture either before 1935-36 or after it. This is what you need to come to terms with if you want to understand both these eras, Tillinghast and golf architecture generally.

The likes of the Black and PVGC were not designed for the duffer and Tillinghast said that throughout his long career. On the other hand, courses that were for the duffer occasionally needed to be designed or redesigned in such a way as to both interest and accommodate the duffer. Tillinghast definitely understood these distinctions between various courses and the needs and interests of the duffer and it’s time you begin understanding these distinctions too. They ARE DISTINCTIONS Tom, they are DIFFERENCES!

Call this basic fundamental about golf architecture generally “different strokes for different folks” if you will. These men understood that and because they built different types of courses for different levels of players by no means indicates they were compromising their architectural principles!

Today I tend to call this obvious architectural philosophy the “Big World Theory”. It means there are different courses for different levels of players and sometimes the courses for the higher level of player were never meant to accommodate some lesser level of player architecturally. This by no means indicates that a duffer should never play a course like PVGC or Bethpage Black--only that if he does and does not enjoy it because it beats the shit out of him daily he should then realize he should play a course that was designed to better accommodate his level simply because it might be more enjoyable to him. Both Tillinghast and Crump were aware that occassionally duffers like to try their hand at PVGC despite the fact it tortured them. They were clearly amused by this but it no means they felt they were accomodating the duffer architectural at PVGC or should do that!

There is no compromise in any of this Tom---it just makes the entire art of golf architecture richer and more varied. Tillinghast understood that both before 1935-36 and if you want to understand him properly you should too!




Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 13, 2004, 11:16:03 AM
I wonder if Jamie Slonis would be so kind to share the particulars of Tillinghast's changes at Tavistock from that time-period?

On another thread, and part of the impetus for me asking this question, Jamie pointed out that Tillie had recommended a number of things at Tavistock that he found very questionable.

Jamie...if you are still out there, could you talk a little about Tillie's recommendations, particularly as relates to bunkers in the "duffer's zone"?

Tom Paul...I know I have no proof that Tillie recommended the removal of all DH bunkers at that time, but 7000 bunkers seems an extraordinary amount, don't you think?  His own writings of this very time period seem clear that he sees bunkers in that range to be redundantly punishing of the duffer's woes.

I know that Tom Mac has asked Phil and/or Rick if they'd share where the majority of those bunkers were removed (which courses), but I'm not sure they have that answer.

I'm interested in this question from the standpoint of understanding architectural evolution.  

Tom, as a student of architecture, don't you find it incredible that no one can name one course built between 1935 and 1980 where bunkers were placed less than 200 yards from the tee???  If you go back and look at the "lost courses" in Daniel Wexler's books, including Tillie's, don't you find yourself wondering how our courses became so formulaic and fairway bunkering became so one-dimensional over time?

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 13, 2004, 11:16:11 AM
TE
I do not agree with your enterpretation of the 1917 comments....I think it is pretty clear what Tilly is referring to when he speaks of obligatory carries.

"And now let us regard Mr. Humbleman.  He has the opportunity of placing his second shot safely to the open side of the green, without the distressing fear of the old Obligatory route over the "Cross Pit,""   Ugly Duckling 1937

Cross pit = cop bunker

“…than in the times when carries were obligatory and greens were faced at right angles and accepting, without great favor, shots from either side of the fairway...”   The Obligue in Golf Design 1932

carries were obligatory + right angles = cop bunker

“The duffer knows now that the new golf courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for his game. No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries. The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations 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 and 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 course are very popular among the most mediocre players."
Tilly’s response to Taylor 1917

Obligatory carries = cop bunker  
hazard lines which grade shots to the limitations of each = bunkers en echelon & obligue or diagonal hazards

The point of my last post was to get away from parsing his every word and to look at his actual designs and design practices...if we dissagree with what he is saying lets look to what he actually did in the field for clarification.

You still haven't answered a number of questions or provided concrete examples for these questions:


Perhap you correct, lets assume he did not recommend every bunker be removed from the Duffer's Range....where in the 'Simplicity' article (or the other PGA tour articles) does he make clear (or articulate) when and where he would make exceptions...what is his criteria?

Whatever his 'true' policy (that you've been able glean)....the fact remains he removed nearly 8000 bunkers...what does the recommeded removal of DH's from Bel-Air and the removal of bunkers from Valley Club tell you about where and when he made these exceptions? Do you agree withthe idea that Thomas (and MacKenzie) were simply punishing the duffer with their bunkers within 175 yards?

Based upon what you know of Tilly's designs was the Duffer's Range a new philsophy? If it wasn't a new philosophy what Tilly courses are examples of it at work?

As Sean pointed out you said: "If for whatever their reasons the PGA had come along in 1917 and asked Tillinghast to do the same architectural things he did for them in 1935-36 (sans the different economic realities) I have no doubt at all he would’ve done exactly the same things!" What do you base this upon.

Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: TEPaul on April 13, 2004, 12:25:06 PM
"As Sean pointed out you said: "If for whatever their reasons the PGA had come along in 1917 and asked Tillinghast to do the same architectural things he did for them in 1935-36 (sans the different economic realities) I have no doubt at all he would’ve done exactly the same things!" What do you base this upon."

I base it on the fact that I see no change in his architectural philosophy regarding that duffer zone (on courses that were designed to accomodate the duffer which clearly not all were) before, during, or after his PGA project. Obviously you still do but you know I don't agree with you on that.

"The point of my last post was to get away from parsing his every word and to look at his actual designs and design practices...if we dissagree with what he is saying lets look to what he actually did in the field for clarification."

I agree we should do that. I believe what I've been asking you all along is why you didn't do that BEFORE you made this claim that he compromised his architectural principles during the PGA project. If you're not sure what he actually did recommend and where and what he actually did wherever why would you make such a claim? As I've now said numerous times I believe you ONLY said that because you ASSUMED that 7,000-8,000 bunkers MUST have meant he recommended and removed ALL bunkering from ALL courses in that DH zone during the PGA project thereby compromising some former architectural principle he had. You know I don't agree with your assumption and premise there.

"You still haven't answered a number of questions or provided concrete examples for these questions:"

No I haven't although I might now. What is this thread to you? Is this some test on your part of the rest of us to supply evidence to the contrary regarding your premise or you'll assume that your premise must be correct? Why don't you supply some answers to your question before you come in here with this premise of yours?

What if you said it was your premise that FDR was in cahoots with the Japanese before Pearl Harbor because no one can show you that he ever said he wasn't? Would you then conclude that must prove FDR was in cahoots with the Japanese before Pearl Harbor?


"Perhap you correct, he did not recommend every bunker be removed from the Duffer's Range....where in the 'Simplicity' article (or the other PGA tour articles) does he make clear (or articulate) when and where he would make exceptions...what is his criteria?"

Please see my answer just above. Are you saying because you can't find that he wrote where he made exceptions that proves he never made exceptions. It's only for you to find out before you make this premise that he never did make any excpetions during his PGA tour.

"Whatever his 'true' policy (that you've been able glean)....the fact remains he removed nearly 8000 bunkers...what does the recommeded removal of DH's from Bel-Air and the removal of bunkers from Valley Club tell you about where and when he made these exceptions? Do you agree withthe idea that Thomas (and MacKenzie) were simply punishing the duffer with their bunkers within 175 yards?"

I don't know what Thomas or MacKenzie was doing to the duffer within 175 yards of the tee but if Tillinghast believed they were unnecessarily penaling the duffer in that area that would explain why he recommended removing some of those bunkers in that area, in my opinion. This thread is not about what I think Thomas or MacKenzie was doing anyway, this thread is about what Tillinghast thought they were doing. It appears Tillinghast had some issue on this subject with some of the courses he may have built. Although he made it quite clear NGLA was not one of them as he did say very clearly that course, in his opinion, was not designed for the duffer--it was designed for a higher level of player.

"Based upon what you know of Tilly's designs was the Duffer's Range a new philsophy?"

I do not believe it was a new philosophy as you do, and I've said that on here numerous times.

"If it wasn't a new philosophy what Tilly courses are examples of it at work"?

I believe I will try to determine that although I do feel this was something you should have done first--before you assumed it was a new philosophy without enough credible evidence to prove that.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 13, 2004, 01:17:02 PM
"I base it on the fact that I see no change in his architectural philosophy regarding that duffer zone (on courses that were designed to accomodate the duffer which clearly not all were) before, during, or after his PGA project."

Interesting logic. He would've removed bunkers from the duffer's zone in 1917 if the PGA had requested him. If it were his philosophy in 1917 why didn't build golf courses without bunkers in that zone? Did he need the PGA to tell him to do it? What are some of the courses Tilly designed during this period that were designed to accomodate duffers (Duffer's Range)?

No one knows if Tilly recommended ALL bunkers be removed from the Duffer's Range...but we do know (1) he promoted the Duffers Range philosophy in 1936-37, we do know (2)Tilly regularly placed bunkers within that zone throughout his career and we know (3) 7000+ bunkers were removed. The Duffer Zone philosophy was a departure from his design practices...hence compromise. You don't need to know anything more than those three points to recongize the change....it isn't important to prove Tilly recommended 100% eratication to see that it was departure...just look at his work! One thing is clear he never articulated an exception for bunkers within the Duffers Range.

You don't know what Thomas and MacKenzie were doing 175 yards of the tee? Do you know what Tilly was doing?

This thread is about Thomas and MacKenzie....and Ross and Travis and Findlay (and Tilly pre-1935) because Tilly was recommending changes to their designs. One of his tasks (as he wrote) was to eliminate DH's...his recommendations to remove bunkers from their courses places him in conflict with their philosophies (and IMO in conflict with his own previous philosophies).

If the Dufffer's Range philosophy was not new certainly you can provide numerous examples pre-PGA.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on April 13, 2004, 01:23:17 PM
Sigh......

Mike Cirba, I don't have time to do the math, but I think we know how many courses Tillie visited, and if you divide 7000 by that number, times 18 (or 14, excluding par 3 holes if you wish) we could estimate how many bunkers per hole he recommended be removed.  This wouldn't be exact, but if the number was close to or less than 1, could we assume he recommended leaving some of them?

Here's an idle thought....Perhaps early on he found that courses were reluctant to remove all the bunkers recommended, so as a rule, he requested more be removed than he thought.  Now, I'm not saying modern designers ever use that gambit to achieve certain design solutions..... ;)

Tom MacWood,

Along with TePaul, I have to wonder how this has evolved into such a personal test of your manhood, or whatever.  However, let me ask you this regarding Bethpage Black.....

Suppose that Ron Whitten had recently unearthed additional, separate, and conclusive corroborating evidence to his earlier information that Burbeck was the prime designer of BPB.  Would that ease your mind any that it shouldn't be used as evidence of Tillies thoughts on DH bunkers in 1935-7 or so?
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: T_MacWood on April 13, 2004, 01:42:59 PM
Jeff
If Bethpage was taken out of his portfolio it would not change the departure in philosophy...you still have the rest of his designs to compare with his Duffer's Range philosophy. What it would do is eliminate designs that ran contrary of his philosophy right in the middle of the Depression.

You still have his written record while Editor of Golf Illustrated in the Depression...and no mention of DH's or Duffer's Range.

IMO it is extremely unlikely he will be able to prove Tilly was not involved at Bethpage.

"Along with TePaul, I have to wonder how this has evolved into such a personal test of your manhood, or whatever."

You obviously haven't been following this thread.  

TE
By the way I have presented upwards of twenty course as examples to support my point....from Shawnee and Quaker Ridge to Ridgewood and Bethpage-Red. Exerpts from Hannigan, Graffis, Jacobus, the NY Times, Golfdom, Golf Illustrated, etc. to help support my point. I'm not sure you have provided anything.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 13, 2004, 02:00:01 PM
As the originator of this thread, I have a technical question.

If I press this little "Delete" button thingy, what happens?   ;) ;D

Seriously....

Jeff Brauer;

It was already established 10 pages ago, Section XIV, Article 232, section 14, by the Tillinghast Society folks that the vast majority of the bunker removal occurred on a minority of the courses Tillie visited.  Doing the math that was presented, it came out to something like 80-100 bunkers per course, which to me seems questionable.  Even if it were evenly distributed, that would be 20 bunkers per course, which is a pretty high percentage virtually anywhere, wouldn't you agree?

I've asked Jamie Slonis, whose home course was affected by Tillinghast's changes in the 30s to provide a little detail if he's willing.  I don't know the details myself, but on another thread he seemed to think they were very questionable.

Personally, I'm just curious how we went from courses where all sorts of bunkering patterns occurred throughout all ranges of play to the sort of course RTJ Sr. popularlized where the first bunkers occurred in the driving range of the expert player (ala his redesign of Oakland Hills).  

It seems to me that Tillinghast and his "duffer's range" is the connecting tissue.

By the way, Jeff...do you know of any courses built between 1935 and 1980 where bunkering exists at less than 200 yards from the tee?

I am not sure why people are becoming so defensive here.  Are these not reasonable architectural questions??
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on April 13, 2004, 07:31:23 PM
Mike,

I know of a few individual "fore bunkers" on courses, and some architects are doing lots more random bunkering, but in general, no.  Of course, in Ross day, he used 200 yard doglegs, RTj used 250, most of us use 267 (on the way to 285 or 300 from the tips) and bunker accordingly.  

Other than perhaps using more carry bunkers just short of the main landing area, I think the majority of Ross (and most architects) bunkers guarded the proposed landing areas, whereas now we tend to use flanking bunkers at the dogleg, or pinching bunkers just past the landing area to catch and punish the long players.  So, coneptually, I don't think it is all that different, but just refined over the years.

To start with, you may be thinking of some courses like Flynns outstanding bunker clusters short off the tee, or perhaps some Tillie courses (like Brook Hollow) that also had hundreds of bunkers, but I question how many courses were really like that compared to the total?  For instance, TePauls Gulph Mills and many other Flynn courses in Philly don't have scads of bunkers.

I think the effects of the depression had a long shadow, until the boom of the nineties.  Now, I already see a return trend to building bunkers that only affect play of the best players.

So what happened from 1937-1990?  

Some theories, all based on the fact that our ancestors were very practical folk who did, as humans tend to do, what was best for them, as the circumstances dictated.....some prime reasons:

1. Money matters!  Until the power trap rake was invented, there was a substantial cost to raking bunkers.  also, in many areas, before tile drains were perfected, these may have also been drainage headaches.

2. People like trees, and hate being trapped in endless bunkers.  Not hard to see why the change occurred.

3. The RTJ Oakland Hills design was influential, as you say.

4. Emphasis in first Golf Digest ratings emphasize toughness for scratch players.  Why spend money on bunkers that don't challenge them?

5. Continued refinement of the DH elimination ideas regarding both maintenance and speed of play - If someone hits it 180 (as many seniors do) and can't reach the green in regulation anyway, why punish them more?  Isn't bogey enough?

6. Modernistic Architecture - with its own spare minimalism in decoration in the 50's.  Also, Mies and the strong ideals of "form follows function" affected golf architects.  if you are cyncical, you could say that the 50's and 60's were a down time in most design fields.

7. Everyone follows trends.  If things were accepted, like the RTj bunkers, then most clubs and architects followed, at least until the explosion of us architect types (spawned by Palmer in the 60's) came of age in the 90'w when our clients had the bucks to allow some architectural freedom.

8. Money Matters, Part II.  The trends had a real basis in the economics of clubs and public courses.  When people would pay just $10 for public golf, the design did have to do everything possible to reduce maintenance costs, and that was the driving force in the business when I got in it 1977. AT clubs, tax changes about the same time affected membership roles (temporarily, as it turned out) and they faced similar cost challenges.

Tom,

Sorry to offend, and I did go back and read the thread.  It seems you keep rephrasing the question endlessly, and I saw several posts (yours and others) of "show me where it said...."

FYI, Ron does have another document showing Burbecks involvment. Not that he could ever prove it to you, my friend! :)

I think we all agree that Tillie changed his philosphy when working for the PGA.  He was given a specific task.  Even if he did change ideas up solely for the PGA gig, I can't see what the heartburn is.  After all, what happened happened, and we aren't going to change that.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on April 13, 2004, 09:20:03 PM
Look at the DH's on the frontside of Newport CC, most notably #6, with what can only be described as a quintessential DH only 20-40 yards in front of the tees from which Duffers would presumably play.

(http://home.earthlink.net/~foodstat2/_uimages/49.jpg)
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 14, 2004, 09:38:21 AM
Jeff Brauer;

Thank you for a very fine synopsis.  

The only point I'd completely disagree with is your mention of Gulph Mills as a course that wasn't bunkered much in the DH range.  In fact, Wayne Stiles in 1940 (and others over time) removed much of Donad Ross's original bunkering in those areas.  

I'd also say that the analogy between removing bunkers in the DH range and where to turn a dogleg are two different things.  If distance the duffer hits the ball is now 180-200 instead of 140 in Tilly's time,  I'd expect to see bunkers in that range, but we both know that's rare.

No, generally I think their wholesale removal during that time period stemmed from a belief that fairway bunkering should be placed to only affect the accomplished player.    

Sean;

A picture is certainly worth 18 pages of typed words.  

It would be interesting to know how many of those bunkers were placed by Tilly, and how many by other architects at Newport who came before him.  

All;

Fellows;

I think you know that I have the utmost respect and admiration for all of you and I've tried to keep any disagreements we've had light-hearted and at times, even humorous, while still strongly advocating my opinions.  

I'm perplexed that the overall tone of the discussion on that thread couldn't have been a little bit more in that spirit.  

Certainly, the historical record is muddy enough for reasonable, well-intentioned people to disagree about our own interpretations and conclusions without us questioning each other's motives in a divisive way.  Perhaps my somewhat inflammatory title contributed to that, but it certainly wasn't meant to lead to anything but an exploration of what Tillinghast did during this period, how his architectural "evolved" through his career, what contributory factors within and outside the game contributed to that evolution, and what that meant to the thinking of architects who came after Tilly.  

Frankly, I also wanted us to have a discussion where the idolatry of Golden Age architects was tweaked a little bit.  We tend to see their genius but they were hardly perfect or infallible.  They had interests and motivations beyond the game and those factors affected where they were at creatively at any point in time.   If Tom Fazio went on a whirlwind tour of one day trips to courses across the land, recommending the removal of 7,000 bunkers, we'd be apoplectic.  

All I was asking for is some objectivity, open-mindedness, historical fact-finding and relativity in our views and common understanding on a topic we are ALL mutually passionate about, the history of the game's courses.

Thanks for participating and I would sincerely apologize to anyone who feels the slightest bit offended by anything I've written here.

And now, for my part, I'm hoping to see this thread fade away...goodnight Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.

Mike    
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: SPDB on April 14, 2004, 12:11:36 PM
Mike - i'm not certain that it matters. there is also some confusion over how much of Newport is Ross and how much is Tillie. Would be an interesting other thread.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: JSlonis on April 14, 2004, 12:40:54 PM
Mike,

As soon as I get some specifics on what was done at Tavistock I will post them here.  I spoke to our Supt. last night at a meeting and he seemed to think that it is difficult to tell all the Tillie changes.  Hopefully, Jim Nagle will be able to shed more light on the issue.
Title: Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on April 14, 2004, 01:27:52 PM
Sean;

Since the story I know is that Tillinghast redesigned Newport in 1924, you're right...it doesn't matter if those bunkers were placed by him or left by him.  It was his choice at that time.

I'd be interested to learn more about the Ross/Tilly connection there.  Why don't you start a thread and maybe we'll learn the full scoop?

Thanks!

Jamie;

Thanks!  I'm looking forward to hearing about Tavistock's architectural history, especially given my interest in Alex Findlay.