[Mike_Cirba]

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?

 

[Mike_Cirba]

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.

[TEPaul]

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?

[T_MacWood]

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?

[TEPaul]

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.

[A_Clay_Man]

MAybe the thread should be titled "Was Tillie wrong?"

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?

[Neil Regan]

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:

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.

[T_MacWood]

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.

[TEPaul]

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!

[Phil_the_Author]

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

[T_MacWood]

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?

[TEPaul]

"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.


 





 

[TEPaul]

"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.

[T_MacWood]

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?

[TEPaul]

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!

[T_MacWood]

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?

[Mark_Fine]

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?

[TEPaul]

"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.

 


 

[TEPaul]

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!  

[Mark_Fine]

Thanks for the summary!  

[TEPaul]

You're welcome Mark. Here take the baton, he's all yours!  

[T_MacWood]

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

[TEPaul]

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.

[TEPaul]

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!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()