[T_MacWood]

"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?

[TEPaul]

"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.

[T_MacWood]

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.

[TEPaul]

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.

[Phil_the_Author]

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.

[T_MacWood]

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".  

[T_MacWood]

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?

[SPDB]

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.

 

[Phil_the_Author]

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.

[T_MacWood]

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?

[Phil_the_Author]

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.  

[T_MacWood]

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?

[DMoriarty]

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.

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 . . .  

[DMoriarty]

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?

[TEPaul]

"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.

[TEPaul]

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!

[Phil_the_Author]

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.      

[DMoriarty]

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.  

. . . 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.)

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.

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.  

[T_MacWood]

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.

[TEPaul]

"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!

[T_MacWood]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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.  

[T_MacWood]

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?

[TEPaul]

"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!  

[T_MacWood]

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'.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()