News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #250 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

TEPaul

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #251 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.

DMoriarty

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #252 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.    
« Last Edit: April 04, 2004, 08:53:40 PM by DMoriarty »

Rick Wolffe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #253 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.

T_MacWood

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #254 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.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #255 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 ?

Rick Wolffe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #256 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

Rick Wolffe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #257 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                

Rick Wolffe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #258 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



DMoriarty

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #259 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.

DMoriarty

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #260 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.  

T_MacWood

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #261 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.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2004, 10:14:43 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #262 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!  



« Last Edit: April 05, 2004, 07:29:36 AM by TEPaul »

ForkaB

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #263 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.

TEPaul

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #264 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.

T_MacWood

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #265 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?
« Last Edit: April 05, 2004, 11:56:51 AM by Tom MacWood »

ForkaB

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #266 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.....

TEPaul

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #267 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!
« Last Edit: April 05, 2004, 11:36:12 AM by TEPaul »

ForkaB

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #268 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.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #269 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 ?

TEPaul

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #270 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.




T_MacWood

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #271 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?
« Last Edit: April 05, 2004, 01:02:06 PM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #272 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!
« Last Edit: April 05, 2004, 01:30:01 PM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #273 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.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2004, 01:30:09 PM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?
« Reply #274 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!

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back