[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Let me ask you a pretty simple question about your philosophy on Tillinghast;

Do you think by 1936 when you CLAIM he recommended the removal of ALL bunkering from the tee to 175yds out during the PGA project, thereby compromised his architectural principles that he'd also come to believe that PVGC was a golf course that was a great example of old fashioned really shitty architecture since it basically had NOTHING BUT bunkering and waste area from tee to approximately 175 or more yards out?

And if you don't think he felt or thought that way would you mind explaining to me why not?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I must have missed it, could you tell me on what post # I could find your answer ?

You seem to be avoiding the question rather then answering it

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW asks again:

"The question remains.....what in late 1935 caused the change? Any theories?"

Tom;

I'm afraid that question will always remain with you. You and many others, including me, are reading the exact same material and most everyone seems to be coming to a far different conclusion than you are on this subject. Practically the opposite conclusion, I might add. Their conclusions or theories if that's what you call them that are pretty much in on this thread after about 12 pages. I guess that's just the way it's going to remain.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Are we done yet?  

Nice to see a thread reach 12 pages of activity without one mention of Rees Jo#*&s.  

To answer Mark Fine's request for "cliff notes", here's what I've learned...

I asked the politically insensitive question...did AWT "sell out" during the depression years by removing bunkers (as a cost saving measure) from courses that were clearly designed to be heavily bunkered (i.e. Hollywood), when his own design history included many bunkers in the driving zone for all levels of players.

I asked this because he took the only work available...as a paid representative of the PGA who were looking to expand their own influence at a time when clubs were cutting the services of professionals for austerity purposes.  The PGA was clearly looking to use Tillie for their own ends...to give clubs something of value in implicit exchange for retention of PGA members on their staffs.

From an architectural perspective, I was also seeking to understand if Tillie was simply so pragmatic to understand the economics of the situation and adjust his ideas accordingly or if he actually had a change of heart and felt that bunkering for the high-handicap man had no real place in course design.  

After a plethora of posts, I believe that some of both was true.  

Generally, I think that Tillie recommended removal of some bunkers that added to the pleasurable enjoyment of the game for the high handicapper.  After all, who wants to hit into an open field?  Where's the fun and challenge in that?

I raised the question of whether Tillie would have removed the 140 yard from the tee "Abruptment" bunker from French Creek at the time and the answer based on his philsophical writings of the time seems to be a clear "yes".  While others questioned the relevance of that example, I think it is clearly germane.  

The Old course at neighboring Stonewall is another modern example where bunkers cut into blind ridges (which don't affect the expert player except through visual intimidation and blindness) would have also been grassed over during this period.

Experts in Tillinghast, such as Phil and Rick Wolffe provided some great examples of Tillie's writings from the period, where he seems to argue that the high-handicap man has enough problems without having to deal with forced carries and bunker headaches.

In a way, Tillie seems to have been the foreshadowing architect (more than any other from the Golden Age) for the type of architecture later popularized by RTJ Sr. and others where the first bunkering that shows up is in the driving zone for the scratch player or longer driver.  Clearly, if one looks at his "championship" courses, one sees evidence of this approach.

It is this evolution of architectural thinking that interested me mostly, and the reason for my question in the first place.  I've always found it a bit preposterous to believe that one day we were in a Golden Age and the next (after the depression and WWII) we were in the "dark ages" without some type of transitory examples.

I believe that it's clear that the thinking of Tillinghast and others (who might they have been?  Maxwell, perhaps?) was already becoming preoccupied with the games of the top players, and less concerned about the rest of us, except for the somewhat patronizing approach of "clearing the middle".  

Does this make Tillie a prophet, or simply a rational man who understood the games progress and was willing to accommodate his approach despite earlier efforts clearly incongruous with the new, "modern" game?  

Probably some of both.

Thanks everyone...this has been fun.

[DMoriarty]

What happened in 1935 [to change his bunkering philosophy]...surely you have a plausable explantion?

[my parenthetical]

Surely I do.  His bunkering/design philosophy did not change.   Searching for cause when no change occured is illogical.  

If my theory is illogical, I'd like to know what happened in late 1935 (and not 1930-1935) that explains his new bunkering philosophy?

 

Your theory is illogical because he did not have a 'new bunkering philosophy'/ design philosophy.

And let's be clear, the bulk of AWT's work did not occur during the depression.  In fact "as far as [you] know, the only courses he designed during the Depression were the Bethpage courses--."  

So the Bethpage courses are your sole basis for repeatedly alleging that AWT had one design/bunker philosophy during the depression but before the PGA project, and a different design/bunker philosophy after.  

What were these new constraints in 1935, that did not exsist in 1930-34?

Incredible!  I cannot believe that you actually are asking me to contrast the constraints AWT faced at Bethpage with the constraints AWT faced as a consultant for the PGA.  

Okay, here goes . . .

I am no expert on the subject, but it is my understanding that AWT's marching orders at Bethpage required him to build the finest public golfing facility in America, and to create jobs.  If I am not mistaken AWT's Bethpage Project created almost 2000 construction related jobs, and was funded by the Works Relief Project Act of 1935(?).  This was hardly a constrained environment in which to work.

In contrast, I think it fair to say that not many of the courses at which Tillie consulted had the financial recources that Bethpage had at its fingertips.   In fact, at least some of the clubs for which AWT/PGA consulted were flat broke and did not think they could afford to make any changes.
 
Further, at Bethpage AWT was designing his own original courses (except the Green I think) on a huge blank canvas.  In contrast, for the PGA, AWT was addressing those specific problems for which he was invited to consult.  

There must be more constrasts with Bethpage, but just those two get the point across.  

If the Bethpage projects prove anything about AWT's design/bunker philosophy, it is that he was flexible enough to work with in the constraints of the project at hand.  

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

That's an interesting theory of yours that Tillinghast with his PGA bunker removal project in the DH zones during the depression was ushering in what you call the "dark ages" of golf architecture (without a time of architectural transition) and was perhaps the immediate precursor to the age of RTJ et al who were supposedly (according to you) becoming more interested in the expert player and less interested in the handicapper or duffer. That's a theory I don't happen to agree with at all.

It looks to me as if you base that theory or assumption on the fact that Tillinghast or architects who basically "cleared out the middle" architecturally were patronizing the handicapper or duffer and actually removing fun and enjoyment from his endeavor. That I also disagree with and pretty much completely with the notable exception of something like a good fairway width inclusive application combined with something like Max Behr‘s “line of charm“ theory!)

I believe that the history of golf and golfers of that time can prove that the duffer or handicapper definitely did not generally feel the way you do about this issue and probably felt diametrically different from the way you do now or your theory. Your theory also seems to be based on the supposition that more bunkers are generally a prescription for better, more interesting and ultimately more fun golf and architecture and particularly in the mind of the duffer or handicapper. That's also a contention or theory I don't agree with and doubt many others did as well.

Tillinghast wrote in 1917;

“"The thoroughly modern courses are the most popular in America and those who first opposed reconstruction along the up-to-date lines, are loudest in their praise, after testing the new conditions. The duffer knows now that the new golf courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for his game. No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries. The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations of each, meet with hearty approval. The chronic grumblers, and there are a few, usually are short players, who are disinclined to take the shorter and safer routes from teeing ground to green. Naturally, some of the unreasoning players will pin future wails on Taylor's remark that any kind of a course will show the better players to advantage. These same men undoubtedly would be elated if all hazards were condemned and funnel like greens advocated. Even some of the most exacting course are very popular among the most mediocre players."

(I removed the “THE COPS” remark from that quotations because they were Tom MacWood’s inclusion and although they were  a type of bunker within the DH zones they were certainly not the only type or the only ones Tillinghast was referring to, in my opinion).

You should note in that quotation from Tillinghast (early on--1917) that he is NOT prescribing completely “clearing out the middle” for handicappers and duffers or anyone else. And he definitely is not prescribing removing ALL bunkers from the area of the tee to 175 yards out as Tom MacWood seems to think he was and did.

Tillinghast did mention some bunkering to be left at a shorter range. But most importantly Tillinghast is prescribing a form of architecture that allows any golfer to test the limits of his capability. This is undeniable in his remarks “No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries. The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations…..” Again, "The hazard lines that GRADE the shots to the limitations...." If that’s not an example AND a prescription that EVERONE can “bite of as much as he can chew” if he wants to according to his ability then what is it? Is that partonizing the duffer by removing challenge and enjoyment from him?

It seems to me what Tillinghast was saying in this vein, and way back, not just about bunkering but also about green angles and shapes and contours and the use of the clever “MASTER BUNKER” is the beginnings of the use of some really good diagonals in golf architecture---something that is both fun and interesting for all---duffer and expert alike. Of course he goes on to point out that duffers and handicappers will need to figure this out and not get completely stubborn about it and try to bite of MORE than they can chew---something he mentions some still continue to do---perhaps because they'd become used to those obligatory carries they struggled with from the old fashioned architecture Tillinghast referred to.

Again, Mike, this theory and architectural application is definitely NOT patronizing the duffer at the expense of the expert player. Matter of fact, it certainly appears to be treating him the same by offering him something he too can deal with but always according to his abilities! This is of no real difference to the way the expert is being treated architecturally!

Of course by all foregoing I'm only trying to look at the at the subject only from the perspective of golf and golf architecture and not economics generally or even of any dire time.

[T_MacWood]

David
You are right if his bunkering style never changed, it is illogical to claim it was compromised. You appear to be in the minority...even TE admited there was a change.

How do you explain the DH's at Shawnee (1911), Somerset Hills (1917), SFGC (1920), Philadelphia Cricket (1922), Fenway (1924), Ridgewood (1929), Bethpage (1936) vs his PGA bunker philosophy in 1936 (as illustrated in his 'Simplicity' article)?

"So the Bethpage courses are your sole basis for repeatedly alleging that AWT had one design/bunker philosophy during the depression but before the PGA project, and a different design/bunker philosophy after."

It appears you are saying Bethpage is not consistant with his PGA philosophy...what gives? Not the sole reason, first of all there was more than one course at Bethpage. Second Tilly was a very active writer during the Depression, sharing his architectural philosophy/concerns on a monthly basis and also had editorial controll of Golf Illustrated...as far as can find not a word about this bunkering philosophy he adopted in 1936 (and wrote about...resulting in the removal of 7000+ bunkers). One need only look at his entire career portfolio to see the 1936 change in philosophy regarding the DH.

Where was the concern for the duffer in 1935 at Bethpage-Black and Red?

I was asking what economic constraints existed in late 1935 that did not exist in the early years of the Depression visa vi his designs (Behtpage-Black and Red) and writing (architectural theories-Golf Illustrated). If you are claiming it was marching orders and budget at Bethpage, are you saying Tilly didn't actually believe what he was writing in 1936, that DH bunkers within 175 yards were acceptable as long as the budget was sufficient.

Pat
When describing the DH and Duffer's Range during his PGA tour remember Tilly described it from 0 to 175yds....4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 18....6 and 12 are close, but I think they might be right outside the Duffer's Range from the back tees. I did not include bunkers within the second Duffer's range.

Mike
Nice attempt to summerize this in a very thoughful way and bring this to a gentle close.....oh well.

[SPDB]

Maybe this thread ought to go away, but it seems like it will do so without any resolution. I started the thread averse to any idea that Tillie had compromised his design ideals, and if he had it was only because desparate times call for desparate measures.

As the evidence came across it appeared to me that there were some real questions that should be asked about whether any of this was necessary, whether it was generated by Tillie (as Rick Wolfe seems to suggest), and, most importantly to my mind, whether Tillie was compensated with any sort of reference to the scale of work done, or the computed "savings." The latter question is the most serious, because it would give Tillie a direct financial stake in the amount of work done, thereby giving him the incentive to produce more work, even where it might have been unneccesary.

I've been accused of speculating, or that this (in the words of David Moriarity) is "by no means the only plausible inference." I consider the concession that it is plausible satisfaction enough, since I never claimed it to be the most plausible.

Moreover, I disputed whether this was a really "free" service, which again David disagreed with. Viewed at the entire history of the Tillie Tour, the objectives of Jacobus, the recommended work, the only conclusion is that the tour was designed to give clubs a value add by retaining their PGA Pros. Presumably, many were in danger of losing jobs. Therefore, it is not remarkable to come to the conclusion that the work would only be "free" if the maintenance savings outweighed the costs incurred by keeping the PGA pros employed.

My dog in this fight is a bit different from Tom Mac.'s but I think we share common cause. The evidence raises real questions - and interesting ones - to dismiss them as lacking any foundation is to ignore both the reality of the depression and the evidence itself. I would think Phil the Author would have more than a passing interest in exploring this question deeper, seeing as how he's a Tillie historian.

These are the types of in-depth examinations that produce the full complement of history. To dismiss them out of hand is to sanitize the history for fear of looking deeper.

My only regret is that I don't have the time to discuss the issue deeper.

[T_MacWood]

TE
"as opposed to no choice a la 1936 or the cop."

What was his recommendation in the ‘Simplicty’ article....where does he say he gives immunity to some courses in ‘36? Bad architecture is bad architecture….if it is bad architecture in ‘Simplicity’ isn’t it bad architecture everywhere.

If the formulaic cop arrangement is goofy, it seems to me the opposite formula with bunker free Duffer Ranges is equally goofy. Formulaic golf architecture is not a good idea IMO.

A golf course which provides no hazards for the duffer to encounter (off the tee and down the fairway in another designated zone) would become mundane very quickly IMO and severely limit choice….thankfully Tilly never designed a golf course like this.

Trying remove the sand from PVGC would be an exercise in futility, like knocking down the dunes at Cypress Point.

”I'm afraid that question will always remain with you. You and many others, including me, are reading the exact same material and most everyone seems to be coming to a far different conclusion than you are on this subject. Practically the opposite conclusion, I might add. Their conclusions or theories if that's what you call them that are pretty much in on this thread after about 12 pages. I guess that's just the way it's going to remain.”

I haven’t been keeping score, but there seems to be a number of conflicting opinions. As far as I know you (and those who agree with you) have yet to come up with an explanation for the change in late 1935. IMO its not difficult to see what happened in late 1935 that would force a compromise…if I were in his shoes I’d probably do the same.

In reference to Mike’s theory….Ohio State was built in late 1930’s without a single DH…totally ignoring MacKenzie’s fairway bunkering  plan. The hazards begin at 220+ yards.

I love what Tillinghast wrote in 1917…”The duffer knows now that the new golf courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for his game.”…” Even some of the most exacting course are very popular among the most mediocre players"….a beautifully written response to why Taylor and DH free zone idea were wrong.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba:

That's an interesting theory of yours that Tillinghast with his PGA bunker removal project in the DH zones during the depression was ushering in what you call the "dark ages" of golf architecture (without a time of architectural transition) and was perhaps the immediate precursor to the age of RTJ et al who were supposedly (according to you) becoming more interested in the expert player and less interested in the handicapper or duffer. That's a theory I don't happen to agree with at all.

Tom; As the 20's progressed, and just before the market crash, more and more "championship" courses were being built, whether Flynn's Shinnecock or Ross's continued tinkering and finalization of Pinehurst #2, or the elongation and reconfiguration of Pebble Beach by Egan.  There is no question that with golf becoming not only popular to play but also to watch (i.e. Jones's Grand Slam) that many of the premier architects of the Golden Age were interested in building tournament venue courses and were beginning to advance design concepts more centered around the games of the top players than the average duffer.  

Many of the earliest courses built by the Golden Age designers were bunkered in irregular, almost random type designs as evidenced by Garden City, Oakmont, Hollywood, NGLA, and Tillinghast's own early work at Shawnee and others.  While Devereaux Emmett might have been the king of the cross-bunker, Tillie took that concept and made it his own with his "hell's half acre" approach, which had to have been fearsome and intimidating for hackers and average players.  While strategic thinking was beginning to predominate, it is also true that many courses also had an "edge" of "penality" for all players, and while a constant diet of forced carries was not good, certainly bunkering extending diagonally into the target areas of ALL players was a regular theme.

Something dramatic happened between then and the courses built from 1935 onward through the Jones era.  Until the recent revival in classic methodologies, was there a course built between 1935 and 1980 that had bunkering built at less than 220 yards from the tee??      

It looks to me as if you base that theory or assumption on the fact that Tillinghast or architects who basically "cleared out the middle" architecturally were patronizing the handicapper or duffer and actually removing fun and enjoyment from his endeavor. That I also disagree with and pretty much completely with the notable exception of something like a good fairway width inclusive application combined with something like Max Behr‘s “line of charm“ theory!)

I agree that width is a good thing that offers all type of golfers room to play "around" hazards.  However, if there are NO hazards lurking until the 220 yard mark, it become hitting into an open field for the guy or gal who can't strike it further than 200.  I think Tillinghast's (and others like Wayne Stiles at your club) removal of bunkers in that range did DEcrease the challenge, interest, and enjoyment for lesser players.  

I also find it unbelievable to accept that all 7000! bunkers Tillie removed (over 20 per course, on average) were useless "carry" bunkers at 140 yards that adversely and unfairly punished the hack, although I'm sure some were.  It seems more to me that he probably removed bunkers in areas that wouldn't affect the best players in the less than 200 yards and 350 yards zones.  

I believe that the history of golf and golfers of that time can prove that the duffer or handicapper definitely did not generally feel the way you do about this issue and probably felt diametrically different from the way you do now or your theory. Your theory also seems to be based on the supposition that more bunkers are generally a prescription for better, more interesting and ultimately more fun golf and architecture and particularly in the mind of the duffer or handicapper. That's also a contention or theory I don't agree with and doubt many others did as well.

Tom, I think that much of the interest and enjoyment for all levels of players at courses like NGLA and Cypress Point includes the fact that while they are and remain playable for all levels of golfers, they also include hazards in the "hackers range", which force all golfers into decision making processes and strategies.  The "clearing out" of all bunkers before the "expert zone" (ala Oakland Hills after RTJ Sr) make those courses perhaps easier for the duff, but also much less interesting.  

Tillinghast wrote in 1917;

“"The thoroughly modern courses are the most popular in America and those who first opposed reconstruction along the up-to-date lines, are loudest in their praise, after testing the new conditions. The duffer knows now that the new golf courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for his game. No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries. The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations of each, meet with hearty approval. The chronic grumblers, and there are a few, usually are short players, who are disinclined to take the shorter and safer routes from teeing ground to green. Naturally, some of the unreasoning players will pin future wails on Taylor's remark that any kind of a course will show the better players to advantage. These same men undoubtedly would be elated if all hazards were condemned and funnel like greens advocated. Even some of the most exacting course are very popular among the most mediocre players."

Tom, I agree that what Tillie is describing here is exactly ideal.  However, I don't agree that the removal of all bunkers at less than say 200 yards accomplishes this and in fact runs directly counter to his ideal that "hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations of each".  

You should note in that quotation from Tillinghast (early on--1917) that he is NOT prescribing completely “clearing out the middle” for handicappers and duffers or anyone else. And he definitely is not prescribing removing ALL bunkers from the area of the tee to 175 yards out as Tom MacWood seems to think he was and did.

Tom, it's difficult to imagine that he didn't prescribe clearing out the middle of ALL bunkers 175 yards or closer when he recommended the removal of 7000 bunkers, don't you think?  

Tillinghast did mention some bunkering to be left at a shorter range. But most importantly Tillinghast is prescribing a form of architecture that allows any golfer to test the limits of his capability. This is undeniable in his remarks “No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries. The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations…..” Again, "The hazard lines that GRADE the shots to the limitations...." If that’s not an example AND a prescription that EVERONE can “bite of as much as he can chew” if he wants to according to his ability then what is it? Is that partonizing the duffer by removing challenge and enjoyment from him?

No, it doesn't but once again I wonder how many bunkers were left in the "duffer's range" with over 7,000 slated for the dustbin of history.

It seems to me what Tillinghast was saying in this vein, and way back, not just about bunkering but also about green angles and shapes and contours and the use of the clever “MASTER BUNKER” is the beginnings of the use of some really good diagonals in golf architecture---something that is both fun and interesting for all---duffer and expert alike. Of course he goes on to point out that duffers and handicappers will need to figure this out and not get completely stubborn about it and try to bite of MORE than they can chew---something he mentions some still continue to do---perhaps because they'd become used to those obligatory carries they struggled with from the old fashioned architecture Tillinghast referred to.

Tillie loved angles and was one of the pioneers of this thinking.  I just think he figured that the hacker was better off playing short of hazards (by necessity because he could no longer reach them) and sort of sneaking up on the target, unimpeded by actually having to confront anything too dramatic.  It was a more "modern", if somewhat patronizing approach, and it was continued by RTJ and others that came later.  

Again, Mike, this theory and architectural application is definitely NOT patronizing the duffer at the expense of the expert player. Matter of fact, it certainly appears to be treating him the same by offering him something he too can deal with but always according to his abilities! This is of no real difference to the way the expert is being treated architecturally!

Tom, I think the movement of bunkers away from the target zones of the weaker players had their origin in the late 20's through equipment changes (the sunset of hickory, the sand wedge), the increasing popularity of tournament golf, and it is evidenced in Tillie's thinking and PGA work during that time.  It reached it's zenith near Detroit in 1951 and became the accepted style for many years to follow.  If Tillinghast wasn't the originator of this thinking, he certainly seemed to have passed the baton.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Does AWT ever refer to DH's at shorter ranges ?

175 yards in the early 30's is well beyond the carry distance of a duffer, especially when you consider the carry had to be in excess of 175 to clear the bunker.

Even today, a carry of 175-185 yards would not be deemed the carry of a "DUFFER", but the carry of a golfer with decent skills.

Why does 140 yards and in seem geared more toward the DUFFER ?

[Phil_the_Author]

Several similar questions have been asked, and in a fashion that implies a proof that Tilly had changed his philosophy in 1935.

These are:

"You said that Tilly may have sold the PGA on the idea...what gives you that impression? The Bethapge courses would appear to be the antithesis of the DH free philosophy and he did not promote these ideas during the Depression, rigth up 'til 1935, as editor of Golf Illustrated?"

"Have you found any evidence of Tillinghast's DH bunker philosophy/affordibility concerns while editor of Golf Illustrated in the early to mid-30's? "

I think this quotation from his article, "The Oblique in Golf Design," written for Golf Illustrated in 1932 should clear that up.

"In brief, the oblique lines make it possible for every class of player to extend shots only to the limitations of power, thus making it easier for the duffer to enjoy golf more, but at the same time calling for greater effort for the scoring of par and "birdies" than in the times when carries were obligatory and greens were faced at right angles and accepting, without great favor, shots from either side of the fairway...

I have said before, and repeat it here, that I believe many of the courses are extreme in length, extreme in putting areas and over bunkered through the fairway."

After reading that, I don't know how anyone can say that Tillinghast had changed his philosophy, or that something changed in 1935, or that he hadn't believed in removing bunkers for a long time. HIS words are quite clear on that, and yes, they were written for Golf Illustrated in the early 30's.

By the way, when the entire article is read, it becomes impossible to claim that "Duffer's Headaches" were incorporated into his design at Bethpage. Large carry bunkers of an oblique nature, that have an area of safe fairway that the short or duffer may safely reach, are able to play these holes. "Golfers of varying ability, grading all the way down to the duffer, like this type of hole, too, because it allows them to select an easier route than the one taken by others of greater skill and strength."

The Red and Black Courses at Bethpage are filled with examples of oblique hole designs, yet the bunkers that imping on where the better players my attempt to play to will only effect them. not the duffer who will be playing to a spot in the safe and open area of the fairway.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil;

I guess a couple of questions spring to mind.  

By the time Tillinghast wrote the article on obliques in 1932, the country was well into the Depression after the crash of 1929 and Tillie's lament of overbunkering was probably at least partly borne of the economic realities.

Knowing Tillie's courses well, would you think he'd call a course like San Francisco Golf Club "overbunkered through the fairway" by 1932?  

But, more to the point of his "oblique" contention, Patrick raises a great point above that a carry of 175 yards was well-beyond the carry of the duffer in those days, and even probably in the average duffer's range today.  

I understand what you are referring to with Tillie's use of obliques at Bethpage, where on the 5th, or 7th for instance, the hacker could play well left while the better player might try the longer carry on the right side.  That's all well and good.  But still, it's a fairly good carry to reach that left side, especially for someone who's best shots carry maybe 150 yards.

Also, his Hell's Half Acre concept (which he used on the 4th) is hardly an example of an oblique hazard, but more a takeoff on the original, full-carry,  "cross-bunker" idea, only on steroids.

But more to the point...Of the 7000 bunkers he removed from other architects courses, I'm assuming by his "DH" writings that he recommended removal of most every bunker inside 175 yards on those courses.  I'm also assuming that there were not 7,000 full-carry, cross-hazards with no way to play safe inside 175 yards at any time in our history.  

Would you agree?  

[Mike_Cirba]

I thought it might be relevant to include a portion from the ongoing "Bunker Restoration" thread that coincidentally talks about similar issues.

Jim Thompson - "My bunker / feature restoration question has always been...Do you restore a bunker in its original location because it was there? (old clubs & balls) or do you place the bunker where it would / should be if the original archtitect had built the course today? (modern clubs & balls)"

Tom Doak - "Jim:  If you are on flat ground, then a fairway bunker may have been placed a certain distance from a tee by an architect who wanted to challenge someone who hit the ball that distance.

But on rolling terrain, it's more likely that the bunker was placed on a good spot topographically, and then the tee was placed in relation to that bunker.  In which case, it's the tee and not the bunker that should be relocated, if it can be.

You're also assuming that architects are placing all their bunkers in relation to the best players of their day ... which is not the case.  A "short" fairway bunker at 160 yards off the tee is still a challenge for the kinds of players who only carry their drivers 160-170 yards.

Joel Stewart - "Tom: The problem we have is that the older members have to navigate the old man bunkers then the championship bunkers then the greenside bunkers.  I'm sure its the same at many clubs but when we talk about restoring some of these bunkers at the 175 yard level the older members scream."

Interestingly, I played Aronimink with two older members who talked about the fact that Ron Prichard restored ALL of the bunkers at the distances Ross built them, including the "old man bunkers".  They said that they and the other senior members felt the course was now more difficult...but also much more FUN!    

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

You wrote, "By the time Tillinghast wrote the article on obliques in 1932, the country was well into the Depression after the crash of 1929 and Tillie's lament of overbunkering was probably at least partly borne of the economic realities."

If Tilly had only written this type of statement in 1932 I would more than absolutely be agreeing with you. The facts are that he had been critical of poor bunker placements and bad use of bunkers whose SOLE purpose was to punish the poor player as it was in areas that typically only he would hit into, and that he had been doing so since at least 1901. He wrote articles constantly over the years where this was highlighted. Are you saying that these were statements of economic realities in 1920 & other years before the Depression? I don't think you are. Why then would you state that they are written for that purpose when they are nothing more than a consistent stand of his.

That they could ALSO be a statement of economic reality because of the time I would agree with, just not that they were intended as such.

The reason for quoting the 1932 article was to answer the ascertions that he had not written any for Golf Illustrated during that time frame. This is proof that he did.

You next ask, "Knowing Tillie's courses well, would you think he'd call a course like San Francisco Golf Club "overbunkered through the fairway" by 1932?"

That's a REALLY big assumption! I wish I could tell you that I did, but as far as the San Francisco Golf Club is concerned, the closest I've ever gotten to it is in my dreams. I haven't even seen that many photos of it for me to give an opinion one way or the other.  

You next wrote, "I understand what you are referring to with Tillie's use of obliques at Bethpage, where on the 5th, or 7th for instance, the hacker could play well left while the better player might try the longer carry on the right side.  That's all well and good.  But still, it's a fairly good carry to reach that left side, especially for someone who's best shots carry maybe 150 yards.

Also, his Hell's Half Acre concept (which he used on the 4th) is hardly an example of an oblique hazard, but more a takeoff on the original, full-carry,  "cross-bunker" idea, only on steroids."

The reason that I wrote about Bethpage in that light was to give answer to those who maintain that the Bethpage courses have D.H.'s throughout. That is so far from the truth! The courses at Bethpage were heavily bunkered, but there is a huge difference, and Tilly always made this distinction, of a large bunker or waste area off the tee. His contention was that it was a means of giving the player an angular advantage for a properly played shot and a price to play for one that wasn't.

At the Bell South Classic this week, I noticed a great example of a bunker that Tilly would have said was a DH and that should be gotten rid of. About 175 yards in front of the tenth tee, a straight 600-yard par 5 hole, on the extreme left side of the fairway is a large bunker.

The only time that this would be in play is when the far back championship tee is in use, and this is only during the Bell South. The other three tees are further up the right hand side and make the hole considerably shorter. For a player to hit it ionto this bunker in normal play, he would be hitting a shot about 50 yards off-line that was only 75 yards in front of the tee. It would truly be a world-class duffer who would hit it in there.

This bunker serves absolutely no purpose or function whatsoever and is a maintenance cost to the club. I can even say that they should get rid of it.

Tilly hated the waste of hazards. Whether bunkers were of the DH variety, COP bunkers, or ones poorly placed for any variety of reason, he disapproved of them. Whether he was correct in his thinking is subjective.

This thread has attempted to state what Tilly was thinking and what was motivating what he was saying. The man isn't here to tell us, but much of what he wrote on these subjects is, and it is being ignored.

If this was a religious subject, and for some we must stress that it is not, we would say that they are "misinterpreting the scriptures," so to speak.

[Rick Wolffe]

Mike C.

What's the record for number of posts?  Do we have a shot at breaking it?  The really big news from this thread may be the discovery of a lost Tillinghast course.  I am not sure why no-one picked this up except Phil Young, who is researching it.  Phil, are you going to break radio silence on this one?

I thought I would post a few more letters on Tilly's visit to San Francisco GC.  I think someone uses this course as an example of Tilly compromising his style on other courses.  However, I think SFGC may be good proof that Tilly updated and tweaked his own work to bring them up to snuff with the new steel shafts and the longer flying balls -- as you will read he apparently made substantial changes to this course.  

Mike, I don't get the argument on the 7,000 bunkers.  (It was actually, 6,978 bunkers removed!  But whose counting) The majority of these bunkers, let's say 6,324, were removed from a small number of the 845 courses he visited, let's say 54 courses.

If you study the sketches Tom M. posted earlier you will note that the bunkers that are placed between the tee and the drive zone are positioned in a very characteristic Tillinghast style -- oblique to the center line of the fairway.

Anyway, here is the first of Tilly's PGA letters on SFGC.  I will post the others after dinner.  There is another important tid-bit in this letter -- apparently Tilly advised SFGC the year before he started this PGA tour.


San Francisco, California
March 5th 1936
(Note; Yesterday’s Report was erroneously dated March 5th)

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

Today I drove to Ingleside at the Request of P.G.A. member William McEwan.  His assistant, Harold Stone, is also P.G.A.

I made a complete inspection of the course of the San Francisco Golf Club, and inasmuch as planned this lay-out it may not seem entirely proper for me to praise it too much.  But as it is regarded here as a truly great course, I will string along.

I was accompanied throughout the day by McEwan, Knox Maddox (President of the club) Dixwell Davenport (Chairman of the Green Committee) Frank Dolp (California Champion) Jim French Jr. (another clubmember and rated one of the best players in the state) and other officials.  At noon, President Maddox presided at a fine luncheon, at which were additional club officials.  Altogether it was a wonderful reception.

It must be mentioned that greenkeeper George Paulson accompanied us throughout the day, and I must compliment this man especially for the able manner in which all of my plans have been carried through, particularly the new first and second holes, as well as the new twelfth, which I designed when here last winter.  Today I gave them a rearrangement of the trapping of the fairway of the fourteenth, which has been the only weakness of the course.  The new plan will bring it up properly.  While I made numerous suggestions for refinements on nearly every hole, they were of minor character and not at all expensive to accomplish.

Dixwell Davenport is also a member of the United State Golf Association’s Green Section and he told me that in a recent letter to national president, John G. Jackson, he told him that, in his opinion the P.G.A. had ‘put one over’ the U.S.G.A. in sponsoring the course services.  Truly it was a day of wonderful compliments.

Very truly yours
A.W. Tillinghast

[T_MacWood]

RW
"The new plan will bring it up properly.  While I made numerous suggestions for refinements on nearly every hole, they were of minor character and not at all expensive to accomplish."

What were some of the refinements he suggested? Did he recommend any changes the previous winter?

In your book you quoted Tilly saying he "removed nearly 8000 bunkers" & at the 1936 PGA conference Tilly put the number 7427.

Were there some courses he gave immunity from the duffer's range theory? If so, how did he detremine when and where?

6000 bunkers from 60 courses that is a lot of bunkers pper course...what are some of the courses that heavy numbers of bunkers were removed?

Phil
That article is about the diagonal hazard and has nothing to do with the duffer's headache or Duffer's Range...in fact the accompanied diagram has a diagonal bunker in the Duffer's range....bad form by 1936.

[Rick Wolffe]

OK -- dinner is over.  I got to stop eating as I am reaching offensive tackle proportions.  Is there a South Bunker GCA diet?  

Here is the second letter on SFG scheduling the return trip there a year later.  

TePaul has already pointed out the importance of politics and green committees, etc, etc, on golf course evolution, which can not be ignored or discounted.  It is interesting to me the politics Tilly describes here -- both at the municipal course level and the private club.



San Francisco, California
February 4th 1937

George Jacobus
President of the P.G.A.
Box 231, Sarasota, Fla.

Dear Sir:

A steady, torrential down-pour is San Francisco’s portion today.  When I tried to look out my window this morning I could scarcely see for sheets of water.  I was scheduled to visit Earl Fry today at the Municipal Golf Course of Alameda, but missing the inspection today at this course will not make any difference for Earl’s position there is controlled by politics and he is rather on “a spot” when it comes to suggesting any deviations from the official routine of the city’s program.  However the chief object of my visit there was accomplished by telephone at eleven o’clock, when Fry advised me of the absolute futility of attempting to get out there today.  I had wanted him to have a chat with him, as he is secretary of the Northern California P.G.A. section and there was one point in particular that I wanted him to rule on as an official.

When I was there last March we had a request from P.G.A. member William McEwan to visit the course of the San Francisco Country Club, the outstanding course here.  I did so and conferred with McEwan and club officials, making certain recommendations.

Yesterday, Dixwell Davenport, Chairman of the Green Committee, telephoned me and wanted to know if I would be able to visit the course again and check up on the work there.  But he explained to me that there had been certain differences between the officials of the club and McEwan and that the situation was strained at present.  Davenport wanted to know if my revisit there to check up last year’s recommendations must depend on McEwan’s new request.  Consequently, I put the decision squarely up to Fry.  He advised me that McEwan was rather peculiar and, although a member of the association, made no effort to associate with his fellows here at any time.  Therefore Fry advised me to go ahead with the visit on the strength of the original request.  I feel that this is a wise decision.

Fry also expressed his gratification over this year’s extension of our service in this section and informed me that the personal reaction of the members, whose courses I have visited, gave the officials of the section great pleasure.

I have five more courses to inspect in Northern California before leaving for the South and I am sending a summary of the work here to president Dewey Longworth and a copy to secretary Earl Fry.

Very truly yours
A.W. Tillinghast

[Rick Wolffe]

Here is the last of the SFGC letters.  Tom M. asks what did he recommend at SFGC in 1935 the year before his PGA tour.  There is a short mention of a few specifics in the 1936 letter.  I am not aware of any more specifics.

If there are any requests, I will take the time to re-print other Tilly PGA letters.  I read several posts regarding Bel Air and the fact that Tilly's recommendations in 1936 were ignored.  There are some interesting thoughts on club politics in the 1937 letter on Bel Air.  The Bel Air letter also points to Tilly rebunkering or repositioning bunkers in the drive zone, which some could interpret as a modernization or restoration of original design intent.



San Francisco, California
February 6th 1937

President of the p.G.A.
(Box 231, Sarasota, Florida)

Dear Sir:

It was fortunate that I managed to get through with the examination of Beresford yesterday, for no sooner had I returned to the hotel than the hard rain started in again and fresh storms predicted all along the California coast.

This morning it was raining again and a telephone message from Dixwell Davenport advised me that it would be foolish to attempt the visit to the San Francisco Golf Club.  Consequently this was postponed until tomorrow (Sunday).  However at ten o’clock Davenport telephoned again as there were indications of clearing and asked me what I thought about it.  I replied “Let’s go” so I drove to the club.  Of course it was very wet underfoot and sticky.  Out here it is not the falling rain which hinders nearly so much as the bad footing, on the ‘Dobe soil.  However at the San Francisco Golf Club there is a somewhat different soil condition, more sand than usual in these parts, so it is possible to walk around.

Here I contacted P.G.A. members William McEwan and Harold Stone.  I checked on all work, which I recommended last March.  Of course I am particularly familiar with this course as I laid it out some fifteen years ago.  However some of the construction work has not altogether pleased me and gradually this is being corrected.  They have applied for the U.S. Open for 1939 and by that time the course should be altogether satisfactory.

Today I additionally instructed them concerning the raising and contouring of the right side of the 3rd green; the left-front of the 5th and located a new site for the 10th green to the right of the present (one of their own making, which has left much to be desired.)  All other opportunities for improvements were made note of on my last visit and definite records made at that time by the committee.

I am informed that you made a short visit to this course when on your recent visit to San Francisco.

Will it be possible to supply Dixwell Davenport with back copies of the P.G.A. magazine, containing my monthly articles?  He asks for them urgently and says that he had his subscription sent but with no reply.  Will you also advise him if he may subscribe?  He is a member of the executive committee of the United States Golf Association.

This completes my present visit to the Northern California P.G.A. Section and I leave for San Jose tomorrow (Sunday).

Very truly yours
A.W. Tillinghast

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I made specific reference to his statements where he wrote in 1932 that, " thus making it easier for the duffer to enjoy golf more" and "I have said before, and repeat it here, that I believe many of the courses are extreme in length, extreme in putting areas and over bunkered through the fairway."

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that this is his consistent belief, that courses should be designed with the duffer in mind and that when bunkers are done improperly they effect that player the most?

He was consistent in what he wrote, believed and practiced in his designs and renovations, as well as his recommendations during his tour for the PGA. I guess that you & I will just agree that we disagree.

The discovery that Ricl Wolffe is talking about is a reference to the Lafayette Country Club in upstate New York. In his Third letter to Jacobus, dated 8/17/35, he wrote that he, "Telephoned the Lafayette Country Club, a course that I planned some years ago..."

It turns out that course was sold to new owners a few months ago, PGA Tour player Dudley Hart and his father who have renamed it the Country Club of Syracuse, and they, as well as the previous owners of Lafayette, did not know who the architect of the course actually was. Just in the past few weeks Tillinghast's name had been mentioned to them by someone and this letter provides a source of proof.

They told me when I spoke with them that the greens are "tremendously pitched, almost unfair to the point where they are considering softening them a little." With teh attribution to Tillinghast they feel that they might need to rethink this. We are both doing further research on this.

Actually, it was my humble friend Rick who noticed it and asked me about it; I just made some phone calls. Great discovery Rick!

[T_MacWood]

Phil
It sounds like you may have misunderstood this entire thread. No one has claimed Tilly wasn't considerate of the duffer throughout his career.

He produced designs that gave the duffer choices (bold or safe) and potential thrills....the diagonal hazard is a perfect example of this philosophy...bite off as much as you wish. Removing hazards (and limiting choice and potential thrills) is a departure from his common practice of providing diagonal hazards and bunkers en echelon for the duffer.

"The duffer knows now that the new golf courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for his game.....Even some of the most exacting course are very popular among the most mediocre players." The oblique hazard provides pleasure and zest...the bunkerless Duffer's Range provides a snooze.

Do you understand the difference?

[Mike_Cirba]

As we approach 300 replies, has the length of this thread scared others off?

(shameless attempt to pass the 300 threshold)

[Phil_the_Author]

MIke,

This reply is mostly for you in your hopes of seeing a 300-threader!

Tom, intended or not, why the insult? Yes, I know the difference.

We are having a difference of opinion, that is all. I have understood the thread from the first post. You have been insisting that what Tillinghast believed and practiced throughout his career was changed by insisting that something happened in 1935, and then presenting what you believe to be as proofs, you pronounce it as fact.

Excuse me, but someone can disagree with your conclusions and not have, "misunderstood this entire thread."  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Phil/Rick,
Lafayette was generally attibuted to Seymour Dunn and in the history of the Tuscarora club, another SD course, they say that he(Dunn) built Lafayette in 1911, ten years before he did their course.
Whatever the outcome, it sounds like the new owners of the course are approaching the situation with care.  

[DMoriarty]

You are right if his bunkering style never changed, it is illogical to claim it was compromised. You appear to be in the minority...even TE admited there was a change.

Pardon me for not taking your and TE's opinions as gospel.  

How do you explain the DH's at Shawnee (1911), Somerset Hills (1917), SFGC (1920), Philadelphia Cricket (1922), Fenway (1924), Ridgewood (1929), Bethpage (1936) vs his PGA bunker philosophy in 1936 (as illustrated in his 'Simplicity' article)?

I'm not sure an explanation is necessary. Your underlying premise may be fallacious yet again . . .

I've only played SFGC, Fenway, and Bethpage Black.   On these three at least, I do not recall a single bunker that could be accurately described as one of the DH bunkers that AWT wrote about while working for the PGA.  As an offentimes Duffer myself, I usually notice these things, but perhaps I missed them.  I am sure you can help clear things up . . .

Which of these courses have you played?   Of these, where exactly were the DH bunkers?  

It appears you are saying Bethpage is not consistant with his PGA philosophy...what gives?

 

Give me a break!  You know that this is not what I am saying.    I have said it again and again and again. . .
 
Again . . . applying the same philosophy to different circumstances rarely produces identical results.

My apologies for my growing frustration, but I have had about enough of "discussing" this with you.  My position is far from complicated; so I refuse to believe that a man of your intelligence cannot understand it.  Yet you repeatedly distort and ignore, failing to address my position for what it is.  

If you disagree with me, by all means let me know where I went wrong.  But can we please get past the endless rhetorical tiddley-winks?  

Not the sole reason, first of all there was more than one course at Bethpage.

Is this really your first response to my statement you quoted???  A statement which began:  "So the Bethpage courses are your sole basis . . . ."  Do you read my posts?  Or yours?  

Second Tilly was a very active writer during the Depression, sharing his architectural philosophy/concerns on a monthly basis and also had editorial controll of Golf Illustrated...as far as can find not a word about this bunkering philosophy he adopted in 1936 (and wrote about...resulting in the removal of 7000+ bunkers). One need only look at his entire career portfolio to see the 1936 change in philosophy regarding the DH.

Again, you hold up this fallacious "philosophical change," then question why AWT doesn't mention this 'new philosophy' in his writings before 1936.   Well . . . by my reading he doesnt mention it when working for the PGA, either.  I've reread the Oct. 1935 "What the PGA Course Service Really Means" article and for the life of me I just dont see a departure from what he was saying long before.  

Where was the concern for the duffer in 1935 at Bethpage-Black and Red?

 Havent played the Red but (as I said above) I dont recall any AWT "DH" bunkers on the Black.  Please identify the DH bunkers (as described in 1935) on the Black.

I was asking what economic constraints existed in late 1935 that did not exist in the early years of the Depression visa vi his designs (Behtpage-Black and Red) and writing (architectural theories-Golf Illustrated).

I know what you were asking.   You were asking a question which was already loaded with your fallacious conclusion-- that AWT changed his philosophy when he went to work fo the PGA.  

My answer explains:  1) Why your question collapses on its on false premise; and 2)  How the circumstances at Bethpage (with its multiple courses, mind you) drastically differed from the circumstances surrounding the courses at which AWT consulted for the PGA.

As for the writings, I answer that immediately above.  

Tom, do you really think it supports your position to compare the results of a multi-course, government funded, work-creation project (Bethpage) with the results of AWT's consultation at courses many of which could barely afford a PGA Pro?

If you are claiming it was marching orders and budget at Bethpage, are you saying Tilly didn't actually believe what he was writing in 1936, that DH bunkers within 175 yards were acceptable as long as the budget was sufficient.

Again you are making up facts to support your argument.  What DH bunkers?  What did he write that is contradicted by Bethpage?

_________________________

Phil,  I'd love to see the Bel Air letter(s) if it is not too much trouble.  

If there is a way I can do it without causing you too much work, I'd love to see the other Southern California letters as well.

Could it perhaps be during this Tour that AWT met WP Bell?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()