[DMoriarty]

. . .
As the evidence came across it appeared to me that there were some real questions that should be asked about . . . whether Tillie was compensated with any sort of reference to the scale of work done, or the computed "savings." . . .

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

I apologize for any confusion my loose use of languange might have caused . . . you may want to review your previous post and mine before you take this "concession" to heart . . . .  I did not conceed that your inference is plausible. In short, I think I was trying to be polite.

To put it more frankly, I have not read a single fact which remotely supports your inference that AWT was being paid per amount of work performed.  In contrast, there is ample evidence that he was not.  Based on the facts before us, your theory is just not plausible.  This is why I referred to it as requiring a "huge leap of logic."  

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

You see a potential benefit to the PGA (continued employment for PGA pros), and conclude that the clubs must have incurred a cost equal to that benefit.   Such an understanding of cost is quite novel, to say the least.  [The previous sentence was my semi-polite attempt at gently telling you that your theory makes no sense.]

Did the consulted clubs legally commit to continue employing the PGA Pros after the PGA consultation?   Did the PGA refuse its service to clubs who had no plans of firing their PGA Pro?  
If the answer to these questions is 'NO,' then the "costs" you describe are purely illusory.

My dog in this fight is a bit different from Tom Mac.'s but I think we share common cause. The evidence raises real questions - and interesting ones - to dismiss them as lacking any foundation is to ignore both the reality of the depression and the evidence itself.

I dont think this a situation where 'real questions' have been cursorily dismissed as lacking foundation.   On the contrary, a few (particularly Messrs. Young and Wolffe) have entertained all such questions and graciously provided answers and information to the best of their abilities.

But what if those asking the questions endlessly ignore "the reality of the depression and the evidence?"   Doesnt there eventually come a point in the discussion where those doing the asking must step back and examine to what extent their questions have been answered?  

While it is certainly a travesty to leave "real questions" unanswered, isnt it also a travesty to continue challenging that which deeper examination has resolved?

[T_MacWood]

David
Of those courses -- Shawnee (1911), Somerset Hills (1917), SFGC (1920), Philadelphia Cricket (1922), Fenway (1924), Ridgewood (1929), Bethpage (1936) -- I've played SFGC (also Winged Foot and Lakewood). I've devoted quite a bit of my time to studying Tilly's design work, when judging his bunkering styles through the years I try to use the original configuration as opposed to how the course might look today.

The answer to your question on the DH's at Bethpage is a few posts back (In your opinion what cicumstances at Bethpage would lead Tilly to ignore his theory that DH's were the bane of the duffer? After all the Black and Red were designed as public facilities. Or is the DH a post Bethpage theory?).

You and I have a disconnect...I'm not certain if it is due to the fact we have a different understanding of Tilly's definition of Duffer's Range or if we have a different understanding of Tilly's work through the years....or maybe both.

I am a huge fan of Tillinghast. I take this stuff seriously and as I've said devoted a great deal of time to research and study of his work. Our exchange is not adding to the debate  or understanding...we are going no where fast.

[T_MacWood]

Phil
My opologies. Don't take that as an insult, but an honest observation. You said the oblique bunker article was proof that Tilly was concerned for the duffer earlier than 1935...who said he wasn't concerned earlier than 1935?

I wrote--more than once--that Tilly was concerned thoughout his career for the duffer as were most of the architects of his era (many of whom also placed bunkers within the Duffer's Range).

[TEPaul]

I’ve changed my mind. I think this thread, despite unusual length has been a good one and has probably gotten better in the last few pages. It also seems the primary proponents that Tillinghast compromised his architectural principles during the 1935-36 PGA project are Tom MacWood and Mike Cirba. Frankly, I’d never exactly thought of that before although even from my own club I’m aware of at least 3-4 waves of redesign of my Ross course from 1933-1940. I’d never thought of those redesigning architects as compromising their principles, although I’ve always thought of those times as good examples of how architects of that time redid the golf courses of other architects with very little thought or consideration to what those original architects did. I believe in most cases those redesigning architects were simply responding to something about the golf course and its architecture that the membership probably felt wasn’t working very well for them for whatever reason.

However, although that appears to have been a fairly general happenstance in that era (at least at my club), the subject of this thread--”Was Tillinghast selling out or compromising his architectural principles” by getting involved in this type of thing in a sort of formal way with the PGA is a bit of a different spin on this general subject of what was going on during the Depression.

Phil said to Tom MacWood:

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

I also said that to Tom MacWood a number of threads back and perhaps a number of times. In the last day I believe what Phil just said there is more true than ever. Tom MacWood, in my opinion, is not going about analyzing this question correctly. As Phil apparently does, I too think Tom is both misrepresenting facts and also probably misunderstanding them. I believe this is almost completely distorting the validity of his assumptions, his premise and his conclusions.

Here, in my opinion, are some statements from Tom MacWood and also Mike Cirba that show why this is so, in my opinion;

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

In my opinion, the diagonal hazard within the so-called duffer’s range has everything to do with the so-called “Duffer’s Headache” and the Duffer’s range! How could it not? Matter of fact, it happens to be one of Tillinghast’s very clever prescriptions for how to solve the problems of the previous obligatory carry so unappealing in the so-called Duffer’s Range and at the very same time maintain some challenge and excitement for the duffer within that range. Is Tom MacWood misunderstanding or denying that? If so, why? If Tom MacWood is suggesting Tillinghast later compromised his architectural principles in 1936 then perhaps he should prove that in 1936 Tillinghast came back and recommended removing all his diagonal or oblique bunkering within the duffer’s range that four years previous he‘d suggested was the solution for the problems for the duffer within that range. Did he do that? Not that I’m aware of!!!

Mike Cirba said:

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

Mike:

Can you prove Tillinghast recommended the removal of ALL bunkering less than 200 yards from every tee? I don’t think you can do that!

Mike also said;

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

Mike:

No I don’t think so. Did Tillinghast or the PGA say that Tillinghast recommended clearing out 7,000 bunkers from the middle 175 yards or less from tees or was that 7,000 bunkers total on all parts of golf holes he recommended removing? There is a pretty big difference, don’t you think? If either you or Tom MacWood can show me where Tillinghast specifically said 7,000 bunkers in basically that first DH zone (175 yards of less from the tee) and also that he recommending clearing out ALL bunkering in that zone then I’ll sure reconsider this statement of mine. Again, reconsider it and then attempt to find out if he actually did recommend removal of ALL bunkering in that zone including what he may have previously built himself and also suggested in that 1932 article regarding diagonal or oblique bunkering within that zone. There is at least one quote I’ve seen from Tillinghast where he recommended bunkering in that zone, only shorter.

There is another subject that eventually will probably need to be brought up in light of this subject and that’s the subject of tees! In other words, how and when did separate tees for the duffer start to influence and impact this entire question of the Duffer zone?

Mike Cirba:

The question of the so-called championship course is a good one and a very good subject for another thread.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Phil presented the 'Oblique' article as an answer to my question: "Have you found any evidence of Tillinghast's DH bunker philosophy/affordibility concerns while editor of Golf Illustrated in the early to mid-30's? "

What does the diagonal bunker have to do with DH or affordability? Tilly was proponent of diagonal hazards throughout his career—the 14th at Quaker Ridge (1916-17) as an example.

The Duffer's Range is a waste land of choice; the diagonal hazard is the essence of choice. One is the antithesis of the other.

I know I can't prove he removed every bunker within 175 yards. I can't prove he removed nealry 8000 bunkers either--as he claimed. The theory of compromise is based upon Tilly's writings in 1936 (Simplicity article and his idea of a Duffer's Range) and his own bunker number claims.

If the theory is wrong, that he never compromised or altered his career long design philosophies, I'll be the first admit it....it wouldn't be the first time I'm wrong.

Let's assume I am wrong. I'm all for exploring exactly what he did on the tour. Phil and Rick have his letters and no doubt have studied them closely. They certainly can answer what bunkers he removed from what courses.

Rick said most of the bunkers came from a relatively small number of courses (60 aprox). What are some of these courses (I'm sure we are familar with a number of these courses and their architects)? Where were these bunkers located that he removed....in other words did he follow his Duffer's Range model or some other thought process.

I'm simply looking for the truth...whatever it might be. IMO the more info we have the better able we can draw an accurate and fair conclusion.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Apology accepted.

You wrote, "TE, Phil presented the 'Oblique' article as an answer to my question: "Have you found any evidence of Tillinghast's DH bunker philosophy/affordibility concerns while editor of Golf Illustrated in the early to mid-30's? "

What does the diagonal bunker have to do with DH or affordability? Tilly was proponent of diagonal hazards throughout his career—the 14th at Quaker Ridge (1916-17) as an example.

The Duffer's Range is a waste land of choice; the diagonal hazard is the essence of choice. One is the antithesis of the other."

Let me explain why this is an answer to the question(s) that you raised. The key is the last sentence from what I quoted when Tillinghast wrote, "I have said before, and repeat it here, that I believe many of the courses are extreme in length, extreme in putting areas and over bunkered through the fairway."

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

Is this not an article that deals with his "bunker philosophy" when he was an editor at Golf Illustrated in the mid 30's? Does it not speak to a consistent philosophy that he kept throughout his career?

I included the entire paragraph before this sentence because I wanted the context that he stated it understood. This statement enlarged upon his feelings of design and how he felt bunkers and hazards played into a hole designed on an oblique basis. After those specifics he stated his over-riding principle above.

It also needs reminding that your question came in the middle of discussions dealing with why he changed his philosophy in 1935 (a statement that you know that I disagree with) and would then go on to recommend the removal of thousands of bunkers during his PGA Tour.

I ask then, doesn't that statement of belief that "Many courses are overbunkered..." show that when he toured for the PGA he was actually giving advice on bunker removals that had been a part of his philosophy long before the tour was even mentioned? Doesn't it again show a consistency in his philosophy, and prove that this did not change?

Let's assume I am wrong. I'm all for exploring exactly what he did on the tour. Phil and Rick have his letters and no doubt have studied them closely. They certainly can answer what bunkers he removed from what courses.

You also wrote, "Rick said most of the bunkers came from a relatively small number of courses (60 aprox). What are some of these courses (I'm sure we are familar with a number of these courses and their architects)? Where were these bunkers located that he removed....in other words did he follow his Duffer's Range model or some other thought process."

I hope to post the names of some of these courses shortly. I plead only that you have some patience to wait on this info. As you, and others know, I am hard at work on a Tilly bio that my publisher is pressing me to finish. In order to get the information you seek I will have to go through the letters again of which there are 392 of them!

The information contained in them is a maddening mixture of exact details and generalities. At times he would often give exact numbers and details of his recommendations, while others he just wrote in generalities. The reason for this appears to be based upon how long a day he had and how tired he was when he wrote.

One other point to remember is that he would be explaining very little to Jacobus about individual recommendations, and this for reasons, some fairly obvious and others not so. One reason is that Jacobus understood what he was doing and his philosophy. It is an easy thing today looking back over 65 years ago to say that Jacobus was giving his friend a job when he needed it during the Depression. The reality of this statement is that Jacobus own job as PGA presidant and Ridgewood pro was hanging by threads at this time because of the Depression. He would probably, and I admit this is theory and supposition, only have asked Tilly to do this when he was convinced that he would be doing and recommending things that the PGA as a whole could support.

One thing is for certain, neither Tilly nor Jacobus expected the tour to turn into the incredibly popular success that it did. They received letters of praise and thanks from courses everywhere and of every size and importance.

You closed with, "I'm simply looking for the truth...whatever it might be. IMO the more info we have the better able we can draw an accurate and fair conclusion." That is a statement that I support wholeheartedly.

[T_MacWood]

Phil
"Is this not an article that deals with his "bunker philosophy" when he was an editor at Golf Illustrated in the mid 30's? Does it not speak to a consistent philosophy that he kept throughout his career?"

No, it does not deal with his "DH bunker philosophy."

The point I, and others, having been trying to make is the DH bunker philosophy of 1936 (clearing Duffer zones of bunkers) was a departure from his previous (career long) bunker design principals (as illustrated by this 1932 article.) He is not advocating removal of hazards to clear a zone for the duffer in this article...just the opposite. This article, if anything, further illustrates his change in late 1935.

He wants to give the duffer genuine pleasure and zest in the 1932 article, not an empty field.

Claiming courses are over bunkered and promoting a philosophy that removes bunkers from 0-175 yds are two different matters IMO. Does he quantify what qualifies as over bunkering...not my knowledge. And if you look at his actual designs--1911 thru 1936--you must conclude either his defintion is fairly severe (hundreds) or he didn't practice what he preached. My guess is the former.

I look forward to the info from his letters....hopefully it will get us closer to the truth.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Phil presented the 'Oblique' article as an answer to my question: "Have you found any evidence of Tillinghast's DH bunker philosophy/affordibility concerns while editor of Golf Illustrated in the early to mid-30's? "
What does the diagonal bunker have to do with DH or affordability? Tilly was proponent of diagonal hazards throughout his career—the 14th at Quaker Ridge (1916-17) as an example."

Tom:

Do you see that word "philosophy" in your question to Phil? Do you know what that means? Don't tell me now that the words "philosophy/affordability" renders the word "philosophy" irrelevant!

Both you and Mike Cirba seem to be contending Tillinghast recommended removal of ALL bunkering in that first DH zone (from the tee to 175 yards out). Once again, that's ALL BUNKERING!! I'm attempting to show he wasn't doing what you say!  I don't care at all how you want to define bunkering, Tom, to me ALL bunkering is ALL BUNKERING, period, end of story!

As far as wanting to get to the truth of all this, and wanting to get into some of the details of the "facts" you've been using to support your assumptions or premise (Tillinghast changed his architectual philosophy or principles) and the conclusions you draw from that (he compromised his architectural principles), that's fine and admirable but why didn't you go get the details of those facts or ask for Rick or Phil or others for them BEFORE concluding Tillinghast had to have compromised his architectural principles?

You said:

"I'm simply looking for the truth...whatever it might be. IMO the more info we have the better able we can draw an accurate and fair conclusion."

You don't seem to be looking for the truth on this thread. What you seem to be doing is attempting to defend your premise and conclusion despite some pretty obvious facts to the contrary.  
 
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

MIke Cirba,

Your pictures are quite nice, although angles can influence perspective

Your conclusions are quite flawed.

Those are not DH bunkers.

The 4th fairway is so wide that it would be misleading to characterize the left side flanking bunker as a DH.
I would also imagine that most "duffers" can't reach that bunker, nor the next one.

P.S.  Why did you delete the pictures ?

[T_MacWood]

TE
Tilly ends his article of 1936 'The Simplicity of Modern Bunkering' with this paragrph:

"It will be noticed that all other pits, which are shown on Figure One, are removed entirely from the scheme of Figure Two and these areas are designated Duffers Ranges. No one really cares a lot what the poor old duffer does anyhow? He is not a serious factor in golf. But he is a mighty important one. He wants his pleasure and we contend he should have all that posssibly may be brought to him as he golfs as best he can. These superfluous pits are not only unpleasant but they are very expensive to maintain. Why sould the golf courses of America have so much money wasted on their construction and maintenace for no other purpose thant to drive away from the clubs and the game the very men, who are so vitally necessary to the existance of the game."

It does not appear he is advocating some of the bunkers be removed from the Duffer's Range, but all of them. If he followed through on this model during his PGA tour remains to be seen....but he put forth the theory in black and white, and it is very clear.

"As far as wanting to get to the truth of all this, and wanting to get into some of the details of the facts you've been using to support your premise, assumptions and conclusions, that's fine and admirable but why didn't you go get that evidence or ask for it BEFORE concluding Tillinghast had to have compromised his architectural principles?"

Thanks for the lecture, but putting forth a theory (based on facts) is not the same as stating that theory is fact. After all you've put forth a number of theories yourself (some more theoretical than others)--Crump and PV, Philadelphia school, Maxwell based #7 at Gulph Mills on ANGC, Aronomink is the result of an independent McGovern or that Tilly did not compromise his design principals.

It would be too easy to say you should practice what you preach or that I take it you and Wayne will not be including any theory or educated guesses in your Flynn book. However I hope you do include thoughtful opinion--to do otherwise would be a mistake IMO.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba said:

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

Mike:

Can you prove Tillinghast recommended the removal of ALL bunkering less than 200 yards from every tee? I don’t think you can do that!

Tom;

No, I can't prove it, but as I said in the initial post here, the amount of bunkering removed from Hollywood and Jamie's contention that Tavistock had some very questionable work done by Tillie at that time led to my questioning his philosophy and intent at the time.

I'd refer you to the Tillinghast quote I copied below that Tom MacWood just posted referring to "Duffer's ranges" as evidence of his thinking at the time.  Beyond that, Rick Wolffe has mentioned that most of the 7,000 bunkers removed happened on something like 70 courses?!?  My word, that's over 100 bunkers a course!  

Frankly, I think Tillie's design methodologies had evolved by that point to something approximating RTJ Sr.'s fairway bunkering schemes that followed, with bunkers only in the range of the expert player or long hitter.   I think Bethpage Black was an anomaly out of Tillie and Burbeck's desire to create something approximating a public Pine Valley.

"It will be noticed that all other pits, which are shown on Figure One, are removed entirely from the scheme of Figure Two and these areas are designated Duffers Ranges. No one really cares a lot what the poor old duffer does anyhow? He is not a serious factor in golf. But he is a mighty important one. He wants his pleasure and we contend he should have all that posssibly may be brought to him as he golfs as best he can. These superfluous pits are not only unpleasant but they are very expensive to maintain. Why sould the golf courses of America have so much money wasted on their construction and maintenace for no other purpose thant to drive away from the clubs and the game the very men, who are so vitally necessary to the existance of the game."

[TEPaul]

"It would be too easy to say you should practice what you preach or that I take it you and Wayne will not be including any theory or educated guesses in your Flynn book. However I hope you do include thoughtful opinion--to do otherwise would be a mistake IMO."

We will be including plenty of theory and opinion in our Flynn book and we will also be pointing out in no uncertain terms that it is definitely our theory and opinion only and that we cannot prove it if it doesn't seem almost undeniably supported by fact and documented evidence, perhaps even twice. We will be stating, as well, that anyone should draw their own opinions from the things we say and the evidence we're using to support what we say. We don't plan on floating some assumption, premise or conclusion as the truth and then challenging anyone and everyone to disprove it or we shall conclude it to be the truth and we will expect everyone else to conclude it to be the truth as well, as you seem to be doing on here.

Most of what I object to about the way you go about all this is the way in which you tend to look at evidence in such stark and black and white terms to make your assumptions and draw conclusions.

A perfect example is in your last thread where you state following Tillinghast’s quote from Chapter 28 (Simplicity in bunkering); “It does not appear he is advocating some of the bunkers be removed from the Duffer's Range, but all of them. If he followed through on this model during his PGA tour remains to be seen....but he put forth the theory in black and white, and it is very clear.”

He did not put forth that theory in black and white terms and it is not clear as you say it is. If he followed through on this model during his PGA tour certainly does remain to be seen, something you should have said all along, particularly if you’re going to content he compromised his architectural principles. But no, you keep insisting that there was this big change in his architectural philosophy and his principles in 1936.

Those two hole diagrams in that article are just that, hole diagrams, used as an example of “modern architecture” and not something he ever said should have been used on every single hole on every single golf course in the tee to 175 yard range. Is this what you’re using to assume and then conclude he recommended ALL bunkering be removed in this zone on all courses? Is this what you’re using to conclude that 7,000 bunkers were removed from that first DH zone alone in his PGA project? If so that’s extraordinarily poor logic and deduction, in my opinion!

You might have looked in Tillinghast’s very next article (Chapter 29) which is basically an extension of this very subject in Chapter 28 ("Simplicity in Bunkering") and you would have seen this;

“It may be recalled that my last article (Simplicity of bunkering, Chapter 28) definitely declared that greater interest was being introduced to our modern golf by a simplified method of trapping, which rewards placements of tee-shots, on one side of the fairway or the other. Of course it must not be construed to infer that I contend that this system should be invariable.”

Does that sound to you like he recommended that ALL bunkering in the tee to 175 yard first “Duffer zone” should be removed as you just reiterated as fact above for about the fifth time? It does not! Again, “OF COURSE IT MUST NOT BE CONSTRUED TO INFER THAT I CONTEND THAT THIS SYSTEM SHOULD BE INVARIALBE!”


And what have you and Mike Cirba been contending Tom? You’ve been contending that his system and his recommendations were invariable, that he was recommending that ALL bunkering be removed in this zone, despite the voluminous evidence others were offering you to the contrary.

And he goes on to imply that all this basically conforms to that fundamental tenet of architecture known as variety! Article 29--”Tucking in the Traps” was written, by the way in September of 1936 a month after the article you quoted from above (Chapter 28, "Simplicity in Bunkering"). Both were written for the “Professional Golfer of America” so please don’t try to contend again that this is being taken out of context.

If this doesn't disabuse you two of carrying on this contention that he recommended ALL bunkers in this zone should be removed then I just can't imagine what would. It really does seem ironic that it's Tillinghast's own words written almost 70 years ago that're able to counter your claims about him. It's almost as if he is contributing to this discussion on Golfclubatlas today!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

In light of the financial times, do you believe that courses had AWT visit them, make his suggestion and that they acted immediately and removed all of those bunkers in time for him to report back to the PGA a few months later.

The scale of the work, cost of the work, timing of the work and time of reconstruction of the work would indicate that something is drasticallly amiss.

I'll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

[Mike_Cirba]

We will be including plenty of theory and opinion in our Flynn book and we will also be pointing out in no uncertain terms that it is definitely our theory and opinion only and that we cannot prove it if it doesn't seem almost undeniably supported by fact and documented evidence, perhaps even twice. We will be stating, as well, that anyone should draw their own opinions from the things we say and the evidence we're using to support what we say. We don't plan on floating some assumption, premise or conclusion as the truth and then challenging anyone and everyone to disprove it or we shall conclude it to be the truth and we will expect everyone else to conclude it to be the truth as well, as you seem to be doing on here.

Tom; the reason this thread is in the form of a question is to engender debate and fact-finding.  I think perhaps both Tom Mac and I stated our opinions very strongly, but I am not sure we claimed to have all the answers or where we didn't welcome additional information or other's views.  

Golden Age architects generally bunkered the hell out of their courses.  Tillinghast's shift at this period, whether a result of philosophical evolution or pragmatic economics seems to be a significant change from both his predecessors and from his own resume of prior courses.  To recommend the removal of
SEVEN THOUSAND bunkers is pretty dramatic stuff on any scale.  

I think it was totally appropriate to question what his thinking and motivations might have been during this period.

Those two hole diagrams in that article are just that, hole diagrams, used as an example of “modern architecture” and not something he ever said should have been used on every single hole on every single golf course in the tee to 175 yard range. Is this what you’re using to assume and then conclude he recommended ALL bunkering be removed in this zone on all courses? Is this what you’re using to conclude that 7,000 bunkers were removed from that first DH zone alone in his PGA project? If so that’s extraordinarily poor logic and deduction, in my opinion!

You might have looked in Tillinghast’s very next article (Chapter 29) which is basically an extension of this very subject in Chapter 28 ("Simplicity in Bunkering") and you would have seen this;

“It may be recalled that my last article (Simplicity of bunkering, Chapter 28) definitely declared that greater interest was being introduced to our modern golf by a simplified method of trapping, which rewards placements of tee-shots, on one side of the fairway or the other. Of course it must not be construed to infer that I contend that this system should be invariable.”

Does that sound to you like he recommended that ALL bunkering in the tee to 175 yard first “Duffer zone” should be removed as you just reiterated as fact above for about the fifth time? It does not! Again, “OF COURSE IT MUST NOT BE CONSTRUED TO INFER THAT I CONTEND THAT THIS SYSTEM SHOULD BE INVARIALBE!”

Tom...I think Tillie's words and clear disdain for Duffer bunkering at this time IS pretty clear and black and white.  I don't think it's much of a leap of faith to conclude that many of the 7000 bunkers recommended for removal were bunkers that affected these players solely.  

And, to draw a distinction, I think what Tillie is referring to when he says that "this system should not be invariable", was not Duffer's Headaches at all, but instead the idea that every hole should have a "master bunker" in the driving area of the scratch man, which directed play and strategy and created a preferred side of the fairway.

It seems that Tillinghast was beginning to get into a more formulaic method of design, primarily to build courses that defended well against the advanced player, yet allowed the hack to get around pretty unscathed (the "easy bogey, hard par" concept later espoused by RTJ Sr.), but at that, he didn't want to make things too cut and dry and was intelligent enough to understand the achilles heel of conformity in what he was otherwise arguing for.


And what have you and Mike Cirba been contending Tom? You’ve been contending that his system and his recommendations were invariable, that he was recommending that ALL bunkering be removed in this zone, despite the voluminous evidence others were offering you to the contrary.

Tom, the only evidence I have is his contention that he recommended 7,000 bunkers for removal at the same time he was writing of his disdain for bunkers that only affect the hack.  

I also know the historical evidence of the before and after images of Hollywood, for instance.

I'm not sure anyone offered any evidence that he didn't remove this bunkering during this time...the letters from Phil have been pretty general to this point.  

[Rick Wolffe]

Mike C.

Don't hold out my SWAG (sohisticated wild ass guess) on the number of bunkers and number of courses Tilly visited.  I would give my guess an accuracy probability equivalent to a guess at the number of jelly beans in the jar.  

Whether it was 7,000 or 8,000 may not be worth hanging any hat on.  I would also point out that Tilly recommended the construction of hundreds if not thousands of new bunkers.  So is the 7,000 or 8,000 bunkers removed, net of the new bunkers constructed?

In regards to Hollywood CC in NJ, I am not sure if Mike C. is inferring that Tilly recommended that 100 or more bunkers be removed.  We do not have any record of Tilly visiting Hollywood CC in NJ on his PGA Tour.  Tilly did visit Hollywood CC in Hollywood, CA on his PGA tour.  Tilly also designed Norwood CC on Hollywood CC's prior location in Eatontown, NJ in the early twenties sometime.

To give everyone some more flavor to his tour, I will post the following letters.  Please note that he is recommending the construction of new greens and bunkers.


Chicago, Illinois
November 4th 1936

President of the P.G.A.
Dear Sir:

The weather turned very cold today.  I went to the Oak Park Country Club at the urgent request of P.G.A. member Ren Smith (who succeeded his brother Horton there)  It will be recalled that I made certain recommendations at Oak Park just a year ago and already Constructor Eddie Dearie has completed both the Sixth and Fifteenth greens, and I am pleased to report that these are regarded very highly indeed.  Dearie had followed my instructions to the letter.

Today I was wanted to check the work on the Eleventh and the Seventeenth, both greens being now in the process of reconstruction.  I gave them the finishing touches and also instructed concerning the recontouring of the mound work on the left-front of the Fifteenth green.  Dearie accompanied me today as well as W.C. Spears (chairman of the green committee) and W.W. Hodson (of the committee)

It is also interesting to know that Dearie informed me that another piece of work, which I sketched at another Chicago course last year, had been completed and that a beautiful hole was the result.  This is the new home hole at Ridgemoor, outlined in my daily report of November 9th 1935.

Certainly it is very heartening to find our service is proving something more than mere recommendations, but that it is reality of completed work.


Very truly yours
A.W. Tillinghast

[Rick Wolffe]

White Plains, NY
July 8th 1936


President of the P.G.A.
Dear Sir:

Today I made an inspection of the course of the Old Oaks Country Club at Purchase, together with Willie MacFarlane, Joseph Wolfe (Chairman of the green committee) and greenkeeper King Troensgaard (a very capable man).

Originally I planned this course for the Progress Country Club but after the work started I was dismayed when the committee insisted that the starting and finishing holes should not be close to the clubhouse, - a most remarkable choice.  Now recently the original club consolidated with Oak Ridge, where Macfarlane had been professional for years.  He came over to the new course after the consolidation.  Immediately he announced that the start and finish were wrong, a conclusion that recent committees had realized well.  They wanted me to suggest a rearrangement, which would bring the course back something close to my original plan.

I accomplished this by reversing the play of the long Eighteenth; and also that of the present first, breaking this up into two holes and thus starting and concluding play exactly where it always should have been done by a combination of parts of Ten and Eleven and the extending of Twelve to a par 4 length.

I also visited the adjoining club, Century, where I had a fine chat with Dan Mackie, and at his request looked over the Thirteenth (a new hole which has been severely criticised and believe not without reason) and studying the extension of the Second hole to make it a real par 5.

This day has been of peculiar interest and I believe, of considerable value.

A.W. Tillinghast
July 8th 1936

[Rick Wolffe]

Saint Paul, Minnesota
April 30th 1937

President of the PGA

Dear Sir:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very truly yours

  A.W. Tillinghast

        AWT

[TEPaul]

MikeC;

From the evidence I've seen from Tillinghast and others throughout this thread I guess we just don't agree on that evidence, what he wrote about this entire subject and what it means during the depression and in an historical context. Such is as things are.

[Rick Wolffe]

Here is the after letter on Hollywood.  California that is.  Near Beverly, Hills that is, movie stars ....


Los Angeles, California
February 19th 1937

President of the P.G.A.
(Box 231, Sarasota, Fla.)

Dear Sir:

Just a year ago to the day I made examination of the course of the Hollywood Country Club.  Today, at the request of P.G.A. member Les Madison, I inspected the course to check the work already do and to make additional recommendations.

After a conference with club manager, George Stark and the president, Al Wiese, I walked over the course with Madison and greenkeeper Bob May.

I was gratified to find that may of the recommendations, which I had made previously, had been carried through and that each had proved entirely satisfactory.  The 6th green had been corrected; the new 7th teeing ground is now about competed and I O.Ked it; the D.H.’s on both 9 and 10 have been eliminated; the new 11th teeing-ground is in use; the return to the original 12th teeing-ground has improved that hole; the --th green has been built as directed; the new arrangement at the 16th had been observed completely and a fine hole results.

In addition I recommended the eventual rebuilding of the 2nd green to remove objectionable terraced levels and also the grassing of the big sand pit on the left; a lowering of the level of the 4th teeing ground as well.

The turf on both fairway and putting-greens shows decided improvement and the advice concerning the spiking of the previously tight greens with sharp sand in the compostings, has proved most beneficial.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT

[Rick Wolffe]

Here is the before for Hollywood CC in Hollywood, CA.

Note, Tilly designed a new 16th green on a new site.  This was noted in the previous letter as a new "--th green"

Hollywood, California
February 19th 1936

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

Yesterday my scheduled visit to the Stockdale Country Club had to be postponed on account of rain.  The early morning rains, cleared for a while, but I was advised that the long drive over the Cahuenga Pass, would be ill advised.  Later in the morning the rain started in again.

Today it was raining again when I went out to the Hollywood Country Club, at the request of P.G.A. member Les Madison.  However it was close at hand so I took the chance.  When we were going over the course it came down again in torrents but by lunch time it stopped and we completed the examination during the afternoon.

I was accompanied by Madison, his assistant, Lester Bolstad, and the green keeper, Bob May.  Later I conferred with the club’s manager and several officials.  After covering the entire lay-out I had given them definite instructions concerning an entirely new green for the fifteenth (on a new site) and a change of the sixteenth from the teeing ground.  In addition to pointing out many unnecessary pits (D.H’s) I showed them out to draw sand up into the slopes of the greens, which for the most part lack character, and also advised them about introducing much sharper sand with their compostings.  I also advised more frequent spikings to relieve a tight condition, which makes the greens difficult to hold with lofted irons.

I added some 25 yards to the third hole; rearranged the green at the sixth; raised the left side of the ninth; selected a new teeing ground for the eleventh and suggested a remodeling of the seventeenth green.  Much may be accomplished here, gradually and at no great cost.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT

[Rick Wolffe]

Here is an interesting one.  Perhaps not conclusive proof of Tilly's change in philosophy in 1935 and his "mass production cookie cutter formula" for the clearing of all bunkers between the tee and the majic 175 yard mark.  But we may be getting closer.  Pardon my irreverance.

What may really be of interest on this one is that Virginia CC was a significant redesign project after Tilly's PGA tour was concluded.  Tilly and Billy Bell collaborated on the work I think in 1938 or 1939.  I think it is reasonable to conclude that Tilly was building his professional network on his PGA tour, which would open doors for he and Billy Bell when they went into partnership together.

There is another interesting connection with Virginia CC that Tommy Naccarato is researching.  But I will not break my radio silence on that one and leave it to Tommy.


Hollywood, California
February 21st 1936

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

Today I visited the Virginia Country Club, at Long Beach, at the request of P.G.A. member Larry Gleason.  With him and the greenkeeper, W.W. Beaver, I made an examination of the course, afterwards conferring with John Halbert, president of the club, Charles Kerr, secretary, and several other members of the executive committee.

The course is typical of others in this section, with adobe soil.  Seaside Bent, inclined to be grainy, covers the greens, while the fairway is Bermuda base.  I found numerous misplaced sand traps of the D.H. sort, and in not a single instance did the guarding pits meet the greens properly.  In many instances the pits presented large floor areas, to which the sand was confined.  Several of the greens were too large for the short shots, which come to them and of course I recommended cutting these down to fair proportions.

In a number of cases I suggested making the grassed hollows of the too-large pits.  My recommendations here may be said to have been very general for they covered no particular holes in detail, other than the ninth, tenth and sixteenth (greens) However I answered many questions, mostly asked by greenkeeper Beaver, whom I found a capable man.  However, Larry Gleason was keenly alive to the wrong conditions and his great desire to know of proper corrective measures surely indicated his worth.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT

[Rick Wolffe]

I always liked this one on Beresford CC a Donald Ross original design, which is now called Pinensula CC.

Hey, I just noticed that if you hold these letters up to a mirror and shine a black light on them, there is a secret message from Tilly to Jacobus, that reads, "A successful day with the scapel -- 47 DH's condemed short of the 175 yard mark.  There was one DH at 180 yards from the back teeing ground, but within 175 yards from the forward tee.  As per our "ultimate plan" no mercy was spared and it was slated for extermination."


San Francisco, California
March 7th 1936

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

Another full day with examinations of two courses, due to an added request to an already full schedule.

This morning I drove to San Mateo to visit the course of the Beresford Country Club at the request of P.G.A member Willie Nichols, who came to this country some years ago from Montrose in Scotland (hard by Carnoustie).  He was sent out here some fourteen years ago to this Beresford course by Donald Ross, who planned it at that time.  Unfortunately some of the holes were badly done by the local builder and in no sense resemble the original Ross conceptions.

I made such suggestions as seemed proper and particularly selected sites for greens for the Tenth, twelfth and Thirteenth.  This is in no sense any reflection on the original Ross plan but only made necessary because those original plans had been sinfully juggled.

Before leaving Beresford I conferred with the club’s president, Edger Sinton, who seemed highly appreciative.

The afternoon found me at Ingleside at the Public Course, operated by a company headed by Thomas S. Hutton, who accompanied me in my examination, together with Julius Lazzerini, the greenkeeper, Harold Beer (P.G.A.)  There are three P.G.A. members retained at Ingleside and it was at their request that the service was rendered.  The third professional is Ed Holbrook.

Here they had a very serious problem, a dangerous congestion at the Eighth, Twelfth and Thirteenth.  I solved this for them by relocating the entire Seventh hole (a one-shotter) which made it possible to extend to the Thirteenth from a new angle.  The entire rearrangement will be accomplished solely by the building of a new Seventh green, directions for which I gave them in detail.  I also gave them requested advice at several other holes, but after a complete examination I found the course generally, entirely adequate,

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT

[Rick Wolffe]

Interesting comments by Tilly on Lakeside, a Max Behr design.  Perhaps Tilly showed some deference to great architecture and left the cookie cutter in the car.


Hollywood, California
February 22nd 1936

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

The scheduled engagement for today at Hillcrest was postponed by secretary Patterson at the request of the chairman of the green committee, who was especially desirous of being present at the time of my visit there.  I will go there on Monday.

Today I went to the Lakeside Golf Club at the request of P.G.A. member Eddie Loos.  This is one of the best course I have examined in southern California, - well laid out and constructed with very pleasing contours, and in a condition that reflects great credit on greenkeeper Herb Wilson.  I refrained from criticism here because there is little to find fault with (only minor details)  I did however remark that the greens frequently were much larger than seemed necessary, but as the size of greens is a matter of personal opinion, I do not press my own inclination to those of smaller areas.  My suggestions to cut down the size of some greens are consistent with a policy of reduced maintenance costs, but certainly a too-spacious green often does destroy the value of the hole when only a small shot is necessary.  I was very pleased to be able to praise Lakeside to those to whom I afterwards talked, players and officials.

Eddie Loos requests the P.G.A. service in the spring for his course at Lake Shore, Chicago, where he is during the summer.  Here is a staunch P.G.A. member and one of long standing.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT

[Rick Wolffe]

Here is the "after letter" on Bel-Air.  

A point worth noting is Tilly's reference to the detailed written reports sent to the PGA office.  We believe these reports include design sketches and identify all the DH's recommended for removal.  If we could find these reports an accurate count of the jelly beans in the jar could be made.  Phil Young has been to the PGA archives and hopes to rediscover them soon.

I am running out of steam, does anyone want to see the Riviera letter?

Los Angeles, California
February 17th 1937

President of the P.G.A.
(Box 231, Sarasota, Fla.)

Dear Sir:

First, this morning, my visit took me to the Bel-Air Country Club, where P.G.A. member Joe Novak is located.  The report on file at our office will show that I made a complete examination of this course on the 7th of February, 1936.  In the meantime, however, there has been a complete change in the personnel of the club officials.  Ray Thomas, who was president last year and who was very anxious to see all the recommendations, which I had made, put through, is no longer in office.  I conferred with him today.

It seems that the new chairman of the green committee is most reluctant to touch the course in any way.  Naturally I was disappointed to find that nothing had been accomplished.  This feeling is shared by both Mr. Thomas and Novak and it was with a view of having the new officials “see the light” that my visit today was occasioned.  I could only refer to my former report and I carefully avoided showing any chagrin because nothing had been done.  However I did give a lot of satisfaction to point out the first green, which today was nearly unplayable because of the seepage from the hill on the left.  My report of last year had recommended the introduction of a grassed hollow into this slope, which simple expedient would have remedied the present evil at very little cost.

It has been said that “You may lead a horse to water but you may not make him drink.”  I can only make recommendations but certainly I show no irritation if they are passed over, as in this case.  However I am informed that there is a very strong sentiment among many of the players, favoring the recommendations I made and it is likely that eventually they will materialize.

Later I paid a visit to the Riviera course at the request of P.G.A. sectional president, Willie Hunter.  I was glad to encounter there our mutual friend Harry Hampton.  Riviera is rated as one of the outstanding course of this district and my first views of it tent to confirm this fact.  However, as Hunter wants me to go over the entire course with a critical report for future reference, the completion of my inspection there will have to go over tomorrow and this will be done.  Hunter cancelled all engagement for this.

The Rivera soil conditions are much better than any I have observed in this district, the sub-structure of shale carrying off the water readily in marked contrast to the usual ‘Dobe.  The course today slowed little evidence of the recent storms and aside from being on the “slow-side” the turf was very playable indeed.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT

[Rick Wolffe]

Here is the "before letter" on Bel Air.  

I would think that this letter could be used as the "smoking gun" to support the theory that Tilly applied a cookie cutter approach of eliminating all DH's short of 175 yards.

Unfortunately, I do not have any familiarity with Bel Air and would ask the question did any of Tilly's recommendations ultimately get implemented?  I would ask if any short fairway bunkers were removed and rebuilt farther out in the drive zone post 1936?


Los Angeles, California
February 7th 1936

President of the P.G.A.

Dear Sir:

Today, accompanied by sectional secretary Patterson, I visited the Bel-Air Country Club at the request of P.G.A. member Joe Novak, who went over the entire course with me together with greenkeeper Clarence Hazlett.  Afterwards I conferred with ray Thomas, president of the club, who requested a written report of my findings, which I prepared and sent to Novak.

I had no criticism to offer concerning the arrangement of the various holes so far as placements of greens or teeing grounds were involved for the course is well laid out.  But I made numerous recommendations to eliminate misplaced and unnecessary (D.H.) pits and in some few instances the introduction of others, placed out at a proper range.  At the short third, the eleventh and fifteenth I showed the proper method of drawing sand closer to the greens.

On the left of the first green there exists a long, unguarded hill-slope. I recommended the introduction of a large grassed hollow here to help the shot value and also to keep water from seeping to the green, which is troublesome at present.  I also instructed them concerning a slight rearrangement of the ninth green, which falls away too much on the front.

I estimate that the elimination of unnecessary pits and the reduction of the size of others (far-flung areas that do not function) will reduce the required amount of sand fully twenty five percent, and maintenance costs to a corresponding degree.

The program for tomorrow has been changed at the request of the chairman of the green committee at Hillcrest, who is called out of town until next week and he is very anxious to seem me when I visit the course.  Instead I go to the Hacienda Country Club at the request of P.G.A. member Art Roux.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast

AWT

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()