[SPDB]

Some new blood - what about Newport, where DH's dot the frontside, and which was designed 10 years after he began his quest to ameliorate the sad situation of the duffer.

[TEPaul]

"I take it the golfers in NY were very very bad....Tilly delivered those duffers a lump of coal in the form of Bethpage-Black."

Tom MacW:

For some reason and after 17 pages on this thread you can't seem to get your mind around the reality that Bethpage Black may not have been designed for the duffer golfer. Why is that? As I recall you did some research on Bethpage Black, correct? Do you recall that Tillinghast mentioned that Burbeck proposed that Bethpage Black be somewhat of a take-off on the great PVGC? Is there anything that leads you to believe that PVGC was designed for the duffer or to even remotely accomodate him?

[TEPaul]

Rick Wolffe:

Thanks again for typing out all those articles of Tillinghast's. At the very least those articles have shown that Tillinghast was probably the most comprehensive and informative writer on the details of architecture of his time and perhaps of any time and for that we should all be grateful to him.

It seems from Tillinghast's ongoing writing and philosophy of what was most interesting and enjoyable about golf architecture for the duffer and what Tom MacWood and Mike Cirba apparently think was most interesting and enjoyable for the duffer was quite different!

[Mike_Cirba]

Rick & Phil;

Thanks for sharing!  The last couple of Tillie's writings you guys posted have been VERY enlightening.

A couple of points...

1) Tillinghast clearly did NOT sell out.  It now seems obvious that at least philosophically, he was against troubling the duff with much in the way of direct trouble for a long time, not just after the Depression.

2) Tillie seemed to differ widely from CB in terms of how a course was bunkered and also how much of a course was constructed as opposed to "found".  

3) Tillinghast clearly was the forerunner of architecture that transcended what we know as the "Golden Age" (which, let's face it, included some pretty penal stuff) to the type of courses that predominated in the RTJ era, where courses were mainly about testing the best players first and foremost, while giving the hack a way to get around....the "hard par, easy bogey" type of course.

In that vein, does anyone know of a course that was built between 1936 and 1980 that had individual bunkers (not waste area) less than 200 yards from the tee?

Would everyone agree with my summary?

I think this thread has been really superb and eductional.  Thank you everyone for your participation!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Numerous other courses were designed by him, still following his custom of working severly to the artificial construction of replicas of British golf holes.

Didn't you insist, on another thread, that NGLA wasn't heavily constructed and was natural, despite never having played or walked the golf course ?

I think Tommy Naccarato first joined you and then broke ranks admitting that NGLA was artificial and heavily constructed

And now we have AWT disagreeing with your position as well

[T_MacWood]

I don't believe anyone has claimed Tilly did not consider the duffer through his career. Tilly often spoke of the duffer, in his 1917 response to JH Taylor (defending the difficulty of American golf courses) he said 'The duffer knows now that the new courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for his game.'

Through his career he provided pleasure and zest by presenting hazards that all levels of golf had to deal with--as did the majority of his contemporaries. Not obligatory carries--like the hated old fashioned cop, but also not an absence of choice--like his PGA tour bunkerless Duffer's Range. The prominent architects of that era understood interesting golf could be found somewhere in between those two extremes. IMO in late 1935 his philosophical view of 'troubling the duffer' was entirely different than 'troubling the duffer' from 1911 to 1935....thus the altered philosophy, compromise.

This thread isn't about Tilly ignoring the duffer pre-1935....at least not for me.  This thread is about how Tilly compromised his architectural philosophy regarding bunkering in late 1935--he claimed the change (compromise) was in the name of the duffer, but based upon the evidence it was actually in the name of the success of the PGA tour (and its mission and goals).  

I found his comments about his long time differences with Macdonald very interesting. Tilly wasn't alone in criticizing Macdonald's reliance on famous models (MacKenze and Fowler are couple other critics who come to mind).  His defense of the NGLA in the exchange with Taylor in light of his late '30 comments is fascinating.

It is also ironic that in the late teens his construction superintendent was Peter Lees--who created Royal Mid Surrey (w/Taylor) and built Lido for Macdonald. Two of the most famous man-made creations in golf. The use of the Redan and artificial mounding found on Tilly's early designs were likely the result of his relationship with Lees.

[Mike_Cirba]

I don't believe anyone has claimed Tilly did not consider the duffer through his career. Tilly often spoke of the duffer, in his 1917 response to JH Taylor (defending the difficulty of American golf courses) he said 'The duffer knows now that the new courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for his game.'

Through his career he provided pleasure and zest by presenting hazards that all levels of golf had to deal with--as did the majority of his contemporaries. Not obligatory carries--like the hated old fashioned cop, but also not an absence of choice--like his PGA tour bunkerless Duffer's Range. The prominent architects of that era understood interesting golf could be found somewhere in between those two extremes.

Tom, I'd agree with you that most of Tillinghast's courses, particularly his earliest ones, presented hazards at all levels.  By definition, the Hell's Half Acre variation of the old cross-hazard that he championed had to strike fear and loathing into the heart of the duff.  

I also think that it's interesting that he moved away from this over time to something like RTJ where the first bunkers seem to be only found where the expert player can challenge them.  The "Duffer's Range" concept seems to be rather dull just by defnition, and hardly worthy of someone like Tillie and his marvelous imaginative creativity.  

I've yet to see someone defend that as interesting architecture.  Some have argued that he didn't remove "all" bunkers in the duffer's range during his PGA stint but concrete examples of that seem hard to come by.  The fact he boasted about the removal of 7000 bunkers seems to fly in the face of that.  

Exactly where might those 7,000 useless, extraneous bunkers have been located.  I think his writings of the time are quite clear that he's talking about largely removing bunkers in the "duffer's range" zone.    
 
IMO in late 1935 his philosophical view of 'troubling the duffer' was entirely different than 'troubling the duffer' from 1911 to 1935....thus the altered philosophy, compromise.

This thread isn't about Tilly ignoring the duffer pre-1935....at least not for me.  This thread is about how Tilly compromised his architectural philosophy regarding bunkering in late 1935--he claimed the change (compromise) was in the name of the duffer, but based upon the evidence it was actually in the name of the success of the PGA tour (and its mission and goals).  

I'm finding that sometimes changing circumstances can make an evangelist of anyone.  Frankly, I think that Tillie just was able to rationalize their removal through a combination of his own evolving philosophical approach (to spare the duff), mixed with some potential cost-savings during dire economic times (which he boasted of), and the pragmatism of working with the PGA to create new "modern" courses consistent with their mission of the time.  

[T_MacWood]

"I'm finding that sometimes changing circumstances can make an evangelist of anyone.  Frankly, I think that Tillie just was able to rationalize their removal through a combination of his own evolving philosophical approach (to spare the duff), mixed with some potential cost-savings during dire economic times (which he boasted of), and the pragmatism of working with the PGA to create new 'modern' courses consistent with their mission of the time."

I agree with most of that, although when I think of an 'evolving philosophical approach' I think of a slow deliberate incremental change. In this case we have the Bethpage courses one day (consistant with his long career)....the Duffer's range and duffer's headaches the next day. That would appear to be a dramatic philosophical change.

"It is this thought that is a part of the PGA doctrine, which has been asigned to me to preach, and to make my point as understandible as possible...." --AWT

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I have heard you reference the Bethpage Course (s) as part of your argument.  I also recall (and Rick Wolfe could probably provide) reading that Tillie wouldn't recommend the Black Course as suitable, if it wasn't one of four at the same complex, which weren't bunkered as heavily.  I agree with that, and see no inconsistency in doing one of four tough, one easy, and two in the middle.  

Its not as if every course, even in a depression needs exactly the same treatment, even if most do.  And I don't see in the record that he necessarily recommended the exact same program for all, but recommended an individual program for each, based on his visit.  

Certainly, he probably was only called to ones that were in financial difficulty, looking to save money.  But, what if he went to an old line club that had no need to save money then?  Would he necessarily demand (not that he could or did) bunker removal?

Over time, he probably did develop a more or less standard program, but if he was dogmatic in removing bunkers, without seeing the site, he could have sent out an mass mailing, saying "remove all bunkers 140 yards or closer to the tee," no?

I also believe he could have had the slow change of heart regarding duffers bunkers generally, even while allow BPB to be the exception.  Early in his career, he realized that cross bunkers without options had to go, later that all short bunkers could go, after viewing the results of play, and perhaps sped up by deteriorating economic conditions a bit.

It seems we all sort of agree on the major points.  Perhaps the real question is the use of the term "selling out" in the original post.  At what point does a change of principals become a compromise of principals?  Is it just because it happened a bit faster than you think it ought to have?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff;

Yes, I agree with you that the Black Course should be possibly viewed as a "one off", outlier example.  Tillinghast's own writings about it credit Burbeck with the idea of creating something akin to a public Pine Valley, and the degree of difficulty was such that Tillie labelled it a "Tiger" course.  

Still, he was proud that even with the difficulty, players of all stripes were lining up to take on the "Tiger".  

The funny thing about that is (and particularly poignant and ironic to this discussion) that the Black Course became immensely popular over the years, not only for the expert player, but also for the hack, despite forced carries over sandy scrub, deep rough, massive bunkers and the like.

If indeed all that hackers want is an open "duffer's range", free of hazards and trouble, as Tillinghast and others have suggested, then how might they explain this apparent incongruity?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Deep in his heart, Tillie felt he knew what was best for everybody?

[T_MacWood]

Jeff
I have heard you reference the Bethpage Course (s) as part of your argument. I also recall (and Rick Wolfe could probably provide) reading that Tillie wouldn't recommend the Black Course as suitable, if it wasn't one of four at the same complex, which weren't bunkered as heavily. I agree with that, and see no inconsistency in doing one of four tough, one easy, and two in the middle.
That is not exactly right, Tilly wrote in the PGA magazine (in '37 I believe) "without doubt were the other courses at Bethpage as severe as Black the place would not have enjoyed the great popularity it has known since the doors were thrown open to the public." The other courses were not exactly walks in the park however. The Red was heavily bunkered and over 6400 yards (In 1934 Tilly was as exited about this course as the Black). The Blue was nearly as long as the Black (just under 6700 ids) and longer than the Red, and also well bunkered (it hosted the '36 US Publinx). The short course the Green was 6200 ids and a Devereux Emmet design. All four courses had bunkers within the so-called Duffer's Range. The Duffer's Range obviously was a post-Bethpage development.

Its not as if every course, even in a depression needs exactly the same treatment, even if most do. And I don't see in the record that he necessarily recommended the exact same program for all, but recommended an individual program for each, based on his visit.
I agree, not every course needs that exact same treatment, I'm certain Tilly prior to the PGA tour agreed too. The formula he developed which resulted in 7000+ bunkers being removed--from courses like Valley club, Bel-Air (recommended) and Tavistock--IMO illustrates the mind set of the tour.

Certainly, he probably was only called to ones that were in financial difficulty, looking to save money. But, what if he went to an old line club that had no need to save money then? Would he necessarily demand (not that he could or did) bunker removal?
Interesting conjecture, but I do not believe that was the case...in fact in the letters I've seen he doesn't refer to any clubs finances. I don't see how he would have the time to review their finances. In fact the clubs in the worst financial straits would there clubs who let their professionals go...he would not assist those clubs. There were old line clubs, new clubs, famous clubs, obscure clubs...he wasn't prejudice. He didn't demand anything...from what I can tell he just made recommendations....some ignored him like Bel-Air.

Over time, he probably did develop a more or less standard program, but if he was dogmatic in removing bunkers, without seeing the site, he could have sent out an mass mailing, saying "remove all bunkers 140 yards or closer to the tee," no?
He did more than recommend bunker removal. I don't think the clubs would see much value in program where Tilly faxed out 500 flyers with a diagram that showed the 1st Duffers Range 0-175 ids, the 2nd Duffers Range 300-375 ids, etc....please remove all bunkers with these zones. One of the main PGA goals was to illustrate value to the clubs.  

I also believe he could have had the slow change of heart regarding duffers bunkers generally, even while allow BPB to be the exception. Early in his career, he realized that cross bunkers without options had to go, later that all short bunkers could go, after viewing the results of play, and perhaps sped up by deteriorating economic conditions a bit.
What do you base this upon? Where is the evidence of the slow change? His Bethapge courses (during the Depression) do not support that theory....Ridgewood his most famous late design (pre-Depression) doesn't support that theory. If anything the his later courses were among his most boldly bunkered.

It seems we all sort of agree on the major points. Perhaps the real question is the use of the term "selling out" in the original post. At what point does a change of principals become a compromise of principals? Is it just because it happened a bit faster than you think it ought to have?
My definition of compromise is a lowering or weakening standard. IMO a change becomes a compromise when it is inconsistent with his career long design practices (pre and post Depression), inconsistent with the standards of his peers and inconsistent with historically accepted design principals to date. You add the timing of the change....mid-Depression, lost job, lost home, lack of work, bankruptcy and the PGA goal...and the change is understandible.

[TEPaul]

To me the continuing commentary of particularly Tom MacWood on this subject is both depressing and appalling. Apparently Tom can't even understand the very Tillinghast remarks he quotes in an attempt to support his nonsensical claim about Tillinghast‘s architectural principles. What he quotes from Tillinghast, particularly about the courses of Bethpage is completely contradictory to what Tillinghast, who built those courses, said about them regarding the duffer and his overall enjoyment (or not) of those varied courses.

"without doubt were the other courses at Bethpage as severe as Black the place would not have enjoyed the great popularity it has known since the doors were thrown open to the public."

Tom MacW;

Does that remark show clearly a different design philosophy and architectural application of Tillinghast’s regarding the Black than other golf courses vis-à-vis the duffer? Of course it does, no matter how much you keep saying otherwise!.

The thing you need to come to terms with on this thread is in 1935-36 Tillinghast never suggested that bunkering in the duffer’s range on ALL courses should be removed and he never suggested that ALL courses should be considered suitable for the duffer. I just cannot imagine why you can’t see this simple fact of the spectrum of architecture. There is nothing inconsistent between what Tillinghast said or did in 1917 and what he said and did in 1935-6 as much as you seem to want to make it so. If for whatever their reasons the PGA had come along in 1917 and asked Tillinghast to do the same architectural things he did for them in 1935-36 (sans the different economic realities) I have no doubt at all he would’ve done exactly the same things!

[T_MacWood]

TE
I acknowledge the Black was super severe--more severe than just about anything he done to date (ironic it was in the midst of the Deperession). And obviously more severe than the other Bethpage courses, but the other courses were not stiffs, they were excellent tests comparable to courses he designed throughout his career. It is the other courses that provide clues to Tilly's 1935 design philosophy and practices prior to his PGA tour. I can tell you he was not practicing the bunker free Duffer's range at Bethpage and he was not consumed with the DH....thus IMO the compromise or weakening of his design standards during the PGA tour.

You always have many interesting thoughts, always well stated, but I'm looking for concrete examples to support your thoughts.

Perhap you correct, he did not recommend every bunker be removed from the Duffer's Range....where in the 'Simplicity' article (or the other PGA tour articles) does he make (or articulate) exceptions?

Whatever his 'true' policy (that you've been able glean)....the fact remains he removed nearly 8000 bunkers...what does the recommeded removal of DH's from Bel-Air and the removal of bunkers from Valley Club tell you about where and when he made these exceptions? Do you agree withthe idea that Thomas (and MacKenzie) were simply punishing the duffer with their bunkers within 175 yards?

Based on your understanding of when and where the exceptions took place....when was the duffer the important consideration that he wrote so often about during his PGA tour, and when is the duffer someone who wasn't quite as important (and didn't require a Duffer's Range or two) or when was the duffer somone who should be presented with hazards, like the hazzards duffers found and enjoyed at the majority of his designs?

Based upon what you know of Tilly's designs was the Duffer's Range a new philsophy? If it wasn't a new philosophy what Tilly courses are examples of it at work?

[SPDB]

The thing you need to come to terms with on this thread is in 1935-36 Tillinghast never suggested that bunkering in the duffer’s range on ALL courses should be removed.

On this point I really have no objection. I think that goes to the essence of what I was trying to get at 44 pages go. It seems possible that there may have been a double standard at play. Where Tillie was paid to design a course, it seems that bunkers, and A LOT of bunkers were a crucial component of his design philosophy.

But where removal of bunkers become a prescriptive remedy, then perhaps he was all for it.

To me that seems like a reasonable inference to be drawn from all of the historical material (or materiel, on this thread).

If for whatever their reasons the PGA had come along in 1917 and asked Tillinghast to do the same architectural things he did for them in 1935-36 (sans the different economic realities) I have no doubt at all he would’ve done exactly the same things!

I don't know what affirmative support there is for that statement, except your enduring confidence in Tillie. The evidence would seem to indicate otherwise (note: Newport CC reference above). I don't think you can take the economic reality out of this. To my mind it does all the explaining necessary.  But for the economic reality, I doubt Tillie would have become as solicitous of the Duffer.

[Phil_the_Author]

There is a very important point that has been overlooked throughout this thread; one that keeps being stated over and over and is flat out wrong.

Tillinghast NEVER removed a single bunker!

He RECOMMENDED the removals, and in each case he had to convince at least one person and usually a several person committee.

Were all of these hundreds, and when you consider the number of courses that he visited, possibly as many as 1,550-200 intelligent men, blindly following as sheep to the slaughterhouse? Spending money for work without counting the true costs and effects to their courses?

This is not a blind everything Tilly said is law comment; rather, it is seems apparent to me that the majority of the work was done by men who agreed with Tillinghast's thinking, suggestions and vision.

They spent the money they had and felt that it was money well-spent, be it to add new tees, change holes, change the sizes of greens, or, yes, even remove bunkers.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW said;

"TE
I acknowledge the Black was super severe--more severe than just about anything he done to date (ironic it was in the midst of the Deperession). And obviously more severe than the other Bethpage courses, but the other courses were not stiffs, they were excellent tests comparable to courses he designed throughout his career. It is the other courses that provide clues to Tilly's 1935 design philosophy and practices prior to his PGA tour. I can tell you he was not practicing the bunker free Duffer's range at Bethpage and he was not consumed with the DH....thus IMO the compromise or weakening of his design standards during the PGA tour."

Tom McW;

Again, here are two quotation of Tillinghast, one before 1935 and one after 1935.

From 1917:

“No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries. The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations…..”

From 1937;

"without doubt were the other courses at Bethpage as severe as Black the place would not have enjoyed the great popularity it has known since the doors were thrown open to the public."

Where is the inconsistency of philosophy in those two statements that are twenty years apart? You yourself are suggesting there were bunkers in the DH zone on the other Bethpage courses. Neither you nor Tillinghast is including the Black in this question as it’s clear to see Tillie is suggesting the Black is not designed as a course suitable for the duffer. Does that fact alone mean anything to you about what Tillinghast’s architectural philosophIES may be both before and after 1935-36 regarding different architecture for different levels of golfers? It seems clear he is saying that other Bethpage courses are interesting for the duffer and that those courses have some bunkering in that DH zone. If it’s true that there are some interesting bunkers in that DH zone on the other courses of Bethpage that are graded for various limitations of abilities why are you suggesting that during and after 1935-36 Tillinghast recommended removal of ALL bunkering from ALL courses in that zone as proof that he changed his architectural philosophy, thereby compromising his architectural principles?  It seems you’re saying that based SOLEY on the fact that Tillinghast recommended the removal of 7,000-8,000 bunkers on courses around the nation and you are ASSUMING that a number like that MUST INDICATE that he was recommending the total removal of ALL bunkering on ALL courses in that first DH zone.

For about the tenth time I’m telling you that is not necessarily so---that that fact is not proof of that recommendation on Tillinghsat’s part as much as you and Mike Cirba apparently want to make it so, and this quote of Tillinghast’s above is a clear indication of that.

Now you are probably thinking that Tillinghast said one thing at some courses and something else at other courses regarding DH zone bunkering and that’s another indication of his compromised architectural principles. That is only so if Tillinghast had the same kind of “one size fits all” mentality of architectural philosophy that you apparently do. But he did have that “one size fits all” mentality about architecture either before 1935-36 or after it. This is what you need to come to terms with if you want to understand both these eras, Tillinghast and golf architecture generally.

The likes of the Black and PVGC were not designed for the duffer and Tillinghast said that throughout his long career. On the other hand, courses that were for the duffer occasionally needed to be designed or redesigned in such a way as to both interest and accommodate the duffer. Tillinghast definitely understood these distinctions between various courses and the needs and interests of the duffer and it’s time you begin understanding these distinctions too. They ARE DISTINCTIONS Tom, they are DIFFERENCES!

Call this basic fundamental about golf architecture generally “different strokes for different folks” if you will. These men understood that and because they built different types of courses for different levels of players by no means indicates they were compromising their architectural principles!

Today I tend to call this obvious architectural philosophy the “Big World Theory”. It means there are different courses for different levels of players and sometimes the courses for the higher level of player were never meant to accommodate some lesser level of player architecturally. This by no means indicates that a duffer should never play a course like PVGC or Bethpage Black--only that if he does and does not enjoy it because it beats the shit out of him daily he should then realize he should play a course that was designed to better accommodate his level simply because it might be more enjoyable to him. Both Tillinghast and Crump were aware that occassionally duffers like to try their hand at PVGC despite the fact it tortured them. They were clearly amused by this but it no means they felt they were accomodating the duffer architectural at PVGC or should do that!

There is no compromise in any of this Tom---it just makes the entire art of golf architecture richer and more varied. Tillinghast understood that both before 1935-36 and if you want to understand him properly you should too!

[Mike_Cirba]

I wonder if Jamie Slonis would be so kind to share the particulars of Tillinghast's changes at Tavistock from that time-period?

On another thread, and part of the impetus for me asking this question, Jamie pointed out that Tillie had recommended a number of things at Tavistock that he found very questionable.

Jamie...if you are still out there, could you talk a little about Tillie's recommendations, particularly as relates to bunkers in the "duffer's zone"?

Tom Paul...I know I have no proof that Tillie recommended the removal of all DH bunkers at that time, but 7000 bunkers seems an extraordinary amount, don't you think?  His own writings of this very time period seem clear that he sees bunkers in that range to be redundantly punishing of the duffer's woes.

I know that Tom Mac has asked Phil and/or Rick if they'd share where the majority of those bunkers were removed (which courses), but I'm not sure they have that answer.

I'm interested in this question from the standpoint of understanding architectural evolution.  

Tom, as a student of architecture, don't you find it incredible that no one can name one course built between 1935 and 1980 where bunkers were placed less than 200 yards from the tee???  If you go back and look at the "lost courses" in Daniel Wexler's books, including Tillie's, don't you find yourself wondering how our courses became so formulaic and fairway bunkering became so one-dimensional over time?

[T_MacWood]

TE
I do not agree with your enterpretation of the 1917 comments....I think it is pretty clear what Tilly is referring to when he speaks of obligatory carries.

"And now let us regard Mr. Humbleman.  He has the opportunity of placing his second shot safely to the open side of the green, without the distressing fear of the old Obligatory route over the "Cross Pit,""   Ugly Duckling 1937

Cross pit = cop bunker

“…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...”   The Obligue in Golf Design 1932

carries were obligatory + right angles = cop bunker

“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."
Tilly’s response to Taylor 1917

Obligatory carries = cop bunker  
hazard lines which grade shots to the limitations of each = bunkers en echelon & obligue or diagonal hazards

The point of my last post was to get away from parsing his every word and to look at his actual designs and design practices...if we dissagree with what he is saying lets look to what he actually did in the field for clarification.

You still haven't answered a number of questions or provided concrete examples for these questions:


Perhap you correct, lets assume he did not recommend every bunker be removed from the Duffer's Range....where in the 'Simplicity' article (or the other PGA tour articles) does he make clear (or articulate) when and where he would make exceptions...what is his criteria?

Whatever his 'true' policy (that you've been able glean)....the fact remains he removed nearly 8000 bunkers...what does the recommeded removal of DH's from Bel-Air and the removal of bunkers from Valley Club tell you about where and when he made these exceptions? Do you agree withthe idea that Thomas (and MacKenzie) were simply punishing the duffer with their bunkers within 175 yards?

Based upon what you know of Tilly's designs was the Duffer's Range a new philsophy? If it wasn't a new philosophy what Tilly courses are examples of it at work?

As Sean pointed out you said: "If for whatever their reasons the PGA had come along in 1917 and asked Tillinghast to do the same architectural things he did for them in 1935-36 (sans the different economic realities) I have no doubt at all he would’ve done exactly the same things!" What do you base this upon.

[TEPaul]

"As Sean pointed out you said: "If for whatever their reasons the PGA had come along in 1917 and asked Tillinghast to do the same architectural things he did for them in 1935-36 (sans the different economic realities) I have no doubt at all he would’ve done exactly the same things!" What do you base this upon."

I base it on the fact that I see no change in his architectural philosophy regarding that duffer zone (on courses that were designed to accomodate the duffer which clearly not all were) before, during, or after his PGA project. Obviously you still do but you know I don't agree with you on that.

"The point of my last post was to get away from parsing his every word and to look at his actual designs and design practices...if we dissagree with what he is saying lets look to what he actually did in the field for clarification."

I agree we should do that. I believe what I've been asking you all along is why you didn't do that BEFORE you made this claim that he compromised his architectural principles during the PGA project. If you're not sure what he actually did recommend and where and what he actually did wherever why would you make such a claim? As I've now said numerous times I believe you ONLY said that because you ASSUMED that 7,000-8,000 bunkers MUST have meant he recommended and removed ALL bunkering from ALL courses in that DH zone during the PGA project thereby compromising some former architectural principle he had. You know I don't agree with your assumption and premise there.

"You still haven't answered a number of questions or provided concrete examples for these questions:"

No I haven't although I might now. What is this thread to you? Is this some test on your part of the rest of us to supply evidence to the contrary regarding your premise or you'll assume that your premise must be correct? Why don't you supply some answers to your question before you come in here with this premise of yours?

What if you said it was your premise that FDR was in cahoots with the Japanese before Pearl Harbor because no one can show you that he ever said he wasn't? Would you then conclude that must prove FDR was in cahoots with the Japanese before Pearl Harbor?


"Perhap you correct, he did not recommend every bunker be removed from the Duffer's Range....where in the 'Simplicity' article (or the other PGA tour articles) does he make clear (or articulate) when and where he would make exceptions...what is his criteria?"

Please see my answer just above. Are you saying because you can't find that he wrote where he made exceptions that proves he never made exceptions. It's only for you to find out before you make this premise that he never did make any excpetions during his PGA tour.

"Whatever his 'true' policy (that you've been able glean)....the fact remains he removed nearly 8000 bunkers...what does the recommeded removal of DH's from Bel-Air and the removal of bunkers from Valley Club tell you about where and when he made these exceptions? Do you agree withthe idea that Thomas (and MacKenzie) were simply punishing the duffer with their bunkers within 175 yards?"

I don't know what Thomas or MacKenzie was doing to the duffer within 175 yards of the tee but if Tillinghast believed they were unnecessarily penaling the duffer in that area that would explain why he recommended removing some of those bunkers in that area, in my opinion. This thread is not about what I think Thomas or MacKenzie was doing anyway, this thread is about what Tillinghast thought they were doing. It appears Tillinghast had some issue on this subject with some of the courses he may have built. Although he made it quite clear NGLA was not one of them as he did say very clearly that course, in his opinion, was not designed for the duffer--it was designed for a higher level of player.

"Based upon what you know of Tilly's designs was the Duffer's Range a new philsophy?"

I do not believe it was a new philosophy as you do, and I've said that on here numerous times.

"If it wasn't a new philosophy what Tilly courses are examples of it at work"?

I believe I will try to determine that although I do feel this was something you should have done first--before you assumed it was a new philosophy without enough credible evidence to prove that.

[T_MacWood]

"I base it on the fact that I see no change in his architectural philosophy regarding that duffer zone (on courses that were designed to accomodate the duffer which clearly not all were) before, during, or after his PGA project."

Interesting logic. He would've removed bunkers from the duffer's zone in 1917 if the PGA had requested him. If it were his philosophy in 1917 why didn't build golf courses without bunkers in that zone? Did he need the PGA to tell him to do it? What are some of the courses Tilly designed during this period that were designed to accomodate duffers (Duffer's Range)?

No one knows if Tilly recommended ALL bunkers be removed from the Duffer's Range...but we do know (1) he promoted the Duffers Range philosophy in 1936-37, we do know (2)Tilly regularly placed bunkers within that zone throughout his career and we know (3) 7000+ bunkers were removed. The Duffer Zone philosophy was a departure from his design practices...hence compromise. You don't need to know anything more than those three points to recongize the change....it isn't important to prove Tilly recommended 100% eratication to see that it was departure...just look at his work! One thing is clear he never articulated an exception for bunkers within the Duffers Range.

You don't know what Thomas and MacKenzie were doing 175 yards of the tee? Do you know what Tilly was doing?

This thread is about Thomas and MacKenzie....and Ross and Travis and Findlay (and Tilly pre-1935) because Tilly was recommending changes to their designs. One of his tasks (as he wrote) was to eliminate DH's...his recommendations to remove bunkers from their courses places him in conflict with their philosophies (and IMO in conflict with his own previous philosophies).

If the Dufffer's Range philosophy was not new certainly you can provide numerous examples pre-PGA.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sigh......

Mike Cirba, I don't have time to do the math, but I think we know how many courses Tillie visited, and if you divide 7000 by that number, times 18 (or 14, excluding par 3 holes if you wish) we could estimate how many bunkers per hole he recommended be removed.  This wouldn't be exact, but if the number was close to or less than 1, could we assume he recommended leaving some of them?

Here's an idle thought....Perhaps early on he found that courses were reluctant to remove all the bunkers recommended, so as a rule, he requested more be removed than he thought.  Now, I'm not saying modern designers ever use that gambit to achieve certain design solutions.....

Tom MacWood,

Along with TePaul, I have to wonder how this has evolved into such a personal test of your manhood, or whatever.  However, let me ask you this regarding Bethpage Black.....

Suppose that Ron Whitten had recently unearthed additional, separate, and conclusive corroborating evidence to his earlier information that Burbeck was the prime designer of BPB.  Would that ease your mind any that it shouldn't be used as evidence of Tillies thoughts on DH bunkers in 1935-7 or so?

[T_MacWood]

Jeff
If Bethpage was taken out of his portfolio it would not change the departure in philosophy...you still have the rest of his designs to compare with his Duffer's Range philosophy. What it would do is eliminate designs that ran contrary of his philosophy right in the middle of the Depression.

You still have his written record while Editor of Golf Illustrated in the Depression...and no mention of DH's or Duffer's Range.

IMO it is extremely unlikely he will be able to prove Tilly was not involved at Bethpage.

"Along with TePaul, I have to wonder how this has evolved into such a personal test of your manhood, or whatever."

You obviously haven't been following this thread.  

TE
By the way I have presented upwards of twenty course as examples to support my point....from Shawnee and Quaker Ridge to Ridgewood and Bethpage-Red. Exerpts from Hannigan, Graffis, Jacobus, the NY Times, Golfdom, Golf Illustrated, etc. to help support my point. I'm not sure you have provided anything.

[Mike_Cirba]

As the originator of this thread, I have a technical question.

If I press this little "Delete" button thingy, what happens?  

Seriously....

Jeff Brauer;

It was already established 10 pages ago, Section XIV, Article 232, section 14, by the Tillinghast Society folks that the vast majority of the bunker removal occurred on a minority of the courses Tillie visited.  Doing the math that was presented, it came out to something like 80-100 bunkers per course, which to me seems questionable.  Even if it were evenly distributed, that would be 20 bunkers per course, which is a pretty high percentage virtually anywhere, wouldn't you agree?

I've asked Jamie Slonis, whose home course was affected by Tillinghast's changes in the 30s to provide a little detail if he's willing.  I don't know the details myself, but on another thread he seemed to think they were very questionable.

Personally, I'm just curious how we went from courses where all sorts of bunkering patterns occurred throughout all ranges of play to the sort of course RTJ Sr. popularlized where the first bunkers occurred in the driving range of the expert player (ala his redesign of Oakland Hills).  

It seems to me that Tillinghast and his "duffer's range" is the connecting tissue.

By the way, Jeff...do you know of any courses built between 1935 and 1980 where bunkering exists at less than 200 yards from the tee?

I am not sure why people are becoming so defensive here.  Are these not reasonable architectural questions??

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I know of a few individual "fore bunkers" on courses, and some architects are doing lots more random bunkering, but in general, no.  Of course, in Ross day, he used 200 yard doglegs, RTj used 250, most of us use 267 (on the way to 285 or 300 from the tips) and bunker accordingly.  

Other than perhaps using more carry bunkers just short of the main landing area, I think the majority of Ross (and most architects) bunkers guarded the proposed landing areas, whereas now we tend to use flanking bunkers at the dogleg, or pinching bunkers just past the landing area to catch and punish the long players.  So, coneptually, I don't think it is all that different, but just refined over the years.

To start with, you may be thinking of some courses like Flynns outstanding bunker clusters short off the tee, or perhaps some Tillie courses (like Brook Hollow) that also had hundreds of bunkers, but I question how many courses were really like that compared to the total?  For instance, TePauls Gulph Mills and many other Flynn courses in Philly don't have scads of bunkers.

I think the effects of the depression had a long shadow, until the boom of the nineties.  Now, I already see a return trend to building bunkers that only affect play of the best players.

So what happened from 1937-1990?  

Some theories, all based on the fact that our ancestors were very practical folk who did, as humans tend to do, what was best for them, as the circumstances dictated.....some prime reasons:

1. Money matters!  Until the power trap rake was invented, there was a substantial cost to raking bunkers.  also, in many areas, before tile drains were perfected, these may have also been drainage headaches.

2. People like trees, and hate being trapped in endless bunkers.  Not hard to see why the change occurred.

3. The RTJ Oakland Hills design was influential, as you say.

4. Emphasis in first Golf Digest ratings emphasize toughness for scratch players.  Why spend money on bunkers that don't challenge them?

5. Continued refinement of the DH elimination ideas regarding both maintenance and speed of play - If someone hits it 180 (as many seniors do) and can't reach the green in regulation anyway, why punish them more?  Isn't bogey enough?

6. Modernistic Architecture - with its own spare minimalism in decoration in the 50's.  Also, Mies and the strong ideals of "form follows function" affected golf architects.  if you are cyncical, you could say that the 50's and 60's were a down time in most design fields.

7. Everyone follows trends.  If things were accepted, like the RTj bunkers, then most clubs and architects followed, at least until the explosion of us architect types (spawned by Palmer in the 60's) came of age in the 90'w when our clients had the bucks to allow some architectural freedom.

8. Money Matters, Part II.  The trends had a real basis in the economics of clubs and public courses.  When people would pay just $10 for public golf, the design did have to do everything possible to reduce maintenance costs, and that was the driving force in the business when I got in it 1977. AT clubs, tax changes about the same time affected membership roles (temporarily, as it turned out) and they faced similar cost challenges.

Tom,

Sorry to offend, and I did go back and read the thread.  It seems you keep rephrasing the question endlessly, and I saw several posts (yours and others) of "show me where it said...."

FYI, Ron does have another document showing Burbecks involvment. Not that he could ever prove it to you, my friend!

I think we all agree that Tillie changed his philosphy when working for the PGA.  He was given a specific task.  Even if he did change ideas up solely for the PGA gig, I can't see what the heartburn is.  After all, what happened happened, and we aren't going to change that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()