[Anthony Gray]

Niall:

The template holes were certainly not Macdonald's own intellectual property, and he would never have said that another architect shouldn't use them.  He considered them the classic forms of design, and something which all architects should use as building blocks, though perhaps not as rigidly as he did.

Tillinghast was just as familiar with the original holes as Macdonald was, though his first course was a handful of years after The National.  And I don't think anyone would say that Shawnee was overtly based on Macdonald's favorite holes.

However, the nomination of many of the templates came from a circa 1901 article in a UK magazine asking great players to discuss and choose the best holes in the UK.  I believe that discussion was prompted by Charles Blair Macdonald in his early thinking about The National, and if so he could probably lay claim to being the true father of templates.

  Excuse me for being unlearned.Did Tilly travel to Scotland?

  Anthony

[DMoriarty]

You make a lot of interesting points in your post that I would love to discuss by posting my comments beside them in a Mucci type of way but sadly that skill is beyond me so let me respond specifically to your comments on the Cape hole.

I'm not entirely sure of what fully constitutes a CBM Cape hole having never seen one in the flesh as it were but from previous threads on the subject I take it that while the Cape hole as a whole is a new concept it is made up of component parts which are not original. To take your point as that being a bellweather for CBM's influence on other designers, if they use only part of the design how do you determine whether they got that from CBM's Cape or elsewhere ? Perhaps a pointless question but just interested in the assumptions made that CBM was the starting point.

Niall,  If Patrick can master the technology, anyone can.

CBM thought the Cape was original.   The "component parts" are really just different ways to use diagonals, but then many of his holes were.   We can get into the strategic options the presents if you'd like, but the definition is actually quite specific.   CBM's original Cape was called such because its green jutted out into Bullshead Bay and was surrounded by trouble on three sides.  

Macdonald's and Whigham's 1914 Golf Illustrated article on on the Cape (in their all too brief Representative American Golf Holes series) leaves no doubt about what they considered a Cape Hole: "The fourteenth hole at the National Golf Links is called the Cape Hole, because the green extends out into the sea with which it is surrounded upon three sides."  Here is a stitched photo of the plasticine model of the original hole, from the article mentioned above:  



As you can see by the definition above, a cape hole is defined by a cape green, a green jutting out sideways and surrounded by trouble on three sides.  While a few of CBM's actually jutted out into water, many jutted out into other trouble, including sand or as George wrote "into midair" with the ground dropping off on three sides.  While NGLA's was a short hole, the hole lengths varied greatly.    

When I refer to CBM's cape as a bellwether it is not just because American architects suddenly took to designing holes with greens jutting out sideways into all sorts of troubles after CBM had built his "Cape."   It is also because these designers adopted CBM's terminology.   AWT called his holes jutted sideways at the green "Cape" holes.   So did Flynn.   Merion's revised 10th was also referred to as a Cape hole.  

Imagine a designer coming up with a hole remarkably similar to the NB's Reden. Sure it is possible that the designer could come up with the hole all on his own and that the actual Redan had no influence. But if the designer also described his hole as a "redan" and even named his hole "REDAN" it would be pretty foolish to deny the influence and connection. wouldn't it?  

Well AWT and Flynn not only designed holes with a similar defining characteristic --the hole bending close to the green so that green jutted out from the fairway, they also described this type of a hole as "Cape" holes. Surely it would be foolish to deny the connection to CBM's hole.  

______________________________

Phillip,  You ask:    "So then, did CBM or Whigam put into print their exact definition of what their unique “Cape” hole was? By this I mean their actually written definition? If not, would you accept George Bahto’s definition as HE believes CBM to have defined it?"

I am repeatedly astounded about how little you know about early golf course design in America outside of AWT.  Of course they did!  They defined it, discussed it, diagramed it, and explained it, again and again starting in 1906.   Their 1914 Golf Illustrated article left no doubt about what they called this type of hole and why.  It was titled ...wait for it ... "Cape Hole at the National Golf Links""  The article leaves no doubt about what they considered a "Cape" Hole and why:  "The fourteenth hole at the National Golf Links is called the Cape Hole, because the green extends out into the sea with which it is surrounded upon three sides."    But then neither does George's definition, and you don't seem to understand that either.   I don't get it Phillip? You quote George in the very same paragraph you ask whether CBM and Whigham ever defined the hole as a Cape?  George not only explained all of this, he even quoted the exact same passage from the same article.  

See the photo above of the model.   The hole bends close to the green so that "the green extends out into the sea with which it is surrounded on three sides."  

As for the rest of your post about the Cape, it makes no sense.   AWT defined the hole THE SAME WAY AS DID CBM AND HJW.  At the green.  "There is still a third variation where the corner is formed close to the green itself, usually by the encroachment of a hillside or sandy waste, and this type is known as a Cape hole."

I have no idea how you can say that the principle is different, but I have no doubt you will come up with something.  

As you again goingon about how AWT was always comparing and contrasting his work to that of "his friend 'Charlie,'" we'd all be much more impressed if you could provide some examples of where CBM was going on about how his work compared and contrasted with that of "his friend Tilly'."

By the way and out of curiousity, what can you tell us about AWT's visits to North Berwick?  I am less interested in AWT hanging out with Ben Sayers here than there.

[David Kelly]

Philip,

Tillinghast's own description argues against your point.  In the write-up on the Wernerville hole Tillinghast only states that the 3rd variation is a Cape hole and then describes it exactly as Bahto and CBM himself did.

<edit:I see DM posted the same thing>

[DMoriarty]

Philip,

Tillinghast's own description argues against your point.  In the write-up on the Wernerville hole Tillinghast only states that the 3rd variation is a Cape hole and then describes it exactly as Bahto and CBM himself did.

<edit:I see DM posted the same thing>

Yes but I managed to waste 25 minutes typing what you said in two sentences. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

I think you'd have to say, "yes".

CBM studied the great holes, collectivized the data and strategic elements and distilled the quality concepts/holes into a "set" of templates.

If you look at the playing qualities of these holes, they pass the ultimate test, the test of time.

These holes are as much fun to play today, even with enhanced distance, as they were 100 years ago.

Who stands on the tee at the 9th at Yale and isn't impressed/thrilled by what's presented to them architecturally.

Ditto # 3 and # 4 at NGLA.

I think the real value of any golf course, any hole, is:

Do I want to play it again, and do I want to play it often ?

And while there's a constant within the framework of templates, they never seem to lose that appeal

Patrick

I wouldn't argue that CBM doesn't deserve credit for popularising or defining or indeed refining the concepts of classic holes. The question I was posing was whether he gets credit for the template where the original design wasn't his work, you say yes, and you state your case which basically rests on the quality of his work. If for a moment you were to except that others copied the redan before CBM, is he still due the credit ?

I just wonder whether its right to treat NGLA as the birthplace of it all.

Niall,

I think it is for the following reason.

After NGLA, CBM took those templates and reproduced them on almost everyone of his courses.

He galvanize the concepts into his "ideal" template and then mass produced them at the courses he subsequently designed.

I'm not sure that any architect prior to CBM had an "inventory" of hole designs that he consistently used when designing other courses

Niall

[Phil_the_Author]

David M and David K,

Consider carefully what CBM & Whigham wrote, yes David M, I am very familiar with the entire series of articles found in the first few issues of Golf Illustrated. It is because I am that I asked YOU if you knew of the definition that CBM had made for his "Cape."

Look at it again, copied directly from YOUR post:

"Macdonald's and Whigham's 1914 Golf Illustrated article on on the Cape (in their all too brief Representative American Golf Holes series) leaves no doubt about what they considered a Cape Hole: "The fourteenth hole at the National Golf Links is called the Cape Hole, because the green extends out into the sea with which it is surrounded upon three sides."  

Now when others shave quoted only PARTIALLY on threads in discussions with you you have accused them of being disingenuous, liars, playing false with what was written and a few worse things. I am not doing so DESPITE the fact that you INTENTIONALLY only PARTLY quoted from the article. You left out a most interesting aspect of what they wrote. I am certain it is only because you simply don't see the relevance of it. Here is what they ACTUALLY wrote taken from the article itself:



Note what you left out… “It is today one of the most individual holes in existence and there is probably not another like it anywhere.”

This sentence defines the NUMEROUS differences between CBM’s and Tilly’s Cape holes. First of all, in August of 1914 when CBM wrote this Tilly had ALREADY designed a Cape hole according to HIS own definition. Yet his friend Charlie believed that there hadn’t been another Cape hole built that matched HIS own definition.

That can only mean one thing… that CBM viewed his definition of a Cape hole as being very different from his friend Tilly’s. So if CBM believed they were different why shouldn’t we?

Secondly, In CBM’s definition the Cape hole as he defined it in 1914 HAD TO BE SURROUNDED BY WATER ON THREE SIDES! He directly stated, “The fourteenth hole at the National Golf Links is called the Cape Hole, because the green extends out into the sea with which it is surrounded upon three sides." It is only years later that he creates variations of this theme. One might argue, and I am not doing so but could understand one drawing this conclusion, that it was CBM who was influenced by Tilly’s definition and decided to use it himself as a variation to his own. But as I said, I don’t ascribe to that.

The indisputable facts remain that both men gave specific definitions to their idea of a Cape hole and both had distinctly different features at the time that they made the definitions.

CBM”s MUST be surrounded   by water where Tilly not only doesn’t mention water but states that his is actually a VARIATION OF WHAT MOST REFERRED TO AS A DOG-LEG! That concept itself is completely at odds with how CBM defined his Cape. To quote Tilly directly from my previous post:

“Although the word dog-leg appears on the plan I would prefer to call it an elbow hole and this brings up a rather fine point – what is the difference between a dog-leg and an elbow?” After explaining the differences in his mind he then states, “There is still a third variation, where a corner is formed close by the green itself, usually by the encroachment of a hillside or sandy waste, and this type is known as a cape hole.”

In Tilly’s Cape hole the PRIMARY design feature is NOT the hazard but the CORNER and WHERE it is formed. Second to this is that the green is not necessarily surrounded on THREE SIDES by a hazard but by a FRONTING HAZARD that could be a hillside or sandy waste that CAUSES the FAIRWAY to dog-leg or elbow close to the green site. Almost without exception the greens on Tilly’s Cape holes were at a 45-60 degree angle away from the fairway where CBM’s Cape green was nearly 90 degrees from where the fairway ends into it and it MUST be surrounded on all three sides by water.

In addition, the fact that Tilly writes in 1916 that his "Cape" is a variation of a type of dog-leg puts it beyond the range of being a theoretical exercise and shows it to be actual holes that have been actually built. So again, why would CBM deny the existence of others if Tilly had EMULATED his own invented hole type?

To some up once more… Both definitions are singular to the designer. Both have great differences in written form and on the ground application. Both were written CONTEMPORANEOUS to each other and both designers had examples of these holes built CONTEMPORANEOUS to each other that was so different that CBM himself stated that he didn’t believe there were any others of the same type, or as he put it, “there is probably not another like it anywhere.”

So please, don’t say that Tilly’s definition is the same when CBM himself disagrees with you.

[DMoriarty]

Phil the Author

- You were pretending not to know about that article to see if I knew of it?  Yeah right.  Here is what you wrote:  
"So then, did CBM or Whigam put into print their exact definition of what their unique “Cape” hole was? By this I mean their actually written definition? If not, would you accept George Bahto’s definition as HE believes CBM to have defined it?"  Somehow I don't believe you when you now claim that you are "very familiar with the entire series of articles found in the first few issues of Golf Illustrated."    And I really don't believe you when you claim, "It is because I am that I asked YOU if you knew of the definition that CBM had made for his "Cape."    Don't get me wrong, there is no shame in you not being familiar with the article.    But to now pretend you knew all along and to claim you were just testing me?  Pure Class.

- CBM's Cape hole required water on three sides of the greens?  Again you are showing your ignorance of all but AWT.  I cannot say I am surprised by your inability to extrapolate the concept underlying the concrete example.  

- You cant seriously believe CBM considered what holes AWT might have designed before he wrote that article can you?  While your universe rotates around AWT, a sincerely doubt CBM's did.  

-  Your accusation that I have misrepresented what CBM wrote is offensive and idiotic all rolled into one.  It is not worth addressing.

In fact none of it worth addressing.  We are not as dumb as you must think we are.

[Phil_the_Author]

David the Moriarity,

Can't squirm out of this one. You are completely wrong. You can't even get it right when you accuse me of stating that you "misrepresented what CBM wrote..." Let me quote EXACTLY what I wrote for I DIDN'T accuse you of doing that:

"Now when others shave quoted only PARTIALLY on threads in discussions with you you have accused them of being disingenuous, liars, playing false with what was written and a few worse things. I am not doing so DESPITE the fact that you INTENTIONALLY only PARTLY quoted from the article. You left out a most interesting aspect of what they wrote. I am certain it is only because you simply don't see the relevance of it. Here is what they ACTUALLY wrote taken from the article itself:"

What I accused you of was not being able to appreciate what CBM'S ENTIRE statement meant and you still don't. It astounds me that in your haste to simply refuse to admit that you are wrong that you dismiss CBM's OWN WORDS when he stated that "there is probably not another like it anywhere." Yet I am the one misrepresenting what he said?

I will not waste any more time arguing with you. As I stopped posting on the other thread I will do so on this one.
 

[Niall C]

Niall,
I think that in some of those old articles the word "Alps" is shorthand for Alpinisation, or mounding, which isn't an Alps hole per se.

Macdonald saw all the concepts as they existed on the ground, he 'brought' them over from the UK, and used them to his liking.
You mentioned Tillie, and I think Phil Young has said it's known that he was at St. Andrews, but that it's not known where else he was or what else he saw in the UK.

I think that's somewhat of a defining line, did the architect travel overseas to see the original or not. Once CBM brought his portfolio of ideas and applied them at NGLA it becomes hard to determine where any other architect got the idea from, unless he too has been to see the originals. If he hasn't been over to see them then it's probably fair to say he was influenced by CBM.
  

Jim

Interesting comments but I think you still assume that CBM was maybe the first to use templates in the US. My idea if you like, is that templates were used previously, maybe not to the same variety used by CBM, but used none the less by the early pro golfer designers in this country. I suggest that they might be building alps holes and redans, but maybe never bothered without them specifically being documented as such. These were the same guys who built the early courses in America. No doubt CBM documented what he did better, he may have expanded on the number and types of template and even refined them, but was he the first ? If I am correct, and theres an if in there, then Tilly or others could equally have been influenced by other templates in the US (or Scotland).

Just an idea, and not one I would defend to my dying breath but interested to see what you think.

With regards to alpinisation, you could well be right, but I seem to recall articles that refer to alps holes. I'm also not sure when alpinisation came in, possibly about the middle of the first decade of the 1900's ?

Niall

[Tom MacWood]

Niall
I don't know if CBM invented the copying of famous holes, before he did it I know I've read of instances where famous holes were copied, the Alps being probably the most heavily copied hole concept because all it really requires is a big hill or dune to hit over. The Sahara is another one fairly easy to copy because it only required a large sandy waste area.

What CBM was first to propose (and execute) was the copying of large numbers of famous holes on a single golf course (inspired by the best hole discussion in British Golf Illustrated, 1901). And he got a lot of criticism for this idea, especially in Britain. We he began I don't believe he expected he would make a design career out of copying these holes, but that is what happened. So, yes CBM did event the idea of wholesale use of templates.  

[Tom MacWood]

This sentence defines the NUMEROUS differences between CBM’s and Tilly’s Cape holes. First of all, in August of 1914 when CBM wrote this Tilly had ALREADY designed a Cape hole according to HIS own definition. Yet his friend Charlie believed that there hadn’t been another Cape hole built that matched HIS own definition.

In 1914 what Cape hole had Tilly designed?

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, Phil -

I think the better question is, what cape hole did Tilly (or anyone else) design AS a cape hole (or alps or redan AS and alps or a redan etc)?  That is, what 'templates' (and the principles manifested therein) did Tilly or other architects use precisely BECAUSE they were templates -- precisely BECAUSE, individually and as a collection, they represented a specific IDEAL for what golf course architecture could and should ideally be?

Peter 

 

[Phil_the_Author]

Peter & Niall,

Just to clear up a few things ion answer to your questions as I really have no desire to go through a long and protracted waste of time argument with both David and Tom again, I think there is a two-fold problem here. The first is the continuous arguments that I get from David and Tom Macwood who simply REFUSE to believe Tilly's own words where he wrote that he had a lifelong extreme difference of opinion in design principles with his friend, Charlie Macdonald. They insist that CBM had a profound influence on Tilly's design philosophy and work when again, he says that CBM did not.

I'm sorry, but I take Tilly, and ironically in the case of his "Cape" hole, CBM at his word. They clearly do not.

The second, & what I believe to be the larger problem, is that everyone keeps assuming that the phrase "template holes" must refer to CBM and his use of UK templates especially at NGLA. There are a number of architects who regularly used hole types that became "templates" for them. There was the nice discussion on Packard a few weeks back and his use of the "double-dogleg." Where did he get that from? Who was his influence for that? Could it have been Tilly since he wrote specifically of this hole type and used it throughout his career?

The fact that Tilly built his own "Cape" hole does not mean that he was copying CBM especially since their own contemporaneous definitions are different and contradictory. Neither does his use of redans, punchbowls, etc... as Tilly had studied all the great courses and holes of the UK during his three trips abroad from 1895-1901. He even did his own sketches of the holes he liked and also photographed them and brought them back with him to the States. Unfortunately all these were destroyed about 10 years after he died when the barn in which his archives, for lack of better words, burned to the ground. He had also written about these holes well before his design career began.

In any case I really will not be taking part in this discussion for the reasons I cited above. If you have specific questions please feel to IM me and I'll gladly answer them.

[DMoriarty]

Phil the Author,

I am not squirming out of anything.  That is your bailiwick, not mine.  In this thread and elsewhere I have repeatedly explained that CBM thought NGLA's Cape hole "was original."  Yet you continue to try and scold me for not quoting him making the same point?   Your mind works in mysterious ways.

As David Kelly succinctly observed,"Tillinghast's own description argues against your point.  In the write-up on the Wernerville hole Tillinghast only states that the 3rd variation is a Cape hole and then describes it exactly as Bahto and CBM himself did."
________________________________________________________________

Niall,

I hope you can see that we have a situation analogous to the foolish hypothetical I described above and will repeat here with a different hole.  CBM built Eden holes and in reality his holes generally were a bit different that the original Eden hole, for example they generally had water between tee and green and no actual Eden river behind.  Yet the similarities are pretty obvious, and as if too drive home the point CBM even called his holes "Eden Holes." Imagine some "expert" claiming that CBM's "Eden" holes were not at all influenced by the original "Eden Hole" at TOC!  Yet that is pretty much the situation we have here.  

[Tom MacWood]

That is how Whigham described the Cape 5/1909:
"The same principle [the choice of biting off as much or as little of the diagonal as you choose] is applied at the 5th Hole, which will be perhaps the most celebrated hole in the country. the actual distance from tee to flag is about 290 yards--one would have said the worst possible distance for a hole--but it works out beautifully. The hazard in this case is water. Here it is impossible quite to reach the green, but the fine driver if he like to take a risk and go almost straight for the hole, may get within putting distance and so have a good chance for a three. But the least slice will carry his ball into Sebonac Creek; or if he fails to get 240 yards he will have a difficult little pitch shot onto the promontory. The man who can drive 200 yards may prefer to play fairly well to the left so as to be sure of opening the hole; but then he has a long approach onto the promontory. Finally, the short driver can get across the water but playing will to the left and carrying less than 100 yards; but he has a long second to play and may easily take five. In fact, the hole is either a three, a four or a five, according to the way the tee shot is played."

This is what Van Tassel Sutphen wrote 1/1910:
"The fourteenth, or 'Cape' hole is sui generis, and it promises to make a reputation for itself that will be second to none in al the kingdom of golf. Here we tee upon the shore of Bullshead Bay, and the direct carry over the water is about 280 yards. This of course is impossible, and consequently the dog's-leg principle comes into play. We drive for sage ground, and the farther we go to the right the longer will be the carry, and the closer we shall be to the green. It is a simple question of how much we are able to bite off, but the short driver is not put entirely out of court. Even if he finds himself under the high bank to the left he will still have a good lie, and a chance for a five. On the other hand, the cowardly player who goest too far to the left will probably be punished by the big trap lying in that direction. The Class A man, who can carry about 165 yards will have a total playing distance of of 320 yards, and an easy pitch to the green. The latter, by the way, was the most difficult and expensive to construct of any on the course. It lies directly on the shore of of the bay, and the tides run so hight it was found necessary to protect it by a four-foot retaining wall of solid concrete. Certainly there is a hole that inevitably makes for 'class,' and a legitimate four will always stand for the very best of golfing ability."

Tilly wrote this about the Cape 4/1919:
"There still is another variety—the Cape, and possibly the name is not familiar to some of the readers of this page, although the type is encountered often. Here there exists some encroachment which makes into the fairway just before the green is reached and it demands that the drive be well hit and placed with accuracy before the green opens up to the second shot. Several holes planned by Charles B. Macdonald are fine examples of this feature. Another well-known Cape hole is the seventh at Shawnee, one of the plainest yet most exacting holes on the course."

The 12th at Somerset Hills has some Cape-like characteristics but its not a true Cape. SH has a Redan hole that resemble the Redan at the NGLA more than it does the original at North Berwick. SH also has a Principle's Nose and Biarritzesque green - the same hole. Peter Lees, who had recently come from working with CBM at Lido (which by the way had a Cape, Redan, Bairritz and Principle's Nose), worked with Tilly at SH. #14 at Suneagles is a Redan. The 6th at Essex County is a Redan, and although the course was redesigned by Banks, Bahto claims their Redan is original to Tilly.

[Phil_the_Author]

So Tom,

I see you didn't need me to provide you with Tilly's Cape hole at Shawnee. Interesting isn't it as to how completely different it is from CBM's. No water, no challenge driving angles and it was a 522-yard par-five! By the way, here is what Tilly wrote about the hole in 1911 PRIOR to the course opening. Note how he defines the PRIMARY feature which of course is what created the "Cape" on this hole.

"The long seventh offers a sloping green which has an area of nearly a half acre, but a large pit corner gathers in the third which throws too much from the line."

Without question this sounds like he copied CBM's cape. It become's even more ludicrous when one takes a very critical look at the timeline of the two courses. The way, the official opening of Shawnee was May 1911 BEFORE the official opening of NGLA. I know, I know, they were playing unofficially at NGLA in 1910... Guess what, they were doing the same thing at Shawnee as well. The only work remaining to be done in 1911 was the putting of sand in the "pits" which quite remarkably was done by Mother Nature herself over the winter preceding the course opening when a flood filled them with river sand.

Tilly designed the course in 1909, well before NGLA was being copied by other architects... By the way, there were other Tillinghast "Capes" designed and built before the 1914 article each one that reflected Tilly's design philosophy of a Cape and didn't bear any resemblance whatsoever to the 14th at NGLA.

[Tom MacWood]

They insist that CBM had a profound influence on Tilly's design philosophy and work when again, he says that CBM did not.

Phil has a tendency to exaggerate. I did not say CBM had a 'profound' influence on Tilly, I wrote:

"[CBM] influenced numerous other architects including Tilly, who incorporated CBM prototypes in his early designs"

In 1939, following CBM's death, Tilly wrote about how they differed philosophically:
"Our manner of designing courses never reconciled. I stubbornly insisted on following natural suggestions of terrain, creating new types of holes as suggested by Nature, even when resorting to artificial methods of construction. Charlie, equally convinced that working strictly to models was best, turned out some famous courses. throughout the years we argued good naturedly about this and that, always at variance it would seem. Now he is gone and I can only salute his memory."

A couple of things about this tribute, first, I don't agree that CBM only worked with models of famous holes, some of his best holes were original concepts, like the Cape, and he wasn't too bad utilizing the natural terrain either. Second, Tilly must have forgotten the famous hole and features he utilized in his early work. It is also interesting to note Tilly never criticized CBM while he was living, at least I'm not aware of him doing so.

[Tom MacWood]

So Tom,

I see you didn't need me to provide you with Tilly's Cape hole at Shawnee. Interesting isn't it as to how completely different it is from CBM's. No water, no challenge driving angles and it was a 522-yard par-five! By the way, here is what Tilly wrote about the hole in 1911 PRIOR to the course opening. Note how he defines the PRIMARY feature which of course is what created the "Cape" on this hole.

"The long seventh offers a sloping green which has an area of nearly a half acre, but a large pit corner gathers in the third which throws too much from the line."

Without question this sounds like he copied CBM's cape. It become's even more ludicrous when one takes a very critical look at the timeline of the two courses. The way, the official opening of Shawnee was May 1911 BEFORE the official opening of NGLA. I know, I know, they were playing unofficially at NGLA in 1910... Guess what, they were doing the same thing at Shawnee as well. The only work remaining to be done in 1911 was the putting of sand in the "pits" which quite remarkably was done by Mother Nature herself over the winter preceding the course opening when a flood filled them with river sand.

Tilly designed the course in 1909, well before NGLA was being copied by other architects... By the way, there were other Tillinghast "Capes" designed and built before the 1914 article each one that reflected Tilly's design philosophy of a Cape and didn't bear any resemblance whatsoever to the 14th at NGLA.

Phil
I believe you are mistaken. The 7th hole Tilly is referring to in 1919 was the original 4th hole, which was par-4 of 377 yards, playing over a diagonal ridge. Challenging the golfer to bite off as much of the ridge as he can chew.

The hole you are referring to was the 10th hole in 1919. The order of the holes was changed in 1914, when the original sixteenth hole became the first hole.

Shawnee opened for play 5/1911...exactly two years after Whigham description of the Cape. There was also a diagram of the hole in that Whigham article.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I never have a problem admitting when I have made a mistake. It's just that this isn't one of those times.

Here is the original routing from 1911:



Please note that the "original 16th" that you believe became the new 1st hole was actually partly used for the new 18th and finishing par-three in 1914. The 1st hole is where it always was. It was lengthened by 21 yards in the 1912-14 lengthening and re-routing.

Here is the routing from the 1914 drawing of the course:



You'll note that the 7th hole in 1911 was the same as in 1914 and remained the same, with the exception of some new fairway bunkering by the time that Tilly mentioned it in 1919.

Interestingly it was described by the golf critic of the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1912 as "The seventh runs along for a distance of 522 yards in a valley very much similar to the first hole as Newcastle, County Down, Ireland, but it lacks the ‘dunes’ on the right..."

If you'd like an understanding of how the course evolved in the first few decades you can read about it in a back issue of Tillinghast Illustrated on the Tillinghast Association website at www.tillinghast.net.

[DMoriarty]

You never have a problem admitting you've made a mistake?  Then why are you still pretending that AWT's Cape concept was distinct from CBM's?  As TMac pointed out, AWT himself acknowledged that CMB and AWT were working with the same concept!   If you think otherwise you should really take it up with your idol.  

Added:   I see you just deleted your long post where you claimed you never have a problem admitting you've made a mistake, but that this just wasn't one of those times.   What gives?  Find a few more mistakes you aren't going to admit?

[Tom MacWood]

Tilly wrote about the change 7/18/1914:
"At the time [when McDermott won the 1913 Eastern Open at Shawnee] the course measured 6123 yards and this year it has been changed to an extent, but the addition of nearly 400 yards has not lenthened it nearly as much as the conditioning of the fairway turf. The present distance are as follows:

1--360 yards
2--355 yards
3--410 yards
4--385 yards
5--387 yards
6--468 yards
7--370 yards
8--105 yards
9--465 yards
3305
10--565 yards
11--420 yards
12--164 yards
13--405 yards
14--433 yards
15--342 yards
16--135 yards
17--517 yards
18--225 yards
3206
6511

The order of play has been changed since McDermott's record, the start now being made at the old sixteenth."

I believe you are mistaken again. That second map you posted is obviously not from 1914. There was no change to the routing circa 1914 (other than order of the holes); the original 1911 course and the 1914 course had 12 holes on the island and 6 holes off. Your second map has 15 on and 3 off. The 11th hole on your newer map it the Cape.

[Tom MacWood]

The US Women's Amateur was hosted by Shawnee in 1919. This is yardage according to the NY Times:

1--283 yards
2--355 yards
3--410 yards
4--385 yards
5--387 yards
6--485 yards
7--370 yards
8--105 yards
9--465 yards

10--565 yards
11--420 yards
12--164 yards
13--365 yards
14--443 yards
15--342 yards
16--135 yards
17--490 yards
18--225 yards
6399

The yardage is almost identical to 1914, so is the make up of the holes. In 1917 Tilly wrote the course had not been significantly changed since it originally opened. In 1917 AWT redesigned the 6th and the 14th holes, but the routing was not altered.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I don't have the time to answer this for you right now and I may not be able to get back to you before monday, but there is an explanation. I will be more than happy to show you what happened and when. Just one thing for you to consider. If the course had not been changed "significantly" between opening day and 1914-17 how do you explain the adding of 500 yards in length to the course and a re-routing of it? That is what happened as it opened at 6,011 yards and was over 6,500 in 1914.

But I'll give you a full explanation by Monday.

[Tom MacWood]

Don't worry, there is nothing for you to answer. You were simply wrong about which hole was the Cape (among other things).

The extra yardage was attained the same way the majority of courses add yardage, moving tees back. The green was moved on the 1st hole.

This is from Hazard (aka Tilly) 11/1917:
"Mr. A. W. Tillinghast is preparing models for the development of the sixth and fourteenth holes at Shawnee. Until now these holes have re-mained almost precisely as they were when he laid them out in 1910."

The map you claimed was 1914 (the Tilly Assocation says is circa 1917) is clearly post 1919. I would guess the changes reflected on that map took place in the mid- to late 20s.

Here is comparison of the holes from 1911 to 1914:

1--246 to 360 yards
2--375 to 355 yards
3--391 to 410 yards
4--313 to 385 yards
5--370 to 387 yards
6--457 to 468 yards
7--377 to 370 yards
8--102 to 105 yards
9--444 to 465 yards

10--522 to 565 yards
11--400 to 420 yards
12--165 to 164 yards
13--339 to 405 yards
14--440 to 433 yards
15--326 to 342 yards
16--126 to 135 yards
17--421 to 517 yards
18--197 to 225 yards

6011 to 6511


Here is a link to some old pictures and maps of Shawnee:

http://www.tillinghast.net/Tillinghast/shawn.html

[Niall C]

Phil,

Re your post 37. I apologise if I have inadvertently drawn you into a discussion which you didn't wish to have by mentioning Tilly. I wasn't focusing on Tilly as such but really using him as an example to illustrate the point that CBM didn't invent the template concept, and that while he maybe elevated it to an art form and in the process refined certain hole designs, in parallel to what he was doing and even before he did what he did others were doing something similar. I've got to think that other architects continued to get inspiration from the original golf holes after NGLA opened, or indeed maybe took greater notice of the originals because of NGLA ? So I suspect that I agree with quite a lot that you say.

I think often the early pioneers get derided where they should get more due. For certain there designs would be crude by todays standards but they did start it all. The point where someone looked at a hole and decided that there was good points to it that were worth copying was the start of golf architecture IMHO. It might have been a small step but it was an important one which shouldn't go unacknowledged.

Its a bit like being on this website. Who would have thought that when that other itinerant Scot, Graham Alexander Bell, came up with his crude invention that we would have ended up arguing the toss over golf design from thousands of miles away.

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()