[Mike_Cirba]

I'm a huge fan of A.W. Tillinghast, a member of the appreciation society, and love his genius that I see evidenced on plenty of his original designs.

However, something has been bothering me for some time and that is the notion that Tillie became a paid shill for the PGA, on retainer, to essentially neuter courses during the Depression years.

Tillinghast later bragged about removing thousands of bunkers, but c'mon...were they really all just in play for the hack?  That sounds like pure political spin to me.  I mean, this is the guy who invented the "Hell's Half Acre" concept, for crying out loud.  Then, conveniently, one day suddenly he decides that our courses are too bunkered?  Oh, and by the way, he'll be happy to come and consult with your club to tell you which one's need to go for a suitable fee.  

Early aerials of Hollywood showed just an amazing course on a Pine Valley or Timber Point scale.  Although I can't prove it, I have a very strong sense that Tillinghast removed much of the fangs of the place.

Now, today, Jamie Slonis on the Alex Findlay thread mentions that most of the loss of the original Tavistock course (which thankfully is being restored) was during the 1930s after a Tillinghast visit.  

So, let's not give someone a pass, even posthumously.  

If Tom Paul bemoans the fact that Wayne Stiles was responsible for the removal of many cool Ross bunkers at Gulph Mills in 1940, then I don't see any reason that we shouldn't cite loss of key features due to the work of one of the most brilliant architects of all time.

What other courses out there did he visit in the 30's and what were the results?

[Chris_Clouser]

Mike,

I've read his letters on the golf courses he visited in Oklahoma and he made several proposals, but many were not followed.  I think a large part of that was that many of the courses he visited were Maxwell layouts and he did very little fairway bunkering early in his career.  I think the best part of that trip was the grass and soil consultation he did at many of the courses.  

A point to keep in mind was that Tillie was doing this during the heart of the depression.  It was a way for him to be compensated and still have involvement with something he was fond of.  Before we call him a sell out, we should probably wonder, would we not do the same if in his position?


Chris

[Jeff_Mingay]

Chris,

How about Maxwell's redesign work on courses originally designed by his contemporaries? Off the top of my head, I think of Gulph Mills (Ross), Augusta National, Pine Valley... and isn't it said he made some adjustments at National Golf Links of America?

My point is, there were many instances where "Golden Agers" redesigned Golden Age courses.

[T_MacWood]

Mike
I'm also a great fan of Tillinghast (and Burbeck), but I can't give him a pass. His bunker campaign was not a good thing in my view.

I agree with Chris, no doubt the Depression, no design work, apparently some personal financial problems, the failure of Golf Illustrated all contributed toward his coast to coast PGA blitz. Ironically his later designs were among his most boldly bunkered--Ridgewood and the Bethpage courses as examples.

MacKenzie did not sell out in the same sense--removing thousands of existing bunkers like Tillie---but he did adapt his style completely during the Depression, from prolific bunkering to ultra sparse.

[Mike_Cirba]

Chris/Jeff/Tom;

Tillinghast was born to wealth and lived the life of a playboy raconteur for many years.  I have a tough time feeling sorry that he seemingly sold off (or conveniently dramatically changed) his design principles during the Depression to make ends meet.  He wasn't exactly selling apples or living in Hoovervilles.

If Tom Fazio were to alter classic courses in the same way that Tillinghast seemingly did in the 30s, we would be screaming bloody vitriol.

[Michael Dugger]

I can't say that I see a need to bash him, and calling someone a sell out is a pretty harsh term.

I don't think Tillie was living it up during those last days, nor was it probably an easy thing for a man with his affluent background to hit bottom so utterly.

It was steady work during a time in which any work was good work.

In the eye of a golf course architecture purist, he sold out.

In the eye of a golf course architecture buff 100 years later, he sold out.

In the eye of someone who actually experienced the great depression and was living during WWII, I think golf course architecture was probably a very insignificant thing.  

In that case, A.W. was getting by, like everyone, and I don't think calling him a sell out is justified.  We cannot ignore the context of things, as Pat Mucci would point out!      

[JSlonis]

Mike,

I'm not sure if I'd say Tillinghast was selling out. I don't know what his story was.  Maybe, as Tom Paul often states, Tillie was just very "liquored up" and for every "one" bunker that was on the course, he was actually seeing "two or three"?

Based on the info provided to us at Tavistock by Jim Nagle, I really didn't see a rhyme or reason to what he did at our course.  It appeared that many strategic features, bunkers mainly, were either changed or removed altogether.  He also did some tree planting in areas that didn't need it.

Like you, I admire many of Tillinghast's great courses, but I'm at loss for what he was thinking during his brief visit to Tavistock.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
Around 1,000 golf courses were lost between 1930 and 1946.
I thought the main objective of AWT's excursion for the PGA was helping clubs lower maintenance costs to aid in their survival.. I don't think there is any way to find out but I think the possibility exists that AWT might have saved some clubs from having the NLE designation next to their names in C&W.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

I believe that you are misinformed as to what Tillinghast did during his two years touring the country on behalf of the PGA of America. If a course desired that work be done, then the policy of Tillinghast and the PGA was to, "recommend reliable local experts and in every way help them with advice and suggestions, a fact that stimulates their activities and which evidently is being appreciated." He was paid a stipend by the PGA. Not one penny came from a club.

The only clubs visited were ones that had a pro who was a member of the PGA of America; no member - no visit. In every case his visit was REQUESTED as this was the only way he would visit a club. The primary purpose was to aid clubs in making their courses "more pleasurable for more people."

The purpose of this tour was to provide a service to PGA pros so that they could show the powers that be at their courses that having a PGA pro was worth the money. A number of pros during the Depression, as I am sure you can understand, were losing their jobs. A great many were quitting the organization or not paying their dues. This service turned this trend completely around and may actually have saved the PGA of America as an organization.

Most who are aware of this tour happening do not really appreciate what was involved. For the most part, Tillinghast would drive over roads that were nothing like what we have today. He would arrive at a central city and then spend anywhere from one day to as many as five there while visiting courses that were within a days drive. Almost without exception he visited at least two courses in a day, and many times up to four and even five courses.

Many evenings he spent addressing local PGA associations and doing interviews. At the end of the day, after all of this was done, he would spend his time typing reports that were mailed to George Jacobus on a daily basis, outlining where he had been and what was accomplished.

He did not ever mention signing a course on as a client or moneys that they would earn; this did NOT happen.

Not only did he not "sell out," but this was one of the most singularly inportant works ever done by a major sports organization for its members. It was extremely appreciated by all.

[JSlonis]

While I understand the nessessity for a program to help keep the local PGA pros employed, what correlation does this have to the many on course changes that were done?  Were most all the changes for economic reasons?

It would seem to me that given the removal of bunkers and the addition of trees, that those changes would add to a course's costs.  Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't it less expensive to keep a bunker maintained than it would be to care for the grass that replaced it?

[SPDB]

If Tom Fazio were to alter classic courses in the same way that Tillinghast seemingly did in the 30s, we would be screaming bloody vitriol.

Mike -
I find your use of the subjunctive mood highly amusing.  

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

I thought that you might like to read what Tillinghast said about the Tavistock course and what was recommended.

The following is from his letter dated 9/18/1935 and is the report that he sent to George Jacobus.

"The schedule prepared by Ed Dudley took me over the Delaware River bridge into South Jersey for two investigations. The first visit was to the Tavistock Country Club at the request of P.G.A. member Jack Hiner, who accompanied me around the course together with E.C. Ridgeway, manager of the club, and Paul Cannarota, the greenkeeper. Hiner informed me that my afternoon call at at the Woodcrest Country Club would probably be futile... Consequently I was able to stay until after 2 O'clock on the Tavistock course, where they required an unusual amount of advice.

A number of useless pits were recommended to be removed but particularly bad were the formal mounds and slopes, which framed in most of the greens. All of these were noted by Mr. Ridgeway. My chief service consisted in finding a new teeing ground for the ninth hole, in an entirely different location, dog-legging the hole and at little cost developing one of the finest two-shot holes to be found anywhere. I also gave them a new arrangement of the twelfth hole. Altogether our assistance at Tavistock was considerable."

As you can see, he made suggestions that were left to the club to consider. The bunkers that he suggested removing were described as "pits" and would most likely have been of the fairway variety that he thought useless as they almost exclusively became in play only for the less able players. That is why he referred to them as "Duffer's Headaches."

It's interesting also to see that he obviously recommended removing or changing the approaches into a number of greens. Were any "formal mounds and slopes, which framed most of the greens," ever changed or removed?

I would also love to know what you think of the ninth and twelfth holes and if these were ever changed to reflect Tillinghast's suggestions, especially as he stated that they could be done at "little cost."

JSlonis - I am not a greenkeeper or superintendent, but I can't even begin to imagine how a once-a-week mowing of a small patch of rough next to a fairway could present a greater maintenance cost than caring for a bunker in the same place, no matter what the size!

[Mike_Cirba]

Does anyone find it disengenous that Tillinghast, whose own courses often contained over 100 bunkers (how about SFGC or Winged Foot for example?) suddenly "found religion" as a bunker minimalist at a time that the PGA asked him to be a paid consultant for their purposes as outlined by Philip Young above?

This is the guy who raved on about Pine Valley, who loved and adored The Old Course (and its scads of bunkers), who created Hell's Half Acre as a design concept (and it's forced carry for all players), who called a testing approach to a well-protected target the epitome of what design should be about, who not only made bunkers functional but was perhaps the first to make them artistic in appearance.

He was also the consummate salesman, and is it any wonder that at the same time he was employed by the PGA, he started writing articles in golf publications bemoaning the fact that our courses were overbunkered.  

Puhlease....talk about the pot calling the kettle metal.  

Think about it pragmatically.  What other thing might he suggest to clubs during the depression?  Certainly they weren't going to go for some big, bold new design ideas, unless in a public works project like Bethpage.

No, I contend that Tillie changed his design philosophy not because he truly believed that Hollywood, for instance, would be a better course minus 70 or so bunkers, but because it was a way to pay the bills.

I hope as the market for golf architects gets tighter, we would treat modern architects who do the same type of thing as gently.    

[JSlonis]

Philip,

Our present day 9th hole is a dogleg right par 4.  I'm not sure if it is the same hole that Tillie suggested the change on.  Unfortunately,(1950's?)some of our original course was rerouted due to the construction of a major roadway, Route 295, so I am not sure if our current 12th hole was the actual 12th during Tillinghasts visits.

What is left of Findlay's original mounding is very interesting.  They are a feature that will hopefully be restored in some areas by Jim Nagle and Ron Forse.  I guess Tillinghast described Findlay's mounding as formal, but in reality, it was far from standard.  One of the original features that Jim particularly liked at Tavistock, was the haphazard shaping and originality of Findlay's mounding.

[T_MacWood]

Mike
I agree. Tillie and the PGA proudly advertised they had removed thousands of "useless" bunkers. This is the same guy who gave us SFGC and Brook Hollow. And Bethpage-Black--perhaps his most severely bunkered course--was being completed while he was on the road removing tons of bunkers, ironic.

I'm certainly not defending his PGA gig (I've often brought up his involvement in this unfortunate campaign), but the circumstances should not be ignored. I concure, he became involved in order to pay the bills.

[Steven_Biehl]

Tillinghast wrote a piece called "What the PGA course service really means" in Gleanings From the Wayside.  He describes the PGA service as:

"Expert advice, which emphasizes a concentration on vitally important details and the elimination of obsolete and unnecessary features, must direct budgets to doing the most good."

The courses who requested the PGA service were most likely looking for ways to decrease maintenance costs on the course.  The most likely thing to do then was remove bunkers.  I have to agree with Mike, that Tillinghast change his design philosophy to reflect the money that was available at the course.  With that in mind, Tillinghast wasn't all for removing bunkers.  In the same article in Gleanings from the Wayside, he highlights a course where he recomemded the addition of bunkers to make the hole better.

[Mike_Cirba]

Just thought some visuals of some "Duffer's Headaches" might help.  And yes, Tom MacWood, his concurrent work in the 30s at Bethpage was ironic to say the least.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike and Tom,

I want to make it clear that Tillinghast did the work for the PGA at a time when he had no other work. Yes, this was a way to pay the bills.

What you do not seem to appreciate is that he did not get a single dime for this work from any of these clubs. The work was done for FREE.

The PGA of America, an organization that he helped to found, paid his way and covered his expenses. They did NOT get a penny for any of this work.

How is this selling out then?

Mike, you wrote, "No, I contend that Tillie changed his design philosophy not because he truly believed that Hollywood, for instance, would be a better course minus 70 or so bunkers, but because it was a way to pay the bills."

If he wasn't paid for this by the clubs, how can you make that statement.

Secondly, you also wrote, "Does anyone find it disengenous that Tillinghast, whose own courses often contained over 100 bunkers (how about SFGC or Winged Foot for example?) suddenly "found religion" as a bunker minimalist at a time that the PGA asked him to be a paid consultant for their purposes..."

This is revisionist history at its worst.

His article where he outlined the problems with "Duffer's Headaches" type of bunkers was written for Golf Illustrated in June 1920!

His article, "Sans Sand Pits," in which he states, "Golf courses are overbunkered. I frequently have made this assertion: now let me explain rather than merely repeat the conviction." This was written for Golf Illustrated in February 1924!

There are a number of other examples of his stating his strong beliefs on the proper placement and uses, as well as misuses, of bunkers on a golf course.

By the way, I love seeing the Black course bunkers any chance I can, even in photographs. These though are most definitely NOT what Tillinghast was referring to when as "Duffer's Headaches" bunkers.

[Pete Lavallee]

In all fairness Mike, those are Rees's bunkers. My recollection is that not much money or effort was ever put in to maintaining the Tillinghast bunkers.

[Mike_Cirba]

Philip;

How are cross bunkers that require carries from the tee for all levels of player not "duffer's headaches"?  

Thanks for sharing the dates of those articles.  I concur with you that he must have had a philosophic bent that way prior to 1930, but don't you also find it strange that his courses were almost all heavily bunkered.  Even those that are NLE in Daniel Wexler's book show a propensity for heavy bunkering and cross and diagonal hazards on par fours and fives.

At minimum, it would seem that Tillinghast was guilty of not practicing what he preached, wouldn't you agree?



Pete;

The size and scale of the bunkers at Bethpage are what Tillinghast designed.  They were/are humungous, and Rees only tried to "restore" them, or at least their intent.  Whether or not he succeeded grandly has been debated here in the past, so I'd rather not see the discussion take that turn.  

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

I would not agree.

What I believe will help is to get an understanding of what Tillinghast meant with the phrase "Duffer's Headaches."

"The lenngth of this hole alone will place the green beyond the range of the duffer's two healthiest swipes, and if the fairway were absolutely barren of hazards, the 'three-figure' man will require three strokes and possibly more. His poorly played shots are vexations enough without digging pit-falls to add to his sorrows. Yet on hundreds of courses we find old-fashioned bunkers, marring the scenery at a point about one hundred and foorty yards from the teeing ground, hazards which extend squarely across the line of play and which call for a drive to carry the trouble from crack and duffer alike.

Now it is safe to assert that in the average golf club there are fully twenty-five per cent of players who cannot average one hundred and forty yards in carry, and a goodly number who cannot make the distance at all even with the long-flying balls of the present day.

{Further down in the same article}

"... there are enough of the Cheap-John, amateurish sort, rather cluttered with sand pits that cost money to maintain for no other reason than to discourage the very players at golf, who need encouraging most."

Tillinghast, during his tour for the PGA, examined some of his own courses and made recommendations to remove these type of bunkers that even he had designed in the beginning of his career.

When he came into his own and was designing his great courses from the late teens onward, these "Duffer's Headaches" are not to be found.

The great bunkering of Tillinghast courses are headaches for all, Duffer's and accomplished players alike. This was purposeful and proper and is what helps to establish his greatness as a designer.  

[Neil Regan]

How are cross bunkers that require carries from the tee for all levels of player not "duffer's headaches"?  

Mike,
 Because they affect "all levels of player", not just duffers.
 A duffer's headache would typically have been a bunker that caught only a topped shot. Often, they were within 100 yards of the tee, and presented virtually no difficulty whatsoever for an accomplished golfer. And often, they were way off the line of play, where only a bad shot could find them. I don't think any greenside bunker would qualify as a duffer's headache.

  Winged Foot removed numerous such bunkers early on. Also, the club minutes from the depression era show deep concern over costs, and make frequent reference to reducing maintennance budgets in order to survive. Bunker removal was a part of this effort. Winged Foot has a plan from 1932 with all sorts of bunkers x-ed out.
 
  Of course, one man's "useless" bunker could be another man's Golden Age feature. If Tillinghast recommended removal of such bunkers for design, not financial, reasons, maybe he was wrong.

  Of the 70 or so bunkers removed at Hollywood, how many were greenside bunkers ?

Neil
 

[T_MacWood]

Philip
The title "Duffers Headache" was chosen by the editors of The Course Beautiful. It is actually a merger of two articles: Our Green Committee Page (1920) a monthly feature in Golf Illustrated and an article for the PGA magazine (1936).

When does the old article stop and new one begin...your guess is as good as mine.

The first part of the article is clearly protesting the old-fashioned inartistic cop bunker. The latter part of the article deals more with the PGA mission.

1920 was the year Tillinghast revised SFGC with a see of sand and designed Brook Hollow (200-300 bunkers)....how did you reconcile the inconsistency?

IMO you are misreading the 1920 article, therefore there is no inconsistency...the inconsistency came during the Depression.

The advise the PGA provided (through Tillie) their member clubs was free. The work was not free...the club had to pay someone to carry it out. From what I understand Tillie recieved a salary from the PGA...so it is not accurate to say he was working for free.

[A_Clay_Man]

Just from the arguments provided in this thread I'd say the answer is NO.

Not enough proof that he didn't do anything more than what the client wanted. If that i sselling out, than it's YES.

Is that a Kerry answer, or what?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,  

You are correct in that piece in The Course Beautiful is a combination of the two articles. What you miss is that Tillinghast was writing about poor bunkers and "Duffer's Headaches" type bunker since the early 20s.

Also, Tillinghast was NOT paid a penny by any of the CLUBS that he visited and neither was the PGA. Mike ascerted that Tillinghast "Sold Out" and was using the PGA work to drum up a lot of work for himself. This is incorrect. That is why I shared his own words from his article "What the P.G.A. Course Service Really Means" where he states that when clubs decided to do work that they, "... recommend reliable local experts..."

Tillinghast was paid a living wage for work that he spent morning to late at night on, doing this with very few breaks 24/7 for nearly two years despite severe health problems along the way.

You wrote, "1920 was the year Tillinghast revised SFGC with a see of sand and designed Brook Hollow (200-300 bunkers)....how did you reconcile the inconsistency?"

Tillinghast referred to bunkers whose SOLE PURPOSE was to catch the errant shots of the short hitting poor players. These are the Duffer's Headaches that he refers to and believed should be eliminated.

Great strategic bunkering on a large scale that was designed as a challenge for the good to accomplished player was NOT! Why is that such a difficult concept to understand?

I also strongly disagree with your assertion that I am misreading what he wrote about when he makes a very clear definition as to what he considered proper use of bunkers to provide challenge for the good to accomplished player and those that ONLY punished and provided a means of discouragement for the poor and short-hitting player.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()