[T_MacWood]

Rich
I've acknowledged Tilly most certainly shared advise which helped financially strapped clubs. I have no doubt he improved some of these courses architecturally also--espcecially those of lesser architects. But I am also convinced his one size fits all 'DH' mission damaged a number of very good golf courses, including some of his own.

The point that Mike originally made has never been addressed...basically that Tilly became a minimalist in order to stay employed....his designs never reflected this philosophy (even during the Depression). One week he is overseeing the construction of one his most boldly bunkered courses (during the heart of Depression), the next week he is telling clubs from coast to coast bunkers need to go.

What changed in 1935?

Bruce
No doubt many clubs went under during the Depression and WWII, but I'm not sure anyone has been able to make the case these courses could have survived if more bunkers were removed...that seems to be an over-simplication of the situation.

Did Tilly advise Baltusrol, Somerset Hills and Ridgewood?

I believe the head of the PGA (who hire Tilly) was also the head of Ridgewood (it hosted the PGA in the mid-30's)--I suspect Ridgewood did not have any bunkers removed.

[Rick Wolffe]

I think some of the posts grossly overestimate and simplify Tillinghast's consulting assignment for the PGA.  He did not treat every property the same or another words apply a cookie cutter approach and his own style on every course.   If the course was a particularly good one, there were very few recommendations.  If the course was not, there were allot of recommendations.

The Valley Club may be an example.  In the letter, Tilly did not provide a specific recommendation for the removal of any bunkers.  However, he did say there were some bunkers that he did not like, or more particularly he did not like the trademark Mackenzie arrangement of sand and turf.  In all the other letters for all the other clubs, if there was a recommendation for bunker removal, the letter was quite specific and said just that -- "...recommended the removal of DH's".  

In contrast the letter on Valley is very complementary of the course and the Hunter-Mac design.  Perhaps Bunkers were removed after Tilly's visit, but this could also possibly be pinned on Robert Hunter as he was there the day Tilly visited, as Tilly wrote,

..."I talked to the chairman of the green committee, answering such queries as he put to me, and also with Robert Hunter, who collaborated with Dr. Mackenzie in 1929, when the course was built."

Tilly wrote nearly 400 letters summarizing his work.  The letters should be read in full before suppositions are stretched to revisionists conclusions.  In fact, if you read them, you will learn that there was a secret code buried in the text -- in which Tilly communicated with President Roosevelt and identified in which backfilled bunkers he hid the WMDs.

[Mike_Cirba]

In fact, if you read them, you will learn that there was a secret code buried in the text -- in which Tilly communicated with President Roosevelt and identified in which backfilled bunkers he hid the WMDs.

AHA!

That's exactly what I was trying to get at.  I knew it.  

Rick;

Seriously, I don't know if anyone is making suppositions or coming to grand conclusions by asking tough questions based on largely circumstantial evidence.  To the contrary, I think we're trying to flesh out the story as well as trying to better understand the impact of the work that was done at various clubs during that time.

You and Phil have both been helpful in putting meat on the bones here and increasing the depth of our understanding.  

Based on your knowledge however, would you say that architecture was generally advanced by his effort, or started to decline during this period.  10,000 bunkers removed seems a lot and it's tough to imagine that it was all for the good, especially when one looks at an example like Hollywood, for instance.

Or, was this estimate simply Tillinghast's hyperbolic claim?  

 

[T_MacWood]

RW
What specifically did Tilly not like about MacKenzie's arangement of turf and sand....what was his opinion of the arangment of turf and sand at SFGC?

You say the bunkers being removed at the Valley Club could be "pinned" on Hunter...by putting possible blame on Hunter I take it you are acknowledging that it wasn't a good thing?

What was Tilly's financial situation when he began the PGA tour?

I believe there is tendency to put these men on a petistol and not acknowledge they were human. And like all humans they had weaknesses and made mistakes (and in some cases weren't very pleasant people).

[SPDB]

Mike -
I think you are laboring under the assumption that Tillie became a minimalist for the sake of survival. The only evidence that would seem to support this would be his later work at Bethpage, a pretty strong indicator that his change of heart was a rationalization in time of need, but by no means dispositive.

However, other than that I have no other reason to believe that Tillinghast change of heart came as a result of a 1) genuine belief that courses were becoming overbunkered, or 2) that overbunkering would condemn courses (including his own) to bankruptcy.

Other than his later work at at Bethpage, I have no reason to believe, nor is there any affirmative evidence to suggest that Tillie was employing a double standard for the sake of self-preservation. The more reasonable inference seems to point to the preservation of clubs as ongoing concerns with reduced operating costs. Mike is correct in drawing the inference that Tillie's change of heart was "born of necessity," I just worry about the indictment that the necessity was exclusively his own. Since it seems like he was paid fairly modestly by the PGA, and not directly by the clubs he consulted, he may have had an interest in the club's preservation, and, not merely his own.

Another thing that bears mentioning that has received full treatment w/r/t Robert Trent Jones' own renovations later, these clubs were not captive to Tillie. These were only recommendations.  

64% good.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman,

I think your "ego" theory is a wild theory without basis in fact and a theory that doesn't understand the Great Depression and its impact on golf clubs.

Just read Neil Regan's paraphrased response to my comments.
A response that confirms the severity of the dire times for golf courses and the nation.

Mike Cirba,

While you say you're couching your argument in AWT's times, your comments are in denial of the severity of the times, and
their impact on golf courses.

The motives you attribute to AWT are flawed as well.

He wasn't a spokesmen for tamer designs, he was a spokesmen for survival.   Reduce your maintainance costs or perish, it's that simple.

How do you know what AWT's salesmenship abilities were ?

He didn't have to promote himself, he was a highly respected architect and clubs were desperate for financial relief that would allow them to survive.

Hollywood's bunkers and their alteration and removal was more a product of the membership and green chairmen then AWT.

If you look at the old aerial of Hollywood, who on this site could play that course day in and day out and not consider taking up bowling ??

It was intended as a "Championship" golf course that an average membership couldn't handle, and as such, it was modified to suit the emerging and aging membership desires.

Bruce Katona,

Those clubs didn't survive without their bumps in the road.

[T_MacWood]

Sean
I take the opposite stance...Mike's theory is more plausable than anything anyone else has presented. His body of work and in particular the Bethapge courses are the strongest evidence anyone has presented.

Tillinghast was editor of Golf Illustrated in 1933, 1934 and 1935 (the magazine went under in July 1935 in that issue he announced he was taking job with the PGA)...that was the heart of the Depression, there should be plenty of articles written about 'Duffers Headaches' and the overbunkering of America. Perhaps you are aware of these articles..I haven't seen any. His pet peeve at the time was the lengthening of golf courses.

In February 1935 in an article entitled 'The Ideal Course Rugged and Natural' he wrote about natural hazards and in particular dunes. Near the end of article he quote Findlay Douglas on the great number of natual courses waiting to be discovered out on Montauk.

"But no doubt many of the hazard-shirking fraternity would declare that playing a wayward ball from such places was entirely too difficult. What utter nonsence!"

Now that's the Tilly I love.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike and Tom,

Will you please define what Tilly meant when he referred to a bunker as a "Duffer's Headache?"

Tom, how did Tilly benefit even one penny financially from any CLUB that he examined. This is separate from the small salary he received from the PGA for doing this.

How can anyone call Tilly a minimalist and having changed his design philosophies because he called for the elimination of a bunch of bunkers that were of a style that he preached as being wrong for teh courses, the players and the game for over thirty years?

What can anyone possibly cite as proof of this on the courses at Bethpage?

Bythe way, the last issue of Golf Ilustrated was September of 1935. You can see this and the August issue at the PGA of America Otto Probst library in Port St. Lucie. On the cover of the Sept. issue, the only one in existence, is written in pencil, "This issue never distributed. I resigned as Editor last month. AWT"

[Jim_Kennedy]

After reading all the posts several times I can honestly say that I have found an answer for myself and it is that Tillinghast didn't "sell out".
The posts of Philip Young and Rick Wolfe, two people who seem to have their facts in order, helped to settle the question for me. Neil Regan's post about Winged Foot  members having trouble paying dues and Bill McBrides post about summer rules not being played until the '50s at a particular club also added icing to the cake. Something else that I found was that the USGA Green Section suspended publication in '34, '35 and '37 and the magazine really didn't get back to full tilt until the late '40s. This may be inconsequential to some but to me it says a whole lot about what anyone was able to do at their courses during the depression and into the '50s.
The questioning of what AWT actually did during this time frame has been insightful, at least for me, but I can't find anything in the position of those who think he "sold out" that is based on anything more than conjecture and allusions to ulterior motives, none of which seem to jive with the recorded
facts supplied by those I mentioned above.
   

[Tyler Kearns]

Tillinghast was paid a salary by the PGA of America, he was not paid a percentage of the construction budget for his proposed changes at the courses he consulted. Because of this, it is fair to say that he did not change his architectural philosophy in order to make more money, and thus, did not "sell-out".

Tyler Kearns

[SPDB]

Tom -
I would be particularly interested to know whose idea this trip was. Was it proposed by Tillie to the PGA or vice versa. If it the latter, then it has significant bearing, in my mind, as to whether or not Tillie compromised his own design philosophy vis-a-vis extensive bunkering.

One can imagine that the PGA, through its network of club pros may have been receiving anecdotal evidence that memberships were dwindling as a result of either the playability of courses, or extensive maintenance budgets and that this was pushing clubs to the brink. If this was relayed to the PGA who in turn employed Tillie (who may or may not have had misgivings about some of these bunkers in the first place), then is the subsequent recommendations made by Tillie in his barnstorming tour a compromise or a "selling out"?
I don't think so, it would seem to be a pragmatic solution to a documented problem, and not any embodiment of Tillie's own thoughts untethered to exigent circumstances.

The above is speculation not supported by any ascertainable facts, but I'm not sure Mike's premise is any less (or more) tenuous or corroborated by more affirmative evidence.

By the way, let me add that I think this is one of the most interesting and thought-provoking threads to appear on GCA in quite some time, and the decorum of the participants is strictly top drawer - quite an accomplishment in this day and age.

[T_MacWood]

Phil
How many golf courses did Tilly design in the five or six years prior to the crash and how many did he design after the crash?

As far as I can tell he didn't do much design work after the crash.

How many redesigns, bunker removals, ecomonical projects did he take between October 1929 and July 1935 when Golf Illustrated went under?

As far as I know he didn't do any...new work was hard to come by, redesign work was hard to come by, thank God he had the Golf Illustrated job.

How may articles did he write in Golf Illustrated (1933, '34, '35)about duffers headaches and/or the over bunkering of America?

Perhaps you have found them...I have not.

The Depression was five years old in 1935...what you make of the timing of his new found attititude and the job opportunity at the PGA to replace the one he'd just lost?

What was his financial status in 1935-36?

From what I understand not good.

I have no idea what Tilly was refering to with DH...I suspect anything that would not be in the range of the Tiger.

There is a benefit in having a job as opposed to selling pencils or standing in a soup line. What golf design projects could he have landed in 1935, 1936, 1937?  

How were the bunkers at Hollywood, Valley, Bel-Air and his  own designs wrong for their courses?

That is the point...he was never a minimlist...look at Bethpage...he was forced to become a minimalist due to his circumstances.

Thanks for the info on Golf Illustrated...was that the merged American Golfer/Golf Illustrated....and was there any mention of Duffers Headaches?

Jim Kennedy
What facts?

[T_MacWood]

Sean
Herb Graffis wrote an extensive history of the PGA. He goes into the entire situation and chain of events...it was the PGA's idea.

In fact I believe the book says the PGA president, who was a friend of Tilly's, wanted to help him out and at the same time help his members. It was a one year contract, after the first year it had been so successful (they financially quantified the bunkers removed ) they extended Tilly's contract for another year. The book goes into the rational for the PGA in developing the project.

I personally don't think Tilly did anything most of us wouldn't have done under the circumstances, we have all compromised our prinicipals at one time or another.

[SPDB]

Tom -
That's very interesting, adn I think it changes the game. Does the article or book say why they thought it was necessary?

If it resembles anything like the scenario I laid out in my last point, I think it is unfair to use this trip to impeach the integrity of Tillie, or to say he compromised his beliefs in anyway.

It may simply be that he was trying to avoid the greater evil of an epidemic of course closures. If necessity is good enough to excuse criminal conduct, why should Tillie be held to higher standard? He didn't develop this theory, the PGA did, and maybe they had justifiable reason for doing so.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I think that the "why" of AWT's work has been well documented on this thread by Rick Wolfe and Philip Young
and it may very well have saved some courses from extinction, as your last post suggests, "..they(PGA) financially quantified the bunkers removed".

I think it was Philip Young who said that in reading Mr. T's letters from the time it was plain that he (Mr.T) was suggesting the removal of unsound and outdated bunkering and the like. I can't help but believe that AWT might have had a pretty good idea of what was sound so I don't see how his actions could be seen as compromising to his principles.  

Bring this same idea into the modern era, i.e., a noted architect will come to your course and make free suggestions, and clubs would be fighting for a place in line.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

If AWT didn't get paid on a per project basis, but on a retainor or yearly stipend, and the club's didn't pay him a fee or percentage of the construction costs, if they elected to do the work, and many didn't, and the purpose of his work was to offer methods for clubs to reduce the financial burden on their maintainance budget through non-routing alterations to their golf course, how on earth can you imply that he sold out, changed his style or modus operendi ?

It would seem that his expertise was employed in an effort to help the clubs survive dire times in a very practical way.

Right now we're seeing clubs having difficulty attracting members.  Many clubs are having financial difficulty.
If financial times were to get much, much worse, woulnd't it be practical for clubs today to call in an "expert" architects,
agronomists, and others in an attempt to drastically reduce costs ?

I think it's the only prudent thing to do,
unless, you want to convert the golf course to home sites.

P.S.  The effects of the depression were felt long after its initial impact, and then came WWII, which wasn't great for golf in America.   Just look at what happened to ANGC.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
You are simply repeating what has already been covered. I know he didn't get paid per project....he recieved a salary from the PGA...he was on the PGA payroll as a consultant for their member clubs.

What was Tilly's financial situation in 1935?

Other than the $750 he recieved for designing Bethpage...how much money did he make as a golf architect in '33, '34 and '35?

In 1935 how many golf architects were working at their craft?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MAcWood,

As I cited previously, these were tough financial times for America and Golf in America.

I think that addresses Mike's initial point and those points raised subsequently

[T_MacWood]

It was the PGA's idea, in particular George Jacobus president of the PGA. Tillinghast was suffering through serious financial difficulties, and his very close friend Jacobus put him on the payroll (there were some who questioned why a PGA member architect was not hired).

The PGA funding came from the dues of their members (mostly club pros), in addition from the fledgling PGA Tour. Unfortunately during the Depression many Pros were being let go by their clubs. Membership in the PGA had been dropping consistently through the 30's and it was major concern to Jacobus.

The purpose of the consulting tour (according to Graffis) was to present the pro to his employer as a helpful authority. It was also hoped that Tilly and his recommendations would be carried out by an architect (many of whom were PGA members). There was an understanding that Tilly would have nothing to do with the actual work. Unfortunately the clubs rarely hired an architect when they had Tilly for free.

Tilly was hired first for a two month stint, but because of the success of the tour the contract was extended. In one day Tilly would go over of the course and present a recommendation plan to club officials.

At the end of the year Tilly would give a report during the PGA annual meeting, basically giving a scorecard -- the number of bunkers removed and the estimated dollar figure. In 1936 he reported he had advised 370 courses and 7427 traps had been removed, at an estimated savings of $164,000/year in trap raking. (I wonder what the raking costs were at Bethpage?) He eliminated 92 traps at one course; 41 at another.

1936 Tilly stated the sand wedge had made bunkers far too easy--especially for the expert. He also claimed rough was a better hazard (recommending the introduction of longer grass); in addition rough was less expensive. Prior to 1936 long grass was not a favored hazard for Tilly--just the opposite.

Evidently Tilly was embarrassed by the success of his tour, he claimed it illustrated the poor state of design up until that point, he believed this poor condition proved there was a need for architectural renovations (a little difficult to swallow). I suspect he may have also been embarrassed he was consulting for free, obviously cutting into any potential work for other architects. I also wonder if his change in philosophy and the altering of numerous courses designed by respected contemporaries was embarrassing.

[Phil_the_Author]

Why Tom, I am totally stunned!

After all the tweaking that you gave me throughout this thread where every time I wrote that Tillinghast did his work entirely for free as far as the clubs were concerned, you would respond with something on the order of, "Since the PGA paid him, he didn't do it for free..."

I am ALMOST at a loss for words then when I read your last post and in it you write, "I suspect he may have also been embarrassed he was consulting for free"

You also mentioned how the club pros were feeling the pinch during the depression with PGA membership being on the decline and this service then, "(according to Graffis) was to present the pro to his employer as a helpful authority..."

That's another one I wish I had thought to mention.  

By the way, as a founder of the PGA of America back in the teens, why would the membership have complaints about his doing this valuable service?

[SPDB]

Phil,
I think what you're focusing on is whether or not Tillie got paid by the clubs. What Tom is focused on is whether Tillie got paid...period.

The troubling development in all of this is that Tillie's compensation, evidently, was proportional to the number of bunkers he removed. I would have no problem if he were paid a salary by the PGA, and as I said before - he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. But where he was paid on a commission basis, he had a vested interest in advocating removal of bunkers, DH's or otherwise.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

Where do you jump to the conclusion that AWT was paid on a per bunker removed basis ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat Mucci,

AWT couldn't have been anything but a great salesman in his heyday, or he wouldn't have had as many top drawer courses.

Tom MacWood,

You asked about Tillie's financial condition in 1935.  Didn't I read somewhere where he returned from one of these trips for the PGA to find his house had been lost to foreclosure, and that he took his fall in status very gracefully?  

Also, was he the one who sold off his collection of art in order to start an antique store, or was that someone else?

Just asking.  As Casey Stengal would say. "You could look it up,"  but I don't have the time today, and I'll bet someone here knows.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

So you don't think that his talent, the highly regarded golf courses he produced, his notoriety at the time and his pedigree had anything to do with his being selected as the architect of choice

[Phil_the_Author]

SPDP you wrote, "The troubling development in all of this is that Tillie's compensation, evidently, was proportional to the number of bunkers he removed."

Where do you get this information from?

The ONLY moneys that Tilly received was the SALARY, and it was not a large one from the PGA. He was not paid anything by anyone, including the PGA, for his consulting work, and he DEFINITELY was not paid on a per trap removal basis.

The reason that I stress this is that the question was asked as to whether Tilly "sold out" in two ways. The first ascertion was that he was paid money for this work by the clubs and/or that he created work for himself by which he received commissions. This did not happen. Tom then is of the opinion that since he received a salary for working for the PGA of America for providing free work and advice to the member pros and their clubs, that it was the same thing. That is not a valid argument IMHO.

The second way that he was supposed to have sold out, is that he has, all of a sudden, changed his design philosophy by recommending the removal of the "Duffer's Headaches" type of traps that had become COMMON PLace on many courses throughout the country. This to is not true. He had been critical of traps whose sloe purpose was to punish the "duffer" and that would never affect even a fair player no less a good one. I read an article that Tilly wrote in 1901 about St. Andrews where he was critical of "the pits" that were placed so as to punish the unaccomplished player. This shows that from the very beginning, he had definite ideas as to the proper placement of bunkers and how courses should be designed to challenge the good player while still be enjoyable for the poor one. He maintained this philosophy until he died.

Think about how today's courses are being changed to challenge the pros. Pushing fairway bunkers out to the 280-340 yard range to specifically challenge the landing area where a modern pro might carry his drives to, is NOT a "Duffer's Headache." A poor player may end up in one of these after two, three, four or more swings, but we both know that a duffer who nails that one drive that ends up in the 300 yard bunker will be thrilled and will brag about it every time he comes to that hole.

It is because the two points of this question have been raised in this fashion that I respond as I do.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()