GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture

Tilly on TOC...

<< < (3/9) > >>

Bill_McBride:
I just wish Hell Bunker had some remaining influence on the play of #14.  Even with the tee set out of bounds at 618 yards at last summer's Open, no one was in the bunker in four days.  Every player I saw over three days routinely flew the bunker.

As Rich says, the green countours are so good that not all those who carried Hell made birdie.

Patrick_Mucci:

--- Quote from: Philip Young on March 09, 2006, 03:42:08 PM ---In June, 1934, A.W. Tillinghast wrote this observation about the Old Course at St. Andrews:

“We know that there are many who will listen to no word of criticism of the Old Course at St. Andrews. Indeed, no course in the world is so rich in tradition, but we assert (and we know the old course well) that as a collection of holes it has too many weaknesses to be regarded as truly championship. This seems almost like speaking disrespectfully about one's grandparent. Frank, we know of no place on earth where we would rather spend a golf holiday, and harking back forty years we appreciated its greatness as we followed a "guttie" ball around a magnificent course of that period. But conditions have changed in forty years. Old St. Andrews has not. We can pick out fifty better championship tests in our own country.”

Accepting the validity of that statement, how do we account for TOC to be viewed by many as being among the finest courses in the world today?

--- End quote ---


Maybe he was there on a calm day.

Tom Huckaby,

I'd tend to agree with your identifying of the qualifying word, "championship".

But, we also know that TOC has been lengthened to meet the hi-tech advances over the years.[/color]

Tom Huckaby:
Patrick - right on.  That was going to be my next question:  I wonder if Tillie foresaw the lenghtening of TOC by 1000+ yards from his day...

TH

Phil_the_Author:
Bob,

You asked, "Tillie was dead wrong, of course. I suspect he knew he was wrong as soon as he said it. The more interesting question is his hidden agenda. What was he really trying to say? What services was he trying to sell?"

He was selling nationalistic pride and the superiority of American golf course design with the proof that the world's best players were being developed here.

This can be seen in what he wrote in the entire article. I have highlighted & bolded the portion I previously quoted from. You will see that my inference was partly out of context, yet still refers to a strong belief (IMHO) that he now held:

"When the United States Walker Cup embarked, there were forebodings of possible disaster, yes, probable defeat was predicted by some. We refused to cotton to these prophecies, stubbornly perhaps, but in reality because we could not vision1 our young men1 staggering into various and sundry sandy pitfalls on the St. Andrews links, there to remain indefinitely, nor could we actually picture them being blown off the old course by howling, gales. It seemed to us that if the golfers of Great Britain were depending on success by whistling up the wind, without improving the golfing powers of their team, there was not even a remote chance of the Walker Cup changing its shelf, a not altogether tragic event if it did happen. But after regarding critically the Walker Cup teams from over-seas during the past few encounters, we unfortunately were singularly unimpressed and consequently quite unresponsive to reasonings which seemed to deal, chiefly with wind. It was well that our young men did not develop a wind complex when they put foot on Scotch soil.

With the courage of conviction, we stated editorially that we could not vision a British victory at this time. Now that the meeting of 1934 is written in history, and certainty without an intent to humiliate those who battled vainly against the devastating assault of the invaders, we find it proper to give answer to a question which comes to us. Why is it so? Is it a decadence of British golf? How may we regard the apparent present supremacy of American play?

Now this query is founded on fact, records of the past decade. Numerous as answering opinions have been, we, too, have our thoughts. We believe that more outstanding players
are being developed here in the United States because generally throughout the nation our golfers play over more testing courses than do they in Great Britain. Undoubtedly there are some truly great constructive minds across the water, designing some really fine golf holes and certainly there are great British courses—but too few. But do the golfers of Britain admit this or concede it? A few of them do; most will not.

It seems to us that our cousins are disinclined and reluctant to emerge from tradition, which is a great thing, but newer ideas obviously develop greater golfers. We know that there are many who will listen to no word of criticism of the Old Course at St. Andrews. Indeed, no course in the world is so rich in tradition, but we assert (and we know the old course well) that as a collection of holes it has too many weaknesses to be regarded as truly championship. This seems almost like speaking disrespectfully about one's grandparent. Frankly, we know of no place on earth where we would rather spend a golf holiday, and harking back forty years we appreciated its greatness as we followed a "guttie" ball around a magnificent course of that period. But conditions have changed in forty years. Old St. Andrews has not. We can pick out fifty better championship tests in our own country. So it seems to be throughout the entire kingdom. The reconstruction of
holes, famous of old, but quite without merit in these days, is done grudgingly and frequently in the face of stout opposition. Over here we have no, battle to fight with traditions. When we recognize a bad or unworthy hole we get rid of it quickly and replace it with one that develops skill,—and this practice is getting more general every day.

Certainly the British have every right to play their golf as they see fit. It is not ours to criticize, and our answer to the question of why their golfers seem a bit backward in keeping pace with the times is intended alone for our own people, who are curious about it all, and ask for our opinion."

Mike Hendren:
I'll reply by way of analogy.

For those of you happily married, ask yourself:  Is your wife the most beautiful woman in the world?  After answering honestly then ask: is she the most beautiful woman in the world to you?  

Mike

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page