GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group
Tilly on TOC...
T_MacWood:
--- Quote from: Jim Nugent on March 13, 2006, 05:08:22 AM ---
Tom, I think most if not all pro tournaments are played on championship courses.
--- End quote ---
Jim
We're discussing Tilly's opinion not what someone on this site said about the course in 2006. They play pro tournaments at St.Andrews, I'm still not clear why you don't believe it was a championship course in Tilly's day. IMO a drivable par-4 is not a weakness in a championship course..in fact the more rick/reward opportunities the better (I say good for Jock Hutchison, that eagle helped him to finish at 296 and may have won him the tournament...I think that was the same tournament that Bobby Jones got so frustrated he walked off the course...he later became enchanted by the Old course and modeled ANGC after it).
I see no evidence that Tilly said he knew the course well.
Jim Nugent:
--- Quote from: Tom MacWood on March 13, 2006, 06:20:49 AM ---
--- Quote from: Jim Nugent on March 13, 2006, 05:08:22 AM ---
Tom, I think most if not all pro tournaments are played on championship courses.
--- End quote ---
Jim
We're discussing Tilly's opinion not what someone on this site said about the course in 2006. They play pro tournaments at St.Andrews, I'm still not clear why you don't believe it was a championship course in Tilly's day. IMO a drivable par-4 is not a weakness in a championship course..in fact the more rick/reward opportunities the better (I say good for Jock Hutchison, that eagle helped him to finish at 296 and may have won him the tournament...I think that was the same tournament that Bobby Jones got so frustrated he walked off the course...he later became enchanted by the Old course and modeled ANGC after it).
I see no evidence that Tilly said he knew the course well.
--- End quote ---
Tom, here is the quote attributed to Tilly in the 1st post in this thread:
"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. "
I didn't say TOC is not a championship course. I'm searching around for possible reasons Tilly said that. Sounds to me like he thought it wasn't hard enough or long enough. Paraphrasing, he said it was great for the old guttie ball, but had not changed to reflect the new golfing technologies. He gave that as a reason British golfers aren't as good as American.
This thread asked why, given Tilly's opinion, we consider TOC among the finest championship courses today. Opinions today seem pretty relevant to me. And those same opinions -- TOC only is hard when the weather is bad -- may have been part of what Tilly was talking about.
I agree a drivable par 4 is not a bad thing. But when there are 5 or so?
Is it true that TOC depends on bad weather to be competitive? If so, can such a course truly be considered of championship caliber?
T_MacWood:
--- Quote from: Jim Nugent on March 13, 2006, 07:07:03 AM ---
Is it true that TOC depends on bad weather to be competitive? If so, can such a course truly be considered of championship caliber?
--- End quote ---
Jim
You are right, he did say he knew the course well, but based upon his comments I don't see any evidence to back it up. You yourself said the course had changed since he last saw thrity plus years earlier. To claim it wasn't a championship course in 1933 is asinine.
There were prominent golfers who didn't like the Old course, but I don't recall any of them claiming it was a championship course. And there were some of the old guard who said it wasn't as challenging as it had been in the gutty days and with the encroaching whins....but that is all relative. The Old course was the one pre-Haskel course that had industructability...the par-5 Road Hole as a prime example.
Tilly's comments were made in the context that superior American golf architecture produced superior American golfers...I wouldn't take them too seriously.
Five drivable par-4s in 1933?
What is your definition of a course of true championship caliber? I do not believe the Old Course needed bad weather to produce compelling championship.
TEPaul:
Tom MacW:
I find it pretty interesting to observe where and when you decide to take Tillinghast seriously or not. Quite similar actually in how you decide to take what Bernard Darwin wrote seriously or not. ;)
T_MacWood:
TE
The more you read of Tilly, Darwin and other commentaries of that period the better feel you have for the underlying background or context of their comments (and what is said in tongue and cheak ;)).
For example: Tilly was not saying the Old course would only present a championship test if the weather was bad, he was repeating the common wisdom that the British Walker Cup team could defeat the Americans if the weather was bad. In other words the Brits were counting on the American's inablitity to handle difficult conditions to give them a competitive edge. The fact of the matter was the Americans were better in good or bad weather.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version