[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

The misunderstandings I mention refer to things stated in a variety of the other posts... You'll see in a moment what I mean.

By the way, thanks for the understanding...

[TEPaul]

Phil:

That's all well said and explained. So, the gist, according to you, is that Tillinghast just disagreed with Macdonald's style of fitting "template" holes to the land even if (in Tillinghast's opinion) they really did NOT naturally fit?

"By the way, thanks for the understanding... "

As always, Phil, it's my pleasure.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tilly's use of "Template Holes."

As I earlier stated, Tilly had no problem emplying templates, but would do so only when he believed they serveda s the best possible hole for a particular piece of land.

For example, Kyle mentioned the "Redan" that Tilly used at Somerset Hills. Take a look at this hole, either in person or by photograph, and you will see a par-three that sits out in the open in an area where there are no restrictions to design forced upon the architect by land contours, intrusion of forestation, water features, etc...

He could have put any hole, template-type or not, on that area of the course. In deciding to make a par-three here, his "Redan" use is natural and flows with the course layout and allowed him an opportunity to express his idea of what would make a good Redan.

In August 1918, Tilly wrote an article titled "The Redan Hole" and his details provide far more than a definition of the hole type.

He wrote, "As has been pointed out already, the modern putting green is not a symmetrical affair showing about the same face from either side..."

Put yourself back in 1911 USA. That spring, Tilly unveils his first golf course design at Shawnee, and what is seen right away are the greens. They are quite different from others designed before as they aren't symmetrically square. This"new" or "Modern" style of bunker design was just coming into its own in the few years before Tilly and was considered quite radical in American golf design.

In his view of the Redan, he states that, "The architect plans that a ball finding the green from the right, let us say, shall receive considerable assistance in getting home..."

His understanding of the design principles BEHIND the definition allow his "Redans" to be purposeful in the way the hole should be played.

One of his most popular template hole types, The Double Dogleg, he worte about in an article of the same name in 1916. He was barely able to constrain himself as he truly believed that he had come up with a true new hole type, saying, "I have modeled a three-shot hole of an entirely new type..."

So, Tilly both used and invented new template holes.

His disagreement with CBM was in how to go about putting their use into practice.




I earlier mentioned one of Tilly's own invented template holes, the "double dog-leg par-five." IN April 1916

[TEPaul]

"So, Tilly both used and invented new template holes.

His disagreement with CBM was in how to go about putting their use into practice."

Hmmmm!

So, Phil, do you think this is the sum total of the disagreement illinghast had with Macdonald's style as expressed in those quotations you produced of Tillinghast's?

If that is so, I think we need to proceed past Tillinghast's disagreement with Macdonald's style and investigate if it appears as if any of the other architects of the remainder of the Golden Age had some disagreement with Macdonald's style.

[Phil_the_Author]

Kyle, you noted that, "Tillinghast, in essay 30 of The Course Beautiful (Page 80 in my edition from the Tillinghast Society) discusses the blending of slopes and their importance in the golf experience... He starts out with his attitude quite abruptly: "The steep sloping of banked earth is one of the chief abominations of American courses as I have encountered them during a complete girdling of the United States in the past seven months."

Tilly considered the single most important aspect of hole design to be the green entrance and areas leading into it. Today, if an architect began a speech to a group of his fellow architects with that statementhe would probably be laughed off the stage, yet in Tilly's time it held true. Why was that?

Because of the equipment in use when he was designing. Balls had a much lower trajectory, even when hit well, clubs and they way they were swung, carried the ball mus shorter distances. This meant that many, many more shots were ROUTINELY played into holes by means of a ground game, something that is a long-lost art today.

When Tilly worked courses and individual holes had to take this aspect into account as well as allow for shots that the accomplished player would fly high and soft into them.

The sculpting of banks at awkward angles and to serve as unreasonable hazards to a well-struck gorund shot were what Tilly was speaking of when he wrote, "The steep sloping of banked earth is one of the chief abominations of American courses..."

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom, yes, I do. Geoffrey wrote, "I probably have played more Tillinghast and Macdonald courses then about any other designers and frankly I am hard pressed to agree with the quotes from AW... I think Tillie was arguing semantics here..."

What I believe he is missing is that his conflict with CBM's design philosophy was both singular and specific and had nothing to do with how the final product turned out.

For example, Tilly routinely praised the NGLA, refering to it as one of the finest golf courses in the world. His problem with the design of it (no, he never wrote of one specifically)was CBM's decision to use template holes for the entire course before sitiing down to actually do it.

Tilly praised other courses of CBM's as well, Mid-Ocean for example. It wasn't his finished product as it was his creative process that he took exception to.

[Kyle Harris]

Phil,

While I agree with your premises I feel your conclusion as to the exigency of Tillie's essay is in error.

The essay explicitly states that the critique of the sharp slope is from the rear of the green, especially on flat terrain with with little features. He speaks, again explicitily of "flanking pits" and how they would end up being "seven or eight feet lower than the green and remained a hazard by being covered in sand."

He goes on to say that this method of construction leaves no form of grading in front of the green, so I don't see how such steeped sloping would affect a well-struck ground shot.

To me, at least, Tillinghast is objecting to the construction method where the rear of the green is the emphasis of earth-moving and not the approach.

The reason I brought these points up initially is that is an almost direct contrast to the methods of construction I've seen on "National School" courses.

[TEPaul]

"When Tilly worked courses and individual holes had to take this aspect into account as well as allow for shots that the accomplished player would fly high and soft into them."

Phil:

This is very interetsing. Interesting enough that I'll ask you to work on the grammar of that statement some just so there's no possibility of misunderstanding it.

Thanks

[TEPaul]

Kyle:

Wow, post #31 sounds great but I'm afraid I can't understand it. Any chance you might rephrase it for a lame-brain like me?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom, you mentioned the "mid-surrey mounding" that was installed and then removed at Merion East. Tilly used this style in a number of his earliest designs and actually laid claim to being the first in America to employ their use.

Tilly used plasticene models from the early teens all the way to his work at Bethpage. For example, in my earlier mention of his "double dogleg" hole type, accompanying the article he wrote about it is a photograph of a plasticine hole model version of what he had in mind. This was the year 1916.

In 1925, he telegrammed 5 Farms explaining that he was going to have to dealy a trip there for several weeks because he had badly "sprained my hand and I am unable to make any plasticine models for the green complexes..."

On p.154 of "Reminiscences of the Links" is  a photograph of Bethpage State Park labeled "Aerial - 1935." This is incorrect, it is NOT an aerial, rather it is a table-top model of the entire project! This can be easily shown by the fact that there are numerous streets, especially lower right, but NO HOMES!

This and the INDIVIDUAL hole models (yes they had made them as well) were throwwn away in the late 1940's.

[Phil_the_Author]

Kyle,

Where you are correct in that Tilly is directly refering to the back of the greens and the terrible steep slopes that many holes had (see his figure 1), his ANSWER to how to design these holes from the beginning to create a better hole can be seen in his figure 2.

He discusses this in the entire second half of the article where he states, "Figure Two shows an entirely different method. In the first place work has been started at Point A the FRONT [Tilly capitalized this not me]..."

He finishes the article by writing, "Possibly the best thought of this paper may be found in this idea of emphasizing the approach to the greens and the fronts of the greens themselves... Really I regard the idea of contouring approaches as one of the best of any employed in modern golf course construction."

His entire purpose in this article wasn't so much the idea of where construction would start, but rather where the hole design would emanate from.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, you mentioned the "mid-surrey mounding" that was installed and then removed at Merion East. Tilly used this style in a number of his earliest designs and actually laid claim to being the first in America to employ their use."

Phil:

I realize that and have for a few years. However, from what was written by J.H. Taylor on this architectural feature and technique, I don't believe Taylor agreed with that. But perhaps Tillie thought he was the first who did it in America. Taylor apparently thought he was the first to do it, PERIOD.

From what Taylor wrote, it sounds like he felt he invented "Mid-Surrey Mounding", "alpinization" or the other terms they used to describe basically the same architectural feature, idea and strategic concept.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom, you are correct; I was refering to his view that he had introduced the idea in America...

[Phil_the_Author]

Kyle,

You also mentioned the Reef Hole.

Tilly wrote of this hole type in 1926 in Golf Illustrated. He mentions his having built a similar one at Newport earlier, yet his 1926 article was far more exact in defining what he wanted to accomplish and hinted that he hadn't been able to at Newport.

He would go on to only build one true version of this at Bethpage, though I have heard uncomfirmed rumors of another.

Ironically, it was a template hole that would almost never be used...

[Phil_the_Author]

Okay Tom, I'll give it another try at rewording that sentence for you...


I first stated, "Because of the equipment in use when he was designing. Balls had a much lower trajectory, even when hit well, clubs and they way they were swung, carried the ball mus shorter distances. This meant that many, many more shots were ROUTINELY played into holes by means of a ground game, something that is a long-lost art today."

Following that thought, and rewording it to make the mud a bit clearer:

When Tilly worked, courses and individual holes had to take this aspect into account in both design and construction as the ground portion of the game in America was still very much part of it yet he would also have to allow for shots that the accomplished player would fly high and soft into them.

The era of the air game was at hand and Tilly was among those leading the way in providing challenges to those accomplished players who were employing it.

Better?

[TEPaul]

"When Tilly worked, courses and individual holes had to take this aspect into account in both design and construction as the ground portion of the game in America was still very much part of it yet he would also have to allow for shots that the accomplished player would fly high and soft into them."

Phil:

I'd think that all architects at that time had to take 'shots that the accomplished player would fly high and soft into them' into account.

Why and how do you think Tillinghast designed to take that into account any differently than Macdonald or any other good architect of his time?



"For example, Tilly routinely praised the NGLA, refering to it as one of the finest golf courses in the world. His problem with the design of it (no, he never wrote of one specifically)was CBM's decision to use template holes for the entire course before sitiing down to actually do it."

Phil:

I've never heard anyone say that the entire NGLA is made up of tempate holes from GB. Where did you get that impression?

Perhaps 5-7 holes at NGLA could be considered "template" holes from GB. They say the rest, perhaps 11-13 of the holes at NGLA are original to NGLA.

[Phil_the_Author]

So then, all those other posts to catch up and get back to the topic which, at least in Tilly's individual case, is that he disgreed with CBM's design philosophy, did so openly and yet was able to maintain a fairly good relationship with him.

That is something that seems quite a bit different from the reality that most top-flight architects work within today. I once had an architect, when I asked for a comment about a golf course that another well-known arhcitect had worked on for something i was writing, that he would prefer declining because, "I don't want to say anything that is complimentary of ..."

Though not agreeing with it, I appreciated his reason and he knows that I will never reveal his name or his fellow architect to whom he was refering.

Though it might be a lot more fun for gossip and trash talking, the reality is that the world of contemporary golf course design is immensely competitve and pressure-filled. I doubt whether open criticism of others works would be of value to individuals or the game.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom, it may be that the use of template holes in the creation of the course was not applied to each and every hole, but isn't it true that the course was conceived as a means of bringing the best hole types from England onto American soil and the implications were that all 18 holes were to be templates?

I could be wrong, but that has always been my understanding.

[Mike_Cirba]

Fellows,

I think the point may be as simple as this;

If you were to walk onto any Macdonald/Raynor/Banks course in the world that still has a significant number of original features, you'd have little doubt that it was from one of the trio.

I doubt anyone would say that about Tillinghast's courses.  Perhaps his greatest strength as an architect was that he had no distinct style, but instead various styles, and a strong sense that each course should have its own unique identity.

In the case of Merion, I can't think of another course where the natural features of the land are so well-blended with the artificial ones.   I think it was Tom Doak in the Confidential Guide who mentioned that the course has an air of perfection about it, and I think this integration with natural features and surroundings is a HUGE part of it.

That's also the reason that I was so emotionally vested in the debate about the bunker restoration.   I simply didn't want to see perfection devalued, because there ain't much of it in the world.

That's also the reason I probably became too involved in the Merion thread, as well, because although I LOVE Macdonald/Raynor/Banks courses I've been fortunate to play, they make no bones about trying to tie in man-made features in a form of "faked naturalism", but instead the architecture is more "in your face" and the hand of man is evident throughout.   That's ok, and that was their style, but that style is nowhere in evidence at Merion.  So, for someone to suggest that Macdonald had a strong hand in that design just flew in the face of all the physical evidence I've ever seen.

What I found most interesting about Alan Wilson's comments was the fact that the Merion Committee seemed so purposefully determined to achieve this naturalism.   I had no idea that they set out with this design intent prior.

Perhaps Tom Paul can quote Alan Wilson's writings about it on this thread, because prior I always believed that the whole "naturalism" school didn't really get started til perhaps the mid 20s, probably reaching its zenith with Mackenzie's Cypress Point.   However, it seems to me in reading Alan Wilson, and in reading Tillinghast, that some of the early pioneers had it in mind much sooner.

[TEPaul]

"but isn't it true that the course was conceived as a means of bringing the best hole types from England onto American soil and the implications were that all 18 holes were to be templates?"

Phil:

Not exactly. About five of them, maybe six are template holes. The rest are a form of composite or wholly original. Macdonald described about 5-6 holes at NGLA that could probably be called tempalates but the rest he described thusly;

"All the other holes of the National are more or less composite, but some are absolutely original."

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba said;

“What I found most interesting about Alan Wilson's comments was the fact that the Merion Committee seemed so purposefully determined to achieve this naturalism.  I had no idea that they set out with this design intent prior.

Perhaps Tom Paul can quote Alan Wilson's writings about it on this thread, because prior I always believed that the whole "naturalism" school didn't really get started til perhaps the mid 20s, probably reaching its zenith with Mackenzie's Cypress Point.  However, it seems to me in reading Alan Wilson, and in reading Tillinghast, that some of the early pioneers had it in mind much sooner.”

From Alan Wilson’s report;

“We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized natrural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr Alison (see below as to identity--W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, the fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteeenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either of wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten.”

It seems like a lot of people used the term “natural” back then but it is up to us, I guess, to look at not just what they actually did, but in the context of this thread when they did it and decide for ourselves if they were departing from some previous less natural looking style on purpose, and how much of a difference they managed to make. We also need to look at how they made what was so different from what came before and why.  

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I agree with you that the architecture and over-all look of Merion East (and West) is very different looking from Macdonald's style of architecture. That's why that 10th hole seemed so out of place to me, and may've been one good reason it didn't last long.

I think it's also safe to say that if Macdonald had any specific or significant involvement in the look and style of Merion East he certainly managed to do something there vastly different looking from anything he did anywhere else in the rest of his career.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:  Perhaps the end product at National Golf Links had only five or six "template" holes and the others were some sort of combination or "wholly original", but Macdonald did write an article in 1906 before he had found the property for National specifying what each of the 18 holes should be like ... and more than 5 or 6 can be found in that article.  I think that's what Tillinghast objected to.

Just because a hole isn't an exact copy of another hole someplace else doesn't disqualify it as a "template" hole in my view.  If an architect has designed something original on paper or in model form and then imports that idea to a new site, I would call that a template.  Tillinghast did that, too, just not as often as Macdonald did.

The most important stylistic rift between them in my opinion was that Macdonald was a classicist who believed that all the important ideas of golf architecture were found in Great Britain ... whereas Tillinghast really wanted to design new forms, as did Thomas or Simpson or MacKenzie or anyone else.  Macdonald and his associates stood by themselves on that point.

[TEPaul]

"Tom P:  Perhaps the end product at National Golf Links had only five or six "template" holes and the others were some sort of combination or "wholly original", but Macdonald did write an article in 1906 before he had found the property for National specifying what each of the 18 holes should be like ... and more than 5 or 6 can be found in that article.  I think that's what Tillinghast objected to."

TomD:

That's true. That article or that thought on Macdonald's part can be found in his book in the chapter entitled "Inception of Ideal Golf Course".

In that chapter Macdonald lists every hole on an ideal golf course along with its yardage followed by a description of the hole and in every case the words 'similar to', 'resembling', 'suggested by' or in one case 'composite' of various golf holes in GB.

However, that is not what he built at NGLA.


"Just because a hole isn't an exact copy of another hole someplace else doesn't disqualify it as a "template" hole in my view.  If an architect has designed something original on paper or in model form and then imports that idea to a new site, I would call that a template.  Tillinghast did that, too, just not as often as Macdonald did."

I agree with that. My term for that kind of replicating a hole's overall idea, strategy etc is "concept copy". Concept copy holes can look quite different but their strategic concept is basically a replica of the concept of something else.

I mean wasn't it Dye who said there really are only about half a dozen or maybe a dozen types of holes in all of golf and architecture? I don't know if we want to go down that architectural DNA road on this particular thread though.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()