From the book: Tillinghast: Creator of Golf Courses. Reprinted with the permission of the author:
If Such Be Sin
In 1914 a prominent newspaper published an article entitled “The Amateur in Golf,” and in it President Robert C. Watson of the United States Golf Association was quoted as follows:
“It is the desire of the governors of the national body only to keep the royal and ancient game absolutely free from the taint of professionalism or even semi-professionalism. There are men who pose as amateurs who make their living from the exposition of how to do this or that in order to produce the best results in playing golf. Unquestionably this comes under the heading of teaching. There are those who lay out plans for the construction of golf courses and derive means of support from the work. Yet they pose as amateurs. Of course an amateur has a perfect right to lay out a golf course and even to teach golf, but he can derive no benefit financially from either and still be a pure amateur.”
When the clipping was shown to Mr. Tillinghast, who has laid out a number of courses, notably those of the Shawnee Country Club, Aronimink and Davista, he said, “This recalls an English music hall singer’s number, which was entitled ‘Who are you getting at, eh!’”
I have known Mr. Watson for a great many years, and some of my most pleasant memories are matches which we have had together; consequently, any comments of mine cannot be considered as unfriendly to Mr. Watson personally, but certainly must be understood as being quite at variance with the position which he is taking as president of the national association.
I must take it for granted that I am some of the game which he is hunting, and he will not have to go into thickets to find me. For a number of years I have been contributing to numerous golf publications and newspapers and I have been paid for this work. I have laid out golf courses and frequently have been called in consultation when courses have been reconstructed. I have been paid for this work and as a matter of fact I consider golf architecture a profession, and I have no hesitancy in quoting my fees for this work. I have considered that this is no violation of the ethics of the amateur golf player, and certainly there has never been any desire to pose as something other than that which I am.
In laying out a golf course, for which I am paid, I am no more a professional player than an undertaker who lays out a dead golfer for burial, and my endeavor to design golf holes can have no more bearing on my status as a player than could the designing of a clubhouse.
I have a sufficient knowledge of the rules to know that golf journalism and golf architecture for remuneration have been no violation of the code, and I am of the opinion that the United States Golf Association will make no change which would make them so.
If by chance golf architecture and golf journalism should, by reason of future legislation, cause me to be regarded as a professional golfer, I will go on record as saying that I shall be proud of my profession.
I love the game of golf and its association, and sometimes I feel that the many years in the game have fitted me to write intelligently of it, and in my humble way I think that I have, through my writings, fostered golf and kept it before the public as a clean, honest sport of a gentleman.
In the planning of courses there is the joy of creation, and a keen satisfaction in seeing them develop, until finally they receive the approval of those who play over them. Such work might be the recreation of a millionaire, but there are some of us who find it impossible to devote our attention to it without adequate remuneration, and if the makers of our golf laws see fit to call this professional golf, I certainly shall not criticize them, but I may retain in the future the same opinions which I have had in the past.
Don’t think for a moment my words contain any arrogance like Boss Tweed’s ‘What are you going to do about it?’ Rather let the question be, what is wrong with it all? If such be sin, then I will continue in the ways of sin.
From The American Golfer, July 1914.
The ensuing debates that this article helped to spark brought about the repeal of this ruling. Still, among many within the USGA there was a continuing debate and challenge to this decision. It would gain momentum once again and just a few years later, the President of the USGA, Mr. Frank L. Woodward, held an open discussion of the subject at the annual meeting of the Association. The minutes of the meeting give an insight into the controversy and ultimate decision that was made.
The definition of an amateur was discussed and, along with it, Section 7 of the Association’s rules where it states that, “No person shall be considered an amateur golfer or shall be eligible to compete in the Amateur Championship of this Association, or in any event for amateurs authorized or held by it, who accepts or has accepted, directly or indirectly, any fee, gratuity, money or other consideration for playing or teaching the game of golf, or who personally makes or repairs golf clubs, golf balls, or other golf articles for pay, or who is or has been a professional in any other branch of athletics…”
The amateur question had become so heated and debated that Mr. Woodward, while addressing the assembled delegates, could say, “As far as the Executive Committee knows there is nothing to discuss except this matter of this amateur rule, and I take it that you want to have something to say on this subject, and before opening it to general discussion, the Executive Committee has suggested that the matter be presented to you from their standpoint. I do not hesitate to say that the Executive Committee is not in sympathy with all the hectic comments that have been bandied about from mouth to mouth and that have been in the newspapers on the subject…” It would appear that this would include Tilly’s comments as well.
He continued saying, “The Executive Committee has felt at all times that the rule they now have is practically sufficient to cover the situation…”
“Practically sufficient.” Those two words defined the causes of the controversy and why it had come to as heated a situation as it did. The problem wasn’t the definitions of amateur as laid out in Section 7; that was straightforward and clear; no, the real culprit was buried in the procedural laws that the Executive Committee had to abide by in Section 8. Basically, this section provided the rules to be followed by the Committee whenever a situation arose that might require an action or punishment on their part. The problem was that before anything could be done, the section required that, “Protests against any individual for violation of Section 7 of these By-laws (and Section 7 is the definition of an amateur) must be made in writing by a member of a club belonging to this Association and must be sent to the Secretary of this Association with a certificate by the Secretary of such club that the protest is lodged by a member in good standing of such club.”
In other words, the Executive Committee was powerless to address any issue or individual unless there was a formal complaint filed. As Mr. Woodward pointed out to those gathered, “You can readily see how that has pretty nearly prevented the Executive Committee from acting in any case. As a matter of fact they have never had any case of alleged violation presented to them for action, so that as far as they know, officially, there has never been any violation of Rule 7 in the history of the Association.”
He outlined a number of examples of how the amateur rule had been circumvented and showed that under the existing standards nothing could be done to correct or discipline those involved. He then informed all that changes had been decided upon by the Committee. “Now the first announcement that I care to make in this matter is that the Executive Committee intends to either abolish entirely Section 8, wipe it out, or else substitute for it something like this:
‘The Executive Committee shall take cognizance of any violation of Section 7 which may come to its attention in any manner whatever. No person now an amateur shall be declared not to be an amateur without being given the right to be heard in his own defense.’”
Mr. Woodward would proceed to give specific usages dealing with the amateur issue and the broad set of powers the Executive Committee had awarded itself. He also talked about the philosophical aspects of it. “I personally would welcome some kind of a rule which would enable us to penalize clubs belonging to this Association, for permitting their members, or the members of other clubs, doing things which, as a matter of fact, are against the rules of this Association or against the spirit of the amateur rule…”
He would also address the two issues that affected Tillinghast directly and that had led to his being declared professional and causing his severe response. “The Executive Committee thinks, as I said, that the present rule is almost as good a rule as we can possibly have… For instance, it is a question in some minds whether a man should be allowed, for pay, to write for the newspapers, for magazines or write books, or edit magazines or produce for money any form of literary activity.
“The Executive Committee thinks it is wise if the Association permitted every form of literary activity and considers that any one guilty of it and who is bright enough to earn anything thereby, should still be considered an amateur.” There was great applause from those gathered when he said this.
“There is one other point that has given rise to a difference of opinion – that is the question of golf architecture. There is to the minds of the Executive Committee, no real distinction in principle between the activities of a golfer in connection with the laying out and improvement of golf courses and literary activity…”
Tillinghast was proved right in his stance, at least for the moment. Despite this, there is no record that he ever applied for reinstatement of his amateur standing. It may be that he was already giving golf lessons for money, something that he would make reference to in his writings years later, or that he realized that his design work was keeping him so busy that he had very little opportunity to play matches at the competitive levels that he once had.
Things would change again in 1917 at another USGA meeting when this decision would be reversed and simple acts like carrying golf clubs, designing golf courses, or writing a book like this one, would result in being declared a professional. Finally, a number of years later, these matters were settled in favor of Tillinghast’s view.