It might be interesting to note that among the “architects” who have examined some of the courses named and made recommendations for changes was Tilly. He did this both during his PGA Course Consultation Tour and before it. For those of you who are familiar with these courses, I would love to know how much of his recommendations were carried through.
Tilly examined La Cumbre on 2/26/1936. He recommended the following be done:
1- A new teeing-ground for the 2nd hole adding “needed yardage.”
2- A new green site for the 5th hole “on a rise beyond the present” location.
3- A new bunkering plan for the 11th green “for which I made a sketch.” (I strongly suggest that if anyone is a member or knows someone who is one that they make a concerted effort to locate this in their files. It would be quite valuable and historically important.)
4- Complete redesign of the 13th hole. “This last presented quite a perplexing problem for the original lay-out had worked the course into a jam at this point. However I finally found the solution with a teeing-ground at an entirely different spot than at present and an entirely new green, some 60 yards beyond the old one. After all, it worked out beautifully.”
Tilly examined Rancho Santa Fe on 12/30/1936. This was a most interesting visit and report as you will see, and I think quite germane to this discussion. In his report, Tilly wrote:
“I already was familiar with this course, for I went over it two years ago when I was editor of Golf Illustrated. At that time I rated the Rancho Santa Fe as one of the potentially great courses of California. I have reason to change this opinion. The turf on both fairway and green is in better condition than when I saw it first when it was about five years old.
“However they have started in recently to make a few blunders, as indicated today. The situation is this; unfortunately the professional does not have charge of the maintenance of the course in this instance and instead he has enjoyed but small opportunity to advice. The development of the course in its entirety is wholly in the hand of a superintendent, who evidently is not fully acquainted with modern golf course ideas. As a consequence he has introduced new traps on the 6th 12th and 18th holes, which are not only badly conceived, crudely contrived (particularly in the last two instances) but entirely out of harmony with the original fine contours of these holes.
Tom, I completely agree with your statement, “I've always thought that it would just be important to come up with a list of courses which are considered historic in nature, and try to persuade those clubs to be more sensitive…”
Unfortunately I must take strong exception to your view that you “don't think the Donald Ross Society or the Tillinghast Society or others are the proper sources for a list such as mentioned above. They are prone to have members who want to be power brokers who make deals for "excellent restoration architects," and all that does is ensure that MORE construction work gets done. There are a few Donald Ross courses which have now been restored THREE DIFFERENT TIMES by three different restorers…”
I cannot speak for the Donald Ross Society and the advice they give to both architects and clubs when asked for advice, but I can most definitely state there are NO “Power Brokers” seeking to “make deals for excellent restoration architects” in the Tillinghast Association.
I can do this because for the last few years the extreme majority of requests for aid from Tillinghast clubs, whether it be one of historical research, aid in locating an architect or, as in the case of one course that is fighting to keep their doors open yet desperately needs advice on how to upgrade the course in-house, being asked to give some bootstrap architectural advice, has been directed to me.
The irony of your placing the Tillinghast Association in this category is that in the last two years I have actually given the name of a firm that has chosen to do very few restorations, and is headed by Mr. Tom Doak.
It is BECAUSE of the perception that you mentioned above that we try to go out of our way to neither encourage clubs to use specific architects nor ever speak poorly of someone’s work unless very specific circumstances dictate it.
There have been a number of circumstances where Tillinghast clubs have decided to do restoration/renovation work and asked for help in researching the features that Tilly actually designed into their course. In these cases we share the same information with ALL architects involved in bidding the work as well as with the club. If it is helpful, wonderful; if not, all are free to ignore it. In NO CASE is favoritism shown.
I’d like to ask you to reconsider your viewpoint on this as far as the Tillinghast Association is concerned.
That said, and for the purpose of full disclosure, last year I founded a company named Golden Age Research. Through this company I provide specific research services for clubs and architects for a variety of reasons including aid in identifying course features that should be given consideration for either restoration or removal whether it be a Tillinghast course or the work of another architect.
This business is COMPLETELY separate from what I do for the Tillinghast Association and, in fact, any and all requests for research through the Tillinghast Association that I work on, is done completely and totally free of any charge.
Tom, although, as I stated, I take "strong exception" to your view on this, I do recognize that it is your view and can only hope that you give us an opportunity to change it.