Tom,
You seem to have drawn a conclusion that has no basis and not want to back out of despite my pointing out to you that you haven't investigated the tour properly and are now simply "finding the proof" rather than seeing what is there:
"Here is a synopsis of his 21 PGA Magazine articles during the time of his tour. Clearly the architectural emphasis early on was the elimination of Duffers' Headaches as cost savings measure." This is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!
Article 1: “Let us briefly regard the newly instituted service of the PGA, extended without fees to golf courses throughout the US wherever a PGA member is affiliated. It is a sincere gesture from the professionals to do something more for the game from which they derive a livelihood-something which will gradually improve courses generally by making them more pleasurable for more people. Obviously this is a far-sighted policy for as more players are attracted to the game, naturally the field of the professional is broadened. Expert advice, which emphasizes a concentration on vitally important details and the elimination of obsolete and unnecessary features, must direct budgets to doing the most good.”
This was completely discussed in my response post #17. I see that you simply ignored it. Once again, in it I have pointed out that you have NEVER read the letters or reports from the tour sent to the PGA. I have. You have
Thank you for your opinion. When you state, "You can believe what you want..." I can certainly say the same is true for you. The difference between where our opinions are derived is night and day. I have read EVERY single one of his letters to the PGA... you have not. I have read more than 90 INDIVIDUAL course reports that discussed the specifics... you have not. I have copies of more than 30 sketches that he left with these courses showing the details of his recommendations... you do not. I have contacted and had ongoing discussions with 127 of these courses about his visits... you have not. I have a database of nearly 150 newspaper articles from around the country in which the details and generalities were reported and/or discussed. You do not. It for those reasons and others that your statement, "His articles and interviews indicate what he believed were important changes at the time, his public stance if you will, and the elimination of the DH was a major theme of those articles. I will repeat it is debatable if the tour was a positive or negative from an architectural point of view..." can not be given credence as you speak to neither point from anything near knowledge of either event.
Article 2: Article on Ross’s Pinehurst #2 which hosted the 1936 PGA. No mention of the DHs at Pinehurst of which I count 15 on 14 holes , that is if you count the pond on #16. The number goes up to 42 if you include hazards in Tilly’s secondary duffer zone.
Tilly wasn't there to examine the course. he was there to visit his "old friend" and to enjoy a day appreciating the work of another master architect while walking alongside him.
Article 3: He explains the problems created by amateur architects and/or green committees, and the political difficulty in having these problems undone.
"Now the conclusions I have drawn are many and various. Conditions differ so widely in the wide sections of our country that no fixed rule may always be applied..."
Article 4: “While, as I have said, the courses generally are structurally and strategically improved over those of a few years back, yet there are enough of the Cheap-John, amateurish sort, rather cluttered with sand pits that cost money to maintain for no other purpose that to discourage the very player at golf, who need encouraging most. When speaking of these abominations in my reports to the PGA for brevity sake I simply call them DHs (short for Duffers’ Headaches). I am thoroughly delighted by the reaction of green committees everywhere to our doctrine of the elimination of these relics of golf’s dark age. There will be more about them in subsequent papers.”
This was a MINOR POINT mentioned in paragraph 9 on page two! Yet you want to make it appear as if the article was written about the elimination of DH's in chief! Tom, open your eyes and see what is actually there.
Article 5: An article on blending the slopes of greens more naturally.
What, couldn't find any mention of DH's in there?
Article 6: This article is devoted to Tilly’s new ideas on modern bunkering. Here he explains (and diagrams) that there should be bunker free Duffer Zones – the first zone from the tee to 175 yards from the tee and the secondary zone from 250 yards to just short of the green. He appears to have co-oped Tom Simpson’s ideas of bunkering, in fact he refers to “attack and defense.”
Here again it shows that you neither appreciate what this article states nor have you examined Tilly's philosophies of design throughout his career. This is nothing new that he hasn't written before, and quite OFTEN! To you he "appears to have "co-opted Tom Simpson's ideas of bunkering" but that only shows that you haven't read or missed when you did what he wrote about proper bunkering techniques as early as 1914!
By the way, you GLARINGLY leave out the minor detail of how Tilly PLACED A BUNKER NOT SHOWN IN Fig. 1 In Fig. 2 IN HIS SECONDARY DH ZONE! CARE TO EXPLAIN THAT? To save you the time, it was placed there as a hazard for the BETTER PLAYER'S TEE SHOT! You see, NOT ALL BUNKERS that YOU SEE as being DH's are. You have "counted numbers of them in several of your responses here and this shows that you don't have an understanding of why Tilly defined CETAIN BUNKERS AND OTHER HAZARDS as DH's.
Article 7: A continuation of the previous article but dealing with the arrangement of greenside bunkers, again very similar to Simpson.
Again... nothing new and a continuation of Tilly's philosophies of designing hazards from the early teens.
Article 8: Tilly argues bunkers fifteen and twenty yards short of the green should be moved up close to the green, consistent with secondary duffer zone in the previous article.
This is glaring how you simply want to see a point that not only isn't being made but ISN'T EVEN MENTIONED BY TILLY! Show me the reference to DH's? There ISN'T any. In fact, the article is NOT about where or how to locate greenside bunkers at all despite the short reference to the PREVIOUS article about this. Rather, it is, AS TILLY'S OWN WORDS CLEARLY STATE, "The real topic of my paper this month concerns the arrangement of the sand in pits, guarding greens..."
Tom you are being blinded by your own conclusions...
Article 9: An article on Oakland Hills the 1937 US Open site. No mention of the DHs of which I count 30.
First of all you appear to have MISSED AN ARTICLE that Tilly wrote the month before this one in the October issue. Don't worry, that one DIDN'T mention DH's either! As far as your comments on this one, once again, your perception of what DH's actually are can be called into serious question. In addition, you missed the point of both the article and the reason for his stopping at the course.
He wrote that "I was requested... for an exchange of ideas regarding the preparation of that course for the National Championship..." Tilly was NOT CALLED IN to EXAMINE IT FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE! In addition, he stated, "In this rather sketchy review of the course for next year's Open..." When we get to his report on the course at that point during his Tour I will share with you what is letter to the PGA included! You will then understand WHY he made that statement...
Article 10: The subject of this article is the importance of practice grounds.
AGAIN... nothing on DH's.
Article 11: “During the past sixteen months, since I have been traveling to the remote parts of the country inspecting courses as consultant of the PGA, it is a matter of record that I have condemned nearly eight thousand sand traps. I have contend that there have been maintained at considerable cost to nearly four hundred clubs, that they unnecessarily harass the majority of those who take to the game for pleasure without in the least causing that comparatively small number of par shooters to give them a thought, and usually injecting a thoroughly discordant note and smudging an otherwise beautiful picture of rural landscape. My arguments against over-trapped courses have appeared already in my monthly contributions to this magazine and have had the ears of many green committees along my route.” Its difficult not to think of Tilly’s debate with JH Taylor in which Taylor argued that American courses had become too difficult for the average golfer. Ironically, Tilly has now reversed course and is now making Taylor’s argument.
What is ironic is that you once again miss the point of the entire article and show a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of Tilly's bunker design philosophies through the years. Tilly simply had not "reversed course" and was definitely NOT making "Taylor's argument." He was speaking about PROPER BUNKER PLACEMENT and how a sand HAZARD could actually be a better result for a wayward shot than if the ball had travelled beyond it into even worse conditions!
Article 12: An article on bent grass greens in Texas (as opposed the sand greens).
Again, no DH's are mentioned!
Article 13: Tilly discusses the design of the short par-4s.
Once again, no mention of DH's! Yet he did condemn the use of certain fronting bunker types that more severely punished the average player than the expert.
Article 14: An article on trees and the preference on an irregular line, as opposed to straight line of trees along the sides of fairways. This is very similar to the chapter on trees in Wethered & Simpson’s book.
ONCE AGAIN, there is NO MENTION of DH's. As for your developing theme that appears be that Tilly is doing nothing more than copying ideas from more noteworthy architects, it is quite apparent that you neither know nor understand what Tilly wrote about these subjects through the years. When Volume II of my series on Tilly comes out, coincidentally if you haven't guessed it is an exhaustive study on his Philosophies of Design put into practice, I will send you a copy... autographed of course!
Article 15: An article on Par.
Again, no DH's.
Article 16: This is an article on gimmes.
Once again, WHAT is NJOT mentioned?
Article 17: An article on long one-shot holes in which Tilly argues no par-3 should be longer than 195 yards. He goes on to re-explain his consultation service. There had been some confusion about if there was a charge for the service. There was also a concern from some clubs that Tilly would be overly critical of their course. “On the contrary, the policy is altogether constructive and shaped along economic lines.” Again Tilly stresses the goal of his service is economic savings.
Tom, I really am baffled how you, who have complained about and condemned on other threads those who you feel have INTENTIONALLY LEFT OUT phrases to make a point even going to the extreme as to ACCUSE them of PURPOSEFULLY CHANGING THE DOCUMENTS IN THEIR POSTS, have done the SAME THING! Or how do you explain leaving out this phrase... "UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS..."?
See, Tilly DIDN'T write, as you CLEARLY state, "Tilly argues no par-3 should be longer than 195 yards" but rather, and pay careful attention to what I have underlined, "May I go on record therefor in stating that I have come to the conclusion that 195 yards under normal conditions should be the extreme length of the one-shotter." Tilly designed one-shotters much longer than 195 yards that met the exception to this.
This is very poor analysis on your part and appears to PURPOSEFULLY misrepresents what he wrote. I say that before someone else does and to add that I DON'T accuse you of doing that. You are an honorable man and would never do so despite your glaring error.
Article 18: This is an article on Bethpage-Black that was modeled after Pine Valley. There is no mention of the numerous DHs.
Again, you seem to insist that there is something there that isn't. You also are stretching every limit imaginable to make a point that can't be made. The article was a very Brief on of only 5 paragraphs and contained no real course analysis at all.
Article 19: An article on very short par-3s.
Article 20: Another article on Par.
Article 21: An article on turf issues.
And again, all three of these articles have NOTHING about DH's!
Tom, you began your post and statement by stating that, "Here is a synopsis of his 21 PGA Magazine articles during the time of his tour. Clearly the architectural emphasis early on was the elimination of Duffers' Headaches as cost savings measure..."
One would have expected that condemnation of DH's would have been found in nearly all of them or, at the very least, mentions of them. Yet in but 2 of the articles were they mentioned and only one occasion in a substantive way.
Tom, you are arguing a conclusion that can't be drawn and is not supported. I STRONGLY suggest that you examine the information more carefully and wait on the information to come out that is contained in Tilly's own writings to the PGA before jumping to a conclusion that isn't there...