[Tom MacWood]

In 1917 JH Taylor wrote an article ('Modern Courses Too Severe') in which warned that modern golf architects, and in particular American golf architects, were in danger of making their golf courses too difficult for the average golfer.

   "The vast majority never attain to even a modicum of sureness in their control of direction and strength. If this be conceded it seems to me to be something akin to golf suicide to jeopardize the future welfare of the game, cramp the initiative of the player, and hinder his progress by making the links too difficult. It was a phase of links architecture that was rapidly coming to a most dangerous pass in this country three years ago and from what I can learn it seems that American golf is threatened with the same peril. I gather from good sources that the architecture thinks he has earned his fee to the full if he succeeds in making his last creation more difficult than its predecessor. I understand from one, whom I consider to be one of the best judges of the game in America, that one of your very latest courses simply bristles with difficulties from tee to pin and this applies to everyone of the eighteen holes. I cannot conceive that this can be sound in theory and do not believe that it can be defended from any standpoint."

Tilly responded by saying one should not judge American golf by the two or three courses designed specifically for experts (like PVGC), and that vast majority of American courses were enjoyed by all levels. In fact he said the challenges presented by the modern American course would inspire the poor golfer to improve his game. It is similar theory to the one I quoted from Tilly yesterday, in which he suggested the reason America was producing better golfers - her scientifically trapped, championship courses.

   "The thoroughly modern courses are the most popular in America and those who first opposed reconstrcution along up-to-date lines, are loudest in their praise, after testing the new conditions. The duffer knows now that the new courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for the game. No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries. The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitation of each, meet with hearty approval. The chronic grumblers, and there are a few, usually are short players, who are disinclined to take the shorter safer routes from teeing ground to green. Naturally, some of the unreasoning players will pin future wails on Taylor's remark that any kind of a course will show the better players to advantage. These same men undoubtedly would be elated if all hazards were condemned and funnel like greens advocated. Even some of the most exacting courses are very popular among the most mediocre players.

    I take exception when Taylor asserts that the humble golfer on a modern course 'approaches the making of each stroke with fear and trembling.' I boldly assert that a properly planned course will inspire any player with confidence as he plays day after day, and do much to improve his strokes, which is the ambition of everyone who swings a club."

A couple of things hit me in Tilly's response. His thoughts on bunkering and the duffer are very similar to Mackenzie's ideas of creating pleasurable excitement - creating hazards or conditions that look hard for the duffer but play relatively easy. The other thing that strikes me is his disdain for shorter hitter (the chronic grumbler) who doesn't have the intelligence to take the longer safer route.

Throughout the twenties Tilly continued to produce and promote the American championship course, his last design being the very testing Bethpage-Black. Immediately after designing Bethpage Tilly embarked on his PGA tour and began singing a different tune.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You stated, "A couple of things hit me in Tilly's response. His thoughts on bunkering and the duffer are very similar to Mackenzie's ideas of creating pleasurable excitement - creating hazards or conditions that look hard for the duffer but play relatively easy..." I disagree with that premise, but since this topic of discussion is about "Tilly's Curious Transformation" I'll restrict my comments to what you next stated.

"The other thing that strikes me is his disdain for shorter hitter (the chronic grumbler) who doesn't have the intelligence to take the longer safer route."

This seems  to be implying that Tilly held lesser players in "disdain" and viewed them as falling into the category of being "constant grumbler's." That simply is not true. Tilly championed the lesser player and prided himself on designing courses that would be fun for them to play while also present much greater challenges the better the player was.

Your key point though, is when you state, "Throughout the twenties Tilly continued to produce and promote the American championship course, his last design being the very testing Bethpage-Black. Immediately after designing Bethpage Tilly embarked on his PGA tour and began singing a different tune."

This is incorrect and let's show you from Tilly's own words that it is so...

During the PGA Course Consultation Tour, the time where you claim Tilly did a "curious transformation" he wrote the following. "I am the duffers’ Santa Claus, for over 20 years I have championed the cause of the ‘forgotten man’ of golf, the duffer who cannot break 90 and who comprise over 90% of our vast army of golfers. The future progress of this game depends entirely upon the active interest of the average divot-digging member. The trend has been to sock the helpless and hopeless dub with courses that are almost impossible for them to negotiate. I am against it, the P.G.A. is against it and every sound thinking professional is against it. I am the duffers’ candidate, and shall continue to defend them until my last breath.”

Now according to your statement Tilly would have to be outright LYING to make that statement. He clearly stated that "For over 20 years I have championed the cause of the ‘forgotten man’ of golf, the duffer who cannot break 90 and who comprise over 90% of our vast army of golfers..." Yet according to you he hadn't. Let's again turn to Tilly's own writings.

This is from, The Golf Course, and is titled "Modern Golf Chats." It was written exactly 20 YEARS BEFORE in 1916:

      “If our holes are of proper distances as dictated by natural conditions, the duffer who misses a stroke cannot be figured as a serious factor, so why add to his discomfiture? ‘But how may this be accomplished?’ is a most natural question to ask. Let me attempt a simple and brief explanation, for in the limited space of these tabloid articles, elaborate analysis is impossible. Instead of relying on hazards which extend directly across the line of play we are building them diagonally. It is obvious that these diagonal hazard lines present a much longer carry at one end than at the other, and all carries between the two points vary. In the placement of the short carry we consider the light hitter, and as he stands prepared to play at such a hazard, he is to be the judge of the distance which he may successfully attempt. After a while, as he finds his game improving, it is natural that he becomes more ambitious, and he attempts greater things which he knows will be adequately rewarded, for the hazards guarding the approaches to the green are placed in such a manner as to grade the benefits of length and accuracy. In brief, every player gets exactly what may be coming to him and it is not necessary for anyone to bite off more than he can swallow… In subsequent articles I shall attempt further explanations of why modern golf construction is taking care of every class of player."

Another example can be found in the response to Taylor that you posted. You chose to concentrate on his remonstrance of the grumblers "of which there are a few" rather than the others of who make up the vast majority of lesser players and who he wrote about BEFORE and AFTER that small piece:

"The duffer knows now that the new courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for the game. No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries. The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitation of each, meet with hearty approval. The chronic grumblers, and there are a few, usually are short players, who are disinclined to take the shorter safer routes from teeing ground to green. Naturally, some of the unreasoning players will pin future wails on Taylor's remark that any kind of a course will show the better players to advantage. These same men undoubtedly would be elated if all hazards were condemned and funnel like greens advocated. Even some of the most exacting courses are very popular among the most mediocre players.

Tilly wrote often through the years about the importance of designing and building courses that could be both enjoyable by all and, more importantly, more importantly present fair and exacting challenges for players of ALL abilities.

Your premise is incorrect.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
Who said Tilly wasn't building courses for the enjoyment of all golfers in the teens and twenties? You don't have to clear out all the bunkers within 175 yards from the tee and 175 yards from the green to build a course enjoyable for all levels. Please re-read Tilly's 1917 response and while you are at read Mackenzie's 'Spirit of St. Andrews.' Golfers of all levels enjoy the challenge and exhilaration of hazards as much as anyone. The sparsely bunkered courses of Simpson and Mackenzie's later courses were not devoid of hazards in Tilly's Duffer Zones.

Do you think one of the reasons Tilly emphasized the removal of bunkers during his PGA stint was due to the fact they could quantify the cost savings?

[Phil_the_Author]

Toim,

You asked, "Do you think one of the reasons Tilly emphasized the removal of bunkers during his PGA stint was due to the fact they could quantify the cost savings?"

NO. He recommended the removal of DH's long before there was any quantifying done. By the way, do you klnow when that actually first began?

Can you clearly state what the "Curious Transformation" that Tilly underwent exactly was?

[Peter Pallotta]

If I'm understanding things right, I'm not sure there was a transformation as much as a simple shift in focus, i.e. Tillinghast moved from designing a select number of championship courses/championship tests to advising a large number of (mainly) modest courses about better serving the average golfer, and doing it more cheaply.

Here's another snippet from the same article that Tom referenced for his Tillie quote from yesterday:

"Put your thunder on the left" is a cardinal axiom of American course builders. They realize that the man to harass is the star who makes a slight mistake. Therefore, they set a trap well out on the left flank to catch the top-notcher who gets a bit of a hook when pressing for distance. "Penalize the 'almost good shot' of the crack player," says Tillinghast, "and let the dub make his own trouble. Let the right-hand border of a golf course take care of itself. Put your pits on the left side, well out, to catch the long hitters who get too much right-hand into their shots. When the star lets his wrists roll over, he is apt to draw a bad kick to the left. American courses are designed to penalize the top-notcher who errs slightly; British links were planned to harry the already exasperated duffer. We bunker for the man higher up."

Tillie here -- with words like "star" and "top-notcher" and "crack-player" and "long-hitter" -- seems to be going out of his way to stress that he is talking about challenging the best of players, and that seems to me a natural focus for him in 1927, around the time he was designing courses like Bethpage. But naturally, when he set out later to help the PGA and average courses all around the country, his focus was (as it should've been) wholly different.

No?

Peter

[Phil_the_Author]

Peter,

I think we will find that Tom is not refering to Tilly going from designing to advising. But I will wait for him to be specific...

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
I do believe one of the reasons bunker removal was emphasized in all the releases from the PGA was due to the fact they could quantify the savings. They were able assign an arbitrary value to every bunker removed. In fact I would submit Tilly's theory that their should be two duffer zones was concocted to help support the bunker removal project. That duffer zone theory has no architectural integrity as far as I can tell. Perhaps you explain why you believe it was a sound idea?

[Tom MacWood]

Can you clearly state what the "Curious Transformation" that Tilly underwent exactly was?

Phil
Going from designing some of his most boldly bunkered and beautifully bunkered courses late in his career (Ridgewood 1929, Bethpage-Red 1934, Bethpage Black 1934) to advocating bunker free zones. That was the transformation, and it was literally over night.

By the way do you know which course Tilly advised the removal of 92 bunkers?

[Tom MacWood]

Peter
Supposedly the twenties were the golden age in golf architecture, very good courses of all types were being designed, and many of these courses were designed with some championship aspiration, that was the American way, are you suggesting that actually the high point was in the mid-30s after Tilly removed 10,000 unnecessary bunkers. Do you believe his theory regarding bunker free zones was a good one from an architectural viewpoint?

Desperate times call for desperate measures. That is what this was all about, and it was not a high point in the annals of golf architecture. I can't imagine his fellow architects, who were still trying to scratch out a living in golf design, were thrilled to see him give his services away for free, guys like William Flynn, Perry Maxwell, Stanley Thompson and Trent Jones. I'm sure Phil will point out Tilly threw a bone to Maxwell, but still how do you compete with a headline architect who is working for free.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I agree with your statement that he transformed.  I disagree that it was curious in any way.  He is out of work, the PGA calls and hires him as a course advisor to their members. I am sure their emphasis was to save money, as you posit.  

When Tillie was commissioned to design "a man sized course" at WF he did so.  When tasked with looking at the course from a more balanced view of economics and design, he did that, too.  He was, in current parlance, "coachable."  He was also practical, and the great depression would do that to you, just as its doing it now.

I think Phil is right that he considered the plight of the average golfer earlier in his career.  I don't think he had as many top shot bunkers as Ross, for example, or the typical cross bunkering evident in early American architecture, even in his early and championship courses.  His writings were of the oblique fw for choices, etc.  So, I believe he is comparing himself (still) to the pre 1900 architects and still thinks he is making it easier on duffers from early on.

Then, when he gets into the PGA consulting role, the emphasis just flipped the 70-30% balance of challenge vs maintenance in his mind to fit the times.  If it was a matter of a course going out of business vs. maintaining US Open difficulty we associate with Tillie today, I can see his thought process, and that of the PGA.

I know you are trying to stimulate discussion, as we all should on a.....well, discussion board.  But, in all reallity, for someone who has studied golf architecture and is in the world of finance and business, what part of this is curious to you? 

Whoops, our posts crossed!  I guess there isn't anything curious about it, its just the title you chose.......I hadn't really thought of the competitive aspect.  Was the PGA service totally free, or did they charge expenses to the club?  I should know this, but I guess I don't.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You stated, "I do believe one of the reasons bunker removal was emphasized in all the releases from the PGA was due to the fact they could quantify the savings. They were able assign an arbitrary value to every bunker removed."

I don't disagree with that. Question... WHEN did Tilly & the PGA begin to quantify the savings and mention them in their press releases?

"In fact I would submit Tilly's theory that their should be two duffer zones was concocted to help support the bunker removal project. That duffer zone theory has no architectural integrity as far as I can tell. Perhaps you explain why you believe it was a sound idea?"

Tom, that is so ludicrous a statement that it becomes laughable. CONCOCTED!?! Because YOU see no "architectural integrity" it means that Tilly MADE THIS UP? I will certainly explain it to you, but first, answer this... define what you mean by "architectural integrity" in this regard? Without knowing that it will be a pointless exercise.

"Going from designing some of his most boldly bunkered and beautifully bunkered courses late in his career (Ridgewood 1929, Bethpage-Red 1934, Bethpage Black 1934) to advocating bunker free zones. That was the transformation, and it was literally over night."

Tilly did NOT recommend "bunker free zones." He recommended the SAME BUNKER CONCEPT that he had since he began designing courses... that bunkers should be placed WHERE THEY CHALLENGE and NOT WHERE THEY SIMPLY PUNISH! As an example of this, look at the illustration included in the article in your first post. His sketch on the right illustrates a hole that includes two "Duffer Ranges."

Question... IF, as you contend, Tilly recommended "bunker FREE zones" for the Duffer, WHY did he ADD a NEW BUNKER on the right side of the fairway in the BEGINNING OF THE DUFFER'S RANGE? According to your theory it shouldn't even be there!

As I stated on the PGA Tour thread, I don't believe you understand what "Duffer's Headaches" are. You certainly are unaware that through the years in many of his redesigns he REMOVED these types of features. 

You asked, "By the way do you know which course Tilly advised the removal of 92 bunkers?"

Yes, I do.

You mentioned to Peter, "Desperate times call for desperate measures. That is what this was all about, and it was not a high point in the annals of golf architecture. I can't imagine his fellow architects, who were still trying to scratch out a living in golf design, were thrilled to see him give his services away for free, guys like William Flynn, Perry Maxwell, Stanley Thompson and Trent Jones. I'm sure Phil will point out Tilly threw a bone to Maxwell, but still how do you compete with a headline architect who is working for free."

This is NOT what this was all about. Again, you show that you DON'T know either the history of the tour nor what Tilly actually did. First of all the consultation service was the idea of George Jacobus. Tilly was asked if he would do this; he had no input into bringing it about other than agreeing to do it. Tilly was paid VERY LITTLE for this work. Yet you imply that he was either creating business for himself, a tough idea to sell since NEITHER HE NOR THE PGA was being paid a single penny for this consultation or TAKING what little work was available AWAY from his brother architects.

You are quite right when stating that Tilly would, how did you put it, "Tilly threw a bone to Maxwell." Tilly was CONSTANTLY throwing out "bones" during the entirety of his tour to his fellow architects. There are a number of mentions in his daily reports of clubs asking him to oversee the work that he recommended and Tilly telling them that the PURPOSE OF THE SERVICE WAS NOT for him to do that. He then recommended "LOCAL ARCHITECTS" who would both Do the work and, more importantly, GET PAID FOR IT!

Tilly was NOT COMPETING with his fellow architects, actually he was CREATING WORK for many architects nationwide. Oh yes, that also includes Mr. Flynn who he recommended by name along with Mr. Maxwell and MANY OTHERS! Only a miniscule number of the courses he visited had PLANNED ANY CONSIDERABLE amount of work BEFORE he visited them. He convinced many clubs to SPEND MONEY in order to SAVE MONEY and in so doing he PUT A LOT OF ARCHITECTS TO WORK!

Jeff,

What Tom & most don't understand is WHEN & WHY Tilly & the PGA began to quantify monies saved and who the information was mostly for. I will be speaking to this issue on the PGA Tour thread when it gets to that point during which it occurred. By doing it that way it will become quite obvious...

Tilly's designs were based upon many factors, the first always being what did the customer want! Even during the Depression he built courses where he overspent seemingly unlimited budgets. For example, there is Aldecress, known today as Alpine. The following is from the book, Tillinghast: Creator of Golf Courses:

      "An article was written that described the wonder of the entire project and the imaginative construction methods used. It stated that, “When A.W. Tillinghast, the golf architect, was called in, the sponsors simply said, ‘There it is; build us a golf course, no questions asked or advice given,’ he was told… And by careful economy Tillinghast was able to keep the construction costs down to the figures quoted above…” and “The finished product was a monument to golf architecture. Aldecress is a golf architect’s Dream.”
      In the article Tilly described with pride and in great detail that “there was a deal of tree removal (big fellows), draining and above all, very far above all, we were messing around in huge stone outcrop over the entire area. And that means real money. But my clients wanted the last word and were prepared to spend sufficient to get just that. Among the hundreds of golf courses that I have designed and constructed, Aldecress (which is most exclusive and never seen by but a favored few) was by far the toughest course to build that I ever encountered.”
      Because of the huge sums of money being spent, criticism was leveled at the project, the owners and Tillinghast. He answered by making a comparison with a fine 18 hole golf course near Jamestown, Rhode Island, named Beaver Tail that he had designed and built for less than $25,000. “There,” he wrote, “I had nature helping me at every turn. Aldecress took two years of real tough work.” It also took an expenditure of, “about $440,000. But the situation was most unusual.”

1931 & Tilly builds a course with "economy" that costs $440,000...

You stated, "Then, when he gets into the PGA consulting role, the emphasis just flipped the 70-30% balance of challenge vs maintenance in his mind to fit the times.  If it was a matter of a course going out of business vs. maintaining US Open difficulty we associate with Tillie today, I can see his thought process, and that of the PGA."

What almost all who discuss this PGA course consultation Tour ignore is exactly how Tilly chose to go to the courses that he did. The answer is that HE DIDN'T. Each course had to APPLY FOR THE SERVICE, even those that contacted him when he was in their area. THEY SPECIFIED what they wanted hi to examine and why. That is the reason that he didn't recommend the removal of DH's unless they were on holes that he was invited to examine. In EVERY instance where there were numbers of these hazards that he recommended to a course for removal, he had been invited by the club to examine the ENTIRE COURSE, performing what he referred to as a "complete examination" and so recommended accordingly. He was not walking onto courses with the ideas to FIND DH's to remove. Unfortunately they were very much the part of many courses found throughout America in those years. 

[Tom MacWood]

I think Phil is right that he considered the plight of the average golfer earlier in his career.  I don't think he had as many top shot bunkers as Ross, for example, or the typical cross bunkering evident in early American architecture, even in his early and championship courses.  His writings were of the oblique fw for choices, etc.  So, I believe he is comparing himself (still) to the pre 1900 architects and still thinks he is making it easier on duffers from early on.

Who said he didn't consider the plight of the averager golfer earlier in his career? Regarding 'top shot bunkers' Tillinghast, Ross, Mackenzie, Thompson, Thomas, Fowler, Colt, Emmet, Alison, Raynor, Macdonald, Park, etc all placed bunkers in Tilly's Duffer Zone 150 yards off the tee, and they all considered the plight of the average golfer. Which article are you referring to in which he is comparing himself to pre 1900? [/glow]

Then, when he gets into the PGA consulting role, the emphasis just flipped the 70-30% balance of challenge vs maintenance in his mind to fit the times.  If it was a matter of a course going out of business vs. maintaining US Open difficulty we associate with Tillie today, I can see his thought process, and that of the PGA.

So you are acknowledging the ideas Tilly promoted during his PGA tour were a departure from his previous ideas and had to do more with saving money than good golf architecture?

I know you are trying to stimulate discussion, as we all should on a.....well, discussion board.  But, in all reallity, for someone who has studied golf architecture and is in the world of finance and business, what part of this is curious to you? 

I guess you haven't been following the threads of the last few days. That was tongue and cheek....Phil is not acknowledging there was any transformation. On the other hand it is interesting or curious that in the end took JH Taylor's position.

Whoops, our posts crossed!  I guess there isn't anything curious about it, its just the title you chose.......I hadn't really thought of the competitive aspect.  Was the PGA service totally free, or did they charge expenses to the club?  I should know this, but I guess I don't.

His consulting service was free.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Absolutely I think his position changed.  Its not perhaps as black and white, given that he had some thoughts concerning average golfers, and the like earlier. But, prior to 1929 his clients probably didn't ask for that kind of design.

Its not unlike Tom Doak taking on Commonground after doing so many high profile courses.  Its not that he doesn't have it in him, its just that he took better projects when available.

But yeah, Tillie was desparate enough to take a consulting job for the PGA at some nominal compensation just to keep his hand in for a few years and if they wanted to save clubs money, then that was his emphasis, no doubt in my mind.

I guess the real question - unanswerable - is if he had lived past WW II to compete with Jones, etc., would he build the former championship courses he had built, or how would his designs have changed? I gather that would be the proof in the pudding as to what the depth of his transformation would have been.

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
That is a good question. Its hard to say how Tilly's architecture would have evolved had he lived past WWII. I'm confident his duffer free zone would have been tossed in the garbage. Ironically his later designs (Ridgewood & Bethpage) were among his most bold - well bunkered and at even bigger scale than any of his previous work. Rand Jerris of the USGA, who knows more about Tilly's architecture than anyone I know, told me he thought those bold designs were influenced by Stanley Thompson. Tilly was editor of Golf Illustrated in the 1930s and Thompson's courses were often featured. He also seems to be well versed in Simpson's theories based on his allusions to Simpson in his PGA articles. Perhaps a Thompson-Simpson-Tilly combination would have been his post WWII style.

How do you think Tilly's fellow architects would have taken his free consulting service...from coast to coast?

I also wonder how they would have taken his removal 8000+ bunkers on some of their golf courses. That is a hell of a lot of bunkers removed, especially when you figure in his entire career (probably designing 80 courses with an average of 60 bunkers maybe) he planted less than 5000 in twenty plus years.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
Which course did Tilly remove 92 bunkers?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You asked, "Which course did Tilly remove 92 bunkers?" Thatb will be answered in the PGA Tour thread when I get to the date and course and no sooner. You can wait or do the research yourself...

By the way, I see that you have completely ignored my last post in which I  addressed your question to Jeff, "How do you think Tilly's fellow architects would have taken his free consulting service...from coast to coast?"

It also spoke to the point that you keep INCORRECTLY making of "bunker FREE zones" as that is something that Tilly NEVER advocated or wrote about.

You also have yet to answer my question from that same post in which I wrote, "In fact I would submit Tilly's theory that their should be two duffer zones was concocted to help support the bunker removal project. That duffer zone theory has no architectural integrity as far as I can tell. Perhaps you explain why you believe it was a sound idea?"

Tom, that is so ludicrous a statement that it becomes laughable. CONCOCTED!?! Because YOU see no "architectural integrity" it means that Tilly MADE THIS UP? I will certainly explain it to you, but first, answer this... define what you mean by "architectural integrity" in this regard? Without knowing that it will be a pointless exercise..."

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

One other point. You asked, "I also wonder how they would have taken his removal 8000+ bunkers on some of their golf courses. That is a hell of a lot of bunkers removed, especially when you figure in his entire career (probably designing 80 courses with an average of 60 bunkers maybe) he planted less than 5000 in twenty plus years."

Can you find one article, one single article or newspaper account where another architect condemned Tilly's recommendations for the removal off DH's. ONE ARTICLE? The GLARING absence of any architect even mildly criticizing him would seem to clearly answer your question of how they felt.

By the way, not that I agree with your assessment that Tilly averaged 60 bunkers a course, but 3 & 1/2 bunkers a hole certainly mean that he wasn't out there placing bunkers where duffers would hit into them. It certainly proves that he spent his entire career doing exactly what you state is a "curious transformation" by your own words. Also, we currently know of 89 original designs and are in contact with three clubs that believe they may also be unknown original Tilly's as well. Tilly himself wrote that heb had designed "several hundred" courses during his career.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

You asked, "Which course did Tilly remove 92 bunkers?" Thatb will be answered in the PGA Tour thread when I get to the date and course and no sooner. You can wait or do the research yourself...

By the way, I see that you have completely ignored my last post in which I  addressed your question to Jeff, "How do you think Tilly's fellow architects would have taken his free consulting service...from coast to coast?"

It also spoke to the point that you keep INCORRECTLY making of "bunker FREE zones" as that is something that Tilly NEVER advocated or wrote about.

You also have yet to answer my question from that same post in which I wrote, "In fact I would submit Tilly's theory that their should be two duffer zones was concocted to help support the bunker removal project. That duffer zone theory has no architectural integrity as far as I can tell. Perhaps you explain why you believe it was a sound idea?"

Tom, that is so ludicrous a statement that it becomes laughable. CONCOCTED!?! Because YOU see no "architectural integrity" it means that Tilly MADE THIS UP? I will certainly explain it to you, but first, answer this... define what you mean by "architectural integrity" in this regard? Without knowing that it will be a pointless exercise..."

Phil
I'm sorry I ignored your post. Your posts have become increasingly unreadable with your constant regurgitation of previous posts - its nearly impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.

It appears he created the duffer zones to give an architectural rationalization to their economically influenced bunker removal plan. In other words it was an economically motivated theory, not architecturally inspired.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

One other point. You asked, "I also wonder how they would have taken his removal 8000+ bunkers on some of their golf courses. That is a hell of a lot of bunkers removed, especially when you figure in his entire career (probably designing 80 courses with an average of 60 bunkers maybe) he planted less than 5000 in twenty plus years."

Can you find one article, one single article or newspaper account where another architect condemned Tilly's recommendations for the removal off DH's. ONE ARTICLE? The GLARING absence of any architect even mildly criticizing him would seem to clearly answer your question of how they felt.

By the way, not that I agree with your assessment that Tilly averaged 60 bunkers a course, but 3 & 1/2 bunkers a hole certainly mean that he wasn't out there placing bunkers where duffers would hit into them. It certainly proves that he spent his entire career doing exactly what you state is a "curious transformation" by your own words. Also, we currently know of 89 original designs and are in contact with three clubs that believe they may also be unknown original Tilly's as well. Tilly himself wrote that heb had designed "several hundred" courses during his career.

You're right Phil. The lack of criticism proves his fellow architects must have been thrilled he was giving architectural advice for free and in affect shutting them out of an already depressed market place. You are a most defensive golf architect biographer; objectivity and open mindedness appear to be in short supply.

[TEPaul]

Although it's pretty hard to follow this discussion between MacWood and Young, me thinks this is just another one of MacWood's complete over-reactions on here and God only knows we sure have had enough of them over the years!  

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Of course, attack me when I make sense. "You're right Phil. The lack of criticism proves his fellow architects must have been thrilled he was giving architectural advice for free and in affect shutting them out of an already depressed market place. You are a most defensive golf architect biographer; objectivity and open mindedness appear to be in short supply."

Tom, you just simply don't get it. Tilly was CREATING WORK for many other architects! He gave recommendations of work to be done and provided the clubs with names of LOCAL ARCHITECTS who would do the work. It isn't that my objectivity and open-mindedness is lacking. What is lacking is you having any real knowledge on this subject. If you read ALL of the PGA letters and reports you would see numerous examples of where Tilly included that he had recommended a local architect to the club.

Only when you have read ALL of his letters and reports, instead of literally a HANDFUL only, spoken to numerous clubs about the follow-ups, read the many, many letters sent by the clubs to the PGA thanking them and praising the service and Tilly's recommendations, read the many, many newspaper accounts that are out their, only then  will you be in a position to judge my "objectivity and open-mindedness" on this subject.

Sorry you don't like to read... but I reference what was asked by YOU and then provide the answer... Of course, if I wanted to follow your example and really waste the cyber space that you are so concerned about I would simply do as you in posts such as your last two in which you FIRST post my ENTIRE post and then respond. I only copy the questions...

Now, regarding your comment that, "It appears he created the duffer zones to give an architectural rationalization to their economically influenced bunker removal plan. In other words it was an economically motivated theory, not architecturally inspired." Once again you miss the point of what Tilly wrote and illustrated. He was building courses throughout his career with "duffer free zones" built into them. All you need to do is examine his many, many illustrations of hole drawings and see the open paths he laid out for the duffer to play while challenging the skilled player by setting up risk/reward opportunities for them.

By the way, you still haven't answered why Tilly INCLUDED a bunker in the Duffer Zone illustration that was NOT in the original one...

You also neglected to comment on the math problem you inadvertantly posed. If Tilly is averaging, according to you, 60 bunkers in an 18-hole design, at 3 & 1/2 per hole he certainly is NOT designing courses that place bunkers where where they would be considered DH's!

Finally, as I tyhink that this is going no where this will be my last post on this thread. I wish you a good discussion...

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
He was giving his services away for free! And doing so from coast to coast. That is not creating architectural work for golf architects. He was sucking what little work there was out dry. I don't consider ONE bone to an architect creating work, especially when he made the architectural recommendation and recommended the architect to carry out his recommendation. I often get the impression that Tilly the golf architect in your mind walked on water. None of these architects were perfect.

I love to reread I just don't want to read what you and I wrote on the previous two posts. I know what you wrote and I wrote on the two previous posts. Your posts are increasingly unreadable.

I don't believe Bethpage-Black, which was designed on the eve of his PGA tour, had duffer free zone. Since we appear to be unaware and confused about the duffer free zone, could you explain the history of it and how Tilly used it throughout his career...with perhaps some examples of courses or articles?

[Chris_Blakely]

Although it's pretty hard to follow this discussion between MacWood and Young, me thinks this is just another one of MacWood's complete over-reactions on here and God only knows we sure have had enough of them over the years!  

TEPaul,

I know you and Tom do not get along, but in this case, I think Tom is right to explore this avenue on Tillinghast.  Here is a thread Cirba started awhile back:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,12519.0/


I have always felt in what I have read on the subject that it was a desperate attempt to do something / anything to have a hand in golf course design whether beneficial or not.  Some of the recommended changes that Phil has posted that he recommended so far have been curious to save the least

Chris

[Tom MacWood]

Chris
Thanks for pointing out that old thread. That thread explored more of the personal financial desperation Tilly was feeling. I believe he lost his home or sold his hole around the time of the PGA tour. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Before you again make conclusions without basis you should do your homework. You stated, let me add mistakenly once again, "Thanks for pointing out that old thread. That thread explored more of the personal financial desperation Tilly was feeling. I believe he lost his home or sold his hole around the time of the PGA tour. Desperate times call for desperate measures."

As you have no idea whatsoever as to the financial condition that Tilly was in you could have at least read the section "Tilly and Money" in the My Opinion Piece that spoke to the "Myths" and "Legends" of Tilly as a person. Hev was NOT financially desperate and lost his home for reasons that I am certain will quite surprise you.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()