News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
On April 17, 1916 the Brooklyn Eagle published an editorial concerning amateurism in golf.

« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 04:31:51 AM by Joe Bausch »
@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 1916: Amateur vs Pro architects; Point-Counterpoint New
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2010, 07:36:56 AM »
Then 10 days later a "well known golfer" was interviewed for an article entitled "Says Paid Amateur Architects Should Not Be Rated as Pros".  A very interesting read.



« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 04:33:41 AM by Joe Bausch »
@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 1916: Amateur vs Pro architects; Point-Counterpoint New
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2010, 07:41:36 AM »
Then on May 5, 1916 an anonymous Scotch pro "expert links builder" writes a letter that is the subject of the article entitled "Amateurs Are Not Best Golf Architects..."

More good stuff.


« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 04:35:05 AM by Joe Bausch »
@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Mike Sweeney

Re: 1916: Amateur vs Pro architects; Point-Counterpoint
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2010, 07:51:50 AM »
Certainly can compare it to the 1972 Olympic Gold Medal basketball game where US collegians (and future pros in the NBA) play the "amateur" team USSR who were all in the Soviet Army and few had probably ever shot a rifle as playing basketball was their duty. Thus the Olympics over time adjusted their definition of amateurs to today where there are really only amateurs in sports that can't support professionals.

What the article does not cover since in was written back in the time period, is the fact that there was some sort of social stigma to being a Pro golfer. I would assume the majority of the big events were Amateur events. Obviously that has all changed, but I have never seen a great history of when Pro golf eclipsed Amateur golf in history. Most people would probably say in the Palmer era but my guess would be earlier?


PS. What is the Huntington Field and Marine Club today?
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 07:53:44 AM by Mike Sweeney »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 1916: Amateur vs Pro architects; Point-Counterpoint
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2010, 08:06:56 AM »
Mike,
I'd say Ben Hogan and I'm thinking of his 1951 season and his 1953 ticker tape parade after winning The Open.

He was the professional equivalent of Bobby Jones. 


Joe,
It's very easy for me to empathize with the 'Scotch Professional' in your last article. I can't think of anyone, in any profession, who would be happy that his chances of getting work were being co-opted by a class of men who didn't need to do the work for wages.

.......and when you look at how almost every one of the 'amateurs' had problems that required them to be continually tinkering with their creations to get them right, sometimes for years, you can understand how maddening it would be to someone who was doing the work for a living.
 
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 08:27:04 AM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

TEPaul

Re: 1916: Amateur vs Pro architects; Point-Counterpoint
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2010, 09:11:51 AM »
"What the article does not cover since in was written back in the time period, is the fact that there was some sort of social stigma to being a Pro golfer. I would assume the majority of the big events were Amateur events."


MikeS:

I think the majority of the big events in that day were the big amateur championships and certainly not strictly professional events which frankly did not even exist then other than exhibitions and of course a tournament like the British or US Open which was open to all and had the best amateurs in them too. An actual professional tournament tour would not really exist in America for about the next thirty years (after WW2 and then as an extension of the PGA of America----eg it was originally known as the "Tournament Players Division of the PGA of America"). The actual separate entity we know today as the "PGA TOUR" did not separate from the PGA of America and become a separate entity until the late 1960s or early 1970s. An old better-ball partner of mine from Philadelphia believes he was partly responsible for precipitating the split).

Actually, both the April 27, 1916 article and particularly the May 5, 1916 article does touch on the social stigma or the social divide of that time. The unnamed amateur being interviewed in the April 27, 1916 article mentions he does not feel the professional is sufficiently educated to have the imagination to do really good courses and the professional interviewed in the May 5, 1916 talks about the opportunities offered to people of "class" (he refers to Macdonald as an example) which he mentions are not offered to or available to the professionals of that time.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 09:15:18 AM by TEPaul »

Mike Cirba

Re: 1916: Amateur vs Pro architects; Point-Counterpoint
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2010, 10:24:03 AM »
At the very least, the contemporaneous articles acknowledge that there was such a thing as amateur architects, a premise that has been repeatedly challenged here over the years.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 1916: Amateur vs Pro architects; Point-Counterpoint
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2010, 10:27:55 AM »
At the very least, the contemporaneous articles acknowledge that there was such a thing as amateur architects, a premise that has been repeatedly challenged here over the years.

I don't recall anyone challenging the existence of "amateur" architects.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 10:31:26 AM by Tom MacWood »

Mike Sweeney

Re: 1916: Amateur vs Pro architects; Point-Counterpoint
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2010, 10:30:26 AM »
At the very least, the contemporaneous articles acknowledge that there was such a thing as amateur architects, a premise that has been repeatedly challenged here over the years.

Mike

Maybe I am missing something, but these articles are talking about Amateur players that are being paid as professional architects, thus questioning their amateur playing status.

The small print may have gotten to me but where is there discussion of amateur vs professional architects in the articles?

TEPaul

Re: 1916: Amateur vs Pro architects; Point-Counterpoint
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2010, 10:39:53 AM »
"At the very least, the contemporaneous articles acknowledge that there was such a thing as amateur architects, a premise that has been repeatedly challenged here over the years."


Mike Cirba:

If that is a premise that really has been repeatedly challenged on here over the years by some it is a premise that is just remarkable to me. I view a premise like that (eg there wasn't even such a thing as an "amateur/sportsman" architect) as almost "anti-history" or a massive distortion of the actual facts of golf architectural history, at the very least.

However, I think the good news is that those on here who have apparently offered such a premise, or the perception of such a premise, do understand there very much was that type of architect in the early years, but they just try to describe them in such a way to try to minimize, for some reason, what some of them really did do.

Frankly, some of those kinds of premises are sometimes utilized in odd ways such as what was said on here about Hugh Wilson and how he was too much the novice to have been able to deserve the credit of being the one mostly responsible for the architecture of Merion East and West.

In that particular case the two on here who were questioning Wilson's contribution were not trying to give it to some professional architect (other than MacWood's odd notion on HH Barker designing Merion East) they were trying to give it to Macdonald and Whigam, arguably a couple of the most significant and influential pure "Amateur/Sportsmen" golf architects in American history!  ;)


TEPaul

Re: 1916: Amateurism in golf concerning architects; point-counterpoint
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2010, 10:43:05 AM »
"I don't recall anyone challenging the existence of "amateur" architects."


Tom MacWood:

Perhaps not their existence but I certainly do remember a couple of times when I mentioned the so-called "amateur/sportsman" architects and the importance of a number of them due to the courses and architecture they produced which became famous and still is you labeled that 'my schtick.'   ;)

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 1916: Amateurism in golf concerning architects; point-counterpoint
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2010, 10:47:34 AM »
TEP
No one has challenged the existence of 'amateur' architects, some of the greatest architects of all time were amateurs, including CBM, Colt, Fowler, Alison, Tillinghast and Emmet. Hell I wrote an essay about some of the lesser known 'amatuer' architects of Britain. I think what has been challenged is your overly romanticized version of the amateur/sportsmen.

TEPaul

Re: 1916: Amateurism in golf concerning architects; point-counterpoint
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2010, 10:51:34 AM »
"Maybe I am missing something, but these articles are talking about Amateur players that are being paid as professional architects, thus questioning their amateur playing status.

The small print may have gotten to me but where is there discussion of amateur vs professional architects in the articles?"



MikeS:

It's in the second and third articles Joe Bausch just posted---eg the article in Reply #1 (April 27, 1916) and the article in Reply #2 (May 5, 1916) both in the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper.

TEPaul

Re: 1916: Amateurism in golf concerning architects; point-counterpoint
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2010, 10:53:37 AM »
"I think what has been challenged is your overly romanticized version of the amateur/sportsmen."


Tom MacWood:

What do you mean by that?

Mike Cirba

Re: 1916: Amateurism in golf concerning architects; point-counterpoint
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2010, 10:53:49 AM »
Tom MacWood,

Do I have to use the vaunted GCA search engine and see how many times you used the word "myth" over the past decade? ;)

Itinerant may have been more difficult but I bet we both know the definition of "myth".  ;D

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 1916: Amateurism in golf concerning architects; point-counterpoint
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2010, 10:58:10 AM »
Tom MacWood,

Do I have to use the vaunted GCA search engine and see how many times you used the word "myth" over the past decade? ;)

Itinerant may have been more difficult but I bet we both know the definition of "myth".  ;D

Please do.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 1916: Amateurism in golf concerning architects; point-counterpoint
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2010, 10:58:43 AM »
Mike Cirba,

Why don't you flesh out your statement? I just searched 'amateur architect' here and came up with many references to them.

My definition of an amateur architect is one who takes no compensation for his work and does it as an avocation, not as a vocation.
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Mike Cirba

Re: 1916: Amateurism in golf concerning architects; point-counterpoint
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2010, 11:03:07 AM »
Jim,

Typing on a imum blackberry which is never optimum...I'll try later to extrapolate better
Sorry.

Mike Sweeney

Re: 1916: Amateurism in golf concerning architects; point-counterpoint
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2010, 11:11:53 AM »
"Maybe I am missing something, but these articles are talking about Amateur players that are being paid as professional architects, thus questioning their amateur playing status.

The small print may have gotten to me but where is there discussion of amateur vs professional architects in the articles?"



MikeS:

It's in the second and third articles Joe Bausch just posted---eg the article in Reply #1 (April 27, 1916) and the article in Reply #2 (May 5, 1916) both in the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper.

Point noted. So my next question is are there any courses of note where the "amateur architect" (not paid) was not in some way affiliated with the course.

CBM was the developer of National
Crump was the developer of Pine Valley
Wilson was a member of Merion Cricket Club

I know people will say CBM but Raynor got paid? Others?

Robert Emmons

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 1916: Amateurism in golf concerning architects; point-counterpoint
« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2010, 11:49:21 AM »
Huntington Marine and Golf Club..........

1907...Le Chateau Des Beaux Arts.....maybe 9 holes

1912...Huntington Marine and Golf Club....9 holes adding 9 more

1920...Huntington Bay Club...redesigned by Strong

1939...course sold off for homes....still Huntington Bay Club today,pool,beach,tennis,paddle...RHE

TEPaul

Re: 1916: Amateurism in golf concerning architects; point-counterpoint
« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2010, 12:04:07 PM »
"So my next question is are there any courses of note where the "amateur architect" (not paid) was not in some way affiliated with the course."



MikeS:

That's a good question. I supose it depends on which of those "amateur/sportsmen" (non paid) one is talking about. In my own research and interest in the subect of the so-called "amateur" or "amateur/sportsman" architect I've pretty much concentrated on and concentrated my own research on (in chronological order) Leeds, Emmet, the Fownses, Travis, Macdonald (Whigam), Wilson (Hugh), Crump, Thomas, Behr et al. To them you could probably add others who worked with them on their teams or member committees such as Stillman, Saban, Knapp, Francis, Griscom, Lloyd, Toulmin, A.B. Smith, Carr, Heebner, Meehan etc, etc, etc.

But I would say that on those projects for which those "amateur/sportsmen" architects became most known for and famous for they were in almost every case either the owner, founder, an original principle or prominent member of the club.

The other similarity that is notable is that almost without exception they were all considered to be by their club or generally very good golfers (the term for them back then was "expert" (golfer)).

Phil_the_Author

Re: 1916: Amateurism in golf concerning architects; point-counterpoint
« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2010, 12:39:32 PM »
Tom Mac,

You stated, "No one has challenged the existence of 'amateur' architects, some of the greatest architects of all time were amateurs, including CBM, Colt, Fowler, Alison, Tillinghast and Emmet..."

Am I correct in assuming that you mean he was an amateur player who was a professional architect? Tilly was paid for his very first design at Shawnee and from then on...

Actually that is what the amateur during these years was all about. The USGA chose a stance declaring that amateur players who were PAID for course design or construction work should be considered professional and not amateur golfers.

TEPaul

Re: 1916: Amateurism in golf concerning architects; point-counterpoint
« Reply #22 on: April 25, 2010, 01:02:08 PM »
"Actually that is what the amateur during these years was all about. The USGA chose a stance declaring that amateur players who were PAID for course design or construction work should be considered professional and not amateur golfers."


Phil:

Actually, that all completely depends on exactly what years are being talked about on here and the way the USGA (R&A) looked at this entire issue of Amateur Status at any particular time from say 1895 until 1920 when the so-called "Architect Exception" was instituted within the USGA Rules on "Amateur Status."

This is why the whole thing over that time frame was so complex and obviously confusing to so many.

The point is, in the beginning (as can be documented from material back then) the whole idea of "amateur status" sort of began as only a matter of whether a golfer actually PLAYED golf for money or not. Over time a number of other areas of concern came into the whole issue and subject and the debate on it such as caddies, greenskeepers, sports equipment interests, interests in seed companies, construction equipment companies etc of amateurs of note and skill, writing on golf for money and getting paid for architecture. The point is the USGA (and R&A) did not even consider or list or define how some of those things might affect someone's "Amateur Status" over most of that timespan. But they really began to get stringent in the teens and then by the late teens they did debar a few well known amateur golfers such as Tillinghast and Travis for taking remuneration for architecture.

Again, that debarring was lifted around 1920 in what was known and still is as the "Architect Exception" to the Amateur Status Rules and Regulations.

Tillinghast's point was that he didn't feel he had violated his "amateur status" because at the time he began taking money for architecture and until he was debarred by the USGA there was no specific provision in the USGA's Amateur Status Rules to prevent that. On that point he was absolutely right!
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 01:07:32 PM by TEPaul »

Phil_the_Author

Re: 1916: Amateurism in golf concerning architects; point-counterpoint
« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2010, 01:21:23 PM »
Tom P,

Where as you are correct in a broad sense, I addressed the amateur issue that was raised in 1914 and was ruled on, debated and reruled on once again between 1914 & 1916. It was quite specific and the issues raised showed an intriguing opposite bias to what we see today, for tioday the USGA stages championships and rules on equipment issues more with the professional in mind rather than they did back in 1920 when they wrote a statement encouraging tournaments not to have huge purses becauses, with the war being over and things back to normal, they thought that it would only encourage the professional player to spend his time practicing and playing for money rather than serving his clients and members ta the clubs where he is employed.

The following is a portion of a section from my Tilly biography that is titled "The Amateur Question" and which deals with the question as it related to Tilly from 1914-1917:

In 1914, the President of the USGA, Robert C. Watson, a good friend of Tilly’s, wrote an article in a prominent newspaper titled “The Amateur in Golf.” In it he stated that, “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…”
      He would go on to state that anyone who made money by, among other things, writing about the game or designing golf courses and getting paid to do so, would henceforth be declared as professionals. A great furor ensued and a number of prominent amateurs were effected, among them A.W. Tillinghast.
      Tilly responded quickly and directly, writing an article for The American Golfer magazine in the July 1914 issue titled, “If Such be Sin.” Though quoted from earlier, is reproduced here.

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.
      Even when the decision went against him, Tilly accepted his fate with grace and dignity, providing his services generously to the USGA in later years as he helped to found the Green Section and worked along with it.



TEPaul

Re: 1916: Amateurism in golf concerning architects; point-counterpoint
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2010, 01:57:28 PM »
Phil:

That is all a whole lot of good stuff you posted there. I think I've seen all of it and some year ago. However, you may need to appreciate a pretty fine distinction here and that is that even though Tillie did feel he may've been one of the ones Watson or even Woodward were talking about, Tillie was not officially debarred as an amateur until later, I suppose around 1917 or 1918. The actual formal issue of his amateur status never really came up with the USGA because Tillie never formally answered that debarment and eventually he didn't have to because around 1920 the entire ban on professional architects regarding "Amateur Status" was lifted or waived under the USGA Amateur Status provision known as the "Architect Exception."

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back