Did Tillinghast have an epiphany early on? Somerset Hills is just too different

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil Young,

AWT can call them whatever he likes, but, their form speaks for itself.

If someone has pictures of the 4th and other holes where these features appear it would be helpful in trying to categorize them.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You're right. Anyone can call them whatever they want to call them but that's not going to change anything. They just are what they are and our eyes don't lie.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat & Tom,

The problem is that both of your eyes are missing what he designed and seeing only what you know. For example, how many times do you stand on a tee box, see a hole turn a corner and say... dogleg left or dogleg right, when it isn't a dogleg but an elbow hole? You will say, sorry Phil, my eyes sees what is there and yet there are big differences in the mind and intent of the designer that your eyes aren't seeing. The same is true in the mounding used at Somerset Hills.

Tilly didn't give this feature his own semantical name... there are big differences between the two structurally and aesthetically. There is also about 90 years between when they were first constructed and today. Just as every green built in those days is now smaller due to maintenance mowing patterns and equipment, so too do mounds of this type change with time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat & Tom,

The problem is that both of your eyes are missing what he designed and seeing only what you know. For example, how many times do you stand on a tee box, see a hole turn a corner and say... dogleg left or dogleg right, when it isn't a dogleg but an elbow hole? You will say, sorry Phil, my eyes sees what is there and yet there are big differences in the mind and intent of the designer that your eyes aren't seeing. The same is true in the mounding used at Somerset Hills.

Phil,  you sound like the guy who's in bed with a woman when his wife walks in and catches him.  He tells her that he was just taking her temperature.  The wife says, well, if that's the case, your dick better have numbers and a red line on it when you pull it out.  He then says, who are you going to believe,  your own eyes or me.

We've seen architects write one thing and produce another.

AWT can write all he wants about what is and what isn't, but, until I need TEPaul's faithful companion, Coorshaw, I'll continue to rely on my own eyes.

Tilly didn't give this feature his own semantical name... there are big differences between the two structurally and aesthetically. There is also about 90 years between when they were first constructed and today. Just as every green built in those days is now smaller due to maintenance mowing patterns and equipment, so too do mounds of this type change with time.

I don't necessarily agree with that.
I've seen earthen works that remain virtually unchanged after 80 years, time and time again.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat, look at it this way. Suppose you state that there is a certain feature designed into a course done by Tom Doak. Would you tell him that he doesn't know what he is talking about and that your eyes know what they see? That is what you & Tom Paul are doing in this instance...

[TEPaul]

Philip:

Listen, Pat and I have been around golf a long, long time and we've seen a lot. I know what I'm looking at and so does Patrick, and I also know all about the descriptions and definitions of holes and features and concepts that Tillinghast used many of which were his own unique descriptions and definitions of types of holes and types of features and types of concepts that other architects described and defined in different ways than Tillinghast did.

So please don't tell Patrick and me that our eyes are lying or that we don't know what Tillinghast meant when he described and defined a particular hole or type of feature or concept. We do know and our eyes don't lie when we see any of them.

You might even want to reconsider the type of message you're sending out as one of Tillinghast's biographers. You sometimes tend to act like you are the only person in the world who really understands Tillinghast, his descriptions, his definitions, his writing and his golf course architecture. Fortunately or unfortunately that is just not the case.

Believe me, I am not trying to be rude, and I hope you don't think I am, I just think this is an important message.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I appreciate what you are trying to say and let me say for the record that I am not the final word on any and all things Tilly...

I am also not denigrating you & Patrick's experience, but please don't treat me in a like manner because I too have a long history playing the game and studying its history and architecture. That being said, I would never tell an architect that he designed something when he states that he didn't.

Just because something is similar doesn't mean that is what it is. A "Chocolate Drop" was a very specific design feature. Just as all pot bunkers are sand traps, not all sand traps are pot bunkers.

I have no problem with you 7 Pat saying that the mounding at Somerset Hills are very reminiscent of "Chocolate Drops" and that if Tilly had meant them to be something else than he either gave bad directions to the course constructors or they did a poor job on their own... That could very well be true. ALL I said is that Tilly didn't design "Chocolate Drops" for SH based upon his own words...

[TEPaul]

Philip:

First of all I never said at any time or anywhere that anything on Somerset Hills or anything else Tillinghast ever did was a "Chocalate Drop." If someone said that on here, I guess I missed it.

On the flip side, a very fine and measured response from you above. Thanks

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Not trying to belabor the point, but after reading your comment, "First of all I never said at any time or anywhere that anything on Somerset Hills or anything else Tillinghast ever did was a "Chocalate Drop." If someone said that on here, I guess I missed it..." I though by seeing the following posts on the subject in this thread you might appreciate how I thought that you had:

Post # 1 – Chipoat - "Also, SH has a bona fide Redan (2nd hole), a mini-Biarritz green on #13, a bunch of chocolate drop mounds (#6)..."

Post #42 – Steve Lapper - "The "Hells Half Acre" area is what Mike Cirba has identified just beyond the tee shot landing zone on the 9th hole. In reality, it is far more like a Sahara complex and uses "chocolate drops" (mounds) interspersed…"

Post #43 – Pat Mucci - "Steve Lapper, I'm intriqued by AWT's use of "mounds" and "chocolate drops" at Somerset Hills. Did AWT use them as debris mounds or were they artistic rather than dually functional in their creation ? Does any other AWT course have a series or substantive number of dolomites, mounds or chocolate drops ?"

Post #47 – Philip Young - "Chocolate Drops" and "mounds" are not interchangeable references for the same feature, they are quite different things and Tilly STOPPED using "Chocolate Drop" type of mounds within a year or so after he built Shawnee. We know this because Tilly himself specifically wrote this..."

Post #48 – Steve Lapper - "Philip: According to your expert analysis, I'd say the the complex on today's number 9 holes fits your definition of the HHA "second type." It dissects two parts of the hole's fairway and contains a myriad of bunkers, rough and more "chocolate drops."

Post #49 – Philip Young - "Steve, The only thing I might add is that he didn't use "Chocolate Drops" in the design and building of Somerset Hills..."

Post #50 – Pat Mucci - "Phil Young, AWT can call them whatever he likes, but, their form speaks for itself..."

Post #51 – Tom Paul - "Patrick: You're right. Anyone can call them whatever they want to call them but that's not going to change anything. They just are what they are and our eyes don't lie..."

It is because of your response in post #51 that I concluded you were in agreement with Pat that Tilly used "Chocolate Drops" at SH and based it as he did, on what your eyes see... My apology for mistaking this.

Also, as you can see from above, it was only AFTER Pat had asked the question about Tilly's use of "Chocolate Drops" at Somerset Hills in post #43 that I posted the comment that he hadn't in post #47 and explained why...

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil,

So what you are saying is that it was all Patrick's fault?

I can go along with that. 

[TEPaul]

Philip:

It would probably be best to simply consider very specifically what any post or poster says and not just assume that every or even any poster has read everyone else's posts.

[Ed Oden]

I found this old thread and thought it had some very interesting posts.  While I am certainly no expert, I agree with those who see Somerset Hills as strikingly different from other Tillinghast designs.  What the course may lack in brawn, it makes up in spades in quirk and character.  Of the Tillinghast courses I have seen it is the only one that stands out as truly unique.  I'm not necessarily saying it is better than the others, just distinctly different in a "special" way.  It really does make you wonder whether something happened to take him in a different direction with later designs.  In an effort to add a bit of context, here are a few pictures of some of the features discussed in this thread:

The redan 2nd...


The chocolate dro...err...moun...err...dolomites on #4...



The old racetrack cutting across the 7th fairway...


The biarritz green on #13...



Unfortunately, I don't have a good picture of the 5th green.  It is among the coolest greens I have seen anywhere.

[TEPaul]

I'm quite sure Tillinghast had a lot of epiphanies for a whole lot of reasons!

[Jeff Spittel]

Getting back to the original question posed, to what extent has the RTJ/Reesification of Baltusrol and WF blunted the original character of Tilly's work? (I understand and can attest that they are fundamentally brawnier designs than SH regardless of modifications). 

[TEPaul]

JeffS:

Yes, getting back to the original question of this thread which is over two and a half years old.


Chipoat:

I just looked at what I said to you over two and a half years ago. I mentioned I really didn't see that much difference between SH and say Winged Foot or Bethpage.

I'm more than ready now to say I had to be wrong about that and I think one reason was when I mentioned that two and a half years ago I hadn't seen Winged Foot in about 25 years or Bethpage in about 40 years, but I have now and I agree with you they are very different from Tillinghast's much early SH and it shows in spades.