Mark, since you mentioned Tilly, and the theme of this discussion is “Preservation of Architectural Integrity in Face of Technology,” there are two major challenges that anyone working on a golden age golf course almost never takes into consideration, and this includes when working on Tilly’s courses.
The first has to do with understanding that once the course was designed and staked out, the person(s) who oversaw the construction of the course were usually not Tilly or his construction supervisors, they were either someone hired by the club or members of the club. Why is that important? Here’s a good example. The May 8th, 1936 edition of the Minneapolis Star, contained the following headline: “State Amateur Golf Meet May be Most Explosive in 39-year Reign.”
The article stated, “Take that on the great authority of the world’s greatest golf course architect, A. W. Tillinghast. He didn’t mince any words yesterday when he dropped in at Golden Valley and took a look at one of the two courses he designed in this section of the country, the other being Rochester Golf Club.
‘“The Tendency is away from deep traps,” declared this construction emissary of the Professional Golfers’ Association. “In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that somebody pulled a fast one on me. When I laid out Golden Valley, I did not intend that it should have so many traps or such deep ones. That is distinctly against the modern trend.”
Unless one has the information that this is how the course was originally built, and that it was done that way in direct opposition to how Tilly actually designed the bunkering for the course, how can one preserve the “architectural integrity” of the course regardless of technological changes to the game?
Fortunately, golf course architect Kevin Norby did a wonderful job in how the bunkers were rebuilt, and in some cases relocated and added to, during the restorative reconstruction of the course in the last 2 years. When the question of bunker depth was brought up, the decision was made to keep them that way as they were always kept at the depths as originally built over the years. Over the years since it was built, this made the course play more challenging, and gave it the reputation as being difficult, a reputation that the members took pride inand wanted to keep.
The second one begins with the question, did the architect who designed the course expect it to be changed through the years that followed due to technological changes in equipment? Consider this example: On January 6th, 1936, during his PGA Course Consultation Tour. In his letter to George Jacobus, president of the P. G. A., Tilly wrote: “I stopped over here [San Antonio] over Sunday on my eighteen holes at Brackenridge Park and nine holes at Riverside. I planned the [first] course exactly twenty years ago and it is here that the Texas Open has been played for years. I was rather disappointed in it for there seems little effort to keep pace with the advance of golf during the twenty years of its existence.”
Tilly expected changes to be made to courses that he designed caused by changes in the equipment used to play the game over time. He actually left instructions at a number of his clubs as to changes to the course he had just designed and built in the years that followed so that it could keep up with those technological changes. That is why he stated on a number of occasions that he would allow for the building of new tees further back from the ones originally built, thereby adding lngth to these holes when needed in the future. Here is one example of his expecting changes to be made to a course of his and how he planned for it:
On July 20th, 1930, a bit less than three months after work began on a major course renovation project, the San Francisco Chronicle announced, “San Francisco Golf Club Making Course Easier for Average Players.”
The article that followed stated, “San Francisco Golf Club’s course, regarded as the severest test on the Pacific Coast, is being humanized by an operation to remove excess traps. Dixwell Davenport, chairman of the greens committee, directs the job…”
Davenport further stated, “When architect Tillinghast turned over the old course to the San Francisco club he left suggestions for future development. These are now being carried into effect, say directors of the club.” (bold and underline mine).
In addition, he visited the club every year from 1932-1938 during which numerous changes, both major and minor, were made to the course per his instructions. These are just 2 examples regarding Tilly’s work, but he wasn’t the only architect who expected changes to be made to their original designs. What better example is there that Pinehurst #2 and Donald Ross. He lived on the course for many years until he died, making changes to it over that time.
That is why I am passionate about the importance for a golf course to do or get accurate and specific research regarding the golden age golf course he has been commissioned to work on. Without the correct information, and proper understanding of it, their ability to “Preserve the Architectural Integrity in Face of Technology,” is impossible.