Hold Tillinghast Accountable!

[Jeff_Mingay]

Under the Langford thread, Tom Paul mentions that Wayne Stiles recommended the removal of many 'fore bunkers' at his home club, Gulph Mills, during the 1940s. And that the master plan Stiles devised for Gulph Mills was terrible, essentially taking away much of Ross' fine original work. I'd probably agree, having read Tom's 'evolution of Gulph Mills' booklet.

Anyway, this lead me to think about the work A.W. Tillinghast undertook on behalf of the PGA of America during The Great Depression. Tillinghast toured the United States and advised clubs on course changes aimed to reduce maintenance costs. As so many of us know, Tillinghast advised on the removal of, what, hundreds? Maybe thousands of bunkers, on classic courses throughout the USA? [I don't know the number.]

Was his advice justified considering the circumstance? And, in turn, was Stiles' advice to Gulph Mills justified 'under the circumstance'? [I don't know for sure.]

On the same note, was Perry Maxwell's reconstruction of several Ross designed greens at Gulph Mills justified?

I'll admit, I'm the first one to criticized a contemporary golf architect for messing with a classic course. The point is, if we look back in history, so many of the so-called 'classic architects' tinkered with the original works of their contemporaries. Yet today, we rarely hold them accountable for such actions, do we? Should we, in at least in some cases, do so? For the sake of historical accuracy.

Just a thought.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
I think you could probably ask how many of these courses were saved from going under by lowering their maintenance costs, given the circumstances surrounding the depression era.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The Tillie recommendations were perfectly understandable reaction to the conditions of the time.

Believe me, we will go through that whole cycle again, starting now, as many courses try to hang on.  And I predict that the members really won't care for a lot of outsiders telling them to keep their dues high so a few architecture fans can appreciate their course for no charge!  

[SPDB]

The sublime quality of Tillie's bunkering elsewhere more than offset for those lost due to his advocacy.

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

Those are all good and honest questions you asked. Should Tillinghast be held accountable for what he did to numerous courses in the depression?

I'd say he shouldn't be held any more or any less accountable than any other architect of any time. What's the best way to tell if an architect should be held accountable for whatever he does on any course? I'd say the answer should be did he make the course better or not. How do you tell that? It's simple really, all architecture of any architect passes the test of time or not.

Did what Stiles did to GMGC by removing all Ross's top shot bunkers hurt the course? I think so but I seriously doubt many members do now or ever did. Did what Maxwell did to about five holes at GMGC improve the course? You bet it did. Those holes have passed the test of time with our members and others big time every day for decades now.

It doesn't matter to me who the architect was or what he did--the only way to answer if he should be held accountable or not is to answer the time test of all architecture--did what he did make the course better or not? Members and other players over time are the only ones who answer the question of accountability, in my opinion.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Mingay:

I'm wondering if you have ever read any of Tillinghast's trip reports from the consulting he did.

What stands out in these reports was how modest Tillinghast was in the recommendations he made. Usually, he made very few - typically 1-2 - specific recommendations for changes to the courses.

Based on this documentation, it doesn't appear he was as much responsible for changes as you might think.

I certainly don't know for sure, but the trips reports wouldn't support the notion that there were major changes that Tillinghast was responsible for.

[TEPaul]

If it's just Tillinghast we're talking about here to be honest I sort of feel sorry for the guy in this era of the depression when he was apparently going around the country removing bunkering and such for the PGA. Not that it should be an excuse if he messed around needlessly on some courses but let's face it Tillinghast at that point in his life was sort of a mess. The guy was clearly a very creative architect and probably a bit more than a little eccentric and at that point he was really paying for it unfortunately!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

If his marching orders were to reduce costs, removing bunkers may have been a valid fulfillment of those orders, with the least amount of impact on the original routing and strategy in the play of the hole, if you believe in wide fairways and that  most of the bunkers he removed were fairway bunkers.

If a modern day architect undertook the same process, and engaged in the defanging of a classic or modern course vis a vis the elimination of some fairway bunkers, you can bet that the outcry would reach decibel levels heretofore unknown.

But, one also has to examine AWT's work in the context of the times, and I don't think current times parallel his.

Lastly, removed bunkers would seem easy to recreate at some point in the future, and his eradication process might best be viewed as a sort of mothballing.

I wonder, in his writings, if he ever addressed the recapture of the bunkers he eliminated, or if he was called in subsequently to restore that which he previously removed ?  

[Jeff_Mingay]

I guess I've singled out Tillinghast, because of his well publicized trek during the Depression, for the sake of discussion. Of course, many other Golden Age architects, including Stiles, Donald Ross, Perry Maxwell, Chandler Egan, Alister Mackenzie, et. al.,  tinkered with the works of their contemporaries as well.

That said, I think Tom Paul makes another good point. The bottom line is, did the changes improve the golf course in question? This fundamental question applies today as well. Did Fazio improve Augusta National, Riviera, Merion East? Did Rees Jones improve Bethpage Black? Did Tom Doak improve Yeaman's Hall? And so on...

Problem is, the answer to these questions is very subjective. Very subjective.

Tim,

No, I haven't read those reports by Tillinghast. They sound interesting though.

[T_MacWood]

At the end of his stint with the PGA, it was written he had removed 7,427 "needless" bunkers. That is a lot of bunkers.

There is a list of the courses he visited on his PGA tour (I believe) in the last Tillie book (Wayside..). I have not read his 'diary' of what he specifically recommended at each course. I suppose you would have to judge his impact at each course before adding it all up and coming to a conclusion--negative, positive or uneventful.

My question: how many "neeedless" bunkers did recommend be removed from his own designs?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Good question, Tom. How did Tillinghast handle his own original designs during his PGA of America tour? I'd like to know.

What exactly is a 'needless bunker', anyway? The definition of that term would also be subjective, wouldn't it.

Take Donald Ross' Essex here in Windsor, Ontario for example. During the 1960s, 70s and 80s, Bruce Matthews and Arthur Hills, consecutively, deemed all but about four of Ross' original driving area bunkers to be 'needless'. All but four have been removed as a result.

(I don't think Ross would have felt that way about those bunkers.) Then, in 1999, Bruce Hepner devises a consulting report for Essex, which in part, recommends the reinstallation of many original Ross bunkers. So, obviously, Bruce doesn't consider those Ross bunkers 'needless' either.

Matthews/Hills' perspective versus Ross/Hepner's view. Who's right? Is there a 'right answer'? I have a subjective opinion, but again, is there a 'right answer'?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

My question: how many "neeedless" bunkers did recommend be removed from his own designs?

That's a good question, and leads to another.

Consciously or subconciously did AWT sterilze other courses to make his courses stand out more, to be more distinctive ?

[BCrosby]

I don't know that you can pin the removal of thousands of classic fairway bunkers on follow-on architects.

No doubt there was some of that, but a much more pervasive cause was the iron triangle of irrigation - tree planting programs - and the expansion of roughs. It was the rare course that didn't succumb to those forces.

Most fairway bunkers were removed from classic courses as a secondary consequence of these "beautification" programs. Some of these were directed by archtiects and some weren't, but in either case architectural considerations were of distinctly secondary importance.

Bob