A.W. Tillinghast, not the architect but the writer!

[TEPaul]

If any man ever chronicled the events and the philosophical and stylistic evolutions in golf architecture in America better and more comprehensively and for longer than Tillinghast did I sure am not aware of it.

That man was a researcher's dream far, far greater than any other, in my opinion.

I'd never really read his writing in the very end. It's pretty amazing as a perspective or retrospective.

His reporting in the Pacific Coast Golfer on Macdonald's death and his feelings about Macdonald is historically priceless and super valuable in a philosophical sense in architecture. He actually mentions that they always disagreed and he even says why!

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

There is no other architect in history who wrote so much or so well about every aspect of golf as a game and its effects on American culture.

His design philosophies were recorded in articles from 1898 and for over 40 years until his last one in the beginning of 1940.

Consider just these few gems and imagine the topics for and manner of discussions that might appear on a much earlier version of GCA.

Form the article "Pull and its penalty" in GI August 1921: "Taking courses as they generally exist, but not on the truly great links, too little trouble is provided for the pulled ball, and this is particularly true of the greens. If the putting greens are trapped properly fewer pits along the fairway are necessary. But the contouring of the green is quite as important as the scheme for guarding hazards. Often it is considered sufficient to raise the green in the back, but the flares on the sides are vital factors, holding on one side and throwing off on the other."

Also, and I really love the thought behind this: "It would be extremely difficult, indeed quite impossible, to persuade a Hopi Indian into making baskets any differently than did his fathers. But there is no reasons why builders of modern courses should not tear away from types which were considered good enough fifteen or twenty years ago, when no great amount of thought was given to building courses which would truly reward and punish, and thus develop versatile and correct play."

From "Out and In Ag'in" in GI April 1921:

"So if I have sufficiently established the traditional importance of the Turn, may I regard it from the field of the course architect?"

"I like to see the Home hole looming up from the teeing ground in a mighty, impressive way. When a match arrives there on even terms, let that hole reward the courageous. There is more yellow spilled over the teeing grounds of good Home holes than at any other spot on the course."

Consider not just the idea of what was written, but the attention to details contained within the few words above that can enable an architect a Green Committe a golf club to better and more accurately preserve and/or restore his work. These ideas need careful cataloguing and written as a cohesive textbook for those above and others to learn from and be able to apply (or not) to their own work and theories of design.

I can say that I have been working at that very thing for several yeras now and can actually see the light at the end of the tunnel and yet there is still much to do.

I have been deeply enmeshed in the mind of Tillinghast for nearly 8 years now through research and family interviews and am still incredibly amazed by the depth and breadth of what he accomplished designing and writing and, even more so, what he didn't and wished that he had.

He is not the man that most think either personally or architecturally and I was able to express this in his biography. It will be gone into even greater details in the next volume, enough that even architecture junkies such as ourselves might be satisfied... might...

[Garland Bayley]

From the little I have read, I have been surprised about how much he discusses and advocates fairness.

[Phil_the_Author]

Garland, why does that surprise you?

[TEPaul]

Here is a most interesting article from Tillinghast in 1939 in which he essentially outlines and explains his philosophical differences regarding golf architecture and architectural styles between himself and Macdonald, and apparently lasting throughout their long careers.

Basically, it just doesn't get much clearer than this:



"A Veteran Passes
          Just as April was drawing to a close, Charles Blair Macdonald died in Southampton. Long Island. He was eighty-three years of age and the first amateur champion of the United States. He won the title from a meager field at Newport, Rhode Island in 1895, a year after the USGA was formed. His birthplace was Niagara Falls, Ontario. In 1907 Macdonald became interested in planning and building of golf courses, although he was a broker by profession, and after securing models of famous holes on British courses of that time, he more or less followed these designs in the building of the National Golf Links of America among the rolling sand dunes  near Shinnecock, Long Island. Some years later he designed the beautiful course, the Mid-Ocean, at Bermuda. Numerous other courses were designed by him, still following his custom of working severely to the artificial construction of replicas of British golf  holes
        I have known Charley Macdonald since the earliest days of golf in this country and for many years we have been rivals course architects, and I really mean rivals for in many instances we widely disagreed. Our manner of designing courses never reconciled. I stubbornly insisted on following natural suggestions of terrain, creating new types of holes as suggested by Nature, and even when resorting to artificial methods  of construction. Charlie, equally convinced that working strictly to models was best, turned out some famous courses. Throughout the years we argued good naturedly about this and that, always at variance it would seem. Now he is gone and I can only salute his memory.
   In 1928 he published a most ambitious book of reminiscences,---”Scotland’s Gift, Golf.”

[TEPaul]

In the above article by Tillinghast about Macdonald and their career long differences in architectural styles he most certainly implies that Macdonald both could and did build some very good and very famous courses.

That does not seem to be the issue of the differences in their philosophies. What the real difference is, and Tillinghast said it pretty plainly, is he felt Macdonald stuck to a style of architecture that was brought from GB that exhibited a lot of man-made artificiality. Tillinghast clearly felt his style was one directed to a far more natural look than Macdonald's style. He even goes so far as to point out that with him Macdonald always defended the validity of that artifical replica style of architecture.

So, it is pretty plain to see that their career long differences were almost completely over the issue of aesthetics in golf course architecture----eg the artifical look vs the natural look!

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, Phil

can you take this further. I was struck by the line "I stubbornly insisted on following natural suggestions of terrain, creating new types of holes as suggested by Nature, and even when resorting to artificial methods of construction."

What did Tillinghast mean by 'new types of holes'?

Did he mean in comparison to/in the context of the 'template' holes Macdonald favoured?  

Did he mean, more generally, that he wanted to expand the number/boundaries/variety of 'shot testing' holes, and could do that by letting nature be his guide?

Or was strategy and shot values implied/a given for both men, so that Tillinghast was basically saying that CBM just didn't get the balance right between form and function, and that 'new holes' should mean new and natural looking holes?

Thanks
Peter  

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, why does that surprise you?

He is the first architect I have read that took that viewpoint.

[Kalen Braley]

        I have known Charley Macdonald since the earliest days of golf in this country and for many years we have been rivals course architects, and I really mean rivals for in many instances we widely disagreed. Our manner of designing courses never reconciled. I stubbornly insisted on following natural suggestions of terrain, creating new types of holes as suggested by Nature, and even when resorting to artificial methods  of construction. Charlie, equally convinced that working strictly to models was best, turned out some famous courses. Throughout the years we argued good naturedly about this and that, always at variance it would seem. Now he is gone and I can only salute his memory.

TomP,

Thanks for the threads and posts, good stuff.  Isn't this paragraph that Tillie wrote really the essence of what this site should be about? Frank discussion, disagreeing often, yet still maintaing mutual respect.

I would also think that if one admires the work that one does, that they should be able to say so and not be subject to butt-boy name calling and otherwise.  I've never understood why many on this site deem it offensive for someone to give positive feedback on ones work.  Is there no room nor allowances to be had even amongst a small niche such as GCA to have preferences and dislikes and to be able to speak freely on either of these?

[TEPaul]

Peter:

I think Tillinghast meant that replica or model holes just couldn't be used well or adapted that well to natural landforms that were essentially not ready to receive them.

The whole idea of using replica plasticine models became very unpopular towards the 1920s. This is not to say that plasticine models became unpopular in Tillinghast's mind because he used them himself but they were of natural holes and not replica models from prototype holes abroad and such.

Obviously what Tillinghast didn't like that Macdonald and Raynor did was use the same set of "template" holes over and over again.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You suggested that, "So, it is pretty plain to see that their career long differences were almost completely over the issue of aesthetics in golf course architecture----eg the artifical look vs the natural look!"

That is incorrect.

Tilly's disagreement with "Charley's" designs were not in look but rather approach. CBM believed in taking proven hole types and using that as a model upon which to create a hole on a piece of land. Tilly didn't approach course design from this direction. He looked at the site as an individual and designed the holes that he believed the land would best produce.  

Tilly did not have a problem is creating ahole that might be viewed by some as deriving from atemplate. For example, he designed several "Redans" and "Capes" but not because the course should have on, but because the hole designed turned out to be one all on its own.

He, and this actually goes to answer Peter's question, always carried a sketch book with him and worked on hole designs as concepts that he hoped he might find the land to match. That is why he only built two "Reef" holes. Yet there were hole "types" that naturally found his eye on pieces of land and so he created a good number of "double dog-leg" par-fives. Still, these weren't the product of a "model" design but rather of a hole "type." This can be said because these double dog-legs come in a variety of examples; left-right-left, right-left-right, right-right and left-left. A "Redan" is quite specific in design character and so serves as a model to be followed as exactly as possible on a piece of land whereas Tilly created holes on land some of which proved of similar style to "types" of holes he had imagined.

Peter, Tilly wrote a number of articles about new hole "types" that he had drawn on their own. His Poxono CC (NLE) contained a number of these and served as the subject of one of his articles and included three of these hole "types" graphically.  

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I was writing as you were and hadn't seen your further explanation which is much closer to what Tilly was expressing.

He provided plasticene models created by his own hands for use on his full design projects and as part of a green design package that he advertised during the mid-teens.

[JMEvensky]

Could someone please recommend  which Tillinghast book(s) to start with?

[TEPaul]

"He is the first architect I have read that took that viewpoint."

Garland:

Tillinghast was certainly not the only architect or probably even the first to dabble in the realm of fairness in architecture.

Frankly, all the architects who were beginning to ply this idea in architecture that Tillinghast and others came to call "modern" or "scientific" architecture were into the idea of fairness in golf and architecture simply by coming up with various ways to design (or not) for the various levels of golfer ability. In a sense it became something of a mathematical or scientific architectural prescription and they commonly called it "Modern" or "scientific" architecture. Tillinghast used those terms in his writing all the time.

The basic architectural feature of the diagonal was pretty much the fundamental tool in this as was placing hazard features where they'd be needed most which was essentially to deal with the "nearly good" shot of the more expert player.

This was in distinct contrast to the old architecture of penal cross hazards or "Kops" that stretched perpindicularly across entire holes.

Architects came to feel that this was too penalizing of poor players and of no real consequence to better players, particularly as the ball got longer following the invention of the Haskell or "lively" ball that some called the "resilient" ball.

These are the precise things that Tillie wrote about in many of his articles.

[Phil_the_Author]

JM,

Go to the Tillinghast Association website at www.tillinghast.net and under the column "Tillinghast Library" you will find 9 books, including 2 club  histories, which can be purchased through the Association and whose profits help support it.

[JMEvensky]

JM,

Go to the Tillinghast Association website at www.tillinghast.net and under the column "Tillinghast Library" you will find 9 books, including 2 club  histories, which can be purchased through the Association and whose profits help support it.

Many thanks-JME

[TEPaul]

"That is incorrect.
Tilly's disagreement with "Charley's" designs were not in look but rather approach. CBM believed in taking proven hole types and using that as a model upon which to create a hole on a piece of land. Tilly didn't approach course design from this direction. He looked at the site as an individual and designed the holes that he believed the land would best produce."

Phil:

I realize that but don't you see that the one follows the other in too many cases if a landform is not naturally conducive to receiving a particular prototype or template hole?

This is what Tillinghast was aware of and his disagreement with Macdonald was he felt he didn't seem to care about that.

One should also never miss the point that Tillie was also making and that is many of those prototype holes IN GB that became Macdonald's replicas or templates WERE ARTIFICAL and man-made looking because some of them in fact were pretty rudimentary works in which a natural aesthetic was never of much concern!

This to me is the key to understanding this entire philosophical or style question in golf architecture and its evolution.

This is a point Tom Doak has been making for years---eg many of the holes of even the linksland, some of which were replicated by Macdonald were artificial looking because they were crude examples of very early MAN-MADE golf architecture abroad.

If the contributors to this website and those who analyze golf architecture and it history and evolution can't understand or accept this fact I doubt they will ever get to second base in this endeavor.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Tom, you are correct when saying that, "one follows the other in too many cases if a landform is not naturally conducive to receiving a particular prototype or template hole?"

But what about the cases where landforms are conducive to a particular prototype or template hole? Does it HAVE to be used, especially if a hole of a different style might even serve the land better?

You see Tilly was approaching design strictly from the concept of what can I get from the land, while CBM many times approached it from what can I do to the land.

In the act of designing Tilly also looked at how a hole would play not just from the perspective of what would fit the land but how players of various abilities would play it. This is seen in how he hazarded his holes and his views on how greens should be entered by approach shots.

For example, he wrote, "But I do believe that altogether too much attention is given to penalties for slicers and too little to shots to the left of the fairway. The man who slices is not a distance getter, but usually a mediocre player. If the holes are of proper lengths it is not at all necessary to place a nest of pits for a poor slice, for that player hardly will get home with his next in any event. It is likely that he will have trouble enough in getting around the course without burying himself up to his neck in sand..."

As a result, Tilly would often style the hole and then design the particular challenges based upon those very ideas. This cannot be done when the hole design is based upon a model whether it fits the terrain or not.

Another aspect of his design philosophies that most don't appreciate is that tilly believed in designing courses that would provide the types of challenges that would bring about better players. That is why he also wrote that, "It is possible that some of the American invaders of Great Britain failed in the amateur championship because they got to pulling their shots to gain distance over a course where extreme length is not at all necessary, but which demands direction...      American courses are improving generally, and I believe that our best are the best in the world. They will be greater when more attention is paid to accurate placement rather than yardage."