a friendly argument between CBM and Tilly

[Joe Bausch]

This from the March 28, 1916 edition of the The Record.

[Mike Cirba]

Interesting debate that continues to this day.

Also interesting that Tillinghast seems to know very well which courses Macdonald designed by that time, and the two seem to have been in regular contact for many years.

[TEPaul]

Joe:

That's a most interesting article for a lot of reasons-----certainly one being Tillie's lack of reluctance to express a basic conceptual difference of opinion on architecture with one of the most respected architects of that day.

I wonder if Tillie had written his article entitled "The Three Shotter" before or after he wrote the article you posted (1916)? I'm quite sure Phil Young can probably answer that question. That article ("The Three Shotter") may've also come with a drawing that called for what was labeled "Great Hazard Area" clear across the middle of the hole which appears to be the model for Crump's "Hell's Half Acre" across Pine Valley's #7 was taken from and for which Tillie claimed responsibility for.

At the date of the article it seems Macdonald had done Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow, St Louis, White Sulpher Springs along with NGLA and The Lido.

"The Remembrances" of PV also state that Crump wanted two par 5s that could never be reached in two shots and still today there are probably only a handful of golfers who ever have reached them in two.

The differences of opinion between Tillie and Macdonald on par 5s is also still very much with us in architecture today.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Interesting indeed, especially in light of a discussion I had last year with Notah Begay III on how difficult it might be to reach a 540 yard par 5 under construction.  He thought the bunkering was a bit too tight on a small green to really make a go of it and we removed some to make it more tempting.  It makes me wonder just how much we over fixate on the longest players then and now if even a Tour Pro (granted average drive of about 282 is bottom half of pro tour length these days) thinks 540 is only marginally reachable at 280-260. (or probably 290-250 since he would bust a tee shot)

But it does raise that old philosophical question - is there any reason to purposely design in a boring shot? (i.e. the second on an unreachable par 5)  Or, is the strongest inherent value of a par 5 the thrill of a potential birdie?  I know how good players now think, and now I know how CBM thought, presumably reflecting similar sentiments among good players even back then.

[BCrosby]

Very interesting.

Their little spat raises the issue of the role of temptation in good golf design. Me, I think CBM gets it right.

It's also pretty clear that MacK and Jones at ANGC would have been on CBM's side.

Bob

[Phil_the_Author]

From what I've seen so far I'm wondering if maybe you guys are reading into the article something that really isn't there.

Tilly & his friend "Charlie" (as he called him) had a very specific difference here. According to the article, CBM believed that many par-5's should be reachable in two shots. Tilly didn't he believed that most par-5's should be true three-shotters, hence the reference to the article that Tom Paul made. It can be found in the October 1918 issue of Golf Illustrated in the Our Green Committee section and it does indeed include an illustration of a three-shotter with a "great hazard" in it.

Tilly, though, deesigned a number of wonderful short par-5's that he expected the accomplished player to be able to get home in two if he made two perfectly executed shots and these designs purposefully rewarded him for doing so. A good example of this is the 12th hole at Winged Foot West. When it opened for play it was 487 yards from the back tees and played at that distance during the 1929 U.S. Open. He tempted and challenged players to go at it in two and yet if they missed they would be severely punished as apr was definitely gone and bogey would be a very good score. Both Al Espinoza and Bobby Jones went for this green in 2 shots during their 36-hole playoff for the Open championship.

The real disagreement though had more to do with length of the hole than ability to reach it in two shots. Note how Tiklly wrote that "In his opinion 480 yards under normal conditions furnished a good distance for a three-shot hole..." Whereas Tilly believed "I still remain unconvinced, 480 yards is litlle more than a two-shot distance and there are hundreds of golfers in America who would eat it up with with a drive and a long iron..."

It his discussion of bunker usage on three-shotters here that I find more signioficant. CBM, because of his view that par-5's should be reachable in two shots and so should be "open to the second shot of any prodicious hitter who might reach it." Tilly believed in limting the angle into the putting surface in a way that would allow him to require the accomplish player to choose how close to skirt the hazards between tee and green because the best angles would invariably be close by the hazards he placed there with the final entrance into the green from a spot that allowed the front portion, including the approach to be used in his choice of shots while if he hadn't placed his second shot in the preferred location he would be forced to deal with the greenside bunkers.

Two very different approaches in philosophy yet both with their own inherent challenges...

By the way, Tilly had already written and published several other articles about types of par-5's at this point including his April 1916 Golf Illustrated article titled "A Novel Type of Three-Shot Hole" (see below) I believe this is the very hole and article that they were having their "friendly" discussion about.

[Phil_the_Author]

Bob,

Interesting comment "It's also pretty clear that MacK and Jones at ANGC would have come down on CBM's side."

With that thought in mind, how long was the 8th hole (original 17) when the course opened and would it have fit into CBM's idea of reachable by almost all in two.

Also interesting is that both CBM & Tilly were accomplished players yet it appears that CBM believed that the accomplished player should be given distinct advantages whereas Tilly believed that they should be given distinctive challenges...

[BCrosby]

Phil -

I'd guess that all the par 5's at ANGC were reachable by some players from the beginning. The original yardages were:

No. 2 - 525 (downhill)
No. 8 - 500 (uphill)
No. 13 - 480
No. 15 - 485

All, I think, were par 5's that delightfully tempted players to go, subject to wind, wet, hangovers, etc.

As for no. 8, note the mound that MacK/Jones put front left of the green. It's only real function is to mess with players trying to reach the green with a long approach from down the fw. The old, almost c/l fw bunker had the same objective. It heightens the tension about go/no go all the way back to the tee. So the idea of players reaching no. 8 in two would seem to have been on the minds of MacK/Jones circa 1934.

I can't resist repeating for the grazillionth time, no. 8 is a great, great hole and one of the least appreciated at ANGC. And it achieves its greatness without water, o.b. or greenside bunkers.


Bob