Phil
I think you hit precisely on Tilly's message: superiority of American golf architecture. It was a common theme, there was a lot of soul searching in Britain as to why they were being dominated on the links and the design of American courses was often cited as a reason. When comparing the two countries American courses were considered more boldly or severely bunkered, requiring much more precision than the British school.

Ironic that Tilly would shortly embark on de-bunkering of American courses...from coast to coast.

Tiger,

Yes, he wrote about TOC & many of the old Scots he met there. I sent you a private message on this.

I'm not sure that looking at the list of champions who won there says much about TOC's worth.  Year in, year out, the best players in the world play the British Open.  No surprise the winner is ususally a great player.  

If the top 90 or 100 players played the Greater Milwaukee Open each year, I bet that list of winners would look impressive too.  Wouldn't matter what course hosted the event.  

Jim
Is the measurement of championship course how it protects itself against par or how successfully it identifies the best player?

You appear to belong to the US Open school of thought.

Tom, I think every pro tournament course identifies the best player that week.  Don't see how it could be otherwise.  Isn't that how the best player is defined?  The one who scores the lowest that week?    

Jim
So in other word the best player will always emerge no matter the quality or nature of the golf course. Than what separates a "championship" course from the non championship course?

I think Tillinghast's comments were made in the context of the superiority of American golf architecture, I wouldn't read to much into them...especially thirty plus years after he last saw the course. The great majority who knew St. Andrews well considered it the pinnacle of championship golf, although it was certainly not unanimous.  

How well did Tilly know St.Andrews...his main complaint with the course in 1901 were its unseen hazards in the fairway, which he acknowledged were not a problem with those familar with the course.

Tom, I think most if not all pro tournaments are played on championship courses.  

Jim
We're discussing Tilly's opinion not what someone on this site said about the course in 2006. They play pro tournaments at St.Andrews, I'm still not clear why you don't believe it was a championship course in Tilly's day. IMO a drivable par-4 is not a weakness in a championship course..in fact the more rick/reward opportunities the better (I say good for Jock Hutchison, that eagle helped him to finish at 296 and may have won him the tournament...I think that was the same tournament that Bobby Jones got so frustrated he walked off the course...he later became enchanted by the Old course and modeled ANGC after it).

I see no evidence that Tilly said he knew the course well.

Is it true that TOC depends on bad weather to be competitive?  If so, can such a course truly be considered of championship caliber?
     

Jim
You are right, he did say he knew the course well, but based upon his comments I don't see any evidence to back it up. You yourself said the course had changed since he last saw thrity plus years earlier. To claim it wasn't a championship course in 1933 is asinine.

There were prominent golfers who didn't like the Old course, but I don't recall any of them claiming it was a championship course. And there were some of the old guard who said it wasn't as challenging as it had been in the gutty days and with the encroaching whins....but that is all relative. The Old course was the one pre-Haskel course that had industructability...the par-5 Road Hole as a prime example.

Tilly's comments were made in the context that superior American golf architecture produced superior American golfers...I wouldn't take them too seriously.

Five drivable par-4s in 1933?

What is your definition of a course of true championship caliber? I do not believe the Old Course needed bad weather to produce compelling championship.

TE
The more you read of Tilly, Darwin and other commentaries of that period the better feel you have for the underlying background or context of their comments (and what is said in tongue and cheak ).

For example: Tilly was not saying the Old course would only present a championship test if the weather was bad, he was repeating the common wisdom that the British Walker Cup team could defeat the Americans if the weather was bad. In other words the Brits were counting on the American's inablitity to handle difficult conditions to give them a competitive edge. The fact of the matter was the Americans were better in good or bad weather.

"TE
The more you read of Tilly, Darwin and other commentaries of that period the better feel you have for the underlying background or context of their comments (and what is said in tongue and cheak ).

Tom:

Of course I disagree with that.

That's no different than saying "If he was here today I know what he'd say to do on this golf course."

Saying because you've read so much of what they've written you know when they were being tongue in check is nothing more than a rationalization to fit anything they said into a preconceived agenda.

"TE
Sorry. I think Darwin was trying to interject humor with his steeplechase comment....but who knows maybe you're right and he was literally trying to make the case Victorian courses were inspired by horsemen."

Tom MacW:

Inspired by horsemen? Why would you say that? A far more logical answer to me is that the model of the obstacles of steeplechasing simply worked just fine for INLAND golf at that point where inland golf outside Scotland had just begun and was at about its most rudiementary period. As Max Behr so cognently said, this was the first examples of golf when it first departed from land so naturally suited for it and emigrated to land that was not naturally suited for it.

Furthermore, I completely realize you think Darwin was trying to interject humor with his steeplechase remark. I also realize if you said you thought he was being serious that would be the word of one of golf and golf architecture's greatest observers and chroniclers basically shooting down the entire premise of your article "Arts and Craft Golf" as being primarily a reaction to the dehumanizing influences of Victorian industrialization or to some crude artistic influence of what you called the "Victorian Aesthetic"   .  

I guess he was also just interjecting humor when he detailed how some of those early layout people rushed from the planting of one stake to the planting of another, huh?

"When can we expect your Steeplechase essay?"

I don't know.