Tom MacW:

Reading particularly your last post I think you and I just have very different thoughts on what Tillinghast did during his career design-wise both before and during the PGA project. You see him cluttering up the so-called first DH zone with bunkering, perhaps something like his drawing on the left in Chapter 28 and perhaps using bunkering in the second DH zone as in that left drawing. I don't see him doing that or advocating that except perhaps on a course with the design intent of a PVGC or an NGLA (and he said as much in one of his articles in answer to Taylor's apparent complaint about courses like that---probably being not democratic enough to accomodate the duffer). Tillinghast's answer to Taylor on that subject chapter 36 is courses like that are simply not designed or intended for duffers!! So there's nothing inconsistent there. And he wrote that article in 1917!!

And, again, if you're talking about a single bunker on the side of a fairway, or even one eating slightly into a fairway on one side diagonally or whatnot in a range that may be within 175 yards from the tee a duffer may use, that is simply not the DH zone bunkering he was referring to in my opinion although it may be in your opinion. There is definitely plenty of room around bunkers like that!

And you can't decide if Tillinghast's proposals are for or against the duffer? That's pretty fundamental Tom. Perhaps you should go back and read the logic of what he's saying and probably always said about duffers (unless of course the course was for another purpose which you also seem to have a hard time either understanding or acknowledging).

I think you're tryijng to fit Tillinghast into some preconceived definition of yours and he doesn't factually fit into that definition, in my opinion.

On some courses the duffer was not a factor or a consideration and Tillinghast understood that and the courses he was a major consideration Tillinghast appeared to feel he should be given a break on penality and I don't think he had some huge change of architectural principles that way as you obviously think he did.

What a crumy day in Baltimore.  I was to play Five Farms East with brother Stu and we chickened out with the weather -- cold, wind, & rain.   Where is the Spring?

Since there are many posts interpreting the initial purpose of Tilly's PGA Consulting Tour I thought it would be beneficial to reprint the following article from the last book in the Tillinghast Trilogy, Gleanings from the Wayside.  

I think it is a correct interpretation that one of the primary and "very public" reasons for Tilly's service was to advise on ways to save money in maintaining golf courses.  I would conclude that this was was certainly the very "public face" of the service and the way "to get in the door" at the host clubs and courses.

I can certainly speculate that Tilly MAY have sold this to George Jacobus as the primary reason or benefit of the service.  HOWEVER, I can also speculate that the primary purpose in Jacobus's mind was to provide a benefit to PGA professionals, which would keep them current on the payment of their membership dues, and also keep them in good stead with their employers.

I would also suspect that there was a fair amount of "MEDIA HYPE" on "DH" removal -- the large number of bunkers Tilly condemned.  I would think most would agree that this is what a news reporter would highlight or headline in a story.  I would also conclude from my read of the Tilly letters, that the a small percentage of the courses Tilly visited had the largest percentage of the DH bunkers removed.

All this being said, when you read all the letters, Tilly went far beyond the stated purpose of just advising on ways to save money.  As was already posted and proven, the bulk of Tilly's advice was on the re-design and design of greens, tees, bunkers, fairways, trees, etc. etc.  The DH removal was just one of many many types of recommendations that Tilly made.

Ironically, the vast majority of Tilly's design recommendations had significant costs to implement.  Heck, even the removal of the so-called DH's cost money to remove!

Perhaps Tilly couldn't help himself.  And I have concluded that HE REFUSED TO SELL OUT AND DID WHAT HE KNEW BEST -- WHAT A GOLF COURSE ARCHITECT DOES -- DESIGNING AND RECOMMENDING!

What follows is the "public face" of the PGA tour, which was published two months after the start of Tilly's tour.


34. WHAT THE P.G.A. COURSE SERVICE REALLY MEANS
Professional Golfer of America, October 1935

LET us briefly  regard the newly instituted service of the Professional Golfers' Association, extended without fees to golf courses throughout the United States wherever a P.G.A. member is affiliated.

It is a sincere gesture from the professionals to do something more for the game from which they derive a livelihood -- something which will gradually improve courses generally by making them more pleasurable for more people.  Obviously this is a far-sighted policy for as more players are attracted to the game, naturally the field of the professional is broadened.

Expert advice, which emphasizes a concentration on vitally important details and the elimination of obsolete and unnecessary features, must direct budgets to doing the most good.

When I was selected and retained by the P.G.A. to visit courses throughout the country, solely to advise them and help them with their various course problems, I was little prepared for the spontaneous reaction to the plan.  It is amazing.  In the middle of August of 1935 I started through New York State, apart from the Metropolitan district, in response to requests from P.G.A. members, and within fifteen days I had been called on to visit no less than twenty-six courses to help solve their problems. These examinations extended from Schenectady as far west as Buffalo.  In every instance I was accompanied in the examinations by the club's pro and greenkeeper, and in most cases by green committeemen and officials.  On two occasions I was contacted by local golf architects and course builders, who expressed their pleasure and satisfaction.

Let it be thoroughly understood that the P.G.A. does not  propose to make plans and construct courses.  Where any considerable work in this direction may be involved our policy will be to recommend reliable local experts and in everyway help them with advice and suggestions, a fact that stimulates their activities and which evidently is being appreciated.

In three districts of the P.G.A. I addressed meetings of member professionals with greenkeepers and green committeemen from their clubs and afterwards animated and informally, general discussions of many interesting points, which were mingled with various questions and my opinions.

The following incident may be indicative of the early success of the service.  The secretary of a P.G.A. district advised me of the requests for my presence (and may it be borne in mind that the service is rendered only on request) and stated that a certain pro had remarked that it would scarcely be worth while for me to travel forty miles to his course, – “for my club has no money.”

His course is not included in the twenty-six already noted but I did travel the forty miles just to explain to him that our intention was not to devise plans for the spending of money but rather to save it.  Finally he asked me to visit three of his greens that needed recontouring.  I was able to show him how one of them could be changed at little cost, how another needed only the introduction of one guarding pit, and in the other instance an entirely new green in a perfectly natural location would improve the hole and cost no more than the fixing up of the old green, which was wrongly placed.

“Why I can do all that this fall!” he exclaimed and not have to ask the committee for any money at all.  That detour seemed very worth while to me.

Certainly one of the greatest benefits to the average golfer to be accomplished under the new service is the elimination of what I term "Duffers' Headaches," the many traps placed only to catch the poor shots of poor players.  These add aggravation and are of no value, for modern planning seeks only to make the par shooters mind their P's and Q's.  Yet these ancient relics (and unfortunately some of later vintage) are scattered about many courses serving to add to the up-keep to a marked degree for usually they demand an unholy amount of handwork.  At one place these "Chocolate drops" and sand pits ran about in a perfect riot and utterly destroyed the natural beauty of an otherwise beautiful course.  But above all else they brought dismay to poor golfers and were very expensive to maintain.  After only a rather brief discussion with the chairman of the green committee, who accompanied the professional and the greenkeeper, his notations sealed the doom of no less than twenty-five of these monstrosities and I believe that more will follow as a natural consequence.  The course was built in 1915, which of course was nearer the period when hazards said to the humble golfer, "You must" rather than "You may."  One must surely understand by this what the P.G.A. service really means when it is declared that it will make golf more pleasurable for more players.

The service was extended to all parts of the United States and as rapidly as possible routes were established.  To reach as many clubs as request the service, applications were made by P.G.A. members, either through the sectional association or to the national headquarters.

Tom MacWood,

Which DH bunkers, bunkers within 140 yards of the tee, did AWT design and build at Bethpage Black ?

Here is the second letter of his tour.

Schenectady, August 16th 1935

President of the Professional Golfers’ Association

Dear Sir:

This morning I accompanied Harry Yorke over the nine holes course of the Colonie Country Club and at his request located a new sixth green, provided a sketch showing contours and levels and instructed him concerning preparation of compost.  I also did the same thing for a new fourth green.

Went to the Troy Country Club and had a fine conference with Eddie Schultz, President of the P.G.A. in this section.  He is in hearty accord.  This course was laid out by the late Walter J. Travis and unfortunately presents some strenuous climbs of hills.  Schultz desired me to find a way to eliminate some of this if possible.  I did this by giving him a new eighth hole (which will be their ninth) and arriving at the higher level by dog-legging through a long swale.  This will necessitate a new arrangement at the third and fourth, - all quite economical.  I am to return there to go over the ground with Schultz and the chairman of his green committee, who is out of town now.  Schultz combines the management of the course and greenkeeping with his professional duties.  I will include this with the requested service at the Albany Country Club as I return, together with two more requests from the Albany Municipal course, where Jerry Dwyer is pro’ and also at the Western Turnpike (Bill Rapp. – P.G.A. Member)

At the Mohawk Golf Club I was very warmly welcomed by the course manager and professional, Jim Thomson, a particularly energetic and capable man.  His chief problem was an new eighth hole, which I laid out to his great satisfaction, and bunkering his new seventh green.  This is the most important course in this district and I had a good talk with the president of the club.  On my return through here I am to recommend more improvements.

This evening I talked briefly of the P.G.A. service over the radio from the General Electric studios.  Eddie Schultz was included in this.

We are to have quite a write-up in this evening’s paper, I am told, and I requested McBride to mail you a clipping.  (Tomorrow’s paper, -correction)

I have had no new instructions from you and look for some message when I arrive at the Seneca Hotel at Rochester on Sunday evening.  Tomorrow I leave for Syracuse and Rochester making contacts with P.G.A. members en route.  Better advise me by wire on Monday, Seneca Hotel, Rochester, if there is anything to take me to Buffalo.  Otherwise I will give such service as may be desired in the Rochester district and start back.

The P.G.A. is very strong here and all are loyal and enthusiastic.

Very truly yours

A.W. Tillinghast                

You want more facts?  There are plenty of facts which undermine your premise--  Just because you dont accept or even acknowledge them doesnt mean that they dont exist.

What 'facts' support your theory that AWT suddenly changed his bunker philosophy and/or his design principles in 1935?  Seems like stretched conjecture based loosely on the number of removed bunkers, and the fact that he managed to secure employment in his profession during the depression.  Not convincing.

In the interest of getting all the facts on the table, perhaps you will answer a few questions I have about AWT's design principles/bunker philosophy, as it was before 1935:

-- Was it part of AWT's pre-1935 design principles/bunker philosophy to offer designs that his clients could not possibly afford to pay for and/or maintain?
-- Was it part of AWT's pre-1935 design principles/bunker philosophy to ignore the specific requests and "problems" of his clients?
-- Was it part of AWT's pre-1935 design principles/bunker philosophy to reject all other course bunkering schemes but his own, and to recommend to everyone who asked that these non-Tillie bunker schemes should be replaced with Tillie bunker schemes?

Tom, you judge AWT as if he spent his career in some magic bubble free from the circumstances of the world.  But AWT was neither designing in a classroom, nor was he scetching holes for a magazine design contest.   He was working for clients and with constraints.  

What happened in late 1935 (and not 1930-1935) that explains his new bunkering philosophy??   Perhaps he had no new bunkering philosophy, perhaps he just had a different set of constraints within which to work.

David
"-- Was it part of AWT's pre-1935 design principles/bunker philosophy to offer designs that his clients could not possibly afford to pay for and/or maintain?"

I really don't know...I don't believe an architect would enjoy much success if he produced designs his clients could not afford. Based on the economic climate pre 1929, I doubt his practices created much of an affordability issue. To my knowledge he didn't specificly write about affordability pre-1935.

Throughout his entire career...pre- and post-Depression...I would describe his bunkering style as strategic and unincumbered. He presented hazards that required options and thought for all levels of play. As far as I know, the only courses he designed during the Depression were the Bethpage courses--they were a continuation of this style.

In 1936 he began writing about the Duffer's headache, promoting (and executing) this new architectural philosophy that was a departure from his previous designs. Limiting the options and thought of the duffer, by eliminating hazards that effected their play.

This new philosophy in fact condemmed his previous practices, and the practices of George Thomas, Dr.MacKenzie, Donald Ross, etc. When he suggested Bel-Air remove bunkers (a request they igonored)...is it your impression they could not afford the bunkers?

The fact is the economy was worse in 1930 than it was in 1936-37. Have you found any evidence of Tillinghast's DH bunker philosophy/affordibility concerns while editor of Golf Illustrated in the early to mid-30's?  The economy was slowly improving by 1936 and the Federal gov't had begun to provide relief...there was light at the end of the tunnel. Why not present the bunker reduction as temporary, as the economy improved bring back some of these retired bunkers. But that is not what Tilly did, he adopted a new philosophy, presenting these bunkers as bad architecture....period.

"-- Was it part of AWT's pre-1935 design principles/bunker philosophy to ignore the specific requests and "problems" of his clients?"

I don't know if he ignored requests pre-1935. As far as I know he never went on a barn storming tour prior to 1935. Is it your impression that the clubs in 1936-37 requested he remove 7000+ bunkers? It was my impression that he promoted the idea and they followed his advice (in many cases).

"-- Was it part of AWT's pre-1935 design principles/bunker philosophy to reject all other course bunkering schemes but his own, and to recommend to everyone who asked that these non-Tillie bunker schemes should be replaced with Tillie bunker schemes?"

This is a confusing...I'm not sure I understand the question. Prior to 1935 his new designs reflect a fairly consistent personal style...as does his redesign work. On the other hand that style and bunkering sceme shared many similarites with Ross, Flynn, MacKenzie, Raynor, and Macdonald, etc.....so I'm not certain what the question is asking.

On his tour Tillinghast did not discriminate...MacKenzie, Ross, Thomas, Travis, Alison, Raynor, were all guilty of placing DH's on their golf courses...as was Tilly himself. The idea of the DH was a departure for all these gents....even those who designed courses during the Depression -- Ross (the revamped Pinehurst #2), Flynn (Shinnecock Hills), MacKenzie (ANGC), Thompson  (Capilano) and Bethapge (Tillinghast).

If my theory is illogical, I'd like to know what happened in late 1935 (and not 1930-1935) that explains his new bunkering philosophy?  What were these new constraints in 1935, that did not exsist in 1930-34?  What happened in 1935...surely you have a plausable explantion?

PS: I don't know what syllogism means or how mine collapsed  (I'm still waiting for you to explain what exactly is faulty). As far as baiting is concerned, if asking for a reasonable and logical explantion is baiting, then yes I am baiting.

Getting back to the original question.....

No.

As Lloyd Cole said or implied on this or another thread (don't have the time to scroll back through this one to find out...), most interesting people evolve over their lives and do not hold to the same standards or even principles that they held at ages 15, 35, 55, 75 ad infinitum, hopefully....).

Why for god's sake do we really care if Tillie had different ideas about bunkering in 1935 vs. 1915?  I would much more care if he did not.  The letters that Rick W. kindly copies show to me a man who is very much at one with himself and trying his best to improve the conditions of US Golf, in the context of his time.  To compare the design issues and opportunites of the new build of Brook Hollow in the 20's with those of "improving" some "minor" course in upstate NY in the mid-30's is like trying to compare the making of a single malt and the re-formulation of a decent but non-historic blend.  Each task has a vastly different scope and different ambitions and possiblities.

Give Tillie a break.  As far as I can see on this thread, the boy done good.

Rich
Not 1915 vs 1935....1935 (Bethpage) vs 1935 (PGA tour)

From 1915 thru 1935 Tillie incorpated the DH....in late 1935 for some reason in he promoted their removal....why, what sparked the change in late 1935?

TE
The 1920 article begins with Tilly explaining to duffers that stiffening golf courses will not mean less pleasurable or interesting golf. The mid section of the article deals with the dreaded Cop (Travis, Colt, Alison, MacKenzie all wrote similar cop condemnations in 1920).

The end of the article deals with hazards that are not designed to trap bad shots, but hazards that are meant for shots not nearly good enough. I don't read that he believes the duffer should not be faced with any hazards (the Duffer Range free of hazards). In fact he says the medium to poor player will have to contend with a greatly shorter carry (than 180 yds) or non at all. He does not appear to be promoting a prohibition of Duffers Headaches in 1920. Most importantly his actions and practices speak even louder than his words.

What is your threory on 1935, what happened in late 1935 that sparked the change in philosophy?

"TE
The 1920 article begins with Tilly explaining to duffers that stiffening golf courses will not mean less pleasurable or interesting golf."

Tom:

I realize that but stiffening golf courses for whom? That's basically the WHOLE point for you to begin to come to grips with on this thread.

Tillinghast, as can be clearly seen in that article from 1920 and others on the same subject both before and later and into the 1930s is talking about stiffening the challenge for the "crack" golfer and lightening the challenge for the duffer who really doesn't need the challenge of bunkering through DH zones because his own game is challenge enough to him---eg he can't reach the example hole even with his two best shots anyway!

In 1920 he's explaining bunkering should be generally removed from both the first AND second DH zone because it only effects the duffer (who doesn't need it) and it DOES NOT effect the crack player who DOES need bunkering in areas (such as the 175-250 yds he specifies) which is basically NOT in the area that effects the duffer if he hits three good shots to this example green (the bunkering in the second DH zone he also recommends removing as it too only effects the duffer who DOES NOT need it and it DOES NOT effect the crack player. So consequently he speaks of turning green angles including their slopes and contours and perhaps bunkering  one side of a green  (MASTER BUNKER he mentions and draws on his "modern" example hole) to challenge basically the crack player coming at it in two and the duffer hopefully coming at it in three shots.

This is Tillinghast's perscription for his ideas on "Modern golf" architecture which he speaks about as far back as 1917 (that I'm aware of) right on through the 1930s.

You seem to be missing this entire and very important point as well as when he said it and what he said in this quest of yours to prove he compromised his archtiectural principles in the mid 1930s.

I'm glad this thread did continue---because as it goes along it seems more info, facts and evidence flows in proving just how wrong you are in this assumption and conclusion of yours that Tillinghast compromised his architectural principles by thinking all this up and proposing it during the PGA project in 1935..

Matter of fact, I think I'm beginning to see better just how futuristic Tillinghast's architectural principles really were and starting from what appears to be a very early time!

And again, your contention or implication that Tillinghast bunkered up DH zones as some other architects did at any time does not appear to be supported by facts. That is, of course, unless the golf course was NOT intended for duffers in the first place which also seems to be a fact that you're having a hard time coming to grips with or for some odd reason unable to acknowledge!

Tom MacWood,

Tom MacWood,

Which DH bunkers, bunkers within 140 yards of the tee, did AWT design and build at Bethpage Black ?

Did you know the answer to this question when I first posted it ?

Can you answer it now ?

Why did you avoid answering it ?

Pat
That question was answered pages ago.

TE

"I realize that but stiffening golf courses for whom? That's basically the WHOLE point for you to begin to come to grips with on this thread."

The stiffened course would produce more pleasure for all levels of play...as opposed to formulaic cop hazard courses with a trench at 140 yrds followed by second trench at 280 yds and so on.

"Tillinghast, as can be clearly seen in that article from 1920 and others on the same subject both before and later and into the 1930s is talking about stiffening the challenge for the "crack" golfer and lightening the challenge for the duffer who really doesn't need the challenge of bunkering through DH zones because his own game is challenge enough to him---eg he can't reach the example hole even with his two best shots anyway!"

In 1920 he wrote that "the medium or poor have to contend with a greatly shortened carry or likely none at all." This is supported and illustrated by his courses from the early 1920's--SFGC, Brook Hollow, Philadelphia Cricket, Fresh Meadow, Binghampton, Wyoming Valley etc. Some holes with bunkers in the Duffer Range, other holes without bunkers in that range. In 1936 he is promoting no bunkers in that range (they are bad architecture)....a clear departure from 1920 (and 1917) and his entire career up through Bethpage.

"In 1920 he's explaining bunkering should be generally removed from both the first AND second DH zone because it only effects the duffer (who doesn't need it) and it DOES NOT effect the crack player who DOES need bunkering in areas (such as the 175-250 yds he specifies) which is basically NOT in the area that effects the duffer if he hits three good shots to this example green (the bunkering in the second DH zone he also recommends removing as it too only effects the duffer who DOES NOT need it and it DOES NOT effect the crack player. So consequently he speaks of turning green angles including their slopes and contours and perhaps bunkering one side of a green (MASTER BUNKER he mentions and draws on his "modern" example hole) to challenge basically the crack player coming at it in two and the duffer hopefully coming at it in three shots."

A very creative interpretation (and incorrect IMO) of his 1920 remarks, an interpretation which is not supported by his designs and design practices at the time. I'm not accusing Tilly of preaching one thing and practicing another, I'm claiming he compromised his career design practices in 1935.  Again you are confusing condemnation of cop bunkered courses with his later Duffer's Range proposals.

"This is Tillinghast's perscription for his ideas on "Modern golf" architecture which he speaks about as far back as 1917 (that I'm aware of) right on through the 1930s."

If anything Tilly's 1917 response to Taylor confirms his compromise in 1935. If anything Taylor is closer to Tilly the PGA consultant than Tilly in 1917.

Tilly wrote in this article: "The thoroughly modern courses are the most popular in America and those who first opposed reconstruction along the up-to-date lines, are loudest in their praise, after testing the new conditions. The duffer knows now that the new golf courses give him more geniune pleasure and zest for his game. No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries (the cop). The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations of each, meet with hearty approval. The chronic grumblers, and there are a few, usually are short players, who are disinclined to take the shorter and safer routes from teeing ground to green. Naturally, some of the unreasoning players will pin future wails on Taylor's remark that any kind of a course will show the better players to advantage. These same men undoubtedly would be elated if all hazards were condemmed and funnel like greens advocated. Even some of the most exacting course are very popular among the most mediocre players."

This is one of the best arguements available for why his PGA DH strategy is a poor one.

"You seem to be missing this entire and very important point as well as when he said it and what he said in this quest of yours to prove he compromised his archtiectural principles in the mid 1930s."

I don't think so.

The question remains.....what in late 1935 caused the change? Any theories?

Based on his designs in 1920 and his writing in the 1920 and 1917 articles...he is saying that duffer will no longer be faced with mandatory carries (cop cross bunkers)...when he is faced with a carry it will be a much shorter carry and in many cases no carry at all....an alternate safer route...a thought provoking choice as opposed to no choice a la 1936 or the cop.