Some new blood - what about Newport, where DH's dot the frontside, and which was designed 10 years after he began his quest to ameliorate the sad situation of the duffer.

Rick Wolffe:

Thanks again for typing out all those articles of Tillinghast's. At the very least those articles have shown that Tillinghast was probably the most comprehensive and informative writer on the details of architecture of his time and perhaps of any time and for that we should all be grateful to him.

It seems from Tillinghast's ongoing writing and philosophy of what was most interesting and enjoyable about golf architecture for the duffer and what Tom MacWood and Mike Cirba apparently think was most interesting and enjoyable for the duffer was quite different!

Tom MacWood,

Numerous other courses were designed by him, still following his custom of working severly to the artificial construction of replicas of British golf holes.

Didn't you insist, on another thread, that NGLA wasn't heavily constructed and was natural, despite never having played or walked the golf course ?

I think Tommy Naccarato first joined you and then broke ranks admitting that NGLA was artificial and heavily constructed

And now we have AWT disagreeing with your position as well

Tom,

I have heard you reference the Bethpage Course (s) as part of your argument.  I also recall (and Rick Wolfe could probably provide) reading that Tillie wouldn't recommend the Black Course as suitable, if it wasn't one of four at the same complex, which weren't bunkered as heavily.  I agree with that, and see no inconsistency in doing one of four tough, one easy, and two in the middle.  

Its not as if every course, even in a depression needs exactly the same treatment, even if most do.  And I don't see in the record that he necessarily recommended the exact same program for all, but recommended an individual program for each, based on his visit.  

Certainly, he probably was only called to ones that were in financial difficulty, looking to save money.  But, what if he went to an old line club that had no need to save money then?  Would he necessarily demand (not that he could or did) bunker removal?

Over time, he probably did develop a more or less standard program, but if he was dogmatic in removing bunkers, without seeing the site, he could have sent out an mass mailing, saying "remove all bunkers 140 yards or closer to the tee," no?

I also believe he could have had the slow change of heart regarding duffers bunkers generally, even while allow BPB to be the exception.  Early in his career, he realized that cross bunkers without options had to go, later that all short bunkers could go, after viewing the results of play, and perhaps sped up by deteriorating economic conditions a bit.

It seems we all sort of agree on the major points.  Perhaps the real question is the use of the term "selling out" in the original post.  At what point does a change of principals become a compromise of principals?  Is it just because it happened a bit faster than you think it ought to have?

Mike,

Deep in his heart, Tillie felt he knew what was best for everybody?

To me the continuing commentary of particularly Tom MacWood on this subject is both depressing and appalling. Apparently Tom can't even understand the very Tillinghast remarks he quotes in an attempt to support his nonsensical claim about Tillinghast‘s architectural principles. What he quotes from Tillinghast, particularly about the courses of Bethpage is completely contradictory to what Tillinghast, who built those courses, said about them regarding the duffer and his overall enjoyment (or not) of those varied courses.

"without doubt were the other courses at Bethpage as severe as Black the place would not have enjoyed the great popularity it has known since the doors were thrown open to the public."

Tom MacW;

Does that remark show clearly a different design philosophy and architectural application of Tillinghast’s regarding the Black than other golf courses vis-à-vis the duffer? Of course it does, no matter how much you keep saying otherwise!.

The thing you need to come to terms with on this thread is in 1935-36 Tillinghast never suggested that bunkering in the duffer’s range on ALL courses should be removed and he never suggested that ALL courses should be considered suitable for the duffer. I just cannot imagine why you can’t see this simple fact of the spectrum of architecture. There is nothing inconsistent between what Tillinghast said or did in 1917 and what he said and did in 1935-6 as much as you seem to want to make it so. If for whatever their reasons the PGA had come along in 1917 and asked Tillinghast to do the same architectural things he did for them in 1935-36 (sans the different economic realities) I have no doubt at all he would’ve done exactly the same things!

The thing you need to come to terms with on this thread is in 1935-36 Tillinghast never suggested that bunkering in the duffer’s range on ALL courses should be removed.

On this point I really have no objection. I think that goes to the essence of what I was trying to get at 44 pages go. It seems possible that there may have been a double standard at play. Where Tillie was paid to design a course, it seems that bunkers, and A LOT of bunkers were a crucial component of his design philosophy.

But where removal of bunkers become a prescriptive remedy, then perhaps he was all for it.

To me that seems like a reasonable inference to be drawn from all of the historical material (or materiel, on this thread).

If for whatever their reasons the PGA had come along in 1917 and asked Tillinghast to do the same architectural things he did for them in 1935-36 (sans the different economic realities) I have no doubt at all he would’ve done exactly the same things!

I don't know what affirmative support there is for that statement, except your enduring confidence in Tillie. The evidence would seem to indicate otherwise (note: Newport CC reference above). I don't think you can take the economic reality out of this. To my mind it does all the explaining necessary.  But for the economic reality, I doubt Tillie would have become as solicitous of the Duffer.

Tom MacW said;

"TE
I acknowledge the Black was super severe--more severe than just about anything he done to date (ironic it was in the midst of the Deperession). And obviously more severe than the other Bethpage courses, but the other courses were not stiffs, they were excellent tests comparable to courses he designed throughout his career. It is the other courses that provide clues to Tilly's 1935 design philosophy and practices prior to his PGA tour. I can tell you he was not practicing the bunker free Duffer's range at Bethpage and he was not consumed with the DH....thus IMO the compromise or weakening of his design standards during the PGA tour."

Tom McW;

Again, here are two quotation of Tillinghast, one before 1935 and one after 1935.

From 1917:

“No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries. The hazard lines which grade the shots to the limitations…..”

From 1937;

"without doubt were the other courses at Bethpage as severe as Black the place would not have enjoyed the great popularity it has known since the doors were thrown open to the public."

Where is the inconsistency of philosophy in those two statements that are twenty years apart? You yourself are suggesting there were bunkers in the DH zone on the other Bethpage courses. Neither you nor Tillinghast is including the Black in this question as it’s clear to see Tillie is suggesting the Black is not designed as a course suitable for the duffer. Does that fact alone mean anything to you about what Tillinghast’s architectural philosophIES may be both before and after 1935-36 regarding different architecture for different levels of golfers? It seems clear he is saying that other Bethpage courses are interesting for the duffer and that those courses have some bunkering in that DH zone. If it’s true that there are some interesting bunkers in that DH zone on the other courses of Bethpage that are graded for various limitations of abilities why are you suggesting that during and after 1935-36 Tillinghast recommended removal of ALL bunkering from ALL courses in that zone as proof that he changed his architectural philosophy, thereby compromising his architectural principles?  It seems you’re saying that based SOLEY on the fact that Tillinghast recommended the removal of 7,000-8,000 bunkers on courses around the nation and you are ASSUMING that a number like that MUST INDICATE that he was recommending the total removal of ALL bunkering on ALL courses in that first DH zone.

For about the tenth time I’m telling you that is not necessarily so---that that fact is not proof of that recommendation on Tillinghsat’s part as much as you and Mike Cirba apparently want to make it so, and this quote of Tillinghast’s above is a clear indication of that.

Now you are probably thinking that Tillinghast said one thing at some courses and something else at other courses regarding DH zone bunkering and that’s another indication of his compromised architectural principles. That is only so if Tillinghast had the same kind of “one size fits all” mentality of architectural philosophy that you apparently do. But he did have that “one size fits all” mentality about architecture either before 1935-36 or after it. This is what you need to come to terms with if you want to understand both these eras, Tillinghast and golf architecture generally.

The likes of the Black and PVGC were not designed for the duffer and Tillinghast said that throughout his long career. On the other hand, courses that were for the duffer occasionally needed to be designed or redesigned in such a way as to both interest and accommodate the duffer. Tillinghast definitely understood these distinctions between various courses and the needs and interests of the duffer and it’s time you begin understanding these distinctions too. They ARE DISTINCTIONS Tom, they are DIFFERENCES!

Call this basic fundamental about golf architecture generally “different strokes for different folks” if you will. These men understood that and because they built different types of courses for different levels of players by no means indicates they were compromising their architectural principles!

Today I tend to call this obvious architectural philosophy the “Big World Theory”. It means there are different courses for different levels of players and sometimes the courses for the higher level of player were never meant to accommodate some lesser level of player architecturally. This by no means indicates that a duffer should never play a course like PVGC or Bethpage Black--only that if he does and does not enjoy it because it beats the shit out of him daily he should then realize he should play a course that was designed to better accommodate his level simply because it might be more enjoyable to him. Both Tillinghast and Crump were aware that occassionally duffers like to try their hand at PVGC despite the fact it tortured them. They were clearly amused by this but it no means they felt they were accomodating the duffer architectural at PVGC or should do that!

There is no compromise in any of this Tom---it just makes the entire art of golf architecture richer and more varied. Tillinghast understood that both before 1935-36 and if you want to understand him properly you should too!

TE
I do not agree with your enterpretation of the 1917 comments....I think it is pretty clear what Tilly is referring to when he speaks of obligatory carries.

"And now let us regard Mr. Humbleman.  He has the opportunity of placing his second shot safely to the open side of the green, without the distressing fear of the old Obligatory route over the "Cross Pit,""   Ugly Duckling 1937

Cross pit = cop bunker

“…than in the times when carries were obligatory and greens were faced at right angles and accepting, without great favor, shots from either side of the fairway...”   The Obligue in Golf Design 1932

carries were obligatory + right angles = cop bunker

“The duffer knows now that the new golf courses give him more genuine pleasure and zest for his game. No longer is he irritated by obligatory carries. 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 condemned and funnel like greens advocated. Even some of the most exacting course are very popular among the most mediocre players."
Tilly’s response to Taylor 1917

Obligatory carries = cop bunker  
hazard lines which grade shots to the limitations of each = bunkers en echelon & obligue or diagonal hazards

The point of my last post was to get away from parsing his every word and to look at his actual designs and design practices...if we dissagree with what he is saying lets look to what he actually did in the field for clarification.

You still haven't answered a number of questions or provided concrete examples for these questions:


Perhap you correct, lets assume he did not recommend every bunker be removed from the Duffer's Range....where in the 'Simplicity' article (or the other PGA tour articles) does he make clear (or articulate) when and where he would make exceptions...what is his criteria?

Whatever his 'true' policy (that you've been able glean)....the fact remains he removed nearly 8000 bunkers...what does the recommeded removal of DH's from Bel-Air and the removal of bunkers from Valley Club tell you about where and when he made these exceptions? Do you agree withthe idea that Thomas (and MacKenzie) were simply punishing the duffer with their bunkers within 175 yards?

Based upon what you know of Tilly's designs was the Duffer's Range a new philsophy? If it wasn't a new philosophy what Tilly courses are examples of it at work?

As Sean pointed out you said: "If for whatever their reasons the PGA had come along in 1917 and asked Tillinghast to do the same architectural things he did for them in 1935-36 (sans the different economic realities) I have no doubt at all he would’ve done exactly the same things!" What do you base this upon.

"I base it on the fact that I see no change in his architectural philosophy regarding that duffer zone (on courses that were designed to accomodate the duffer which clearly not all were) before, during, or after his PGA project."

Interesting logic. He would've removed bunkers from the duffer's zone in 1917 if the PGA had requested him. If it were his philosophy in 1917 why didn't build golf courses without bunkers in that zone? Did he need the PGA to tell him to do it? What are some of the courses Tilly designed during this period that were designed to accomodate duffers (Duffer's Range)?

No one knows if Tilly recommended ALL bunkers be removed from the Duffer's Range...but we do know (1) he promoted the Duffers Range philosophy in 1936-37, we do know (2)Tilly regularly placed bunkers within that zone throughout his career and we know (3) 7000+ bunkers were removed. The Duffer Zone philosophy was a departure from his design practices...hence compromise. You don't need to know anything more than those three points to recongize the change....it isn't important to prove Tilly recommended 100% eratication to see that it was departure...just look at his work! One thing is clear he never articulated an exception for bunkers within the Duffers Range.

You don't know what Thomas and MacKenzie were doing 175 yards of the tee? Do you know what Tilly was doing?

This thread is about Thomas and MacKenzie....and Ross and Travis and Findlay (and Tilly pre-1935) because Tilly was recommending changes to their designs. One of his tasks (as he wrote) was to eliminate DH's...his recommendations to remove bunkers from their courses places him in conflict with their philosophies (and IMO in conflict with his own previous philosophies).

If the Dufffer's Range philosophy was not new certainly you can provide numerous examples pre-PGA.

Jeff
If Bethpage was taken out of his portfolio it would not change the departure in philosophy...you still have the rest of his designs to compare with his Duffer's Range philosophy. What it would do is eliminate designs that ran contrary of his philosophy right in the middle of the Depression.

You still have his written record while Editor of Golf Illustrated in the Depression...and no mention of DH's or Duffer's Range.

IMO it is extremely unlikely he will be able to prove Tilly was not involved at Bethpage.

"Along with TePaul, I have to wonder how this has evolved into such a personal test of your manhood, or whatever."

You obviously haven't been following this thread.  

TE
By the way I have presented upwards of twenty course as examples to support my point....from Shawnee and Quaker Ridge to Ridgewood and Bethpage-Red. Exerpts from Hannigan, Graffis, Jacobus, the NY Times, Golfdom, Golf Illustrated, etc. to help support my point. I'm not sure you have provided anything.

Mike,

I know of a few individual "fore bunkers" on courses, and some architects are doing lots more random bunkering, but in general, no.  Of course, in Ross day, he used 200 yard doglegs, RTj used 250, most of us use 267 (on the way to 285 or 300 from the tips) and bunker accordingly.  

Other than perhaps using more carry bunkers just short of the main landing area, I think the majority of Ross (and most architects) bunkers guarded the proposed landing areas, whereas now we tend to use flanking bunkers at the dogleg, or pinching bunkers just past the landing area to catch and punish the long players.  So, coneptually, I don't think it is all that different, but just refined over the years.

To start with, you may be thinking of some courses like Flynns outstanding bunker clusters short off the tee, or perhaps some Tillie courses (like Brook Hollow) that also had hundreds of bunkers, but I question how many courses were really like that compared to the total?  For instance, TePauls Gulph Mills and many other Flynn courses in Philly don't have scads of bunkers.

I think the effects of the depression had a long shadow, until the boom of the nineties.  Now, I already see a return trend to building bunkers that only affect play of the best players.

So what happened from 1937-1990?  

Some theories, all based on the fact that our ancestors were very practical folk who did, as humans tend to do, what was best for them, as the circumstances dictated.....some prime reasons:

1. Money matters!  Until the power trap rake was invented, there was a substantial cost to raking bunkers.  also, in many areas, before tile drains were perfected, these may have also been drainage headaches.

2. People like trees, and hate being trapped in endless bunkers.  Not hard to see why the change occurred.

3. The RTJ Oakland Hills design was influential, as you say.

4. Emphasis in first Golf Digest ratings emphasize toughness for scratch players.  Why spend money on bunkers that don't challenge them?

5. Continued refinement of the DH elimination ideas regarding both maintenance and speed of play - If someone hits it 180 (as many seniors do) and can't reach the green in regulation anyway, why punish them more?  Isn't bogey enough?

6. Modernistic Architecture - with its own spare minimalism in decoration in the 50's.  Also, Mies and the strong ideals of "form follows function" affected golf architects.  if you are cyncical, you could say that the 50's and 60's were a down time in most design fields.

7. Everyone follows trends.  If things were accepted, like the RTj bunkers, then most clubs and architects followed, at least until the explosion of us architect types (spawned by Palmer in the 60's) came of age in the 90'w when our clients had the bucks to allow some architectural freedom.

8. Money Matters, Part II.  The trends had a real basis in the economics of clubs and public courses.  When people would pay just $10 for public golf, the design did have to do everything possible to reduce maintenance costs, and that was the driving force in the business when I got in it 1977. AT clubs, tax changes about the same time affected membership roles (temporarily, as it turned out) and they faced similar cost challenges.

Tom,

Sorry to offend, and I did go back and read the thread.  It seems you keep rephrasing the question endlessly, and I saw several posts (yours and others) of "show me where it said...."

FYI, Ron does have another document showing Burbecks involvment. Not that he could ever prove it to you, my friend!

I think we all agree that Tillie changed his philosphy when working for the PGA.  He was given a specific task.  Even if he did change ideas up solely for the PGA gig, I can't see what the heartburn is.  After all, what happened happened, and we aren't going to change that.