Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?

[SPDB]

Pat - For chrissakes. Will you please cut it out. Here is what Philip Young wrote.

The purpose of this tour was to provide a service to PGA pros so that they could show the powers that be at their courses that having a PGA pro was worth the money. A number of pros during the Depression, as I am sure you can understand, were losing their jobs. A great many were quitting the organization or not paying their dues. This service turned this trend completely around and may actually have saved the PGA of America as an organization.

I missed the thread where you questioned Phil's "Wild, irresponsible theories/conclusions" about  about the purpose and procedure of Tillie's work.

I say it wasn't free, which according to you is unsupported, you say it was free, on the same facts - how can one be supported by fact and one not? (excepting as justification that only one emanates from your computer, which seems to pass for facts these days).

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Read Graffis's history of the PGA or Hannigan's famous article on Tilly or look through old NY Times or Goldom magazines (Graffis was the Editor).

Graffis discussed the rational of the program, he states it was the most successful program the PGA ever had (at this point I think you ask how Graffis would know?). There were 500-600 hundred clubs who took advantage of the program....in a two year span. Anyone with an open mind can see that is extraordinary particpation.

The program was offered by the PGA...it is logical to believe the clubs understood the connection and appreciated the service. The clubs who did not have PGA pros also tried to get Tilly and understood the connection too...when they were rejected. It is discussed in the book.

By 1935, 36, 37 the economy was improving...I suspect that was reason the PGA discontinued the program.

According to Graffis courses that under went the PGA treatment were referred to PGA style courses...it became a popular style of course.

I wondered about the cost of these improvements myself...in turns out the WPA spent $10,500,000 on golf course maintenance and improvements during those years (NY Times).

"How do you know that those were the FACTS ?"

We know the facts by reading and searching for the facts...you should try it.

[DMoriarty]

Great topic Mike.  It is nice to see someone else taking some heat.  

Perhaps there is a slightly different way of looking at this:

1.  During the depression, golf courses had to cinch their belts, almost to the point of cutting off all circulation.  Take a look at Daniel Wexler's books if you dont beleive that this was a tough time for courses.

2.   Cinching their belts meant cutting out all unnecessary costs.   Undoubtedly this included maintenance, including bunkiers.  

3.   Members might not have been the best judge of which bunkers were the least important to their course.   But clubs were not willing and/or able to pay for advice from architects on where to cut costs, and particular on which bunkers to abandon.  

4.   The PGA (probably in part out of genuine concern with saving as much quality as was possible, and in part out of an opportunity to strengthen their organization) lent a helping hand-- One of the foremost architects of the era, advising them on the relative merit of bunkers (and other features.)  
Telling them what should stay, and what they could live without, so they could live at all.  

5.  AWT may have been the perfect choice, since he had been preaching the 'get rid of unnecessary bunkers' mantra for three-and-one-half decades.

In my mind, this cuts a middle ground . . . .

In an ideal world, golf architecture would have been much better off if some of the 1000s of bunkers he marked for wasting were still in existence.

But things were much less than ideal during the depression, and some of these courses might not have survived but for the cost saving measures suggested by Tillinghast, or for survival the courses would have made willy-nilly cost saving decisions themselves-- likely doing much worse damage than AWT.  

A couple of other thoughts

Mike, I dont think it fair to compare Tillie's earlier work to his depression era suggestions.  Times were too different.  His earlier style would have been completely impracticle and unaffordable during the depression.   I dont consider compromise in dire times to be selling out.  

Bethpage was different, a government project.  So like many of this era, the grander the better.    Bunkers equalled jobs.  Isnt this what the WPA programs were about?  

And on the other side . . . it is simply not feasible that Tillinghast was only concerned with great architecture when he marked over 10,000 bunkers for destruction.  How many did he suggest they build?   Cost cutting had to be a major goal of the project.  . . . Not that this was a bad thing, given the times.  

[Rick Wolffe]

I think some totally miss-understood or intentially are mis-characterizing what Tilly did on the bunker removal.

The written record is pretty clear -- Tilly only recommended the removal of really bad architecture -- allot of crummy old fashioned cop bunkers -- with a few choclate drops on the side.  

Here is a quote from Tilly on this matter,

"While, as I have said, the courses generally are structurally and strategically improved over those of a few years back, yet there are enough of the Cheap-John, amateurish sort, rather cluttered with sand pits that cost money to maintain for no other purpose than to discourage the very players at golf, who need encouraging most.  When speaking of these abominations in my reports to the P.G.A. for brevity’s sake I simply call them D.H.’s (short for Duffer’s Headaches).  I am thoroughly delighted by the reaction of green committees everywhere to our doctrine of the elimination of these relics of golf’s dark age."

[DMoriarty]

I think some totally miss-understood or intentially are mis-characterizing what Tilly did on the bunker removal.

The written record is pretty clear -- Tilly only recommended the removal of really bad architecture -- allot of crummy old fashioned cop bunkers -- with a few choclate drops on the side.  

Here is a quote from Tilly on this matter,

"While, as I have said, the courses generally are structurally and strategically improved over those of a few years back, yet there are enough of the Cheap-John, amateurish sort, rather cluttered with sand pits that cost money to maintain for no other purpose than to discourage the very players at golf, who need encouraging most.  When speaking of these abominations in my reports to the P.G.A. for brevity’s sake I simply call them D.H.’s (short for Duffer’s Headaches).  I am thoroughly delighted by the reaction of green committees everywhere to our doctrine of the elimination of these relics of golf’s dark age."

Mr. Wolffe,

If AWT's sole concern was improving the courses, then . . .

1.  Why did they keep track of the bunkers removed and the overall savings?  

2.  Why didn't he recommend the addition of bunkers where such addition would improve a course?   Surely there was at least one golf hole out there that could have been improved by a well placed bunker.  (I am assuming that he did not regularly recommend new well-placed bunkers, but I would be happy to be corrected-- that would really shove a stick in the "sell out" spokes.  

3. Given the times it seems logical that the PGA was providing this service so courses could survive.  Was this the case?  Are the letters from the PGA Professionals on file?  What kind of help were they looking for during the depression?   I find it hard to believe that they were considering capital expenditures aimed solely improving the course during these dire times.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

First, don't believe that everything you read is factual.
Second, the author could hold a sympathetic view.
Third, analyze the numbers.
Fourth, could AWT's numbers be inflated, or generous estimates ?

How would AWT know, in a given year, that 7,000 bunkers were removed ?

Were they vaporized on the day he was there ?

Did the clubs diligently report back to him on their decision with details down to each and every bunker they removed ?

If he recommended removal, how long before the club voted to act on his recommendation, and how long before a contractor was retained and the work completed ?

You did read where the world was created in seven days, didn't you ?

[ForkaB]

Pat

Once again you get your FACTS wrong!  The world was created in SIX days.  On the seventh day, TE Paul rested.

[T_MacWood]

RW
Do you consider some of Tillinghast's work really bad architecture--like Hermitage?

Is Hollywood really bad architecture?

To be honest I'm surprised to learn cop bunkers survived into the 1930's--which courses still had cop bunkers?

I am certain Tilly fixedsome some very bad courses, but I also do not believe bunkers 140-yards-&-in should be condemmed. I have no problem with many of these bunkers. And I don't believe Tilly, Ross, Thomas, MacKenzie, Macdonald, Colt, Travis and most others of that era did either. These men all considered the duffer when designing their golf courses--in fact I believe it could be argued these courses were made less interesting for the duffer by eliminating these hazards.

I love Tilly's bunkering scheme at Brook Hollow, SFGC and Bethpage (and tyhe bunkering schemes at Cypress Point, Valley, El Caballero, Bel-Air, Hollywood, NGLA, Pine Valley, Inwood, GCGC, Seminole, etc)--I don't want an originization or architect pulling a reverse Johnny Applebunker from coast to coast.

If times were temporarily tough recommend bunkers be unattended until economics improved...its cheeper than grassing them over or filling them in....then again its tougher to quantify when trying to present your positve contribution...and it wouldn't create work for those carrying out the more drastic recommendations.

Wouldn't you be concerned by an architect making wholesale recomendations during a single short visit?

Pat
That is why I seek out multiple sources.

Ask Tilly how he knew the number...perhaps he was lying. The PGA professional could easily report back when the work was complete. If he was lying, I think it would add support to the idea the PGA's was more about painting positive perception for their 'bunker' program, less about helping duffers and/or improving architecture. Tilly's transgression would be more than compromising his architectural principals in that case. I don't believe Tilly was a fraud...which is what you are implying.

David
I don't have problem with your first four points, but #5 I don't believe is accurate. Tilly wrote tons of articles over the years -- I've read quite a few of them (RW is rpobably read all of them). I do not believe it is accurate to say he was preaching get rid of all unnecessary bunkers during that period of time. The DH stance was a late development during his tour when it became a consistent message--this was several years into the Depression. Although he certainly was on the bandwagon condeming all the cop bunkers...but that was large bandwagon and a completely different story IMO.

[DMoriarty]

Well, I must be onto something, since both sides disagree with me.  

David
I don't have problem with your first four points, but #5 I don't believe is accurate. Tilly wrote tons of articles over the years -- I've read quite a few of them (RW is rpobably read all of them). I do not believe it is accurate to say he was preaching get rid of all unnecessary bunkers during that period of time. The DH stance was a late development during his tour when it became a consistent message--this was several years into the Depression. Although he certainly was on the bandwagon condeming all the cop bunkers...but that was large bandwagon and a completely different story IMO.

Tom,  I dont know whether point 5 is factually accurate or not.  You guys seem to disagree on the fact.  You do agree though that AWT advocated getting rid of certain bunkers early on.  

Nonetheless, it makes no difference whether AWT ever before advocated getting rid of all unnecessary bunkers.   If he was trying to help courses survive by telling them what bunkers were the least necessary, then he was not a sell-out in my eyes.   Desperate times call for desperate measures.  

Mike, one more thing on Bethpage . . .

I have a hard time characterizing the bunkers at Bethpage as 'cop bunkers.'  My understanding of cop bunkers is that were located in places where only the duffer would find them.   I dont know Bethpage as well as you, but I recall bunkers being located in strategic positions for the better golfer.  

[SPDB]

In what I hope is not yet another vain attempt:

On what criteria was Tillie's compensation based? If it was salary, how did they determine it and did it change at all from one year to the next?

Thanks

[Rick Wolffe]

Let me respond to another mischaracterization of Tilly's work for the PGA.  It was not just "DH" removal.  Tilly also provided significant design and re-design recommendations on tree planting, bunkers, greens, fairways, tees, complete holes, etc. etc.

As Phil Young has already stated, Tilly was a paid consultant of the PGA of America.  His advice was provided at no charge to the clubs and courses of PGA Professionals -- membership had some privlidges.

What follows is another of one of his letters.  If there is sufficient interest, we will endeavor to post all of his letters on the Tillighast web site.  Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.



Saint Paul, Minnesota
April 30th 1937

President of the PGA

Dear Sir:

  This is the third rainy day in succession.  I am leaving for Rochester this afternoon and tomorrow I will be at the Mayo Clinic again, leaving immediately after for northern Wisconsin.  I am scheduled to make a golf talk at Rochester tonight.

  Before leaving Saint Paul I was able to visit two additional courses at the urgent request of PGA members Herb Snow and Jock Hendry, at Hillcrest Golf Club and Town and Country Club respectively.

  Hendry's problem concerned the 12th hole, where a new green is planned.  I located this for him, with definite instructions for contouring and bunkering, and also located a new teeing-ground for the 13th, a natural, which will make a fine new hole.

  At Hillcrest I inspected the reconstruction work on the new 17th and 18th holes, which I planned for them when I was last here.  I found that my instructions had been followed faithfully and two very good holes have been developed.  Here I was accompanied by Snow, G.W. Anderson (Chairman of the Green Committee and city champion on numerous occasions) and Stan Graves (Greenkeeper)

  My next report will be sent to you on Monday evening, after my arrival in northern Wisconsin.

  I find that we have another PGA member at Rochester (in addtion to Ernnie Wilmot at the Country Club) Herb Thienell at Soldiers Field and I will call on him.

Very truly yours

  A.W. Tillinghast

        AWT

[T_MacWood]

David
Removing bunkers was not a major theme in Tilly's writing (pre 1936). He was not a fan of the geometric cop bunker, but every architect of that era condemmed the old fashioned cop.

IMO Tilly went through periods where his bunkering preferences changed. In the early 20's he produced two of the most heavily bunkered courses in America -- SFGC and Brook Hollow (200 to 300 bunkers). In the mid 20's he toned it down to more moderately bunkered courses and wrote that some courses were overbunkered. But then at Bethpage in the mid-30's he produced bold massive bunkering again.

I would buy your "trying to help courses to survive" scenerio if he had been an advocate throughout the Depression. He was the editor of Golf Illustrated (and an active contributing writer) during the Depression--I've yet to find an article where advocated reducing bunkers. And Bethpage is physical proof of his mindset at that time. He walked off Bethapge, into the PGA offices and the bunker became public enemy number one.

Sean
I don't believe anyone knows exactly how Tilly was paid.

[TEPaul]

Phil Young said in post #82;

"As a result, the one to benefit from this was the PGA! Membership rose, the fledgling tour of paid tournaments were funded, Pros got their jobs back, and Tillinghast didn't receive one extra dime for any of this, beyond what the PGA was paying him."

Sean;

What is it exactly you're asking about how the PGA paid Tillinghast? Phil Young's explanation seems pretty clear to me.

Tom MacW and DavidM;

Are you trying to determine exactly what Tillinghast's bunker removal project for the PGA meant to him personally regarding bunkering generally?

If so it seems to me that's a subject that may be pretty hard to pin down at any point in time. The use of bunkering, their placements and the economies of them is an interesting issue with various architects from the pre-WW1 and Golden Age era and into the depression.

If you're interested in that you should compare some of George Thomas's thoughts on the subject contained in his proposal for half-strokes for putting. One of the primary reasons for that was to allow the building of more golf holes of those distances considered to be in the "half par" range!

Thomas felt if that was done more bunkering would not need to be used in architecture as much and consequently more courses could be built for less money in both construction and on-going maintenance and golf could prosper more.

Thomas also felt that excessive bunkering was unnecessarily penal for the handicap player vs the better player who he felt it generally didn't effect as much and so was less relevant and architecturally and strategically useful. But Thomas's desire to design more holes in the half par range really just had to do with a calculation of the likely strokes it would take a good player to reach a green vs what a handicpper was capable of. This did not depend on the reduction of bunkering primarily but to Thomas that was a benefical result. So many of those early architects were into economy and efficiencies in architecture.

It also seems to me that over the first half to 2/3 of the last century bunkering that did not directly relate to the games of all players eventually came to be questioned (certainly be green committees) and much of it was removed by architects and green committees who didn't see the point of it enough to continue to pay to maintain it. So many of Ross's so-called "top shot" bunkers were in that category and most of them were obsoleted over time.

[A_Clay_Man]

rather cluttered with sand pits that cost money to maintain for no other purpose than to discourage the very players at golf, who need encouraging most.  

Dear collective, One of the fascinating realities, I have witnessed from this website, is that no matter who you are, and how great you think, there always seems to be one or two issues where even the "greatest" didn't "get it".

I've highlighted the above quote, to ask if anyone else feels this is one of those "mistakes" that may have indirectly resulted in this notion of making the game easier?  


Other thoughts:

Mayo Clinic? Was he ill? Could he have been on top of his game mentally, if he was ill?

Is 10.000 too low a number. Or Was Tillie directly responsible for less and the remainder were copy-cats, following the trend of the day from member clubs?

David, Isn't it when times are tough, and character is tested to the fullest, that the jist of this quote, becomes....sad and somewhat  unacceptable?

I dont consider compromise in dire times to be selling out.

 

(wasn't this the context of one of Barney's first posts?)
Sounds like following this dogma, it's a small leap to justifying cheating.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman,

I find the number of bunkers he's alleged to have removed as inflated, or mathmatially impaired.

The records should indicate which clubs he consulted with, and which clubs implemented or didn't implement his recommendations, thus, this should be a question that could be answered, or at least approximated.

Don't forget what Lee Trevino said,
"the older I get, the better I used to be."  
Exageration is a fact of life and might apply to bunkers as well.

[Phil_the_Author]

Adam,

Tilly's health problems at this time were heart-related.

An interesting find at Winged Foot that may or may not be germane to this discussion.

A member passed this on to Rick Wolffe and then to myself yesterday - "Last week, guess what our greenskeeper Eric found buried in his files ? A large plan of the course from 1932, with  detailed bunker-removal markings. The plan was drawn by Lewis Bros. Co. (I think, from memory), who helped build the course in 1923. I haven’t established a Tillinghast connection yet. Maybe his letters, or maybe you, can help. Please let me know if you have any suggestions on that."

It will be interesting to see if this was at Tilliy's suggestion. It is probably not a stretch to think that he was asked about it and gave recommendations, and this a full 5+ years before the PGA tour.

I am hoping to get a look at these in a few weeks and will let you know what I find.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
What facts do you base your theory upon?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The fact that nobody has documented a precise bunker count at each and every club that AWT consulted with, combined with the absence of a reasonable time line that would reflect the retention of AWT, scheduling his visit, making his recommendations, the club approving some, all or none of his recommendations, the club's bidding process to obtain a contractor, and the contractors ability to schedule and complete the work while golfers reamain on the course.

You know Tom, real world problems not found in your ivory tower.

Absent the facts from each and every club, the cummulative total would seem to be a guesstimate or exaggeration

[T_MacWood]

Doubting Pat
I see...you have no facts. It seems to me if you are going to call Tilly a liar and a fraud you should have at least a few facts to back up your claim.

Does it make a difference if the count was 5000, 7000 or 10,000 (by the way I believe him)? Does it make difference if he recommended bunkers be removed, from Bel-Air for example, and the club ignored him? (the fact he was aware they ignored his recommendation and it bothered him makes it unlikely he counted these, no? Unless of course he is a liar and fraud.) The general theme of this thread, that Tilly altered or compromised his previous philosophy, is still true.

What is your take on the holocaust and the moon landing?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Just a minor correction to where you state, "The general theme of this thread, that Tilly altered or compromised his previous philosophy, is still true."

That is NOT the general theme; that is YOUR general theme. Many disagree with your conclusions on this the same as you disagree with mine.

You challenge Pat to state facts yet find it convenient to state an ascertion as one for yourself.

Also, I am attempting to see if I can come up with a reasonable guestimate of the number of bunkers that Tilly SUGGESTED for removal during the consulting tour. This will be based on his letters and reports to the PGA, copies of which I have.

One of the other mistakes (IMHO) being made on this thread is the assumption that almost all of the bunkers that Tilly suggested be removed were. There are a number of letters of his that cite a second visit to a course a year later in which he states that his recommedations were not followed up on.

It will take me a number of days, but I think it is a very important part of this discussion.

[T_MacWood]

Phil
The thread is Mike Cirba's...read his original post.

"You challenge Pat to state facts yet find it convenient to state an ascertion as one for yourself." My assertion is based upon facts accompanied by a logical, open and historically grounded perspective.
 
The facts I believe support Mike's original post:

1. The Depresseion began with the great crash in 1929.

2. Tilly had very little design work in the early, mid and late 1930's (not unlike most architects).

3. Tilly was hardly a minimalist when it comes to bunkering through his career (SFGC and Brook Hollow as extreme examples)

4. Tillie was the editor (and contributing writer) of Golf Illustrated during the Depression.

5. Without design work, it is logical to conclude the GI job was his main source of income.

6. Tilly during his GI Editor period did not champion the removal of bunkers or DH's.

7. Tillly's (and Brubeck's) Bethpage designs of 1934-35 (Depression era) were heavily bunkered, with numerous bunkers in the Duffer's zone (175 yds-&-in).

8. Golf Illustrated went under in 1935 and employment opportunities were in short supply.

9. Tilly was in financial difficulty.

10. Tilly was hired by the PGA in 1935 by his close friend Jacobus, pro at Ridgewood. Tilly was a member of Ridgewood, a boldly bunkered course he designed in 1928.

11. The PGA attempted to exentuate the value added by PGA affiliation. The Tilly program was designed to maximize that value.

12. Tilly began a focused compaign against the DH after joining the PGA.

13. Tilly claimed to have elimated 7000+ bunkers at the 1936 PGA meeting...each bunker being quanitifed with a dollar figure resulting in total dollar savings for the program.

14. Other cost savings measures were more difficult to quantify and were not emphasized at the annual meetings.

You (and anyone else for that matter) are free to disagree, but IMO your opinion is based more upon Tilly the legend than the facts. Tilly was a great architect, I can see why you would want to try to preserve and protect his image. My view, the truth is always more interesting and this episode does not deminish his major accomplishments.

I wish you'd spend more effort preserving and protecting his designs (and being more critical of changes to his designs) than trying to put a positive spin upon a dark period of his design career...and a dark period generally for golf architecture and the country.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I see...you have no facts. It seems to me if you are going to call Tilly a liar and a fraud you should have at least a few facts to back up your claim.

You have no supporting facts to back up your claim either.
You seem opposed to doing the research that would verify or nullify the 7,000 figure, probably because it would render your conclusion false.

Does it make a difference if the count was 5000, 7000 or 10,000 (by the way I believe him)? Does it make difference if he recommended bunkers be removed, from Bel-Air for example, and the club ignored him? \

Of course it does.
You can't attribute bunkers that he MIGHT have suggested be removed, to the actual number of bunkers that were removed.

One also has to ascertain, on a club specific basis, what bunkers he actually recommended for removal, and what bunkers the club might have removed on their own.

Are bunkers that the club removed without AWT's recommendation to be counted in your quest toward 7,000 ?


(the fact he was aware they ignored his recommendation and it bothered him makes it unlikely he counted these, no?

No, not at all, he might have reported that he recommended that a specific number of bunkers be removed, rather then the actual number that were removed, primarily because I doubt the clubs reported the entire scope of their work back to AWT on a regular reporting basis, especially since the process for bunker removal has a time lag attached to it.

Unless of course he is a liar and fraud.)

You keep calling him this, which is typical of the extreme and erroneous conclusions you habitually draw

The general theme of this thread, that Tilly altered or compromised his previous philosophy, is still true.

I don't know that I agree with that, did you speak to him regarding his philosophy during that time period ?

What is your take on the holocaust and the moon landing?

More realistic then yours

When you say that Bethpage Black was heavily bunkered, could you list the number of bunkers that AWT built there ?

Was it 50, 100, 200 ?

[T_MacWood]

Pat
My view that Tilly altered his philosophy in 1935 (due to personal circumstances) would not change if he never removed a single bunker. The fact is Tilly said he removed 7000+ and he also went on a written anti-DH campaign (PGA magazine) -- that IMO is sufficient evidence of his new philosophy (five years deep into the Depression).

Actually my opinion would change, or expand, from someone who compromised his views as a result of difficult personal circumstances to compromise and fraud.

It would be prudent IMO to support your assertions that Tilly was a liar and a fraud with at least some solid facts. Your factless desperate attempt illustrates to what length you will go to prove I am wrong...I'll save Tilly's reputation by claiming he was a liar and a fraud...with friends like you...

Your usual practice, due to factual bancruptcy, is to try to disqualify those presenting facts you don't like....this is an interesting twist on that theme...trying to disqualify Tilly...the star of this thread.

I would estimate Bethpage-Black had 80 to 90 bunkers...a number being of the huge variety...equivalent to two, five, ten or more conventional bunkers. Why?

An interesting exercise: compare the total sand area of GCGC vs Bethpage-Black which would be greater?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Your theory falls apart in the face of the facts, so now you try to switch the discussion from the number of bunkers to the size of the bunkers.

This doesn't surprise me, and is intellectually dishonest or disengenuous on your part.

[TEPaul]

Pat and Tom:

Stop the arguing. It's been going on for about four pages, isn't getting anywhere and has frankly gotten trivial. You've both each made your own point about ten times over and there's no more point to be made.