Did Tillinghast "Sell Out"?

[T_MacWood]

TE
Let me recommend the third book of the Tillinghast trilogy--in fact I would recommend it to any Tilly fan.

It is packed with interesting information on his designs, some excellent articles (pre- and post-PGA) and a great deal of info on his PGA tour, including some of his notes and partial list of the courses he visited. It is a fascinating list.

Mark
I would recommend the first three pages of the thread--lots of new information on both sides of the argument. Actually one of the better threads on GCA in awhile IMO. The last few pages are not nearly as enlightening...very few facts, mostly opinion.

[TEPaul]

“TE
Let me recommend the third book of the Tillinghast trilogy--in fact I would recommend it to any Tilly fan“

Tom;

Thanks for the advice but I have the third book in the trilogy. I have all three books and I’ve read them all. Why don’t you give the same advice to Rick Wolffe since you found so much interesting info in there about Tillinghast and he doesn‘t seem to agree with your conclusions either? Tell him he should read the book too and maybe he’d learn some great new facts about Tillie too. What does he know---he only helped write the books?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

175 yards is hardly the distance that DH or top-shot bunkers were placed in the 20's and 30's.

In prior discussions you agreed that DH or top-shot bunkers were within a distance of 140 yards from the tee.
Where are you getting the extra 35 yards from, especially when you consider the carry distances in those times

If you want to distort the definition and use of those bunkers to fit your argument, that's okay, but it only means that you're drawing a flawed conclusion based on a perversion of the facts and definitions to suit your argument.

Many top shot or DH bunkers were placed well within 100 yards of the tee.  175 yards is more then a stretch, it's a deliberate distortion.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
The 175 yds comes from a Tillinghast article from 1936 where he diagrams the location of DHs--not top shot bunkers, but all bunkers. He also designated a second DH free zone that starts at about 300 yards. DH was an all incompassing term.

TE
Ross's St.David's was designed in 1927. Its predicessor at another site was the work of Tillinghast who redesigned an even older course (Crump played out of St.D). Ironically Tillie did de-DH Ross's course on his PGA tour.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW;

In one last effort to defend Tillinghast from your claims he was compromising his architectural principles or selling out during his PGA bunker removal years, claims you say you’re supporting and backing up on here, I’d offer another article or so from his writing supporting his ideas in earlier years about removing bunkering in what has been described as the DH zones.

I do appreciate the danger of taking something out of context or out of chronological order. However, that doesn’t seem to be happening here or if his writing is out of chronological order it doesn’t seem to be of concern to this particular subject. All that really needs to be known and factually established on this subject is when he developed his ideas regarding the so-called DH zone, what he was referring to exactly (what types of bunkering in that DH zone) and why he felt the way he did about it and what the did about it.

Although you say you were not the first to bring up the subject of the old fashioned “cop bunker” on here you’re the only one who appears to make a serious distinction regarding it and other types of bunkering within that DH zone that may or may not have been candidates for removal during the 1930s or at any time before that.

You cited a drawing by Travis to describe and inform us of what was considered to be that old fashioned “cop bunker” denigrated by the Golden Age architects and how it was roundly unpopular with architects of the Golden Age. Tom, we know all that. That’s certainly no revelation of yours on here. Matter of fact, that old fashioned “cop bunker” that’s shown on Travis drawing in Shackelford’s book was perhaps one of the major contributors to the beginning of true quality golf architecture in America! It was generally completely squared off, completely artificial in appearance and completely penal to the duffer in golf. It was probably exactly what Macdonald had in mind when he concluded that early American golf needed truly good and good looking architecture when he uttered the words “The very soul of golf shrieks”.

I see why you’re trying to make a distinction here between that old fashioned geometric “cop bunker” and other types and looks of bunkering that resided basically within that so-called DH zone (even if it was so-called beginning in 1995!) which came to include the area from the tee to eventually 175 out according to Tillinghast. Of course that area did include the 140 area the old cop bunker was generally considered to be in.

You seem to have fixated on that 140 yard area of the old cop, and the reference to the old cop by Tillinghast as proof that that was ALL he was referring to bunker-wise within that general DH area. You say that all the Golden Age architects hated that cop bunker and erased it from golf architecture. Of course that’s true beginning even before the teens.

But Tillinghast appears to include far more than just that cop bunker for removal in the DH zone in the name of lightening the penality and increasing the enjoyment for the duffer and creating what was commonly referred to by him and others as a form of more “scientific” or “modern” architecture. Tillinghast’s ideas on this was two-fold---to lighten the penal load on the duffer of the old geometrically penal architecture of the very early era and to increase the challenge and interest for the good player by creating architecture (bunkering included) that was more meaningful and thoughtful and challenging for the good player, something that he explained geometric/penal architecture never really was for the good player.

Tillinghast’s articles that appear to deal with bunker removal and repositioning deal with more than that if read in their entirety. Those articles deal with the reorienting of greens to produce a more interesting and challenging axis enhanced by sometimes a single greenside bunker he refers to as a “Master bunker”. Tillinghast talks about the importance of using slope and contour in both the approach and on the greens of these new “modern architecture” greens. He talks about (and draws) another bunker on the side of the fairway at a distance for the good player’s drive that divides the fairway strategically in relation to the green and green-end and what’s been done there architecturally (in this new modern or scientific sense). And finally Tillinghast refers to the duffer’s own problems with his game as reason enough to allow him to try to proceed along the hole (as drawn) more or less unencumbered by bunkering until and unless he eventually postions himself for his approach to the green (assumed by Tillinghast, correctly to likely be his third shot---on a longish par 4).And all this good architectural stuff using less bunkers, that everyone knows cost to both make and maintain!

What Tillinghast is explaining and drawing here, Tom, is basically the complete essence of modern quality strategic golf architecture for all. He certainly wasn’t it’s only proponent--in various ways all the best of the Golden Age architects were. Tillinghast, however, may’ve been the architect to write about it, explain it and draw it the most comprehensively for those of his era and us today to understand it, and how and why it was meant to work. And not just to understand it but also how and why it evolved the way it did.

Let’s looking again at  your mention, even apparent fixation, with the old fashioned “cop bunker” and what you’re apparently trying to prove about Tillinghast with the mention of it or the distinction you‘re trying to make between it and other types of bunkering in the DH zone off the tee. It seems you’re claiming he may have advocated the removal of the old fashioned “cop bunker” very early in his career (as did all the others) but not the removal of other types of bunkering in that same basic zone (DH zone off the tee) until the PGA bunker removal project in the mid 1930.

It does not appear to me that’s at all factual. And to see why one probably needs to read his article entitled “Sans Sand Pits” and in its entirety. Again, it does not matter when he wrote that article, all that matters is whether what he said in it regarding any type of bunkering within that DH zone was a candidate for removal by him at some time before his PGA bunker removal project.

Quotation from that article to follow;

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom Paul- What if the term "selling-out" was specific to Behr's concepts of placing the obstacles along the line of charm.
Aren't those the principles that were sold?

[TEPaul]

“However an idea had been born. For a number of years, I had been reconstructing many courses of the earliest American period and of course ancient pits were being filled in and obliterated. The antiquated cross bunker, hideous to view and quite worthless as a hazard (my words, clearly this is the old fashioned geometric/penal “cop bunker”) was the first to go. Then the builders of courses began to appreciate the fact that any man who could slice a ball only about one hundred and forty yards was experiencing enough tribulation without burying him to his neck in a sand pit (my words, clearly he was referring to sand bunkers in the DH zone that were not “cop bunkers” as otherwise why would he have gone on and mentioned this?).
   And so it was that while pits in certain zones were being erased from the picture, others were showing up in equal or greater numbers in other zones but placed to trap the not-quite-good-enough efforts of the best players rather than the miscues of the duffers, as formerly”.

The “idea” that Tillinghast refers to that had been born appears to have been born during his visit to Fort Sam Houston with the idea of building some type of course there during the same time he was visiting San Antonio regarding building Brackenridge Park G.C. The “idea” Tillinghast refers to was born because he would not be able to build any sand pits on that military course as it would have to share it’s use with cavalry drilling!! This visit to Fort Sam Houston and basically the bunker-less “idea” (to be applied to the DH zone later) occurred to Tillinghast in 1915!

Of course you can continue to not believe him, Tom, or to say he never applied this “idea” until hired by the PGA in the mid 1930s but it doesn’t look like the facts support that at all---and since they don’t it basically shoots down your contention that he sold out his architectural principles or compromised them in the mid 1930s.

I fully expect you to not really acknowledge any of this, to claim it’s all out of context or else it doesn’t square with facts and timing somehow. You need to continue to claim these things to support your assumptions and conclusions about Tillinghast compromising his architectural principles in the mid 1930s, contentions that appear to be getting more and more bogus!

[TEPaul]

Adam:

I don't know what you mean by that post.

[A_Clay_Man]

TP- The term "selling-out" implies some principle has been lost. Weren't those Kop spion bunkers, and likely many of the DH's that were removed, key components to the principles Behr held, as it related to the sport of golf?

Didn't this "clearing out of the middle", change the course of alot of the gca that followed? Even if it wasn't until the mid fifties?

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom-

“However an idea had been born. For a number of years, I had been reconstructing many courses of the earliest American period and of course ancient pits were being filled in and obliterated. The antiquated cross bunker, hideous to view and quite worthless as a hazard (my words, clearly this is the old fashioned geometric/penal “cop bunker”) was the first to go. Then the builders of courses began to appreciate the fact that any man who could slice a ball only about one hundred and forty yards was experiencing enough tribulation without burying him to his neck in a sand pit (my words, clearly he was referring to sand bunkers in the DH zone that were not “cop bunkers” as otherwise why would he have gone on and mentioned this?).
   And so it was that while pits in certain zones were being erased from the picture, others were showing up in equal or greater numbers in other zones but placed to trap the not-quite-good-enough efforts of the best players rather than the miscues of the duffers, as formerly”.

This was an idea, maybe not a good idea? For one reason, slicing the ball 140 yards is natural, and is a key component to overcoming the challenge that comprises most of the thrill in executing golf shots. Take that challenge away and what do we get?

What we got today, a bunch of subjective whinny customers, who'd rather blame the arrows than the Indian.

[TEPaul]

"......and likely many of the DH's that were removed, key components to the principles Behr held, as it related to the sport of golf?"

In my opinion, not at all. Penal cross hazards in that short DH zone were not something Behr believed in. The line of charm idea is quite different and very much in other areas than what's been referred to here as the DH tee shot zone.

"Didn't this "clearing out of the middle", change the course of alot of the gca that followed? Even if it wasn't until the mid fifties?"

Ahhh, an entirely different but very fundamental point, in my opinion. Yes, "cleaning out the middle", as you say, was something Behr didn't generally subscribe to. Basically Behr believed the middle COULD BE an excellent place to create the "Line of charm" or "line of instinct" concept (although it could be and was often moved from the middle). To do that effectively Behr believed in maximum width and he also was not a subscriber to using much rough in golf architecture. Behr, again, was basically a maximum width concept architect.

But Behr's ideas on penality, particularly for the duffer level, were extremely interesting basically explained by his remark that the architect should not create something with the intention of penalizing his (the duffer's) generally poor shots;

"It is not the job of the golf architect to inform the (Duffrer) of his faults, that's the job of the golf professional."

In a phrase Behr believed the architect should find a way to let the spirit of the duffer soar by creating what the duffer felt to be his own strategic freedom of expression!

Behr's line of charm, properly placed, basically created four distinct functional options--over, in front of, or to either side! That obviously is the max and quite different from architecture that relies on degrees of angles of what you call a "cleared out middle".

Behr also appeared to dabble with the idea of creating hazards that were relatively small (large hazards inside fairway lines took up a lot of space!). The reason for that is he didn't really believe in concentrating on actual penality only the awareness and enough concern with it to make the golfer think! Thinking, to Behr as to many of the others was the inspiration to strategic golf. There was another reason I think he dabbles with the concept of smaller features centrally placed. He felt if the central hazard was small enough and the golfer got in it (even if it was on his line of instinct) he would be less likely to blame the architect and more likely to take responsibility himself for his lack of judgement.

All this Behr believed would lead to what he called "Permanent architecture"---architecture golfers would be less inclined to be critical of and want to change. But he also felt it should look natural too as golfers were less inclined to complain about something that wasn't artificial looking and, again, less likely to want to change it.

[T_MacWood]

“However an idea had been born. For a number of years, I had been reconstructing many courses of the earliest American period and of course ancient pits were being filled in and obliterated. The antiquated cross bunker, hideous to view and quite worthless as a hazard (my words: Yes I agree clearly this is the old fashioned geometric/penal “cop bunker”) was the first to go. Then the builders of courses began to appreciate the fact that any man who could slice a ball only about one hundred and forty yards was experiencing enough tribulation without burying him to his neck in a sand pit (my words: clearly he was referring to “cop bunkers” again….140 yds is the clue. What he appears to be saying is that other bunkers that were being created to replace the cops were also being questioned after 1915. For example many of the cops at GCGC were filled in the center creating two bunkers left and right.)

  And so it was that while pits in certain zones were being erased from the picture, others were showing up in equal or greater numbers in other zones but placed to trap the not-quite-good-enough efforts of the best players rather than the miscues of the duffers, as formerly” (my words: it sounds like all is well, why the need to erase 7000+ bunkers...including a number from his own golf courses?)

What year was this article written?

After reading this article you could easily get the impression Tilly refused to build bunkers within the Duffer zone throughout his career…strangely that wasn’t the case, even as late as 1936 at Bethpage.
 
How many courses like Ft. Sam Houston did Tilly build between in 1915 and 1936? None, to my knowledge.

No one is disputing Tilly said golf courses in 1936 were overbunkered....we know that from his numerous articles, interviews and actions.

And assuming this desire to build bunkerless or bunker free zone (rebuild would be more accurate) courses was rekindled in 1936 from a much earlier desire…what was it that sparked this rebirth? In other words the question that this thread poses in the first place….what was the reason(s) Tilly altered his career long design practices?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW;

I had my final reply to you typed and ready to go but lost it. I'll redo it eventually.

[Mike_Cirba]

One wonders if Tillinghast would have removed Hanse/Kittleman's "Abruptment" bunker on the 17th hole at French Creek?  

It's about 140 yards from the tee, is a cross bunker in the middle of the fairway, almost fits the definition of a "cop", with a rectangular shape, and beyond that, it blocks a clear view of the green on the long par three.

Driving past it this weekend with the kids in the car, they seemed to think it was pretty cool, even if Tillinghast apparently wouldn't have.    

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I think that kind of "One wonders if" or "What if" thinking ascribed to what Tillinghast did or may have done in the depression is not really right and not particularly fair to Tillinghast, his principles or the times and the courses he may have removed DH bunkers from compared to those courses that may have had DH bunkers in that zone that for whatever reason he may not have recommended their removal from.

When you take an example of a hole like French Creek's #17 and then assume he would have recommended the removal of that enormous cross bunker ONLY because it might sit in that 140 or 175 yard zone from the tee you're beginning to hypothesize for no constructive purpose whatsoever.

I've tried to tell Tom MacWood that it's entirely possible, probable actually, that Tillinghast, or any of those architects of that time who were recommending to certain clubs that some DH bunkers be removed may not have been doing that with the sort of global or "one size fits all" mentality you two may be ascribing to him (them).

It's probably appropriate at this time to remind you all of something that Pat Mucci mentions on here from time to time. That is architects do not exactly come into clubs either in the Depression or today completely uninvited and unexpected and both recommend and effect the kinds of changes that are completely foreign or unacceptable to a club. If that does happen or did in the depression then that wouldn't be right, in my opinion, and it certainly would be more than a little strange. There's generally a good reason for an architect to be there and effecting the things he might recommend, such as it's probably in line with what the club or membership would like to do for whatever reason, cost. playability etc.

The larger point here is there really is different types of architecture for different purposes and different memberships and their different wants and needs and there always has been. Good architects, like a TIllinghast and generally clubs and memberships are aware of that and things generally happen accordingly.

I think it would be wrong to say that Tillinghast would have offered the very same DH advice to a club such as Ross's little "member's course" Gulf Stream GC as he would have to one like PVGC if the club simply asked him what he thought about DH zone bunkering in a vacuum which again, no club is particularly likely to do.

I think the two of you on a subject like this need to begin to get used to making some distinctions between the differences of various architecture at various clubs because there really can be huge differences in purpose et al. That fact is as clear to me now as night and day!

Try and get this sort of "one size fits all" mentality out of your heads---and that includes either way--for or against DH zone bunkering. I doubt Tillinghast had that sort of "one size fits all" mentality about DH zone bunkering at any particular time and at every single golf course and because he didn't it seems pretty historically and actually inaccurate to accuse him of compromising his principles.

But if a Tom MacWood is going to continue to suggest this I think what he needs to do next is actually prove that Tillinghast did design bunkering in that zone on some of the courses he said Tillinghast did and that he later recommended their removal because looking at the evolution of some of the courses Tom says this happened, to be honest I don't see that at all!

[T_MacWood]

TE
There is absolutely no question Tilly designed bunkers in the 0 to 175 yard zone and did throughout his career. Just leaf through the Tilly trilogy, look through Dan Wexler's two books or look through old American Golfers or Golf Illustrated you'll find plenty of evidence. This is not to mention HHA which oftren falls into his second zone....Quaker Ridge, Fenway, Ridgewood, Norwood, Baltusrol, Five Farms, etc.

Here are a few I snatched off the Internet.







The Mucci doctrine does not appear to be a major factor in this case. At the 1936 PGA conference Tillie anounced he had advised 370 courses (7000+ traps removed) in a little over a year. Also scores of other courses requested his service but he and the PGA refused because they didn't have PGA affiliation.That is almost one a day...perhaps more than one a day, if he took a day or weekend off occasionaly. Of the courses that did not invite him, there were sure plenty to pick up the slack. Also some ignored his reommendation (Bel-air for example), but obviously plenty listened.

You appear to be conveniently ignoring a number of facts: the fact that Tilly had almost no design work through the five or six years of the Depression (Bethpage)...and there were few prospects, the fact that he had lost his job as editor of Golf Illustrated in 1935, the fact that he was in financial straits (described by some as destitute), the fact that he'd filed for bankrupcy and lost his home, the fact that there few other jobs available during the Depression (Golf Illustrated's rival publication American Golfer went under too). All these things should be considered IMO when evaluating Tilly's reversal of form.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

We been through all this before. I don't think anyone said Tillinghast didn't design bunkering in the DH zone at some courses throughout his career. The question would seem to be why at some and not at others?

And when you use again these same reasons as evidnence why he must have compromised his principles in the depression;

"You appear to be conveniently ignoring a number of facts: the fact that Tilly had almost no design work through the five or six years of the Depression (Bethpage)...and there were few prospects, the fact that he had lost his job as editor of Golf Illustrated in 1935, the fact that he was in financial straits (described by some as destitute), the fact that he'd filed for bankrupcy and lost his home, the fact that there few other jobs available during the Depression (Golf Illustrated's rival publication American Golfer went under too). All these things should be considered IMO when evaluating Tilly's reversal of form.”

I’m not ignoring those facts at all. I’m questioning your assumptions and conclusion that they prove he compromised his architectural principles. No architects had much steady work during the despression, and the depression was clearly not normal times for any architect or frankly most any golf club and particularly their memberships.

The time has come for you do get realistic Tom, to start considering historical facts and realities and start to both acknowledge and begin to admit that facts even for golf architecture during the depression years was changing too. My own club is a good example and it’s not unusual. What were the good architects of the “Golden Age” doing in the depression? They certainly were not constructing the amount of new courses they had been. We should take a look at that as it may prove something else. Maxwell, Flynn, probably Ross, Stiles etc. what were they doing? Were they all compromising their design principles too if they also removed bunkering and redesigned the golf courses of other architects? Perhaps you think so.

You’re the one who has said on here that you really aren’t particularly interested in what memberships think---that all you’re interested in is researching architecture and perhaps supplying memberships with that research information today. There’s nothing wrong with that--it’s a valuable service, I’m sure. But if you have no real interest or concern in  understanding why memberships and architects too do certain things at certain times, particularly such an unusual time as the depression years, what you’re going to begin to assume and conclude in an historical context is not going to be particularly accurate. What you may need now is a really good education in what was happening during the depression years---all of it. For many, including both architects, clubs and entire memberships those were anything but normal times and it showed!


 

[T_MacWood]

TE
You are starting sound like Pat Mucci.

You just said in your previous post:"But if a Tom MacWood is going to continue to suggest this I think what he needs to do next is actually prove that Tillinghast did design bunkering in that zone on some of the courses he said Tillinghast did and that he later recommended their removal because looking at the evolution of some of the courses Tom says this happened, to be honest I don't see that at all!"

Now you say, "I don't think anyone said Tillinghast didn't design bunkering in the DH zone at some courses throughout his career."

If you look through his career you will conclude it was the rule not the exception. You won't find too many Fort Sam Houstons.

Frankly I don't know what you are talking about. The entire theory that he compromised is based upon historical facts. The realities of Tilly's career design portfolio and common practices (I've given you numerous examples). The fact that his PGA tour recommendations were a braek from his career long practices. And the fact of his personal circumstances and the economic realities of the time.

Put yourself in his shoes, I doubt there are many of us who wouldn't have done the same....what choice did he have?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Don't you get a little suspicious, when in 1936, considering the modes of transportation and winter, that it's alleged that AWT visited 370 golf courses, spending the day walking and analyzing them, in a little over 365 days ?

Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
When Tilly reported to the PGA in 1936 he had been touring for about 13 or 14 months. According to the reports at the time (and in Graffis's book) once Tilly reached a city or town, he would set up shop and then hit the individual clubs within that city...then on to the next city.  It is described as a one day evaluation and recommendation for a golf course...perhaps Wolffe, Trebus & Wolffe may know if he possibly visited more than one club per day.

The last of three Tilly books has a very interesting map of his two extended tours....retracing his movements. It is mind blowing...if he didn't get paid per bunker he should have been paid per mile.

What Tilly said appears to be confirmed by Graffis and confirmed by Wolffe, Trebus & Wolffe's map (who I assume relied upon Tilly's reports and letters). Are you saying they are all wrong?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

YES.

Get his log.

Let's start with, what 370 courses did he visit ?
Then get the dates he visited each one.
Do you have the documentation that reflect his recommendations to all 370 of these clubs ?

You're not suggesting that he just provided oral or general recommendations, are you.

With less then 260 working days in a year, and 365 days in a year, I don't believe the numbers.

The laws of physics provide that an object can't be in more then one place at a given moment in time.

Nor can two objects be in the same place at the same time.

Or, are you saying that AWT just drove through the gates, looked at the course from the clubhouse, made his suggestions and drove on to his next appointment.

One would think, that a professional of his stature and with his credentials would have toured the entire golf course, every hole, by foot, and thought about it, rather then suggesting off the cuff remarks on the spur of the moment.
And, that he would have spent some meaningful time with the PGA Pro on site and the club's representatives.

Common sense says that the numbers may be inflated or inaccurate.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I know of someone who has all of the letters (and Tillie's recommendations on each course) but I don't want to divulge their name unless they feel comfortable coming forward here.

[T_MacWood]

Since Tilly and Graffis are dead, I suggest you contact the Wolffes and/or Mr.Trebus...perhaps they will assist you in confirming the numbers or help you prove Tilly was inflating them....after all they have many of the letters and they produced the map retracing his tour. If you are interested in the subject you should pick up their third book....it is very well done.

I have no reason to believe he was lying...from my understanding of how he worked and where he went, those numbers seem quite plausable.

I get the impression it was a quick procedure...as you can imagine it was a wildly successful and popular service....I have the exact same concerns.

[Phil_the_Author]

One of the problems inherently common to many of the comments on this thread, is that they are attempting to present as “facts” statements that are suppositions without anything backing them up. For example, the statements regarding exactly how many courses Tilly visited or not, as well as how many bunkers he recommended (and yes, that is ALL that he did was make recommendations) be removed from different courses.

His tour began, and all of what follows is directly from copies of his letters and reports sent to George Jacobus at the PGA, copies of which are in my possession, on 8/15/35 when he stopped in Schenectady, New York, remaining there until the 17th. These are the courses that he visited and his recommendations:

15th – Edison CC – New hole arrangements 13-18
          Wolfort’s Roost CC – Redisgn of holes 9-11
           Van Rensselear CC – Meeting with a promise to  
           return later

16th – Colonie CC – New 4th & 6th greens
           Troy CC – New 9th & redesigned 3rd & 4th  
           Mohawk GC – New 8th hole & 7th green
           Also did an interview on the radio in the evening and
           an interview for the local paper.  

17th – Amsterdam Muni – Redesigned 2nd, 16th & 17th holes
          Lafayette CC – meeting
          Drove 130 miles to Jamesville for an overnight stay.

18th – Drumlins CC – Redesigned 7th, 8th, 12th, & 14th.
           Drove 95 miles to Rochester in the evening.

19th – Rochester CC – critical review of entire course.
          Evening meeting with the Western New York PGA
          Section. 14 NEW REQUESTS for him to visit.

20th – Irondequoit CC – New 3rd green, redesigned 4th
          Lake Shore CC – Redesign of all greens and elimination
          of “Pallellitis”

21st - Genesee Valley Muni – New short 5th, new 6th green,
          new 18th hole.
          Durand Eastman Muni – “Grotesque Greens”,
          prepared “complete plans” for redesign

22nd – Drove 90 miles to Syracuse
           Bellevue CC – new 5th & 6th greens
           Syracuse Yacht Club – New 4th green, new 7th hole.
           Meeting with the local PGA section in the evening.

23rd – Drove 160 miles to East Aurora.
          Churchville GC – Redesigned 14th & 17 the & 2 greens
        Stafford CC – Bunker removal & minor reconstruction of
        greens.
        East Aurora CC – Bunkering of 2 holes, 3 & 6, Fescue
         fairway problems.
           

Here we are then, the 9th day of a trip where he is supposedly planning on recommending removal of bunkers because he has either changed  his beliefs as an architect or is trying to make work for himself, and only NOW for the first time suggests removals of bunkers?

Also, as you can see, he was making visits to SEVERAL courses every day, and on some occasions in the future, would stop at as many as five!

He was also doing radio & newspaper interviews and conducting meetings at nearly every stop for the local PGA section pros. At each of these he was inundated with requests that he stop at their courses. In addition to this, he was signing up new members for the PGA.

And then late every night, unless he was driving on those well-lit superhighways of his day, he would be writing his letters and reports. And, lest we forget, he was leaving drawings done at many of the courses as well.

No wonder that he wrote from Rochester that, “He was rather tired tonight…”

It is time to stop speculating and pronouncing such as facts and to appreciate that his motives were not financial other than a paycheck from the PGA alone, and that he had not sold out his soul to try and make work for himself. He couldn’t have done the work as he was far too busy!

[Mike_Cirba]

Philip;

Then what do you personally make of his contention that he was responsible for the removal of "7,000", or "10,000" bunkers?

Was it simply Tillie's vaunted hyperbole and exaggeration?  

Was he trying to look good to the PGA by claiming mass cost-savings that weren't actually realized?

Most of the "recommendations" above sound like expenses, not savings, wouldn't you say?

What's your take?  Did he recommend removal of  7-10,000 bunkers or not?  

If not, why would he claim to the PGA that he had?