The recent spate of threads on Tillinghast, initially on the question of him "selling out" by his PGA bunker removal project of the Depression years, and followed by a good thread from Tom Doak on the question of the effectiveness of the NUMBER of bunkers on any golf course ("Are More Bunkers Better") and another by Tom MacWood on the usefulness of the Tillinghast Society ("The Tillinghast Society") are all fine subjects to discuss. How some of those subjects have been analyzed and discussed on those threads, though, is a little disappointing, at least to me.
Assumptions and then apparently conclusions are proffered and then defended to the death with either no particularly good evidence to support those assumptions or conclusions but much more often without analyzing correctly, in my opinon of course, what really is pretty damn good evidence The latter, to me, shows some weakness and lack of logic not in analyzing without enough evidence but in how to analyze good available evidence. The latter is what becomes most maddening on this website to me. There's obviously nothing at all wrong with anyone maintaining their own opinions and even diverse ones from others after long discussion but one would hope they really are considering what both others are saying and producing and also the extent of the available evidence (apparently factual!). Often, on here, it doesn't seem as if that happens as well as it should.
Let's look again at the question of TIllinghast "selling out" during his PGA bunker removal project of the Depression years. What was Tillinghast "selling out'? Most on here who're suggesting he was selling out are suggesting he was selling out his architectural principles, presumably architectural principles found on his other courses and perhaps his architectural principles of some former era! What evidence are those suggesting he was selling out his principles supplying to really prove that point? Some say because his lot was not good during the depression. That's interesting, of course, but is no proof whatsoever he was selling out if not supported by some inconsistency in his architectural principles from one era to another.
I don't think any of those who've suggested his principles changed much regarding even bunkering can support that contention. It's incredible to me that a few on here have been arguing for pages about relative numbers of bunkers on various courses to prove their point. I think Tom Doak's thread goes a long way to proving that relative numbers of bunkers on various courses and various sites can be highly misleading and consequently a really poor way to compare or analyze this question of Tillinghast selling out by simply using comparative and relative numbers of bunkers from one course to the next. On that subject alone, do those who are making that assumption not realize that different courses are designed and built for different purposes and for different types of play and players? Apparently not! Do the numerous bunkers and massive sand waste carry areas of PVGC mean that course was overbunkered? Of course not--it was designed that way because the course was designed ONLY for the very good player. Crump, the inspiration of that course, did NOT want poor players to come there and said so many times. And if they did come there he wanted them tortured---(presumably so they wouldn't come back!). Does that make PVGC some abberation of beautiful and effective architecture and something far less than ideal? Not to me it doesn't although it apparently does to some on here since they feel that ANY course that does not architecturally accomodate every level shows that something is lacking with it architecturally! It was dedicatedly designed NOT to accomodate every level and frankly sailed to the top of the world architecturally as much for that reason as any other!! It was considered the ultimate of a great course for good players and that fact should not make the course suspect architecturally---at least not in my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of most for decades! Otherwise why has the course been so admired and ranked so highly for so long?
But the thing that really disappoints me with some of the discussion on these threads is Tillinghast's own writing and how it's there in extraordinary detail and explanation but yet it's not being analyzed or at least not properly or comprehensively enough by those who're discussing this subject. Frankly, Phil Young and even Rick Wolffe who are supplying this great info should defend their positions on Tillinghast even better because Tillinghast articles and the logic of his articles definitely allows them to defend him better, even on this specific subject of "selling out".
Chapters #28 & #32 defend Tillinghast's postion on this bunker removal project so well it's almost as if he was here today completely and effectively rebutting those who're suggesting he was selling out!
1. Are the numbers of bunkers on any course relevant to this discussion?
Not really when one realisitically considers the potentailly differing design intentions of various courses and how different that can be in the minds of the client and the architect!
2. Is the placement and design of those bunkers relevant to this discussion?
Definitely! Tillinghast not only talks about actual placement yardage regarding various bunkers (DH's and such) but he even actually DRAWS us a comparison (Chapter 28 in the "Course Beautiful) between a hole that shows WHERE AND HOW they exist and where and how they don't. He even goes on to explain that basically these DH's are the result of the penal architectural philosophy of the "Dark Ages" that was so repugnant to those such as Macdonald, Wilson, Flynn, Mackenzie, Thomas et al. He even goes on to explain how they don't effect the good player and how they unnecessarily penalize the poorer player. Those comparative drawings in Chapter 28 are most all that we need to show us not only if Tillinghast's principles were inconsistent but how. Just let anyone on here show us an example of when or where Tillinghast ever bunkered a golf course like his drawing on the left (in chapter 28)----an example of how not to bunker a golf course unless the architect is a proponent of "Dark Age" short crossbunkered penal architecture. Was Tillinghast a proponent of that "Dark Age" short crossbunkered penal principle or philosophy at some point early in his career? Not that I'm aware of!
Tillinghast also talks about the whole idea of "scientific" architecture (or sometimes it was referred to by them as "Modern" architecture) throughout his numerous articles on golf architecture (as Flynn and others did) that specifically contemplates the efficacy for all levels of golfers evidenced by his drawing on the right in chapter 28 of proper and "Modern" bunkering arrangements----eg the proper way to bunker a golf course for all(Chapter 28 is entitled "The simplicity of Modern Bunkering")! One just might also logically assume that "simplicity" might mean economy in Tillinghast's mind on certain types of golf courses!
Furthermore, and again, I don't think it's fair to Tillinghast or any of the others to compare the bunkering placements or patterns or numbers on some courses such as Bethpage Black, SFGC or Brook Hollow or PVGC or Oakmont or NGLA or a number of other course of their ilk and original design intention to courses that they clearly designed for other purposes---eg the so-called "Members Course". And in the name of archtiectural accuracy and competent discussion of architecture it isn't a valid or accurate comparison either!
I don't really know if Tillinghast was selling out his principles in the 1930s or not because I really don't know what bunkers on which courses he did recommend for removal. But I do know if they were those that were consistent with holes that had bunkering numbers and placements like his drawing on the left in chapter 28 he wasn't selling out. And he wasn't being inconsistent in his architetural philosophy either! At least it isn't an accurate comparison to arrive at the conclusion he was selling out!
But at the very least use what he wrote to analyze better what he recommended and may have done. The extent, as well as the detailed explanations on both architecture and architectural principles offered by Tillinghast are probably the most comprehensive and informative ever done in the history of golf course archtiecture. Behr's collection of essays are fascinating too but less actual architectural examples then ones of architectural philosophy through the feelings of a golfer. And of course it's pretty hard to accuse him of doing something negative, inconsistent or of "selling out" without offereing evidence of what actually was recommended by him and done on the courses he visited for the PGA.
I'd also like to say that the photos of Bethpage Black that Mike Cirba offered on the Tillinghast "selling out" thread, presumably for the purpose of showing what DH's are to the duffer do NOT show what Tillinghast considered to be DH's. The diagonals on some of those bunkers placements alone are anything but what he explained were real "Dark Ages" DH's but furthermore, and again, we should all know that Bethpage Black, much like PVGC and some of the others mentioned on GOlfCLUBATLAS was DEDICATELY NOT designed or intended for the "Duffer" to play. And that fact is about as provable as it needs to be, in my opinion!