David,
Thanks for the compliment!
Tom, as far as Tilly's amateur status and his ability to compete as one is concerned, especially as how he may have been viewed by GAP & others in the Philadelphia area, consider the 1910 U.S. Open at the Philadelphia Cricket Club.
Qualifying to play in the Open & Amateur in those years was very different from how it is today. Both golf associations and certain cities were given "spots" and chose those who would specifically represent them.
In 1910 Tilly was chosen as one of the Philadelphia representatives to compete in the Open. He finished 25 shots behind the winner being recognized by the USGA as the second low AMATEUR.
After this Tilly stopped competing and even playing for the most part because of the demands that the design business was putting on his time. As the issue of Amateurism grew in the next few years Tilly even wrote about his inability to play because of the demands of his design business yet as far as he was concerned he believed that he was and should be considered an amateur.
Remember that it wasn't just golf course architects who would be considered professionals, but also thiose who wrote about golf as well, so in both instances Tilly, and others such as Travis, were in danger of losing their amateur standing.
Tilly wrote a scathing newspaper article about the issue in July of 1914 titled "If Such Be Sin." In it he challenged the USGA and the its Executive Committee and, in specific, "President Robert C. Watson of the United States Golf Association" by name. About Watson he wrote, "I have known Mr. Watson for a great many years, and some of my most pleasant memories are matches which we have had together; consequently, any comments of mine cannot be considered as unfriendly to Mr. Watson personally, but certainly must be understood as being quite at variance with the position which he is taking as president of the national association..."
He would eloquently explain that, "I have a sufficient knowledge of the rules to know that golf journalism and golf architecture for remuneration have been no violation of the code, and I am of the opinion that the United States Golf Association will make no change which would make them so.
"If by chance golf architecture and golf journalism should, by reason of future legislation, cause me to be regarded as a professional golfer, I will go on record as saying that I shall be proud of my profession.
"I love the game of golf and its association, and sometimes I feel that the many years in the game have fitted me to write intelligently of it, and in my humble way I think that I have, through my writings, fostered golf and kept it before the public as a clean, honest sport of a gentleman.
"In the planning of courses there is the joy of creation, and a keen satisfaction in seeing them develop, until finally they receive the approval of those who play over them. Such work might be the recreation of a millionaire, but there are some of us who find it impossible to devote our attention to it without adequate remuneration, and if the makers of our golf laws see fit to call this professional golf, I certainly shall not criticize them, but I may retain in the future the same opinions which I have had in the past.
"Don’t think for a moment my words contain any arrogance like Boss Tweed’s ‘What are you going to do about it?’ Rather let the question be, what is wrong with it all? If such be sin, then I will continue in the ways of sin..."