I don't get why Tom Macwood gets so much grief for his selfless efforts at figuring out so much about the early history of golf course design? And on a website supposedly devoted to frank discussion and commentary about golf design, no less?
Given how much we've all learned from him (whether we admit it or not) you'd think he could ask a question without the reactionary ridicule and snark. Now that it turns out that his is obviously a legitimate question and worthy of discussion, will those who jumped on him make amends? Somehow I doubt it.
Oh well. While Sean Tully deserves it no more or no less, I hope when he comes forward with his findings that he will be treated with a lot more basic common decency and respect.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jeff, you are right, that is the clue...we only need someone to apply some smarts to bracket the date.
Jeff, Not surprisingly, it looks like TomMac was the someone with the smarts to figure it out . . .
I don't know if there is a date on the drawing - I don't recall seeing the original. But I do believe there is a clue that may give you the answer to your question or at least give you a good idea what period the drawing was made, and that is Tilly's listed address of 33 W. 42nd St. What years was Tilly's office on 42nd St?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
I found Tillie's February 1920 "Our Green Committee" piece on the developments in golf course creation in California interesting. TomMac links it above but here again is the link. . . .
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1920/gi125v.pdf He didn't name courses but did write the following which I found interesting because the focus is on "reconstruction" rather than construction.
California is realizing now the necessity of producing better teeing-grounds; putting greens of distinct types, and superior courses generally. Many of the more important are undertaking the work of reconstruction in most vigorous fashion.Obviously it doesn't fully answer the question presented in this thread; far from it. But it was Tillie's wont to highlight his own work in his articles. Speaking of which, later in the article he highlighted one particular hole which seems to be one of his . . .
A sample of one of the new holes being built in California now is suggested by the sketch, which differs from the actual work in minor details. The green is undulating, with a pronounced flare working into the right front entrance. It is built up by scooping back the soil from in front, thus making a natural-looking dip and causing the green itself to stand up well from rather flat and featureless surroundings. The contours and placement of hazards render the green almost unassailable with a long shot from the right. It shows its best face to the second shot, a long iron or brassie coming directly in after the drive has made the long carry of the elbowing pits on the left. This, of course, is the true way to get par figures if there is power enough and courage back of the shots. Then there is the way around to the right, but this safe route gives the player absolutely no encouragement of getting home with any kind of a second, and consequently he is forced to play to the left before getting in to the green with the third.
But there still is the third choice. By placing a very accurate and controlled drive to the left to that portion of the fairway which lies between the pits, the clear way to the green is opened up but it will take a tremendously long second to get home or into the swale in front. The sketch shows by dotted lines, the three routes, and it is a matter of choice to be guided by a knowledge of the player's powers. This is a fair sample of some of the new golf building which is under way now along the Pacific coast. When one stands on a California course, he almost invariably is impressed with a magnificent panorama. The country seems so very big, everything is on such a gigantic scale that it makes itself felt as well as seen. The trees seem bigger than those usually encountered, and they are. The mountains loom high and they extend far. How is it possible to put pawky things in the very heart of such surroundings? The diagram . . .
I presume that this is an approximation of a planned hole at San Francisco? If so, which hole, if it actually was built?
If it is a hole at SFGC, then the thing that strikes me most is the timing. This hole was reportedly being constructed in February 1920. As far as I can tell, the course already existed at this location then. Surely Tillie was not redesigning a course he had just built, was he?
Tillie closes the article with the following . . .
True, much of the golf country has nothing to ask from the hand of the builder of courses. It would be a pity to mar some wonderfully natural holes by attempting any artifice to improve. There are certain holes, which I have in mind that are all satisfying exactly as nature designed them. But there are many very flat areas which must be used and bold mound work is necessary, and it must be very daring in conception
and unusually impressive. As I have said, the country is too big for pawky things.Seems like he should have added, "so if you truly want to avoid artifice or pawkishness, give me a call." But perhaps that is implied.
________________________________________________
Sean, I look forward to reading what you have found. Why don't you head over to SFGC in the next few days and let them know your findings between eighteens?