Was Tillie Right?

[Ken Fry]

In the summer of 1935, A.W. Tillinghast began a tour of the U.S. to consult on host courses of PGA members.  When he was finished, he made approximately two trips around the country to over 500 courses.  His most famous recommendation at many facilities was the elimination of bunkers, specifically "duffer headache" bunkers, those bunkers that were especially punishing to high handicappers and expensive to maintain.  (This information can be found at http://www.tillinghast.net/Tillinghast/Tour_Service.html)

With expense dominating course survival discussions, what would a current trip around the country for Tillinghast look like now compared to then?  Was he on to something with his widespread elimination of bunkers for better playability and cost control?  How would he react to modern maintenance practices, both good and bad?

Ken

[Joe Hancock]

Ken,

No surprise it's taking anyone a bit to answer, as I believe it to be a complicated answer. I'll only attempt to tackle a little bit of it.

I think times were much different, in that there wasn't so many courses, nor so many golfers. That was a time when the game was able to grow, the environment for growth was much more positive. He, apparently, was aware that the current duffer was important to the popularity of the game, and promoted changes to reduce the inherent exasperation of the game. I can't say the few Tillie (Or, Tillinghast, for the no-nickname purists) courses I've seen are golf lite, per se, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't, or shouldn't, promote an easier presentation at courses he didn't design.

Merry Christmas!

[Ken Fry]

Merry Christmas Papa Joe!

Thanks for the reply.  I know my series of questions could go in many different directions.  Times were very different in 1935 vs. now, but we're still battling some of the same problems now as then.

As a group, we spend a tremendous amount of time discussing about 10% of the courses in the U.S.  Threads will be written covering lesser known local courses or ones hype has passed by but the small "Mom and Pop" operations are the ones struggling to secure a future.

Before your family closed your course, what would Tillinghast have said if he made a tour through Grand Rapids?  Was he right to eliminate so many bunkers in the name of cost savings?  As one GCA'er pointed out, that seems ironic given Tillinghast's own famous bunkering.  But as I travel around and play lesser known courses that are strapped for cash, most of the time bunkers are not maintained and are so rocky a player would damage his club and/or hurt himself playing out of it.

Tillinghast often recommended alterations to courses for playability sake.  He was also very delicate in offering advice on courses designed by a competitive architect, usually referencing the original drawings to find the local construction crew did not build what the original plans called for.

So if Tillinghast showed up today and did a tour of smaller market courses under great financial strain, how would his advice be different from 1935?  Would he aggressively eliminate more bunkers?  Would he be stunned by acceptable modern maintenance practices?  Would he find courses more difficult to the average player than he saw in 1935?

There obviously are no right answers.  I'm curious to hear opinions.

Ken

[Mark_Fine]

Ken,
I posted a similar topic a few months ago about “superfluous” bunkers and it didn’t get a lot of traction.  I don’t think people on this site like to talk about this topic because many here like the look of lots of bunkers.  I personally like bunkers as well, but there are MANY courses out there today (old and new) that have bunker issues and that Tillie as well as others would question.

[Steve Lang]

  Probably.


The last sentence of the link though is most interesting, ... Davenport told him that, in his opinion, “the PGA had ‘put one over’ the USGA in sponsoring the course service.” [/size]
[/size]
[/size]With the millions in the bank of both the PGA & USGA... would it be considered that they are presently in competition?

[Tom_Doak]

I can't say the few Tillie (Or, Tillinghast, for the no-nickname purists) courses I've seen are golf lite, per se, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't, or shouldn't, promote an easier presentation at courses he didn't design.

Yes, it's much easier to see bunkers as superfluous [or green contours as excessive] when you are critiquing someone else's work, and not your own.


By the same token, I've also put back some bunkers he took out, in the name of restoration.

[Sean_A]

I think we all must remember that there are players who find 125 yard carries a challenge.  I know the rage is to build seventeen sets of tees to accomodate every person who could possibly swing a club, but I have always thought it better to stick to a few sets of tees and when the opportunity arises, build the odd dramatic bunker (or whatever) so Grandpa Larry can have a thrill.  We have reached the point now where the distance between sets of tees is enough space to build an 18 hole par 3 course  ...its daft.I don't know why an archie would think that poor golfers don't want the odd bit of excitement.  A club trying to save money would do well to look at pinching point bunkering and the old favourite right/left front greenside bunkering. 

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I presume your argument that it is easy to critique someone else’s design is because you think that person doesn’t fully comprehend the original architect’s intent?  Is that correct?  The question I have for you, is the original architect’s intent always the best?  Also, can circumstances change that make sense for the design to change with it? 


We all know golf courses evolve, some for the better, some for the worse.  I trust that when you "restore" something like a bunker, you assess the original intent of the bunker and decide if it makes sense and/or if it restores the design intent that has gone missing?  I doubt you restore just for the sake of restoration?  Restoration is, however, such an inexact science when it comes to golf courses.  It is soooo subjective. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

If you read that article, Tillie ended up recommending taking out some of his own bunkers, too.

I have been called back to many of my courses since the great recession to reduce bunkering.  Some find it awkward, but my take is its a sign of the times, and would prefer to do it over someone else.  It realigned my philosophy a bit. In reality, my courses with 50-60K SF of bunkers don't play any worse than those with 90-100K SF.  In fact, even visually, I  now find that much bunkering a bit much in most cases.  You have to get creative with alternate hazards, like grass bunkers, mounds, chipping areas, etc.

Or, as some other architect said (not sure why I can't recall who it was....) the green should always be the main visual target, bunkers secondary.  That alone explained why I don't care for a number of Maxwell courses - all you see on the approach are big yawning bunkers in many cases.  I reserve that for one hole a round, usually a par 5 or short par 4, hoping one example is memorable.

To answer the overall question, yes he was right, and he set the tone for architecture right up until the free spending days of the 90's......When money flows - usually about one decade out of 7, people forget the basics.

I started in 1977, I tried on occasion to get in some foreground bunkers, and especially bunkers 20-40 yards in front of greens, just because they looked good, and old fashioned.  Inevitably, the question (that led to their demise) was, "Why build a bunker that doesn't come into play for better players?"  The implication was they slowed play, punished golfers who had already punished themselves by coming up short, etc. 

If architecture balances playability against aesthetics, its hard to justify a lot of bunkers in non traditional landing zones.  If a duffer has mis hit his tee shot, and is more than 200 yards (or his maximum second shot distance) what good does it do to punish him even more than the bogey he must likely face?

Given the extra cost of building and maintaining bunkers these day, he was not only right, but now is more right than ever.

[MCirba]

What Sean said.

If the purpose of a strategic bunker is primarily to challenge as opposed to punish, we should see more at differing lengths from the tee and not less.

Oh, and no more than 3 sets of tees and ideally two which would help reduce maintenance costs.

[Tom_Doak]

  Restoration is, however, such an inexact science when it comes to golf courses.  It is soooo subjective.

Restoration is only subjective when you allow it to be. 


Deciding what to replace, what to move, etc., is NOT restoration, precisely because it's so subjective.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
I presume your argument that it is easy to critique someone else’s design is because you think that person doesn’t fully comprehend the original architect’s intent?  Is that correct?  The question I have for you, is the original architect’s intent always the best?  Also, can circumstances change that make sense for the design to change with it?   

No, that wasn't my argument.  I was just saying it is sometimes easier to remember to keep things simple when you look at someone else's cluttered work, than when out there building your own course.  Almost everyone who is involved with a project or comes and sees it during construction will suggest ADDING something; less than 10% of visitors in my experience have ever suggested taking something OUT [other than a tree maybe].


To your question, no, the original architect's intent is not always the best idea.  However I am more skeptical than most that the idea someone else suggests is going to be demonstrably better.  A lot of stuff on old courses was just changed for the sake of change ... and the results of those changes have not been too inspiring.

[Ed Homsey]

The old Travis course at my club was one of the courses visited by Tillinghast, in 1935.  He described it as "reeking with duffer's headaches", which consisted, largely, of sand pits among "chocolate drops".   The club did not follow his recommendations immediately, but in 1947, because of maintenance issues, removed all of those fairway hazards.  As I look at the 1920s images of the course, with the so-called "duffers headaches' clearly in view, I am sad they are no longer there.  "Duffer headaches", eh?  As a badly aged duffer, I am in complete agreement with Sean's notion that us duffers still enjoy the thrill of having cleared, avoided, or escaped a hazard.  A headache?  Not for this old duffer.

[DMoriarty]

The modern duffer's headache might be a forced carry over water, a canyon, or some other unplayable/lost ball area. The old version of a duffer's headache bunker seems quaint and inviting in comparison.

[Peter Pallotta]

Is anyone ever "right" when the genesis of his ideas/efforts is essentially a clever and calculated make-work project? When his livelihood is based on identifying "problems" or "solutions" when none may actually exist or are required, I wonder how clearly and unbiased is his seeing, or how the ideals of the craft itself might not be compromised. Tillie's initiative here reminds me too much of Thompson's Highland's idea of getting the only source of financing during the Depression (ie the government) to back turning part of a national park into a golf course -- and then displacing people from their homes/land in the name of his craft. We call such efforts and businessmen "successful" but it just doesn't seem right (or honest) to me.
Peter

[Sven Nilsen]

Is anyone ever "right" when the genesis of his ideas/efforts is essentially a clever and calculated make-work project?

Yes, assuming the end goal (that beyond the make-work) is justifiable.  There were quite a few "make-work" projects going on during the depression, and as things turned out it would hard to argue that those responsible for them weren't, on the whole, "right."


Sven

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Can you name a golf course where you did only restoration work and nothing was subjective in what you restored?  I would guess that on some projects you had aspects that were close to pure restoration but I would also guess that there were parts of that same project where you had to decide what to do because the decision was not obvious.  Since golf courses are living things under constant change and evolution (unlike restoring cars or houses), little is often black and white.  If for example someone “restored” a Flynn course to what he built on opening day they would likely be doing the course a disservice because Flynn often only added bunkers and other features after the course was played for a few years.  You would be doing “restoration” but is it really they right thing to restore?  This is where subjectivity and time sensitivity comes into play. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
Can you name a golf course where you did only restoration work and nothing was subjective in what you restored?

Mark:  Of course, the final decision is not mine, but the club's, and sometimes they take their time getting around to everything, or they want to keep added tees or something.  I don't really mind if there are extra tees [back tees OR forward tees], as long as the original tees haven't been removed.


It's really not impossible to restore a course.  It's just that most architects want to get paid for doing otherwise.



Camargo, The Valley Club, and San Francisco Golf Club are all pretty close now, apart from a few extra tees, and the left corner of the original 17th green at Camargo, which someone lopped off for some reason.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sven -

yes, of course, if the ends prove worthy perhaps the means are justified.

I've got nothing against depression era make-work programs in general, just this one in particular, i.e. where the "work" and "the Work" could so easily be at odds.

I'm glad the government of that day funded art projects, for example, since as history long before then had proved, there is nothing inherently problematic in a painter being paid by a patron -- and in the end we got art, some of it outstanding. 

As far as I know, none of the artists funded through the WPA's art project went around renovating existing art by other artists.

Peter 

[Josh Stevens]

Can someone who knows break down the cost of maintaining a bunker into the various actions required, as I can only imagine the cost will differ with soil type and terrain etc.

My club is pure sand, with the bunker sand being essentially whatever they find when they dig a hole.  Yes they need to be raked,  trimmed and mown around, but that's about it.  A clay course needs more work??

[Ken Fry]

Ken,
I posted a similar topic a few months ago about “superfluous” bunkers and it didn’t get a lot of traction.  I don’t think people on this site like to talk about this topic because many here like the look of lots of bunkers.  I personally like bunkers as well, but there are MANY courses out there today (old and new) that have bunker issues and that Tillie as well as others would question.

Mark,

I also posed a question a few years ago about the possibility of courses with no sand traps.  I have nothing against bunkers but they can be a point of dissatisfaction if neglected too long and an expense for courses not built on sandy soil.

I think you're hinting at the elephant in the room:  are the bunkers in such demand today saddling clubs with excessive expense?  They're pretty to look at but lips and faces cave in easy, many with drainage and/or liners need to be rebuilt after seven years, most require hand raking.

Better players WANT to hit out of properly prepared sand because the results are predictable.  Spin is controllable.  What if that sand trap was grass instead of sand?  Not US Open length rough but normal rough.  Spin is no longer controllable.  There's an element of chance involved, something better players hate.  Higher handicap players would rather hit out of grass than sand.  Sounds like an interesting equalizer.  This philosophy could also work for fairway bunkers.  One thing I know hitting out of sand filled fairway bunkers is the ball will spin and sit quickly.  Not so out of rough.

So for courses not blessed with a natural sand base, should Tillinghast have recommended maintaining the position of bunkers but eliminating the sand?

Ken

[Garland Bayley]

The modern duffer's headache might be a forced carry over water, a canyon, or some other unplayable/lost ball area. The old version of a duffer's headache bunker seems quaint and inviting in comparison.

BINGO

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven -

yes, of course, if the ends prove worthy perhaps the means are justified.

I've got nothing against depression era make-work programs in general, just this one in particular, i.e. where the "work" and "the Work" could so easily be at odds.

I'm glad the government of that day funded art projects, for example, since as history long before then had proved, there is nothing inherently problematic in a painter being paid by a patron -- and in the end we got art, some of it outstanding. 

As far as I know, none of the artists funded through the WPA's art project went around renovating existing art by other artists.

Peter

Peter:


Paintings, sculptures and most other forms of art are observed. 


A golf course is played, and the way it is played changes over time, often necessitating updates. 


There is a vast difference.


Sven

[BCrosby]

We have had this discussion before about "subjectivity". Mark above takes the usual line that, well, since it's all subjective, I'll apply my subjectivity and make changes that feel right to me. So what's the problem?


The problem is that not all architectural "subjectivity" is equal. There are some architects who have earned the right to be deferred to. Changes to a historic course might be required for any number of reasons. Erosion, drainage, boundary issues, cart paths, trees and so forth. But those changes should be required to carry a burden of proof that they are necessary. 


Believing that you have better architectural instincts than a MacK or a Colt (or any number of well respected architects), however, is not enough. It does not carry that burden. Their designs have earned our deference.


Bob     

[Mark_Fine]

Bob,
Few architects take the time to do the research before they recommend that subjectivity!   There in lies the difference.