For all you SFGCholics

[THuckaby2]

Tom D:

I've made many caveats so far; I am not at all politicking.  I just enjoy this type of contemplation.  I was also told on here that the decision was DONE AND FINAL, thus to me the contemplation was just for fun purposes.  But if it's not, well then that does change the equation.  But jeez.... if an idiot like me has any real-life influence on this whatsoever, then it's a sad, sad world.  But perhaps the world is that sad.  Just let me comment back to my friends, and then I'll drop the subject.

Adam:

Well, your experience differs from that of me, Lou Duran, many others I've talked to, none of whom felt the jarring sensation you did.  I don't doubt you felt it nor that it exists for some golfers; I just attribute it to your heightened senses for such things.  The rest of us real-world golfers just see some fine golf holes and feel no jarring.

GC:
I guess the bottom line is I don't feel to loyalty to original plans that you do.  If I were a member, I'd just want the best golf holes.  Different take.  But I do understand the sensitivity.

So to that end, per Doak's post, I guess we have to end this.  Bottom line is that whatever gets done will be fantastic.


TH

[Mike Benham]

The recommendation to restore the holes came out of the fact that many of the Monterey pines between the present holes 13 & 14 [as well as elsewhere on the course] are dying, and my comment that I don't see how either of those holes works very well without trees.  That's what you should be comparing -- not what is there today, but what will be there in ten years.

From my water department sources, the water main replacement will still need to be done.  So if the membership decides not to restore said holes, some holes will be out of commission during the water main replacement and they will be left as is?

[Sébastien Dhaussy]

I'm trying to match the comments in this thread to the satellite image, but I've never been to SFGC and don't know the routing.  Can someone tell me whether this guess is anywhere close to correct?

Your routing is exactly correct.

I think you can find a routing in Missing Links from Wexlers book.

Drawings of the old routing (13,14,15) and the modern routing are in "Lost Links" (and not "Missing Links"), page 218.
On these drawings, it seems bunkering on the old 15 was very spectacular.  

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
To me it's just not cut and dried that the current holes are bad, and more importantly, that the restored ones would be better!  

There should be reasons beyond if it makes the course better to do restorations. SFGC has a chance to return this to being a Tillingahst designed course rather than a Tillinghast/Harold Sampson course. Seems even if these holes are considered superior to the holes that previously existed it is worth the effort to return it to being closer to what was there from Tillinghast.

Dan King

The past is the only dead thing that smells sweet.
 --Edward Thomas

[johnk]

From my water department sources...

Forget it, Jake -- it's Chinatown.

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

Tom Doak has admonished me for "politicking" so I really shouldn't comment - nor should you post that - apparently the decision has yet to be made final and our words here - as baseless, speculative and uninterested as they might be - could be used as "evidence" by the club one way or the other.  I guess.  Seems silly to me but I remain a rube yokel golfer.

But since you said it, all I can say is that I disagree wholeheartedly.  I'm a selfish golfer and I want the best golf holes, whether designed by Tillinghast, Doak, Naccarato or King.  The name matters not.  The historical accuracy matters less.  I just want the best golf course.

But since I do respect your opinions and you have educated me so many times before, please elaborate as to WHY it's beneficial to return this to being a fully-Tillinghast course, even if it were inferior.  For purposes of the discussion, please assume that such would be inferior. I understand that is not at all a fair assumption, but my request for education here is re why the original must be restored.

Thanks!

TH

[HamiltonBHearst]

If my friends at SFGC are still in the decision phase perhaps it would be appropriate for the golf course rating organizations to weigh in on the matter?  Will the restoration help The SFGC ranking?  Certainly they care.  Plus perhaps they can hold a open access day to let everyone see the changes and get an oppurtunity to rate the course.

Mr. Huckaby-you are going down a slippery slope when the only basis for not restoring is "it's better now".  Often, that is the impetus behind many wrongminded changes. Bring back a Tillie original.

[THuckaby2]

Hamilton:

Thanks, that is a slippery slope and a point well-taken.  But that applies to potential changes to a previously unchanged course.  What say you about a course that's pretty damn good as it is, restoring to a point in time just because it's what the original architect intended?

I can't get my mind behind the thought that original is better, even if it's worse.  If that makes any sense whatsoever.  

TH

ps - absolutely no comment on your first point.

[Kevin_Reilly]

But since I do respect your opinions and you have educated me so many times before, please elaborate as to WHY it's beneficial to return this to being a fully-Tillinghast course, even if it were inferior.  For purposes of the discussion, please assume that such would be inferior. I understand that is not at all a fair assumption, but my request for education here is re why the original must be restored.

Tom, don't know if you have an interest in cars, but here is an analogous situation.  

You find a beautiful 1983 911SC Porsche that has had one owner and is in concours-like condition - except for one thing.  The owner some time ago had replaced the original leather seats with some good Recaro seats that are comfortable, supportive, maybe even have seat warmers but they are brown in color (while the rest of the interior is black) and their style is completely different from the original factory look.  

Replacing these brown seats with originals can be done for a modest cost, and the installation could be done rather easily (plug and play so to speak).  By all measures except style and color, the Recaro's are better than the factory originals.

Would you, in this case, replace the Recaro's?

[THuckaby2]

Kevin:

Unfortunately I'm as into cars as I am the mating habits of the Western New Guinea spider monkey.  I drive a bullshit Saturn because it gets good gas mileage and I won't care how much the kids trash it.  But I get where you're going here - original equipment does have great value.

But is it all about that - how the course will be valued and perceived by others?  Because as I see it, the only reason to do that to the Porsche is to increase its resale value, and/or make other collectors or aficionados think the car is cooler.

I'd hate to think that's what's driving the decision about golf courses.  But I remain quite naive, the playing of the game being what's it all about for me.

TH

[Mike Benham]

Would you, in this case, replace the Recaro's?

Well, the GCA guys might not approve but the BSG guys will like it

[Kevin_Reilly]

But is it all about that - how the course will be valued and perceived by others?  Because as I see it, the only reason to do that to the Porsche is to increase its resale value, and/or make other collectors or aficionados think the car is cooler.

Not at all, though I can see why  you might think that.  Because the original seats can be put in at a small cost and by anyone, they have little effect on resale value.  The reason one might do it is because they like the original seats...sitting in seats designed by the factory who chose their specifications, look and feel even though there were many other options available.

There is a nice feel when you get into a car, look around and think "I'm in a time capsule here...sitting in something that hasn't changed in 20+ years...it was great then and it is great now".

Others might say...no I need my cupholder and power seats with lumbar support...authenticity doesn't matter.  That's ok, it's their car.

[THuckaby2]

Kevin:

AHA!  Picture the light-bulb above my head.  I get it now.

That is a very compelling argument.  There certainly is something to be said for playing an old, unchanged classic.  The time-capsule feeling is to be valued without a doubt.

I just can't get over one other thing though:  as great as a restoration might be, it's not the original.  So whereas I'd dig sitting in a restored Porsche, I'd always know it's NOT the original equipment.  If my friend had one with such, I'd always prefer sitting in his.

So for me it gets back to what's better in the playing.  This time capsule feeling would be enough to carry the day in situations where the changed course had been horribly bastardized or was obviously lesser than what was their originally.

I just don't find it enough to make the difference in a situation where today and yesterday are not that easy to differentiate in terms of quality.

But it does remain a compelling argument.  Many thanks.

TH

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
But since I do respect your opinions and you have educated me so many times before, please elaborate as to WHY it's beneficial to return this to being a fully-Tillinghast course, even if it were inferior.

Inferior and superior are funny words. But I'll do my best.

Say you own Leonardo Da Vinci's Last Supper. Perhaps you become convinced the Leonardo got it wrong. That chances were good the historical Jesus and the apostles didn't look so much like Northern Italians, that there is a good chance they would have had more of a Middle Eastern look. To improve the painting, you go ahead and darken their skin, hair and eyes. In theory, to many people you have improved the painting -- you made it more factual towards the historical Jesus. You had every right, you own the painting, but it still wouldn't make it any less of a crime. Not a criminal crime, but a moral crime.

Now golf courses are different. They are art on a living, breathing canvas. There is no way we can retain the course as Tillinghast created it. It was changing immediatly. But the new holes were designed without Tillinghast's spirit (another funny word.) The membership has every right to do what they want with SFGC, it is their course, just as whoever owns the Last Supper has every right to make it more realistic or cut it up into tiny squares and sell the squares. But if either were to come and ask me for my advise, I'd say to try and get it back closer to the original.

What if to colorize Citizen Kane had to destroy the original? Wouldn't many people be up in arms over that? If you could then return it to Welles' original black and white, wouldn't you? Perhaps you couldn't ever get it back to the original, but the black and white would be more like Welles' vision, even if some people liked the colorized Citizen Kane better.

If all you want is the 18th best possible holes, it seems like these tribute courses are ideal for that purpose. I prefer a course where the holes work well with each other, even if it means an inferior hole here or there.

Dan King

If some hole does not possess striking individuality through some gift of nature, it must be given as much as possible artificially, and the artifice must be introduced in so subtle a manner as to make it seem natural.
 --A.W. Tillinghast

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

Great stuff.  But let's not get too caught up in golf courses v. collections of holes.  Assume I meant I want the best golf course, even if that's not what I said.  

As for the rest, I can't get past your admission that a golf course, as a living breathing thing, is a different animal than a painting.  Since it will evolve over time anyway, we never really do have EXACTLY what any architect wanted, even in the best case.  Now of course it's a whole different matter if the course is horribly bastardized - but that's not what we're talking about for purposes of this discussion.  

Kevin's car analogy weighs heavily on me.  As great as replacment equipment trying to duplicate the original might be, it's never going to BE the original.  Same goes for golf courses.

So for me, it would have to be a very powerful, obvious improvement in quality before I'd get behind any restoration.  Say what you will, but a Tillinghast restored by Doak is not a Tillinghast, as skillful as Doak might be.

I guess it comes down to the very real fact for me that a golf course is all in the playing, not the appreciating or studying.  That's just me, and makes me a minority if not a pariah in this forum.  I can live with that.  I just have a hard time looking at a golf course more as a work of art than a field of play.

TH

[Sean_Tully]

Tom D.

SO Harold Sampson was a busy guy. I was not aware that he worked at SFGC.  He was at Meadow Club, Pebble,Del Monte,Wawona,Tahoe Tavern,Hayward, Burlingame, and Castlewood also.  Classic example of a golf pro's take on architecture.  He took out a number of bunkers at Meadow Club that were short of the greens and moved them right next to them instead.  He also put a bunker on the fairway side of a water hazard so balls would not end up in a hazard.  I had thought that all of the bunkers were moved by RM Graves in 1980's, but I was surprised to see some work being done to the course in some of the old aerials that I found from 1949-1957 the time frame for Samson's work.

Sampson was the original pro at Pebble back in 1919 and played a lot of golf matches against touring pro's and also wrote domr articles for golf magazines during the '20's. He was the Pro at Burlingame for something like 30 years or more.  

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:  Thanks for the background on Harold Sampson.  I knew he was the pro at Burlingame, but did not know of his involvement on all those other courses.  I'm sure SFGC will be proud to know they're in such fine company!

What did he do at Pebble Beach, if you know?

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Tom/Sean

Amazing how a meandering post can suddenly hit the target!  There's so much fabulous information on this site if only the right person says the right thing at the right time.

Somebody needs to set up a really perceptive search machine to search out all the subtle (and less than subtle) nuances of this site.   Give it to Ran as a gift for having set up such a fantastic site and enabling us to share such valuable information comfortably.

[Tyler Kearns]

There should be reasons beyond if it makes the course better to do restorations. SFGC has a chance to return this to being a Tillingahst designed course rather than a Tillinghast/Harold Sampson course. Seems even if these holes are considered superior to the holes that previously existed it is worth the effort to return it to being closer to what was there from Tillinghast.

Dan,

When considering a restoration, if the new golf holes clearly lack the strategic interest, style and/or character of the original architecture, then a restoration makes perfect sense. However, every architect, even the "untouchables" produced a few dud holes in their lifetime. I think their is a great deal of nostalgia involved in many restoration projects, and sometimes we have to admit that prior renovation work was in the best interest of the club.

I am not familiar enough with San Francisco GC to make that judgement, however the design is definitely considered to be one of Tillinghast's best works. That leads me to believe a "faithful" restoration by the Renaissance Design team would probably yield a better golf course. If the membership do not want to take such an invasive step, perhaps attempting to mimic the character and style of the other 14 holes would be a good option in restoring some continuity to the course. I've heard one of the most charming features of the course are the expansive sight-lines through the property, something that doesn't seem to fit with the trees on the 13th & 14th holes.

TK

[THuckaby2]

Mark:

You are most welcome.

Oh what's that, he meant Tom DOAK?

Well then never mind.

 

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Sorry, I should have said Toms, plural.  Your combined contributions are invaluable.

[Mike Benham]

There's a strong rumor (OK, it's more than a rumor but I don't know whether it's been made public yet) that SFGC has approved the renovation of the golf course to bring back the original versions of 13, 14, and 15 in the next year or so.

There is an additional rumor that many trees will be taken out during the renovation as well.  

This is really a golf course that grows on you with repeated plays, what a great set of par 4's and, of course, the duel hole.

Hey Golden -

Any update on your rumor or public confirmation that SFGC will undergo some changes?

Mike

[Tom_Doak]

I can confirm that we will be doing the work to holes 13-14-15 in the last half of April.

I have always felt that this was the right course for the club, but I'm actually pretty amazed that the membership trusts us enough to follow through with it.  But, I believe that most of them understood that the present 14th hole, without the trees which are dying, was going to be a mess and that this is the best way to deal with it.

So now there is a little pressure on us to get it right!

[Tom Huckaby]

FANTASTIC, Tom- and congrats.  Hell yes there's pressure on you now, but you can handle it.    Can't wait to see the recreated Little Tillie!

TH

[Mike Benham]

I can confirm that we will be doing the work to holes 13-14-15 in the last half of April.

I have always felt that this was the right course for the club, but I'm actually pretty amazed that the membership trusts us enough to follow through with it.  But, I believe that most of them understood that the present 14th hole, without the trees which are dying, was going to be a mess and that this is the best way to deal with it.

So now there is a little pressure on us to get it right!

Rumor has it that all of Doak's men have put SFGC back together again and is opening tomorrow.  I'm sure the club has planned something special for "Little Tillie" for the reopening.

However, I can't confirm if Jordan Wall will be in attendance.