Will Doak's SFix Change Ran's Opinion?

[A_Clay_Man]

Not sure what Rans specific issues are, or were, with SFGC. But, I suspect... if Team Rennaissance can compliment the previous holes, by returning the character of the whole, Ran will have to go public with that type of earth-shaking news. The likes of which have not been seen for a hundred years.

Thoughts?

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam - I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  All I recall from Ran about SFGC is that he didn't do a profile on it because he followed the rules about no pictures allowed; and didn't want to publicly flaunt breaking such by doing a profile using pictures others might give him.

Did he have some other negative feelings about the course?

If so, then yes, assuming Doak makes Little Tillie and two other great holes as he has described in here, it would be time for Ran - and all others who disliked what was there before - to stand up and see the light.

But I'm sure there will be no shortage of interested parties - even those of us who didn't think the "whole" or the "holes" were all that bad before.

 

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom, Busted. I know of no specifics on Ran's opinion. It is one of those urban legends (or is there a new category term for internet derived lore), that since it isnt profiled, he didnt like it.

On the other thread, someone insinuated that the membership is, or might be, interested in magazine rankings. If that were true, do you think they'd start allowing pictures?

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam - I surely could be wrong - Ran has been known to take a crazy stance or two, that's for sure.    It will be interesting to see his real take on this.

As for SFGC and magazine rankings, WHOA!  They sure as hell have seemed to care less about such in the past.  If that does change though, well then yes, it would be pretty hypocritical to then say "no pictures."

But wow, let's not speculate too much on that - I'm sure when the time comes, their stance will become quite well-known.  

[A_Clay_Man]

I guess the REAL question is will you change your mind?

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

Well heck, go read that thread Mike Golden started - Doak's explanations were enough for me to change my thinking and accept that the changes will be a net positive.  I surely trust his take a whole hell of a lot more than my own on such matters.

One thing I doubt will ever change is looking backward and seeing some flowus interruptus, or calling the old 13-15 bad golf holes.  But you have to expect that, and in any case, it shall all become quite moot soon enough.

 

[corey miller]

How does one determine if private clubs care or don't care about magazine ratings?  Surely it has nothing to do with a picture policy or allowing access to raters?  Or is it?  

[Tom Huckaby]

Corey - well of course there is no definitive way to assess that.  And no, the allowance or not of pictures is meaningless in the assessment in any case.  All I was saying in response to Adam's question is that it would be odd - I guess hypocritical is too strong of a word - to accept raters, but disallow pictures.  But hell, that's what Shadow Creek does so I suppose I am full of crap.  That's surely not a first.  

I will say this:  an indicator of whether a course cares about magazine ratings surely has to be whether they accept rater play, no?  And SFGC sure as hell never has - as quite a few very private clubs don't - and shouldn't.

TH

[Tom_Doak]

I can assure you that the subject of magazine rankings has never come up in any of my conversations with the Board, green committee, or any single member of San Francisco Golf Club.  [If the course had suddenly dropped twenty spots on the GOLF DIGEST list, someone might have cared, but that hasn't happened.]

However, they know they have a great course, and there was a natural reluctance to change it because the present layout is all they have known -- for all but a few of the longest-term members.  Sandy Tatum does remember playing the original layout, and was kind enough to say at the general meeting that he supports the restoration as an improvement.

As for the club's position on photos, I don't think it's odd at all.  They are not seeking publicity, and they are trying to guard against photos of the golf course turning up in advertisements and such.  I know of a few other private clubs which have the same concern:  Seminole, SFGC and the CC of Detroit all asked me to sign an agreement never to publish the photos I took when I was a student twenty years ago.

[Tom Huckaby]

TD - thanks for the clarifications. I would find it very strange if SFGC all of a sudden started catering to magazine ratings.  Of course yes, if it makes a free-fall that might change - but there's not much chance of that.  

As for photos - hell yes, their current stance is not odd in any way.  The conjecture here - mental masturbation without a doubt - was what would happen if all of a sudden they started seeking out magazine raters.  IF they did that - which of course is not bloody likely - then with that stance, it would be strange to continue to disallow photos.  But as I say, that's exactly what Shadow Creek does, so who knows?

TH

[Pat Howard]

Strange how the world works... A few days ago I was browsing the "Courses By Country" section on GCA when I noticed that SFGC was not previewed! I assumed it was because Ran had not played the course. It never occured to me that they had a no-picture policy. Now it all makes sense. I hope to some day play the course, from what I've heard it's truely a classic. Until then, I guess I'll have to be content with navigating the course by Google Earth.

[redanman]

I can't speak FOR Ran, but I have spoken WITH him about SFGC and we both agree that it gets a boost from the "California Coastal Effect" as I call it.

Is SFGC a better golf course than Fenway, say?

What if it were in Westchester?

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Oh hell Bill, you say that about EVERY course out here.  Thus your words are lost in the wind....

 

The fact is, the course isn't in Westchester, thank God.  It's pretty damn neat how it sits as an oasis in a very urban setting... then when one gets inside, it's so very expansive as it is.  Perhaps that occurs in Westchester, perhaps not.

Whatever "boost" the course gets is just and deserved, as I see things.

But of course you knew that already.

 

[A_Clay_Man]

Just to stir it up some more...

Would the membership ever consider removing the section of trees that blocks the long view of the ocean? Is it # 4?

Sure the house tops would be visible, but then so would the waves the bunkers are mimicking.

[redanman]

Huck

Point being that the barking you hear in the background is the second nine at SFGC, not sea lions and hopefully that will be fixed soon!

14 holes does not make a top 20 course except PBGL and SFGC!

 

woof woof woof....  

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam - of course I have zero clue how the members there think, so I shall just ask this:  would that really be an improvement?

I ask because a bit of the greatness of SFGC to me is the oasis in the city nature of it.  That is, surrounded by the huge trees as it is, while being so expansive within, is very unique and thus part of the coolness.

Removing those trees would take a bit of that away.

Also those aren't the most attractive houses.

So my question is to you:  put yourself in the place of an SFGC member.  Would the gain in ocean view outweigh these negatives?

I don't know - hell I don't recall the view all that well.  I'm interested in your take.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck

Point being that the barking you hear in the background is the second nine at SFGC, not sea lions and hopefully that will be fixed soon!

14 holes does not make a top 20 course except PBGL and SFGC!

 

woof woof woof....  

 
That got audible yuks.

Oh well, they seem to be "fixing" SFGC, so you'll have less to complain about.  Perhaps Pebble will be next?  Nah, doesn't need it.

 

[rocket]

When I did my internship at SFGC.  I was allowed to take as much photos as I can but I too had an agreement with the club that I wasn't able to publish them.  
I do know that the only time they allowed photos printed in an article is in LINKS  the best of Golf  magazine  NOV/DEC 1996 issue.  And that article is framed and hanging in the clubhouse.
 SFGC should always be a hidden gem.   The course ratings should be left with the course across Lake Merced.
 

[A_Clay_Man]

Huck, I don't know how they will think either. Thats why I asked. However, it does seem incongruent to have such a dominate collection of features whose relavance has been obscured.

So If I were a member I suppose it would be a question of balancing the aesthetic v. intention and justification for the bunker shapes.  I doubt the majority would give two hits about Tillies intent but since they are now more focused on his input and lineage, perhaps art will out??

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

Regarding the long view, you CAN see the ocean over the trees in the distance from the 18th tee and 18th fairway, IF it's a clear day on the ocean ... I've seen it a couple of times.

However, once you get down to the clubhouse and first tee, I think the trees on the ridge over by Olympic are too tall and they're the ones that block the view.

A bunch of the trees behind the first green have been cut down since you last saw the course -- a very big one fell on the green in a storm, which is one of the things that made them think more seriously about their tree issues.  It does give a kind of cool "negative space" behind the first green, and it's much scarier to hit a short pitch to it now.  But there could never be an ocean view from there.

IMHO, San Francisco's ranking has nothing to do with being in California, any more than being in NY helps Fenway.  If the course is overrated at all, it's because of the unique bunkering, and people's obsession with bunkering.  But there are a bunch of great holes there, too, and I think there are about to be a couple more.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Until then, I guess I'll have to be content with navigating the course by Google Earth.

Not oblique like Google Earth, but this was always one of my faves:

Link to full size version of aerial below here

Shrunken version:


Tom D.,

Will restored hole(s) get any closer to the merge ramp?

[rocket]

Great aerial.
   I believe that the greens or their location will not change much.  Looking at an old routing map of the SFGC that I have.  The new 14 tee might be close to that merge ramp but when you play you might not even know it's there.   And the water resevoir on the left of 15 assuming will be filled in. Due to most of the golf clubs in the area have switched to effluent water and the new state of the art water reservoir is located behind 17 tee.   Which also shows me that in that area use to be a 3 hole practice facility back in the day.

From the book history of San Francisco   this is how the holes 13,14, 15 were described.

Thirteenth hole (changed):  An easy pitch to the green that owing its convex surface is hard to stay on.  It is encircled by deep sandy bunkers.

Fourteenth hole ( changed):  The long driver will not have difficulty here.  The moderate driver will have to straight and carefully avoid the well_guarded bunkers on each side of the fairways.  The shor driver will find it impossible to get on the well-guarded greens in two.

Fifteenth Hole(changed):  Here again, the long driver has only to be carefull not to pull.  For him, the green not particularly protected can easilly be reached in two.

   

[Kevin_Reilly]

See if this link works to the Windows Live Local pic

Area around SE corner of SFGC

[Tom_Doak]

The 13th and 14th greens are still where they were to start with, you've just been playing them in the wrong order ... Little Tillie played to the current 14th green, and then you played from near 15 tee down to 13 green.  The old 15th came straight back up the hill from 14 tee to a green just (on the photo) beneath the present 15th.  We have to shorten that hole just a bit as the original green was closer to the ramp, but we are stretching the tee back to make up most of the room.

[Mike_Cirba]

Great aerial.
   I believe that the greens or their location will not change much.  Looking at an old routing map of the SFGC that I have.  The new 14 tee might be close to that merge ramp but when you play you might not even know it's there.   And the water resevoir on the left of 15 assuming will be filled in. Due to most of the golf clubs in the area have switched to effluent water and the new state of the art water reservoir is located behind 17 tee.   Which also shows me that in that area use to be a 3 hole practice facility back in the day.

From the book history of San Francisco   this is how the holes 13,14, 15 were described.

Thirteenth hole (changed):  An easy pitch to the green that owing its convex surface is hard to stay on.  It is encircled by deep sandy bunkers.

Fourteenth hole ( changed):  The long driver will not have difficulty here.  The moderate driver will have to straight and carefully avoid the well_guarded bunkers on each side of the fairways.  The shor driver will find it impossible to get on the well-guarded greens in two.

Fifteenth Hole(changed):  Here again, the long driver has only to be carefull not to pull.  For him, the green not particularly protected can easilly be reached in two.

   

RJ_Bautista;

The book doesn't exactly make the new/old holes sound compelling, does it?  Sheesh...talk about low-key.  

I like what I've seen from early drawings and aerials and am very happy to hear of this change of direction from the club.

I'm curious if the history book references any course on that site prior to Tillinghast's involvement?  I'm also curious what year Tillie's work was begun and completed if it's easily available.

Thanks!!