Sean,
It was one of the advertisements you and I were looking at--if I remember right. I could be wrong, but there is another important point to be brought up here. What should be restored and what shouldn't? Tom has addressed this before, speaking of which he felt that there were only a few clubs in the country worthy of restoration. I disagree with this to some extent.
Say in 70 years, someone wants to decide to either restore or remodel High Point in Michigan. A course that Tom left and put a lot of himself out there on. Now High Point might not mean much to someone 70 years from now, the fairways have evolved; the greens changed dramatically from top dressing over the years and many bunkers left for dead or have evolved into a much less then Doak-like state. So the powers that be 70 years from now--because they heard and found out from research that this obscure course somewhere in Michigan had a certain lineage--are deciding whether to hire Ron Forse III or Carter Moorish IV. to restore the course. Both are wanting to do the work. One has a reputaton for wanting to do it right while the other is just simply in business. Who, How and What would Tom Doak want to see perform work on High Point?
I can only hope that MacKenzie would want to see Crushed White Marble in the bunkers at Pasatiempo as much as he would like to have the knowledge that Robert Muir Graves enhanced his work at Lake Merced, let alone Stockton--IF he was in fact there or not.
And that is my point.....
Wouldn't it better to research some of this stuff and see if it is worth the effort? Or do you just let it go by the wayside, fading fast into an oblivion of what used to be and what will never be again? Do you apply Restoration or Rejuvenation or whatever you want to call it to only the worthy courses?
Define to me what is worthy and what isn't!
Is Palmetto not worthy? What about Yeamans Hall? Those are some courses in some pretty obscure places, similar to Stockton or even Barnboogle for that matter. It takes something of an effort to get there. So what makes them anything less worthy? What features have been eliminated from Stockton in an effort to promote the style of moment ala RTJ and Tom Fazio? (As so many second and third tier architects do when trying to emulate style and substance and don't really have a creative bone in their body, let alone their existence?)
You see, I have spent pretty much the second half of my life experiencing some pretty crummy, or in Tom's somewhat scathing words from Confidential Guide to Golf Courses, Mediocre work on courses that eventually replaced courses from California's Golden Age of Golf Courses. I think there was at one time, some pretty substantial golf architecture here, and yes I'm partial because of being a native. But the ultimate proof is in the pudding: Where did MacKenzie finally plant those roots, as well as Geo. Thomas, Billy Bell, Robert Hunter, Max Behr and A.W. Tillinghast? What type of landscape did they find in the California scheme that attracted them to uproot from a long distance and move and then set-up shop in California?
Why not try to uncover any of that work that was once there Tom Doak? What's wrong with that? Please tell me what is wrong with wanting to look into any of it?
Go walk the 9 hole Altadena Country Club, which used to be 18 hole Pasadena Golf Club and tell me that there wasn't something great there at one time. Why not uncover that history and learn from past mistakes so a better effort can be made for the future? What chance did that place have with a Depression and World War and then a heavy dose of post war development added in there for extra touch? It to was on a flat piece of land, although it was once a virtual field of sand with rugged bunkering and interesting features that once made it one of the SoCal's more prestigious clubs.