News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike Jansen

History of SF Club
« on: August 18, 2010, 09:07:56 PM »
During a round at San Francisco GC, it was explained to me that the 13th, 14th and 15th were not the original and had to be redesigned when the trees that protected the doglegs became diseased and were taken out.  Apparently the 13th and 14th were par 4s dogleg left and dogleg right... which sound like they have much more interest than the straight up and back 14th and 15th currently.

First question is whether there are any old photographs that have surfaced in the discussion board of the SFGC before the "re-do".
Second would be who was the architect responsible for the new 13-15 because in between the 14th & 15th is an amazing fairway bunker... huge and tarantula looking , unlike anything else on the course.


Phil_the_Author

Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2010, 09:15:14 PM »
Mike,

I'd suggest that you wait until Mid-September when there will be a special edition of Tillinghast Illustrated which will provide a full course evolution history of the San Francisco Golf Club.

There are many surprises and all questions will be answered...  ;)

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2010, 09:20:35 PM »
I hope you give credit where credit is due.

Phil_the_Author

Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2010, 09:23:53 PM »
Why Tom,

"I hope you give credit where credit is due."

Of course we do. The research was meticulous as a few who were aware of it know. Even Sean is satisfied we got it right...

Mike Cirba

Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2010, 09:26:03 PM »
Phil,

I'll look forward to reading it.   It's certainly a course with a wonderful history that has stood the test of time.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2010, 09:33:45 PM »
Even Sean is satisfied we got it right...

You got it right? Wasn't it Sean who got it right?
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 09:38:42 PM by Tom MacWood »

Phil_the_Author

Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2010, 09:37:04 PM »
Tom,

Question 1- Yes.
Question 2- No.

Sean provided a good deal of help...

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2010, 09:38:59 PM »
Tom,

Question 1- Yes.
Question 2- No.


Better late then never.

Phil_the_Author

Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2010, 09:42:23 PM »
"Better late then never."

Tom, there is no need for acrimony or sarcasm. Wait for the article... Then take whatever pot shots at it you want...


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2010, 09:48:43 PM »
Acrimony? I just like to see credit given where credit is due. I didn't care for your answer that you got it right and Sean didn't (before you edited it) because you had the story very wrong for a long time before Sean began unraveling what actually occurred.

Chip Gaskins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2010, 10:11:48 PM »
I talked to Sean a few weeks ago and look forward to reading........

Phil_the_Author

Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2010, 10:29:05 PM »
Tom,

My last comment to you. Sean got it wrong and he did not unravel it. What you don't realize is that EVERYONE got it wrong!

We got it right now for a very simple reason...

In your haste to disparage me and the piece in Tillinghast Illustrated before even seeing a single word of it you didn't even bother to ask the OBVIOUS question... "Phil, WHY do you think you got it right?"

The answer is so obvious that a relative child of golf course architecture history could answer it...

One final thing. As I already know you won't believe me, I still want to say this for any and all others who read your remark about my editing my response. I did. I ADDED that "Sean provided a good deal of help..." I meant to include that in my post and simply hit the enter button by mistake before I did. Sean would agree that I've given him credit for his help to those who needed to know about it...

« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 10:33:16 PM by Philip Young »

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2010, 10:44:12 PM »
Phil, please post a link to the article when it's available.  This is interesting stuff.

Phil_the_Author

Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #13 on: August 18, 2010, 11:04:29 PM »
Bill,

It will be my pleasure to do so.

Zack Molnar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #14 on: August 18, 2010, 11:17:36 PM »
What was the previous thinking that everyone had wrong that you correct in this article? You dont have to give the correct answer and spoil your findings, just what the prevailing thinking was previously

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #15 on: August 18, 2010, 11:43:08 PM »
Ran's thread regarding the problem with the discussion group should be revised and this thread should be appended as Exhibit A. Somebody comes on and poses a question about 13-15 at SFGC and what follows is not a response to his question, but rather yet another squabble over historical research primacy and proper attribution. Increasingly, the discourse on the site reminds me of the conclusion that university politics are more vicious than national politics because, simply, in academic disputes the stakes are so low.

Mike - I may be mistaken, but I think the response you deserved is that 13-15 were redesigned because of a threatened governmental taking of a portion of the course in the construction of I-280. Ultimately, the property was left intact even though the holes had been already been changed. The original formulation was as it is today, 13 was a par 3 ("Little Tille"), with 14 a straight away par 4 and 15 was a gentle dogleg left.  The modification had resulted in a dogleg left par 4 13 , a dogleg right par 4 14th and a par 3 15th. Tom Doak recently restored the trio of holes to their original formulation. A search of the archives will reveal numerous threads dedicated to this topic.


Brett_Morrissy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #16 on: August 18, 2010, 11:47:33 PM »
Why can't we discuss Mike's question, and guys take your arguements to another thread instead of highjacking this one?

I also recently played SFGC and was interested to learn about the changes, which am sure have been discussed at length in the past, the member I played with told me that the new holes and changes were much better.

I enjoyed the flow of 12 thru 18, and although a little up and back, pretty good holes, I thought 13 & 15 the weaker ones, birdied 12 & 14 both with back pins, so perhaps they just set up well for me, but thougt 12 was fascinating with the two mounds, and then a good lead in to a nice par 3, anyway... I would be interested to learn more of the what the changes actually entailed,

Cheers 
Bm
PS: finally got there Mike? 
@theflatsticker

Phil_the_Author

Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #17 on: August 18, 2010, 11:56:12 PM »
SPDB,

You misunderstand the reason for what I posted. I am not trying to magnify any work that I did or make any grandiose personal claims; rather, I decided to take the opportunity afforded me by Mike's question to let any and all interested, and I know there are a good number who are, that this special edition and the information it contains will be shortly released and that any and all questions will be answered by it.

My reason for not giving a full answer to his question is a simple one; that I've agreed not to answer any questions about the history of SFGC until this issue is released.

That answer may prompt questions as to why, and if one feels they must ask them, go ahead, but I will not answer them.

Again, there are a few who were involved in this who know the information that was found and completely understand why I am constrained at this moment. The Tillinghast Association wants everyone to enjoy the information that has been found and hope that it will help those who have enjoyed playing SFGC to appreciate what was created even more than they already do.

Phil_the_Author

Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #18 on: August 18, 2010, 11:57:33 PM »
Brett,

Please feel free to discuss Mike's question... The saying that "No good deed goes unpunished" is so true...  ;D

Brett_Morrissy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #19 on: August 18, 2010, 11:59:15 PM »
SPDB
hear, hear!
@theflatsticker

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2010, 12:28:54 AM »
SPDB, the only thing I'd add to your post is that the "replaced" 15th hole...the par 3....was done by Tom D....it was a very good hole.
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Mike Jansen

Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2010, 01:43:49 AM »
Apparently I really stirred up some  s**t....

The Tillinghast Illustrated does sound very interesting considering the questions I have.  How will I be able to read this come mid-Sept... is it published on this site?

SPDB... thank you for the more immediate answers that I was looking for.  Your explaination of being changed and then built back to its original routing only brings up more questions... and were back to the "T.I."

The course is incredible... it packs some great holes in a rather limited space, up and back routing with little elevation change.  What you can learn from the most is the deception that is created with the bunkering... a bunker that looks in play off the tee, but turns out to be greenside...

Phil_the_Author

Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2010, 06:58:58 AM »
Mike,

Tillinghast Illustrated is the on-line journal of the Tillinghast Association. Just go to the website at www.tillinghast.net and click on the icon and you'll be able to read and hoipefully enjoy both the current and all past issues. Take a look and wander the site... Everyone who does is thrilled with what is found there...

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2010, 11:05:20 AM »
SPDB,

You misunderstand the reason for what I posted.

Phil,

I think I understood it completely.

I am not trying to magnify any work that I did or make any grandiose personal claims; rather, I decided to take the opportunity afforded me by Mike's question to let any and all interested, and I know there are a good number who are, that this special edition and the information it contains will be shortly released and that any and all questions will be answered by it.

I am not sure how you can make the claim that you are not magnifying your own work. Rather than answer Matt's question, which could be done quite simply and, I imagine, without spoiling the next edition of Tillinghast Illustrated, you chose to promote your own work.  I didn't think the history of 13-15 (particularly the recent routing restorative work by Doak) was all that controversial or shrouded in secrecy, although I await with anticipation to be corrected by your magnum opus.

My reason for not giving a full answer to his question is a simple one; that I've agreed not to answer any questions about the history of SFGC until this issue is released.

That answer may prompt questions as to why, and if one feels they must ask them, go ahead, but I will not answer them.

Again, there are a few who were involved in this who know the information that was found and completely understand why I am constrained at this moment. The Tillinghast Association wants everyone to enjoy the information that has been found and hope that it will help those who have enjoyed playing SFGC to appreciate what was created even more than they already do.

This is an absurd and self-aggrandizing justification. Why should Matt (or any of us) care about your self-imposed "quiet period" leading up to the publication of the TI? I think the use of the Tillinghast Association imprimatur is also a little much.   

I am sorry to take this out on you, but I have grown so tired of GCA as a platform where our most knowledgeable and, unfortunately, childish posters air their public grievances over private disputes. It's crazy and it has to stop.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: History of SF Club
« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2010, 12:02:49 PM »
Mike Jansen:

Your host did not give you the entire story.

Jim Urbina and I built the new 13th, 14th and 15th holes about five years ago.  Before that, the holes were as your host described.  However, BEFORE THAT, when Tillinghast designed the holes, they were almost exactly as we restored them ... they were changed to your host's version in the late 1940's by a local pro / architect, Harold Sampson, when they were starting to build the highway at the top end of the course and the members were afraid the highway would ruin the Tillinghast holes.

In fact, we found that we could restore the three holes, except for shortening the 15th green a bit because it would have been very close to the flyover of the highway.  And when the trees started dying on the dogleg holes, that's what I suggested they do.  It was extremely controversial for a club like that, because few of the members had known anything but Harold Sampson's version, and they accepted that to be the "real" golf course, even though it was demonstrably NOT Tillinghast's design.  In fact, there are some members who have still not gotten over the change, and some of the club's board members at the time who are still getting a tremendous amount of grief over letting me make the change.

I had no idea the move would be that controversial or that people would still be upset years later.  I thought Sampson's three holes really weren't very good and that they plainly didn't fit with the rest of the course ... it was very easy to hit a tree with either your tee shot on #13, or your approach on #14, where a tree overhung the left front of the green.  As Kevin Reilly mentions, we did fix the interim 15th hole a bit when we redid the greens +/- ten years back and they didn't want to consider the re-routing.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back