The two new par 4's are in MHO totally out of character with the rest of the golf course. It's like taking holes from Bethpage Yellow and putting them on the Black.  The scale is off and kicking a field goal through the trees on 14 is NOT SFGC.  

The comparison with Pasatiempo is not appropriate since those are still original MacKenzie holes and original routing.

We can disagree - that's fine.

TH-

I remember SFGC as a majestic course where the trees (big ones) are there but out of play for the most part. There is a scale to the hole corridors and especially the bunkering that gives the course its basic character. That's why I referenced putting a Bethpage Yellow hole onto the Black course.  It may be a very good hole but it doesn't fit the eye nor does it play with the same flow as the other holes.

Would you want your beloved 2nd hole at NGLA to be stuck in the middle of the back 9 at SFGC? (don't answer that   ) Better example - put  a hole from Shadow Creek in there and see how it fits.

PS - the more I think about this, the more I have a different bottom line.  Prepare thyself for blasphemy.

IF I were an SFGC member - which has about as much chance of happening as my son becoming Pope, and remember he's Presbyterian - so take this for what it's worth:

I'd require a LOT of convincing before I'd give a yes vote for this restoration.  I'm not convinced the holes besides Little Tillie are going to be better than what's there now - the map is really unconvincing - therefore Little Tillie itself would have to have tits to make this a overall net positive, as Sean said.  I am open to being convinced I'm wrong about this, however - and I do recall Tom Doak convincing me before, though I don't recall exactly how.  But even then it would also depend on how long the course is going to be closed, and how much it's going to cost.  Time and funds are not infinite, not even for SFGC members.

May Tillie and the other golf gods spare me their wrath.

And of course this is all moot, the die is apparently cast, and I am just an average joe public course player, with as much influence on this as I have on papal selection.  So all of this is just for discussion purposes, which of course is supposed to be what this site is all about.

 

 

But the re-routing was unnecessary in light of the fact that the freeway did not encroach on the golf course as was originally thought.

What a shame....

Tom H.,

I believe you make a valid point regarding the restoration craze that is evident on this site. The golden age architects were not infallible, and if the restored version is not a better golf course, then why proceed? Given the technological advancements of the last half-century, I doubt Mackenzie, Ross, Thompson etc. would not alter their original designs. Again, without accurate as-builts or period photographs the restorative efforts are vertically an interpretation of the architects style and philosophy, while horizontally they remain true to the original through aerials. If the previous incarnation of a golf course is deemed superior, is an interpreted restoration worth the effort and money?

At times I am a restoration enthusiast, usually when disgruntled by the poor renovations that have taken place to accomodate the out-of-control equipment issue. Is that a knee-jerk reaction of anger at the state of affair in the modern golf world or am I really concerned for the quality of the golf course in question?

TK

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?

http://www.geocities.com/abiggadike/sfgc-guess-scaled.png

Also, does anyone have or know where I could find an overhead of the old routing (that may be restored) for comparison?  That is, besides the one in the clubhouse that TH mentioned.  

Thanks,
Andrew

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?

http://www.geocities.com/abiggadike/sfgc-guess-scaled.png

The guess is perfect.  

The old routing would have you hit from roughly the current 13th tee to the current 14th green.  Of course a lot of trees would need to be cleared for this.  Then, for the 14th, you'd play a short par 4 with the tee in the general area of the current 15th tee, with the green where the current 13th green is.  I believe the tee shot was guarded long ago by a giant bunker near the landing area. The 15th would be a long uphill par 4 stretching from the general area of the current 14th tee to the general location of the current 15th green.  There is a water storage tank in the middle of this hole (blue colored mass in your pic) that would need to be removed.  So result would be Little Tillie, a devilish short par 4 with a big bunker in play and a hard par 4.

Kevin R.,

Would the new "old" routing yield a shorter course?

Current #15 is a very good par 3 in my opinion.  The green is quite good with putts from the back half to a front pin position being very difficult.  Would "Little Tillie" be an improvement?

Would the new #15 be similar to #17, and perhaps a bit repetitive so close together?

We've had this discussion before, but I don't see that the three rerouted holes detracted or stood-out from the rest of the course.  Had I not known ahead of time which holes they were, I doubt I would have been able to pick out all three as the non-Tillie add-ons.

Kevin/Lou - this is great stuff, very fun to contemplate, many thanks.

See, that's what I've been trying to weigh all along, now and before when this was discussed:  what is the total net effect of the changes?  Just how positive - if at all - will it be?  For anyone to say it's just a no-brainer, it's going to be WAY better, well that I don't get.  I am a BIG fan of that new green on 15... and as I say, it's not like the other holes are horrible... For me it's just a very tough call.

TH

Hey, this needs to be saved in some archive somewhere:
G Childs:"I am president of the John Birch Society."

 

Tyler:

The work was done in 1950 by a golf professional named Harold
Sampson.  I have a copy of his plan in my files.

I'm not in a position to comment on the status of proposed changes to the course while the club is still contemplating how to proceed.  However, I do believe that the original Tillinghast holes if replaced would be clearly superior to the Sampson and Doak holes which exist today, so I wish that those of you who are less familiar with the course would stop making the case for the segment of the membership which would really prefer "no work" just because they don't want the disruption.

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.

As I said, the decision is not made yet, and it's up to the club.  Outside politicking of any sort would be entirely unwelcome.

TH-

Never having seen the "old" original TIllinghast holes except the drawings in Daniel's fine book (have YOU seen them?) I would not and have not said that the course would necessarily be better.  

I don't like the two new par 4's at all so I suspect the original would be better.  The main point of all this, however, is the respect for what many (not me) considered Tillinghast's best golf course and the ability because the land is all there to keep it faithfully restored.  I guess that I am of the opinion that's important especially since the membership have no need to bastardize it for tournament play. You talk about overall length changes but who cares about that either and in fact it might be possible to add "new" back tees.

As we wrote- we can agree to disagree on this.

Andy - I only said I was President of the John Birch Society IF Huckaby is truly an average Joe golfer.  I am confident my recent last 5 years liberal stature is quite safe.

Tyler - that's true about trees...unless a club is like Pebble, where they just buy and bring in another!!