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?

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

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

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:

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

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.

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

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/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.

Mark:

You are most welcome.

Oh what's that, he meant Tom DOAK?

Well then never mind.

 

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

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