San Francisco GC

[Tom MacWood]

Yes.

What have you found?

[Phil_the_Author]

Sorry Tom, but that will all come out when I publish the timeline. You can believe my claim or not, but this is another exam[ple of tell in one area I must tell in all. I know you don't approve of it, but at least give me that I am consistent in my refusals.

Joel, in response to Tom's post, "1925---Vernon Macan writes an article for the Fairway Magazine referring to the 12th hole at SFGC and mentions that the green is not in view from the fairway and that the large mound in front should be opened up to allow a site line to the green. Not sure who finally did it, but interesting information..." you wrote, "I was told it was done by the chairman of the greens committee.  My favorite hole on the course."

The 12th hole of 1925 was redesigned by Tilly before he began his PGA tour in the winter of 1934-35. He mentioned this in his March 5, 1936, letter from San Francisco where he states:

      Today I drove to Ingleside at the request of P.G.A. member William McEwan. His assistant, Harold Stone, is also P.G.A.
      I made a complete inspection of the course of the San Francisco Golf Club, and inasmuch as planned this lay-out it may not seem entirely proper for me to praise it too much. But as it is regarded out here as a truly great course, I will string along.
      I was accompanied throughout the day by McEwan, Knox Maddox (President of the club) Dixwell Davenport (Chairman of the Green Committee) Frank Dolp (California Champion) Jim French Jr. (another club member and rated one of the best players in the state) and other officials. At noon President Maddox presided at a fine luncheon, at which were additional club officials. Altogether it was a wonderful reception.
      It must be mentioned that Greenkeeper George Paulson accompanied us throughout the day, and must compliment this man especially for the able manner in which all of my plans have been carried through, particularly the new first and second holes, as well as the new twelfth, which I designed when I was here last winter. Today I gave them a rearrangement of the trapping of the fairway of the fourteenth, which has been the only weakness of the course. The new plan will bring it up properly. While I made numerous suggestions for refinements on nearly every hole, they were of minor character and not at all expensive to accomplish.
      Dixwell Davenport is also a member of the United States Golf association’s Green Section and he told me that in a recent letter to national president, John G. Jackson, he told him that, in his opinion, the P.G.A. had “put one over” the U.S.G.A. in sponsoring
the course service. Truly it was a day of wonderful compliments.

In addition, I believe that the person who told you that was mistaken and didn't realize that Tilly wrote about that very incident in reference to the first hole several years later. He wrote about it in his Pacific Coast Golfer article titled "Architecturally and Otherwise" in which he told of receiving a letter from the chairman of the SFGC's Green Committee who had recommended a new green site for the 1st hole, one that would require a blind shot to it. Tilly wrote that there wasn't anything wrong with a blind shot and that he also liked and preferred the hole as it was

[Phil_the_Author]

In addition to the other work that i noted, on February 6, 1937, Tilly was back at SFGC where he made these comments:

 I checked on all work, which I recommended last March. Of course I am particularly familiar with this course as I laid it out some fifteen years ago. However some of the construction work has not altogether pleased me and gradually this is being corrected. They have applied for the U.S. Open for 1939 and by that time the course should be altogether satisfactory.
      Today I additionally instructed them concerning the raising and contouring of the right side of the 3rd green; the left-front of the 5th and located a new site for the 10th green to the right of the present (one of their own making, which has left much to be desired.) All other opportunities for improvements were made note of on my last visit and definite records made at that time by the committee.

[Tom MacWood]

Don't apologize to me, apologize to everyone on this site who is interested in discovering the truth. You have posted aproximately 32 paragraphs on this thread explaining why you believe Tilly designed the original golf course; you could have saved yourself and everyone else with one or two sentences....if in fact you do have proof Tilly was in SF at that time. 

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Are you saying that if I post that Tilly was in San Francisco during the 1915-18 period you will accept that as ABSOLUTE PROOF that Tilly designed SFGC? What have you been smoking this afternoon? We both know that isn't the case.

Even I would tell you that his being there at that time proves nothing other than he was there at that time! You require the documents that state that Tilly designed the course for the club, information by the way that the club itself published in 1978, yet that is not good enough for you.

No Tom, I'm not going to give you that information for several reasons, some of which I've already mentioned, but also because the answer and proof is out there. It's time you looked at it and accepted it.

You stated, "you could have saved yourself and everyone else with one or two sentences... if in fact you do have proof Tilly was in SF at that time." While I will ignore the contempt and insulting accusation, you ignore the fact that that is EXACTLY what I did in my first post:

Tilly did. "The famous golf course architect A.W. Tillinghast, was awarded the job of designing our club's new course which wasn't finished until 1918." That can be found in the Official History book of the San Francisco Golf Club published in 1978.

You don't want to accept it, fine...

This constant arguing rather than discussions that you seem intent on creating simply isn't worth it. I believe that it is time I took a break from this board... Those with Tilly questions can feel very free to email me.

[Tom MacWood]

Tilly did. "The famous golf course architect A.W. Tillinghast, was awarded the job of designing our club's new course which wasn't finished until 1918." That can be found in the Official History book of the San Francisco Golf Club published in 1978.

You don't want to accept it, fine...

This constant arguing rather than discussions that you seem intent on creating simply isn't worth it. I believe that it is time I took a break from this board... Those with Tilly questions can feel very free to email me.

Phil
There is no constant arguing. I asked you a simple question. You answered it. I asked you what documentation you had, and you refused. End of story. The same thing happened yesterday with Quaker Ridge. End of story again.

Feel free to call me a doubting Thomas, but I require a little more than a proclamation in a club history without any supporting documentation, especially when someone like Sean Tully, who has researched the history of Bay Area golf architecture as thoroughly as anyone, has found the story to be dubious.

What I don't understand is your defensive reaction to a relatively minor finding, as if this somehow damages Tilly's reputation. No matter who originally designed SFGC, clearly Tilly later overhauled the golf course. IMO the reason golf architecture history is so interesting are these unusual twist and turns often found with many of our great courses. In fact that is why history in general is interesting, you never know where your research will carry you.

[Bill_McBride]

Tilly did. "The famous golf course architect A.W. Tillinghast, was awarded the job of designing our club's new course which wasn't finished until 1918." That can be found in the Official History book of the San Francisco Golf Club published in 1978.

You don't want to accept it, fine...

This constant arguing rather than discussions that you seem intent on creating simply isn't worth it. I believe that it is time I took a break from this board... Those with Tilly questions can feel very free to email me.

Phil
There is no constant arguing. I asked you a simple question. You answered it. I asked you what documentation you had, and you refused. End of story. The same thing happened yesterday with Quaker Ridge. End of story again.

Feel free to call me a doubting Thomas, but I require a little more than a proclamation in a club history without any supporting documentation, especially when someone like Sean Tully, who has researched the history of Bay Area golf architecture as thoroughly as anyone, has found the story to be dubious.

What I don't understand is your defensive reaction to a relatively minor finding, as if this somehow damages Tilly's reputation. No matter who originally designed SFGC, clearly Tilly later overhauled the golf course. IMO the reason golf architecture history is so interesting are these unusual twist and turns often found with many of our great courses. In fact that is why history in general is interesting, you never know where your research will carry you.

Interesting how you phrase this sentence as though it's greatly in doubt that AWT did originally design SFGC.

Before you call Philip Young a liar, you might consider posting some definite source material on another designer's attribution.  Somehow I doubt that's going to happen.

[Ben Sims]

Mr. Young,

This seems the genesis to me.

1) Earliest site up next to The Presidio

2) SFG & CC over in Ingleside

3) New site (in 1915) at the corner of Brotherhood and Junipero Serra, designed by Tilly, opened in 1918.


So according to Mr. MacWood, we're supposed to assume that there was already a golf course at the third site that SFGC procured, and then renovated--by Tilly--and reopened in 1918? 

[Bob Trebus]

why doesn't MacWood do some research. If he purchased the Tillinghast Trilogy all his questions will be answered.All he has to do is visit the Tillinghast  website and  order the books.

[Rick Wolffe]

This is a photo of a water color that Tillinghast sketched for San Francisco.  I seem to recall that the original is hanging in the clubhouse.  Can anybody date this watercolor with the info provided? There is an obvious clue in the drawing.

[Rick Wolffe]

Oh, one other thing, Tillinghast lists San Franicsco as one of his 18 hole designs in his 1925/1926 qualifications brochure.  He lists San Francisco right behind Quaker Ridge.  Interestingly, we have copies of several letters from Tillinghast to Quaker in our archive (my attic).  If I can find the time, I will try and relocate these letters and post them on the Tillinghast web site.

[Tom MacWood]

Oh, one other thing, Tillinghast lists San Franicsco as one of his 18 hole designs in his 1925/1926 qualifications brochure.  He lists San Francisco right behind Quaker Ridge.  Interestingly, we have copies of several letters from Tillinghast to Quaker in our archive (my attic).  If I can find the time, I will try and relocate these letters and post them on the Tillinghast web site.

Rick
Do you think that strengthens the argument that Tilly was the original architect of SFGC because he obviously was not the original architect of QR? 

[Tom MacWood]

why doesn't MacWood do some research. If he purchased the Tillinghast Trilogy all his questions will be answered.All he has to do is visit the Tillinghast  website and  order the books.

Bob
I'm not the only one on this website interested in Tillinghast...please tell us all where we will find the answer.

[Jeff_Brauer]

This is a photo of a water color that Tillinghast sketched for San Francisco.  I seem to recall that the original is hanging in the clubhouse.  Can anybody date this watercolor with the info provided? There is an obvious clue in the drawing.



Ah, if only that plan had a date on it.....

[Tom MacWood]

This is a photo of a water color that Tillinghast sketched for San Francisco.  I seem to recall that the original is hanging in the clubhouse.  Can anybody date this watercolor with the info provided? There is an obvious clue in the drawing.

Rick
I don't know if there is a date on the drawing - I don't recall seeing the original. But I do believe there is a clue that may give you the answer to your question or at least give you a good idea what period the drawing was made, and that is Tilly's listed address of 33 W. 42nd St. What years was Tilly's office on 42nd St?

[Rick Wolffe]

Jeff, you are right, that is the clue...we only need someone to apply some smarts to bracket the date.

[Bill_McBride]

But Jeff, you can date this drawing...take the clue and apply some smarts.

Definitely pre-1960's when California DOT shoved the 280 freeway through the course.   

[Sean_Tully]

Hi everyone. Glad to see some interest in this as well as some of my old information. I have to say that was a while ago and I have made some strides since then. I have yet to share most of it with the club, but have sat down(some years ago) with their historian and  in the last year with the Superintendent.

As to the drawing I can say that it is defiantly after 1921. One based on the easy address reference on the plan and referencing it to the attached advert that makes my job rather easy. The other is they show the old locations of the 8th green, 7th green, 11th green, 12th tee, and some others. These changes had not taken place as of 1921!

Phil,

I have made some strides as I now know who designed the course as told by a member in an article, as well as another article written by none other than William Tucker in 1918. In both articles their is no mention of Tillinghast as having any involvement. The first reference that I have to Tilly  being on the course is not as early as most would suspect. As you mentioned in a earlier post I had said that the club had brought in Tilly in Feb of 1920. I wasn't too far off though. But, even with the date being wrong I was right in that Tillie was brought in to make changes to the course, this of course still puts it after the opening.

In my research I start from scratch and dig up all the information that I can and then start comparing the info to what can be found at a given club. I have always been interested in SFGC history for the obvious reasons, one of the oldest in CA, different locations, golf pros. and who designed the course and when. It always intrigued me that the date was never the same for SFGC in any given publication. Why is that, shouldn't someone know when the course opened?  Club histories are interesting, but I would be hesitant to take the information as the gold standard. I would not have found out all that I have if I didn't question the bunker style at SFGC with those lacy edged bunkers being attributed to Tilly in 1915 or was that 1918?



As some of you may know I am involved in the MacKenzie Chronology. I just want to say that I have not gone out looking to take away any credit that Tillinghast deserves for SFGC.  I appreciate him just as much and would do the same if I found conflicting info on a course attributed to MacKenzie. Robert Hunter on the other hand...

I will leave it at that until I share my findings with the club.

Tully


edit=to clear up the mention of Willie Tucker he was not the architect of the course, he wrote an article that mentions who designed the original course that opened in 1918. I have not said who designed the course intentionally until I talk with the club.

[Neil_Crafter]

"In addition to the other work that i noted, on February 6, 1937, Tilly was back at SFGC where he made these comments:
 I checked on all work, which I recommended last March. Of course I am particularly familiar with this course as I laid it out some fifteen years ago. "

Phil
Taking Tilly's own words purely at face value that would indicate he laid the course out in 1922 : 1937 less 15 years.
This seems to tie in with the information that Sean posted.

One thing that made me curious about the SFGC attribution, was that if Tilly had laid the original course out in 1915-18, why did it then require such a substantial redoing only a few years later? And by the same architect. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. However if the original course had been laid out by a local person, then you could understand why the club may not have been satisfied with this course and brought in someone like Tilly to give it a major overhaul.

just my 20c and with no horse in the race.

[Tom MacWood]

Sean
Don't worry, no one who has conducted thorough research like yours will ever accuse you of trying to take away credit from anyone. Your research takes you where it takes you. And its been my experience there are a lot of unknowns still out there yet to be discovered, especially if you approach it with an open mind.

Do you have any immediate plans of sharing your findings with the Club?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rick (and all)

I am not that well versed on when and where Tillie had his offices, but figured one of you guys would know.  Has anyone ever been by the actual offices (what suite number, none listed?) and/or dialed his old phone numbers as a prank?

As to the remodel, that 1920 article TMac posted mentioned that it was a redo.  It also mentioned that it cost $25K when the annual maint. Budget was $30K.  I doubt they maintained the course in equivalent to today’s top end clubs, but of course construction also didn't cost as much as it does now, even adjusted for inflation.

Thus, if you figure that the renovations equaled a modest maintenance budget, in today’s dollars, it would be about $300-500K, which would fall far short of a full remodel. (which would cost $3-4M. 

And, the article mentioned changes to the back nine and last three holes specifically.  It sounds like he could have just been brought back to touch up whatever parts of his generally good design, including making it tougher with more bunkers.  While they don't always call back the original gca, they would if there was some reason beyond his control that he couldn't get certain holes right, like budget at the time of initial construction.

My original feeling was that there was another course on the site, but that Tillie blew it up completely, so that the original gca didn't really influence the design at all.  However, if Tucker did the original course on that site, I know he was a good router, but had a pretty stiff style compared to Tillie.  That construction budget would easily cover rebunkering the course and extending a few holes as noted in the article.

I always figured that SF had Bell bunkers, but didn’t understand the connection.  Bell working in 1930 makes sense over Tillie doing them originally in 1915 and then going to Golden Valley in MSP and doing dog bones a year later.  Once he did those bunkers, I figured he would stick with that style.

However, it also goes a long way to explaining the contention that Tillie was one to keep changing his style over the years, which I attributed to using local construction crews and only occaisional supervison.  Maybe his stuff just got changed over time.

[TEPaul]

I don't know a thing about SFGC (I think I went there in 1970 with the Tunney campaign but not to play golf) but if you don't mind I'd like to ask what might be a stupid question----which is what happened to any club administrative records from back in the 1915-1918 years? If they've all been lost what was it the club relied on when they mentioned Tillie designed the course in 1915? Was it just that article written later by some club member?

And if Tucker did it as Tully implies what is he relying on for that info---some old newspaper mention or what?

Thanks, sorry for the intrusion but this kind of architectural forensic search is always interesting (to some extent).

Furthermore, what remains as to old photos of that 1915-1918 course by Tillie, Lock, Tucker or whomever?

[Sean_Tully]

Guys

Clearing up the part about William Tucker, he merely wrote an article in praise of the golf course and those involved in designing it. Both mentions that i have are solid as the other article was written by Vincent Whitney just after the course opened. I have not mentioned who designed the course and will do so after sharing the info with the club. Not a game changer, just not Tilly.

There are some early photos of the course, and they have been hard to track down as one may imagine. The club did suffer from at least two fires that I know of, one that took out the bag room to the chagrin of the golfers. I'm trying to track down some club papers, but I have work, a growing family, and a soon to be new home that has my attention at the moment. I'm looking forward to what I may find.

Tully

[David Stamm]

A side note, Bell had an office in Oakland.

[DMoriarty]

I don't get why Tom Macwood gets so much grief for his selfless efforts at figuring out so much about the early history of golf course design?   And on a website supposedly devoted to frank discussion and commentary about golf design, no less?

Given how much we've all learned from him (whether we admit it or not) you'd think he could ask a question without the reactionary ridicule and snark.   Now that it turns out that his is obviously a legitimate question and worthy of discussion, will those who jumped on him make amends?  Somehow I doubt it.  

Oh well.   While Sean Tully deserves it no more or no less,  I hope when he comes forward with his findings that he will be treated with a lot more basic common decency and respect.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jeff, you are right, that is the clue...we only need someone to apply some smarts to bracket the date.

Jeff,  Not surprisingly, it looks like TomMac was the someone with the smarts to figure it out . . .

I don't know if there is a date on the drawing - I don't recall seeing the original. But I do believe there is a clue that may give you the answer to your question or at least give you a good idea what period the drawing was made, and that is Tilly's listed address of 33 W. 42nd St. What years was Tilly's office on 42nd St?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

I found Tillie's February 1920 "Our Green Committee" piece on the developments in golf course creation in California interesting.   TomMac links it above but here again is the link. . . . http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1920/gi125v.pdf

He didn't name courses but did write the following which I found interesting because the focus is on "reconstruction" rather than construction.

California is realizing now the necessity of producing better teeing-grounds; putting greens of distinct types, and superior courses generally. Many of the more important are undertaking the work of reconstruction in most vigorous fashion.

Obviously it doesn't fully answer the question presented in this thread; far from it.  But it was Tillie's wont to highlight his own work in his articles.   Speaking of which, later in the article he highlighted one particular hole which seems to be one of his . . .

A sample of one of the new holes being built in California now is suggested by the sketch, which differs from the actual work in minor details.  The green is undulating, with a pronounced flare working into the right front entrance. It is built up by scooping back the soil from in front, thus making a natural-looking dip and causing the green itself to stand up well from rather flat and featureless surroundings. The contours and placement of hazards render the green almost unassailable with a long shot from the right. It shows its best face to the second shot, a long iron or brassie coming directly in after the drive has made the long carry of the elbowing pits on the left. This, of course, is the true way to get par figures if there is power enough and courage back of the shots. Then there is the way around to the right, but this safe route gives the player absolutely no encouragement of getting home with any kind of a second, and consequently he is forced to play to the left before getting in to the green with the third.

But there still is the third choice. By placing a very accurate and controlled drive to the left to that portion of the fairway which lies between the pits, the clear way to the green is opened up but it will take a tremendously long second to get home or into the swale in front. The sketch shows by dotted lines, the three routes, and it is a matter of choice to be guided by a knowledge of the player's powers. This is a fair sample of some of the new golf building which is under way now along the Pacific coast. When one stands on a California course, he almost invariably is impressed with a magnificent panorama. The country seems so very big, everything is on such a gigantic scale that it makes itself felt as well as seen. The trees seem bigger than those usually encountered, and they are. The mountains loom high and they extend far. How is it possible to put pawky things in the very heart of such surroundings?

The diagram . . .


I presume that this is an approximation of a planned hole at San Francisco?  If so, which hole, if it actually was built?  

If it is a hole at SFGC, then the thing that strikes me most is the timing.   This hole was reportedly being constructed in February 1920. As far as I can tell, the course already existed at this location then.  Surely Tillie was not redesigning a course he had just built, was he?  

Tillie closes the article with the following . . .

True, much of the golf country has nothing to ask from the hand of the builder of courses. It would be a pity to mar some wonderfully natural holes by attempting any artifice to improve. There are certain holes, which I have in mind that are all satisfying exactly as nature designed them. But there are many very flat areas which must be used and bold mound work is necessary, and it must be very daring in conception
and unusually impressive. As I have said, the country is too big for pawky things.

Seems like he should have added, "so if you truly want to avoid artifice or pawkishness, give me a call."  But perhaps that is implied.

________________________________________________

Sean, I look forward to reading what you have found.  Why don't you head over to SFGC in the next few days and let them know your findings between eighteens?