[Ben Sims]

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. 

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? 

Okay, you're right Mr. Moriarty.  I was a doubter based on what little I had read.  But as much I am interested in this specific golf course, I'd love to hear more.

[Tom MacWood]

David
Its not a big deal, it comes with the territory, people are emotionally attached to these stories and don't like the boat being rocked, even when its relatively minor rocking. That sensitivity is magnified ten fold with individuals devoted to a single architect or golf course.

[TEPaul]

"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."


Judging from Sean Tully's posts over the years on this website, including this particular thread, and judging from some contacts with information and material with him via other methods over the years I have no doubt at all that he will be.

I am also particularly impressed by what Sean said in the third sentence of the first paragraph of his Post #47. This should be instructive and helpful to all competent and serious researchers interested in the architectural history of any golf club.

[Kevin_Reilly]

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

David -- it doesn't resemble any current hole at SF, for what it's worth.

[Matt_Cohn]

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

David -- it doesn't resemble any current hole at SF, for what it's worth.

Kevin, it's not too different from a mirror-image of #12. I don't know if I'd make the case that it's the same hole, but there are a lot of similarities.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Matt, yes there are some similarities but one of the biggest features of #12, the blind approach due to the mounding in front of the green, isn't mentioned in the description, which led me to rule it out.  #12 is also lacking some of the bunkering on the left of the fairway that is included as an important feature in the rendering.  And the rendering seems by description to be a longer par 4, but that could just be the times.  The rendering also seems more straight-away, while of course #12 bends to the right off the tee.

[Matt_Cohn]

Matt, yes there are some similarities but one of the biggest features of #12, the blind approach due to the mounding in front of the green, isn't mentioned in the description, which led me to rule it out.  #12 is also lacking some of the bunkering on the left of the fairway that is included as an important feature in the rendering.  And the rendering seems by description to be a longer par 4, but that could just be the times.  The rendering also seems more straight-away, while of course #12 bends to the right off the tee.

Oops, I didn't read well enough. I thought that was a mound in front of the green, but it's a dip. So as I should have realized from the start, you're right. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

"I am also particularly impressed by what Sean said in the third sentence of the first paragraph of his Post #47. This should be instructive and helpful to all competent and serious researchers interested in the architectural history of any golf club."
                                                                                                                                                    Tom Paul

"Not a game changer, just not Tilly."
                                 Sean Tully


"From what I gather Tilly redesigned an existing course at SFGC circa 1920. Does anyone know who designed the original golf course?"
                                                                                                                                                Tom MacWood


TEPaul,
Yes it should. It should also be ...."instructive and helpful to all competent and serious researchers interested in the architectural history of any golf club" to not shoot from the hip because they're wedded to a proscribed outcome.

[Rick Wolffe]

In regard to Tilly's executive office in Suite 836, 33 West 42nd Street, NYC, our time line has him relocating to this office around April of 1921.  By June of 1929 he relocated his office to Englewood, New Jersey. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Phil, Jeff, Tom, Rick, etal.,

If could turn out that some buddy of Whitney's, like Neville or Grant, or someone else had built a golf course on the land in question and Tillie then came it, blew the whole place (or a good part of it) up and built a new course.

If the hypotheticals becomes factual, don't you fellows owe Tom Macwood an apology? 

[Rick Wolffe]

[Tom MacWood]

Rick
The interesting thing about that photo those are Billy Bell's bunkers.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rick,
Thanks for posting that advertisement, although I could see how the wording of it might add to the confusion, i.e:

"This great Ca. course was planned by him and constructed under his supervision".....would seem like enough of an explanation and a good place to end, but then we see that......"and definitely to his plan and specifications".  

Sounds like a little overkill, like maybe there was a course on the site   ,  but realistically it's probably just standard type of ad for the times.

,,,but, if Sean Tully's post is correct that would pass through to Tom Mac's initial question, and we're right back to the question I asked.  

[Tom_Doak]

I, for one, look forward to hearing the results of Sean Tully's research.  I don't think it will significantly diminish Tillinghast's accomplishments at SFGC, but as usual, trying to ascribe ALL the credit to anyone is seldom correct.

I also looked at that drawing above with interest.  It does not directly resemble any of the holes at SFGC, though it certainly does resemble the style generally.  It COULD be the 12th hole, if the tee is the current left-hand tee and if the right-hand fairway is in fact to the RIGHT of the current fairway bunkers in the corner of the dogleg.  But, I don't know if there was ever really enough room over to that side to make the hole like that.  It is certainly not the way Tillie depicted the hole in the map which hangs in the clubhouse, nor does it show up in any of the early photos I've seen.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom
I agree with you. IMO the person who has gotten the short stick at SFGC is Billy Bell. How well do you think you were able to replicate his work?

[DMoriarty]

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

David -- it doesn't resemble any current hole at SF, for what it's worth.

Kevin,  

I couldn't remember any hole like that, but I've only been lucky enough to see the place one time.   Interesting that that the hole isn't on the plan posted by Phillip either.    

1.  Is it possible that the sketch is the 16th, only without the little landing area left and short of the bunker(s)?  (Tillie did write that the drawing didn't exactly match what would be put in the ground.)  The right front of the green flares up a bit, doesn't it?  And while I don't know if it qualifies as a "dip" the ground is a bit lower right in front of the green, is it not?  

2.  Is it possible that the work was proposed but did not go forward in 1920, and that it was not carried out until 23 - 24?    That would explain why the plan posted by Phil must have been drawn up sometime after April 1921.   That would might explain why sketched hole doesn't seem to have made it into the ground.   The reason I ask is that the Tillie work was mentioned in an old newspaper article, but according to the article it took place in 1923 - 1924.  

[Kevin_Reilly]

David -- going through the par 4's, the straight-ish 16th definitely is one that survives the first cut, but it would seem an effort to match it to either the rendering or the description.  It seems too short and narrow to allow for the lines of play described by Tilly.  The green is surely one of the most interesting on the course, though.

[DMoriarty]

David -- going through the par 4's, the straight-ish 16th definitely is one that survives the first cut, but it would seem an effort to match it to either the rendering or the description.  It seems too short and narrow to allow for the lines of play described by Tilly.  The green is surely one of the most interesting on the course, though.

Thanks Kevin.   As I said, my experience is limited.  I don't remember it being too short, but surely that must have been a result of a horrible drive.  I was thinking more about the green, and trying to match the description to a contoured green on flattish ground, etc.   Is it possible that the fairway used to extend further left, and that they considered putting fairway left and short of the left fairway bunker?

[Bill_McBride]

Rick
The interesting thing about that photo those are Billy Bell's bunkers.

Stylistically or realistically?  Do you know for sure those were built by Billy Bell Sr?

[Kevin_Reilly]

Is it possible that the fairway used to extend further left, and that they considered putting fairway left and short of the left fairway bunker?

Not much room to the left...#15 is very close.  More room to the right...not now with the trees but maybe so back in the 20's.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Here is #16 in the middle going from right to left, with #15 below and #17 above.

[DMoriarty]

Kevin,

I overlaid the diagram keeping the dimensions the same, and rough cut some trees with my photosaw.   Surprisingly, the hole almost fits, provided the trees were not there then . . .



Definitely tight on the left, but if they had scrapped that "third option" landing area left and short of the bunker, it looks like it would fit.  

What i find interesting is how well the safe play out to the right fits in the bend of the dogleg 17th.

[Rick Wolffe]

Hmm...aren't these greens the same? ...these two photos were taken ten years apart, circa early twenties versus earlier thirties.  Is the architecture the same, or is the bunker hair style different and did they have a "west coast makeover"?  

[Tom MacWood]

Rcik
Are you familiar with Billy Bell's bunkering?

[TEPaul]

I have no idea which architect was responsible for that greenside bunkering on the bottom photo of post #72 but it my opinion that bunkering is absolutely gorgeous both architecturally and aesthetically (in a natural sense).

Those two photos sure look like the same green and it's interesting the first (earlier) photo seems to show bunkers that are pretty much sans sand compared to the latter photo.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()