I've got no problem with Philadelphia. I do strongly disagree with what seems to be your approach to research and analysis, and the approach of some others there. It is just too fast, loose, and selective with the facts for my tastes, and seems to me to be nothing but overzealous advocacy masquerading as unbiased historical research.
Now I am sure that you and Jeff and whoever will consider this to be nasty of my to say, but it is the way I see it, and I think the facts back me up on this one.
David,
Now I find that to be extremely ironic and I have to ask why you have no such problem with the research and analysis and overzealous advocacy that has taken place in California in regard to it's historic courses over the past decade or more?
Please show me any comment by any of the authors of books or participants here from California that have been in the least bit critical or made even the slightest negative comment about any of the California works of George Thomas, Billy Bell (Sr.), Alister Mackenzie, H Chandler Egan, Max Behr, or Tillinghast's work at SFGC, except to exalt their original greatness while bemoaning their losses and changes over time.
Other than that, can you please tell me where the objective or critical analysis of any of their work is so I can go and read it?
Believe me, I understand why guys like Geoff, and Tommy, and Daniel Wexler, and David Stamm, and Sean Tully are big fans of that work, but if you tell me their writing doesn't also enter the realm of "fan-dom" I'm not sure YOU are being objective, David. I'm extremely grateful for all the history they've collectively uncovered and shared, and I think we all are, but if you think they are also detached critical observers I would disagree with you.
To wit...not to single out Daniel Wexler, but since we're talking about Sharp Park, and since we've already mentioned that he was in error in terms of what happened to the course and when, let me quote;
"Owing to the fact that it was built in 1931, then washed into oblivion by a coastal storm shortly thereafter, its original design was seen firsthand by very few. Nor was this initial version in any way adequately recorded, with few photographs of any kind known to remain in existence."
Despite it's mystery, and lack of documentary, contemporary evidence, Daniel concludes,
"It was, in short, a municipal masterpiece."Later he writes;
"It was indeed unfortunate for Sharp Park that so many of its best holes fell along the property's ocean side, for it was this flank which took the brunt of any incoming storms. Following the early 1930s deluge that washed several of those gems out to sea, a massive berm was constructed (largely upon land once occupied by holed three and seven) to prevent history from repeating itself. The subsequent rerouting of the county road and reconfiguring of the lakeside holes has further muddled things so that today only a handful of holes run consistent with Mackenzie originals, and no appreciable trace of his strategy remains in play."
"How Sharp Park Would Measure Up Today"
"Oceanfront holes, double fairways, MacKenzie bunkering, marvelous scenery..."
"Any way you look at it, even at only 6,154 yards, Sharp Park would have to
stand well out in front as America's finest municipal golf course.""Restoration anyone?"
Now, as we've seen Sharp Park was certainly a fine course, but it did in fact exist for almost a decade in its original state, and was possibly not even the best municipal golf course in San Francisco.
Five years after opening, when the USGA brought the Public Links tournament to the city, the tournament was played at Harding Park. Even on opening day at SP the scores were quite low, so it's likely to have suffered a bit in terms of challenge for the better player. This wasn't uncommon, as most architects of the time built public courses to be quite a bit less challenging and demanding than their private course brethren.
In any case, during it's 10 years of existence, I'm not sure it was regarded as anything but a good local CA golf course, on a stirking ocean-front site, and I've yet to come across any articles that spoke of it's wonders, or where any contemporaries compared it to the best courses of its day, public or private.
If anything, I think our modern understanding of Sharp Park is based on as much myth as reality, given the Mackenzie name, the star-crossed history, and the ocean-front setting.
But you won't find any of the California researchers to tell you that, and that's ok. We all have our preferences, and we are all excited in some ways just to uncover these archeological tidbits from history, so sometimes a bit of hyperbole goes with the territory and most of us understand and respect and even celebrate that.
That being said, I'd LOVE to see Sharp Park saved and restored due to its historic architectural significance, and any help I can provide to that effort I'd gladly do. I also hope that some of the findings on this thread help to more fully flesh out that history, and I think the now documented significant involvement of H. Chandler Egan, himself vastly underrated as an architect of superb public courses, should hopefully add to that rich heritage.
Tom MacWood,
You've done numerous adds, deletes, and such since trying to compile this list over the past few weeks.
For instance, for weeks you listed Duck Creek as one of the best public courses through the Depression and today you summarily remove it without explanation.
Can you tell us some of the factors that would lead you to believe one day that it was one of the best public courses in the country and then the next day it falls from grace?
Duck Creek fans at the very least want to know, I'm certain!
