Complicated is a good word for that battle. The article is both exhaustive and exhausting to read - you've done great work, but that's one heck of a fight. If you've ever seen the episode of South Park on San Francisco, Hybrids and 'Smug', then you'll know exactly what I was thinking about when I read that article. If the SP guys were even half right, then it's gonna get ugly. Who in their right mind would try to fight the neo-hippies on their home turf?

Having only played in the East, this course looks almost other-worldly to me. I guess this one gets added to my West coast wish list (assuming it's still around if/ when I get out there). I promise I won't play it if my presence threatens to tip the scales in the 'locals vs non-locals' census.

Please see the website:

http://sharppark.savegolf.net/index.php

It provides additional information as well as methods of voicing support for the golf course and recreation.

Geoff, I've been following this story with great interest. Years ago (2001?) I played this course without any real knowledge of golf course architecture--something that is changing rapidly thanks to you. My memory may be pretty hazy but there was only one hole that struck me as worth playing in its current form--perhaps 5 or 6 (it was a long downhill, dogleg two-shotter on the front side).

The rest of the course seemed like a disaster and I doubt that even knowing what I know today that I would recognize more than one or two holes as Mackenzie creations. The course seemed overwrought with trees, particularly for such a windy site, making some of the doglegs close to unplayable. The greens and bunkers all seemed to have the same (round) shape. In my opinion, DRAMATIC restoration would be needed for this course to retain any glory.

Again, I am writing this based on memory from 8 years ago, and you would know the history of the course far better than I, obviously, but it seems to me that Robert Muir Graves may be just as responsible for its potential closing as any endangered species.

RolandWag -- great resource. Curious to know if Sandy Tatum has spoken up on the issue, given the relative miracle he was able to work at Harding...?

With all of my research I have not been able to say that RM Graves made any changes to the course. He may have been brought in at some point to look at the course and propose changes, but I can't find any factual basis that anything was done under his name.

The course has suffered more than anything from a lack of maintenance and a general lack of understanding of the importance of Mackenzie's design. Most of the holes are still there and could be restored.

Tully

Thanks for the images Geoff. I just got my issue yesterday and two of the photos appeared to be out of focus and while it's important (I guess) to see shots of who is fighting for the course, as a reader I was more interested in seeing the actual layout, the course rendering and the clubhouse, which looks like a great building (on the outside). After all these years of hearing about this place your images put it into perspective.

That view looking down on the course is revealing. It could be anything, a park, a meadow, a natural grassland with trees. Not just a golf course. Mackenzie would have to take that as a compliment, no?

As much blame for this debacle is The National Golf Foundation and golf architect Forrest Richardson who opened the door for the non-golf cognoscenti to enter.

The report that they charged for, and provided the city was not only self-serving (in hopes that Mr. Richardson would be the leading candidate to remodel the course--a conflict of interests if there ever was one!) but was so poorly planned and crafted in the scheme of San Francisco politics, it is laughable to think that any sort of dealings with these two agencies borderline hilarious.

linkphile is cut and pasting boilerplate from a website funded by a well heeled out-of-state ecology organization with a reputation for intimidating municipalities with their high power legal machinations. They have funded a glossy website filled with half-truths promoting a phantasmagorical photoshopped vision of a "restored" Sharp Park. Nowhere in the website do they explain in detail where the money is going to come from to realize this wildly expensive and poorly thought out fantasy. What happens when the revenues from 50,000 rounds of green fee's disappears? Ask linkphile exactly how that revenue is going to be made up to support the creation and on-going operation of their "restoration"? Answer: Crickets chirping. Their representations of the course, the course history, and their fantasy "restoration" are the work of advocates willing to stretch the truth, exaggerate wildly and outright lie in the service of their extremist perspective. There is a simple common sense answer to the Sharp Park conundrum:

1. Commit to the continuation of the Sharp Park golf course.
2. Implement procedures at the course to further protect the snake and frog as they have co-existed for 70 years.
3. Proceed with the stimulus funded pipeline to irrigate the course with recycled water.
4. Find a way to inoculate Pacifica and San Francisco against abusive lawsuits from the eco-bullies in Tucson.

Done deal.

I tend to agree, this isn't over Sharp Park, it is about golf. I don't see the environmentalists comprising. I think the golfers would and have. Who is paying this company out of Arizona? Enviros have pretty deep pockets.

What "NGF Detractor" said

Great work, Geoff! The problem is the Game according to these unreasonable people. I seem to remember that it was almost impossible for the managers of the Presidio golf course to kill the nematodes that were devastating those greens not too long ago. I love San Francisco but have no doubt that they would be just as insane about a "non-natural" park designed by Frederick Law Olmstead. Since Mackenzie is the golf equivalent of Olmstead we have to keep up the fight. Somehow.

Good article. It seems with a limited capital infusion, some good could be done here and they'd have something more interesting than the rubbish up the road at Harding.

Tully kicks butt, as usual.

Now, who the hell is this Naccarato character?

To further show what bumbling boobs the National Golf Foundation AND Forrest Richardson & Associates are, they offer three solutions:

A) Continue as is, where nothing is changed and the courses further collapse into debt.
B) CLOSE COURSE(S)--THE NGF is actually suggesting closing courses! Unfreekinbelivable! They ACTUALLY SUGGEST AS AN ALTERNATIVE that getting rid of a 80-year old course will benefit the process of making money, mind you that Forrest Richardson, is behind an organization called "Keep It Classic" which is purportedly guided in SAVING classic courses--as long as he is remodeling them!

Somebody give this clown act a hook!

And....

C) THE NGF and Forrest Richardson's recommended plan of attack--a long list of suggestions--all of them pertaining less political interference AND rid the city of those dreadful unions! (who are to blame for all of this!) Examples are gien of how Unions destroy the courses with nary remark about the culprits who manage those workers, nor the success stories that abound in the sport, like the Golf Club at Yale, where with-in 2 years of taking over this great golf course, it's superintendent Scott Ramsey was bestowed by his peers and associates as Golf Course Superintendent of the Year!

Sharp Park is capable of being a great golf experience with excellent conditioning, and most--what every golfer strives for--A PLACE TO BE AT ONE WITH NATURE--THE VERY NATURE OF WHICH THE DETRACTORS OF SHARP PARK WANT TO PROTEST THAT IS BEING HARMED--WHICH IT ISN'T!

The report states further:

Of the five golf facilities we recommend that Harding/Fleming, Sharp Park, and
Lincoln Park be packaged together, and an RFQ (request for qualification and
interest) be issued by the Corporation to solicit potential interest for the
management, maintenance, and master planning (creation and implementation of
short- and long-term capital improvement plan) of these three facilities. Of course,
current operators will be encouraged to express their interest. Gleneagles will remain a ground lease to be absorbed by the new 501 (c)3.

Awwwww isn't that nice! The carrot! You see, this is where THEY, the NGF and Forrest Richardson, recommend "management, maintenance, and master planning."

Wake up people! You are being sold a bill of goods on Sharp Park! As a golf course it deserves much better then the football you have made it into!

Has the NGF ever done anything good for the game?

Using Forrest Richardson as their architect should tell you everything you know about them. Sadly though, the environmentalists are using his input and the NGF data to make their case against Sharp Park.

Geoff
I guess that is only fair. I posted similar comments on the Pacific Riptide site, which chose to repost the entire "restore sharp park" propaganda piece in full, and my comments were banished to moderation purgatory.

I wouldn't be surprised if that commenter wasn't simply an intern in the Tucson "Center for Biological Diversity" law firm assigned to post those comments anywhere Sharp Park is mentioned. I've seen similar in on-line newspaper story comments also. You've go to hand it to them - they are very good at manipulating media - both new and old.

In my opinion, the only feasible idea for Sharp Park is a complete restoration a la Harding Park. Lincoln Park needs a revamping, as it clearly leaves much to be desired and is perhaps the most beautiful setting of any golf course in America. The last two chapters of Mackenzie's "Spirit of St. Andrews" give an excellent summary of the societal benefits of golf and golf courses. These are the arguments against all of these socialist "do-gooders" who hate golf and golfers and who want to destroy everything that is traditional and and respectable in our country.