As an aside on Rees, I went around Harding's re-do on Sunday and found a helluva lot more than I expected from what has been posted here about it. Where it lacks, the course lacked before due to property limitations like 15-17, but what was done there was done well indeed.
Not the thread-jack, but this merits a response....
I just can't help wonder what might have been at Harding, that's all. Yes, it's way better than it was before - but that's surely not saying much. Yes, it is a very fine test of golf now, and push the tees back to 7500 or whatever it can be stretched to, and the pros won't kill it. Yes, there are some very fine golf holes, and I love what they did with 18 in particular, and some of the holes on the front nine...
But there's just not much there there - much like the city in which I work - and there could have been. They could have made some fun, quirky golf holes. They could have pushed some of the greens closer to the water/cliff's edge, like 10 and 14... They could have just plain made it more FUN.
But then the PGA Tour would have hated it, and perhaps not come for the American Express event next year.
Maybe my issues are silly - could be. It is a very fine golf course now, and most SF residents love it (non-SF residents seem to treat it as a one-time only course given the high fee). I just continue to wonder.... maybe I shouldn't.
TH