Stanford Par 69?

[Lance Rieber]

Anyone know why they played The Nelson(College event for men) and the course was Par 69?  What were the changes or construction that was going on.
Thanks
Lance

[ForkaB]

Lance

They are making (have made?) changes on 3 and 4 due to road expansion.  #3 is being reversed (staying as a par 3) and #4 is going to be a 3 also.  John Krystynak and others have more up-to-date info I'm sure.

[Peter_Herreid]

Lance--

While I was not there and have no proof to support this, I would suspect that it is related to the (impending/ongoing) reworking of #3-5 as part of the widening of Sand Hill Rd---perhaps #4 and #5 both played as par 3's, in order to get the par down from 71 to 69?

Anyone there in person?

[THuckaby2]

I wasn't there at the Nelson, but I drive by there all the time and at least for now, what Rich and Peter describe is exactly what they've done and why at Stanford GC.

My question is are they going to keep it at par 69 long-term... perhaps that is a loaded question... who knows what's going to happen next with that very valuable real estate.

TH

[Robert_Ball]

Back in Sept, I took the following pic of the route plan for the new #3 & 4, on display in front of the proshop, compliments Knott & Linn Design.  2nd green is in lower-right, Sand Hill Rd up top.  Does anyone know when these changes are estimated to be completed?



Robert

[John Kirk]

The course was a par 71, and the changes to holes #3 and #4 would drop the par by 1 to 70.
 
I don't think the new holes are ready for play yet, which means they are still using a makeshift par 69 course.  After you play #1, #2, #5, and #6, hole #7 (a sharp dogleg par 5) is divided into a long par 3 and a short par 4.  The normal routing is followed through #18, and the practice hole #19 is used to finish the round.  #19 is a steeply uphill 125 yard hole.

1-2-5-6-7a-7b-8-9-10 (par 35)
11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19 (par 34)

By the way, the consensus is that the new holes are very nice.  I played there last month, but did not have the time to look at and photograph them for the group.

[John Kirk]

Let me also point out that holes #1, #2, #5, #7 have new tee boxes to lengthen the course.  #1 is now about 525.  #2 is about 480, hitting across the dirt road.  #5 has an new tee across the creek, which is shown in the nice diagram here, which makes it about 450, but at an awkward angle across hole #4.  #7 is lengthened to about 560, which will require a very long tee shot to see around the corner.

They have considered making #10 a par 5 by moving the green back about 70 yards, but I think that would be a huge mistake, as the #10 green is one of the best they have.

[Evan_Green]

Do you folks think that having a par 69 course will illigitimize it as a "big time" college course? I know most around here dont care about pars below 70, but i get the feeling that many other people do. I wonder if it will affect their recruitment in any way?

[GeoffreyC]

I'm saddened to see these changes to my old home course (1976-1980).  

I had enough trouble with #2 as it was but as a 480 yard par 4 - yikes that will be a hard hole.

Blowing up #10 green would be a mistake and I wonder what Geoff S would think of that?

The new tee on #5 certainly isn't for any regular play.  Play from it crosses directly OVER #4  

[ForkaB]

Geoff

The "new" #5 tee is the old #5 tee--before your time, but not mine!  It was a great hole when that tee was in use, bringing the diagonal ridge in the fairway into play.  The old (pre-1975) 4th hole was great too, but sic transit gloria mundi......

Unlike you (and John Kirk) I have never thought much of the 10th hole, including the green.  Adding 70 yards there (and maybe extending the 11th tee in the process (even if it makes the tee shot on 11 semi-blind) would be a big improvement, IMO.

[GeoffreyC]

Thanks Rich.  I can picture what you mean about that angle for a tee shot on #5. I have not played Stanford since 1980.  I really want to get back soon and perhaps combine it with a trip to MPC to see the Dunes and new Shore course.

I would still hate to see them blow up #10.

[Peter Galea]

Aren't 10 and 11, RTJ holes?

[Mike Benham]

I drove by the construction of Sand Hill road this afternoon and I am surprised at the path of the road in that they shoved the portion of the road west of the bridge halfway onto the old 4th fairway (moved the road south of its old position by 30 yards ...).  I'm sure this was done to appease the neighbors who used to have their front lawns on the busy road ...

I will be the course again this weekend, maybe I'll snap some photos ...

[johnk]

Although I've walked around the two new par 3s a couple of times, I didn't want to post anything, because I didn't have anything good to say.  Of course, they won't be playable until April, so who knows - I could end up being totally wrong... In any case, here goes:

My initial impression of the par 3 holes is that they don't really fit in that well.  They look very modern, with sprawling tee complexes, and the bunkers look too me, well, very Rees Jones-y (similar to say MPCC Dunes) - deeper, lower with a very large, rounded, smooth lip - especially the bunker on the front left of number 3.   I'd wanted to see something more of an homage to B. Bell Sr. The 4th green is big and somewhat bland.

The payoff, of course, is the restored 5th tee.  After many years of listening to old timers (like Goodale) expound on the loss of that tee and the old 4th green, I'm ready for some furtive drives from back there.  It also gives yet another downhill tee shot, on a routing that really emphasizes those with sublime results.

I also hope the tree planting that is planned - on the borders of the course, not in play - with many transplanted oaks, goes well.  Along with the modern look, you now have a lot of views of roadway at #2,3,4 - and that really kills one of the best things about Stanford - its natural, secluded feeling of spaciousness...

While I'm rambling, I really hope they don't mess with #10.  Stanford can't battle the young guys with length.  It's not a fair fight at all.  Even the new tees (#2 is closer to 490) do very little when college kids hit it 300 yds on the fly.  The holes that hurt those guys are the shorter, trickier holes, like #9...  long, straight, even uphill holes to big greens don't scare them at all...

[Forrest Richardson]

While I have not seen the holes in person, I have received positive comments from regular players. There is talk of expanding a par-4 into a par-5 — although I do not know which hole. I have fond memories of Stanford...but always felt the couse could be improved.

While re-routing holes due to a road intrusion is hardly a good reason, let's give Don Knott a chance. I have always found Don to be a great thinker and he truly loves the game.

Please keep in kind the following: Golf courses are meant to change. They are "children" growing up...retaining values, but adapting to new influences. Some will stay the same, some will be completely different. To hold them in a perpetual flight pattern — let's say 1926, for example — is no way to foster new thinking and innovation. As rough heights and bunker edges are supposed to evolve and migrate, so, too, shall holes and routings. Some will become better...others worse. This IS golf, and there is nothing we should do about it.

[John Kirk]

I like Don Knott also.  I played golf with Don earlier this year, and based on my brief conversations with him I think Don shares most of this group's design philosophies.  Remember he is rather constrained here, creating two par 3s in precise locations.  With that said,

1.  I wish the #4 green was moved farther away from the creek.  There was room to move the green 20-30 yards left, with little or no impact to hole #5.  I dislike the idea that a mildly pushed or sliced shot is just gone, requiring a penalty stroke and another attempt over the creek.  There should at least be a chance that you missed the green right, but were able to find it and attempt to get up and down for par.

2.  The new #5 tee is approximately where the old #4 green was, maybe 30-40 yards from the original #5 tee.

3.  I agree with John Krystynak that the new holes look very modern and smoothed out, with no rough edges.  How well they match the rest of the course is yet to be determined.

[Forrest Richardson]

Well, the Road Hole doesn't really "match" the rest of The Old Course, does it? I suppose there is some good news in golf holes not having to live up to some ideal of "matching" or consistency. This is a false hallmark of golf architecture which has become well overrated — this ideal that changes to a given course must somehow be exactly as it might have been had the change never have taken place. Interestingly this ideal is dicussed with passion here — both for and against! [See past discussions on: Quirk, pattern, sameness, faithful remodels, etc.]

[Mike Benham]

As promised, here are some photos of the work being done at Stanford GC:

View from the new 3rd tee back to the 2nd green:


From the back (cardinal) tee of the new par-3 3rd hole:


Tighter view of the new 3rd:


The new 3rd green, from behind the new 4th tee box.  This green is very large and looks to be very flat with little undulation:


This photo takes in the widening of Sand Hill Road down to Stanford Shopping Center.  2 lanes both directions but they shoved the road about 30 yards left of its original route which puts it on top of the old 4th fairway.  This view is from about 125 yards in front of the old 4th tee box.


View from the corner of Sand Hill Road and Juniper Serra Blvd. from the spot of the original 4th green.  The old 4th tee was dead in the center of the photo which is now roadway.


View from aside the new 4th tee down the sightline of the white and blue tee boxes.


Tighter view of the 4th green.


View from the new Cardinal tee box for the 5th hole.  As the locals will note, the pine tree on the left is not native to this area ...


It looks like the boundry fence along the road will only be this post and beam style which is common further down Sand Hill Road fronting other Standford property (who am I kidding, it is all Stanford property).


Per John K's request, they did transplant oak trees around the area of construction, even to the point of routing the new cart path around a transplanted oak.  I will come back in 50 years or so to see if the tree has grown to 3 feet in diameter and 40 feet high
[/i]

[GeoffreyC]

Thanks for the photos Mike.

That looks terrible- especially what they did to Sand Hill Road.

I'm just glad that I had a chance to enjoy the previous course (and at $2.50 per round   ).

[johnk]

Thanks for the pix Mike.  I think the big oaks haven't been moved in yet.  Currently sitting on the right of 13 fairway, there are several large, mature oaks which I hope get transplated successfully, to eliminate views of the roadway from 2, 3, and 4.

Forrest, I know what you are saying, but these par threes aren't quite in the Road Hole's league...  Ironically, many people complain that the par threes at Stanford are all too similar.  They all are shots over ravines, and they play similar distances.  With the new #3 playing 215yds, it's not the same as any of the others.

jmkirk - they've actually moved the new 4th green closer to the creek compared to the previous 4th green.  The shot will be played at a very similar distance to the typical approach from the old 4th fairway. However, they've minimized the interest on the right side of the green - with the elimination of bunker short right and the left-to-right feeding back to the blue pin... I think they are trying to add difficulty.  I like the way it sets up for a fade (guess what kind of shot I play  

[Forrest Richardson]

I look forward to seeing the changes — in person — at Stanford. Nothing really IS in the league of The Road Hole...my primary point is that consistency is often overrated and only occasionally an attribute worth singing about. What makes The Old Course interesting are the many scholars and influences which have built and shaped the place.

[John Kirk]

Forrest's argument that uniformity is overrated is persuasive.

I think the new holes are replacing two of the least memorable on the course.  Hole #4 was short but difficult.  Part of its difficulty was an oak tree that guarded the right third of the green.  Sometimes a reasonably good approach would be knocked into the barranca.  Especially for weaker players this was a tough hazard.

On some days, I would play the par 3s 6-iron, 8-iron, 6-iron, and 6-iron from the second set (black?) of tees.  So not much variety there.  But I like #17, with its long, angled, and sloped green.  And I especially like #14, a bunkerless hole with the green set inside a beautiful natural amphitheater.

Regarding #10, the land 75-100 yards behind the existing green is severly sloped from left (high) to right.  While hole #11 may benefit from an additional 50-60 yards in length, a new green and tee back there would require considerable earth movement.