[mark chalfant]

Once featured in Golf Magazine. Sounded like nice terrain and
the reviewer alluded to nice green/contours.Was this a solo effort by  J.M. ? is it scenic and worth a 45 or 60 minute drive.?   thanks

[Phil Benedict]

I can't comment on Stonetree but I played the Bridges in the Bay Area and never want to see another Johnny Miller course, even though I enjoy his commentary.  It was too hard to be enjoyable.  Plus I am on their mailing list, so I keep getting reminders of that dismal day.

[ed_getka]

Mark,
    I have heard from enough GCA'ers that I don't plan on ever playing Stonetree. If it were MUCH cheaper, then I might consider taking a look.
    The course you will want to see is Metropolitan Golf Links right next to the Oakland Airport. Some interesting stuff, and the price is right.
     Please get in touch if you are coming out so we can golf together.

[Tom Huckaby]

Mark:

Ed Getka has it just about right.  I'm one who tends to find something good in just about every course, and well... the main good I found at Stonetree is that the beer was cold in the clubhouse.

It's a horribly over-penal, over-severe, overpriced mismash of holes on what used to be a nice site for the Renaissance Faire.  Oh, the drive is OK going from SF -not particularly scenic once you get north of the GG Bridge, but not bad - but that surely doesn't make it worth the trip.

If you want to play north like that, there are much better choices - each of Adobe Creek, Indian Valley and San Geronimo are better nearby public course choices, and if you can swing access, Mayacama is world-class.

Ed's right also re Metropolitan, too... just don't expect any scenery other than fine Oakland airport views.  

[Mike Benham]

I'll echo Ed and Tom about Stone Tree.  Fabulous clubhouse that would be much better if looking out over acres and acres of cab grapes.  There are perhaps two decent holes on the course and it is unfortunately expensive.

Metropolitan is also a Miller design although Fred Bliss has his name on it also and I suspect that Fred did the majority of work.  The routing is decent, very different bunkering than your typical muni and there is good variety among the holes.

I also like Monarch Bay in San Leandro.  It hasn't been in the best of condition the past few years but I like the layout.

You usually can get decent rates at both Metro and Monarch Bay through GolfNow.com.


Monarch Bay Photos

[Tom Huckaby]

Mike B:  

My question to you is this: did we become these course hardasses because of this web site?  Or is it exposure to more great courses?  Combination of both?

Because I have to believe there was a point in time not all that long ago where I would have loved Stonetree... I would have hated the price, but not minded the course.

So Mark, do bear this in mind.  From a mindset typical of this website, the course is pretty reviled.  I've never read a good thing about it in here.  And I did pretty much hate it myself.

BUT... I have a friend who lives in Mill Valley who absolutely loves it - he finds it neat, pretty, well-conditioned, great service, etc.  Cost isn't an issue for him.  Nor is golf course architecture as we define it.

TH

[ed_getka]

Mark,
   I second all of Tom's other recommendations. San Geronimo has some very good holes, not stellar throughout, but definitely worth a look. Next I would see Adobe Creek that has some really good holes also. Indian Valley is fun and I'm sure there are some good holes there, I just can't seem to remember any in particular. I have played there more than once. Mayacama I haven't seen yet, but the consensus seems to be a very good course, but plays fairly tough if you aren't keeping it in play and hitting greens.

Tom,
    I think the more great courses you see, the less tolerance you have for bland or bad holes.

[Matt_Cohn]

Disclaimer first...I used to work (at Presidio) for two of the pro's at Stonetree, and they've let me play the course a couple of times. So I'll try be fair, but I can't claim that I'm totally unbiased here.

Stonetree has a number of things going for it:
-Green contours: a lot more movement and interest than I've seen at most public courses.
-Conditioning (at least most people would say so): I've played early both times but I understand it can get quite firm in the afternoon, and the turf conditions are great.
-Aesthetics: Especially in the hills on the back nine, it's just plain pretty. If you disagree, make your case, but if you don't find Stonetree beautiful then I think you might be a grump. Am I just saying that because the grass is so green? No, although that helps.
Variety: In the par 4's (310-470) and par 5's (510-580) especially. The par 3's a bit less so (last time I hit 6 iron, 6, 4, and 6)

Stonetree also has some things going against it, especially in the eyes of this group:
Difficulty/Severity: I wouldn't really enjoy being an 18 marker there. LOTS of lost balls and a few drives to narrow fairways (9, 13, 14, 16) that I would be quite nervous about pulling off. It's not the most user-friendly course for the average player.
Terrain (flat): Holes 1-6, 17-18, and 10-12 used to be...well, whatever it was, it was flat. Everything on those holes in manufactured, although I think reasonably well. But don't look for "natural" contours or anything that reminds you of Sand Hills. But when you look across the fence at the dead-flat land next door, you should appreciate that they did some pretty remarkable work, I think.
Terrain (hills): Holes 7-9 and 13-16 are over some pretty severe terrain and feature narrow fairways, big elevation changes, and trees/high rough not far from the line of play, as well as wetlands on 16 and 17. Lots of trouble and lost balls here.

I have to go...I have 6 days to find a place to live on June 1...but I'll write more later on today depending on how the responses look.

~Matt

[Tom Huckaby]

Ed:

I know that's how it works for you, but well... I'm a bit more into playing the game for the game's sake than you are, as you know.  Hell I play Santa Teresa more than anywhere else.  So it is just interesting to me that my first reaction about Stonetree was so "GCA-centric."  I really think you guys have affected me and I'm not sure it's for the good.  

Matt:

I will grant that the back nine, going into the hills, is pretty.  And while I don't recall much about green contours, I will take your word for it.  Conditions were immaculate when I was there.  Variety?  Again, I shall take your word for that as well.

I just think the negatives do outweigh the positives, and the price puts it way over the edge.

But as I say, my Mill Valley friend loves it and plays there all the time.  It is indeed a big world of golf.

TH

[ed_getka]

Tom,
   I like that GCA-centric remark, it just proves there's hope for the rest of the golfing world.

Matt,
   I can't argue the Stonetree points since I haven't been there, but what did you think about Wente?

[Tim Leahy]

Once featured in Golf Magazine. Sounded like nice terrain and
the reviewer alluded to nice green/contours.Was this a solo effort by  J.M. ? is it scenic and worth a 45 or 60 minute drive.?   thanks

thumbs down on Stonetree, a couple of good holes and way over priced. Play Lake Chabot in the Oakland Hills and you will never forget it. Very unique and inexpensive, great views of the bay if its not foggy. Thumbs up to Metro too.

[Matt_Cohn]

You guys would seriously rather play San Geronimo or Lake Chabot than Stonetree? What about regardless of price? I find that hard to imagine.

I love Wente. I played there Tuesday. If I had to choose one, it would be Wente. It's more thrilling, I suppose. The land has a lot to do with that. But man, talk about a hard course, especially for the typical weekend player.

Tom, can you explain the negatives you see at Stonetree besides the ones I mentioned? I guess I just don't see very many others, especially with consideration given to the property they had to work with.

(I guess one other one is the lack of a driving range - it's surprising given the thousands of acres of flat land surrounding the front nine - but I'm sure there's a reason for it.)

[Joel_Stewart]

I can't remeber if Johnny Miller was involved at Stonetree, its mostly Sandy Tatum.  If Miller was involved it was for a check and he had very little involvement.

My one time I played Stonetree I actually liked many of the holes.  Architectually I thought they did a fairly good job, its probably in an area that shouldn't even have a golf course but for what they had its not bad but it is expensive.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:  unfortunately we don't get to do this regardless of price.  But to play along with that, I'd say I'd prefer San Geronimo to Stonetree, and Lake Chabot also - but the latter would be just because of sentimental reasons - I've won a few tournaments there, used to play there all the time.  Take that away and well... Stonetree likely is better.  But not by much.

In terms of the negatives, you nailed them.  I have nothing to add except for it's also way too cartball for my tastes.

And to me these outweigh the positives.  Throw in the price, and this is why I'm not rushing up to play there again... as well as why I wouldn't recommend it to Mark.

TH

[ed_getka]

Matt,
    If I could play Stonetree for $40 or less, I would go take a look. I have had at least 6-7 people whose opinion I respect tell me that Stonetree is not worth my time. San Geronimo isn't great all the way through, but for the architecture combined with the $ for green fee, I would choose San Geronimo. I don't know that I would send anyone to see Lake Chabot due to conditioning issues (i.e. fairway grass was at least 1-2") that were there the last time I went. It is an interesting course that goes up and down quite dramatically and you certainly get practice hitting off uphill and downhill lies.

[Tom Huckaby]

That's sad to hear re Lake Chabot - I haven't been there in two years so I'm not up on what's what.  Conditions were always pretty darn good when I played it... understanding that it is after all a muni.

I will say I wouldn't send anyone to see Lake Chabot primarily - that is, not with all the other great courses we have around here.  But if one is in Oakland anyway, and wants to see some really quirky up and down hilly stuff, well... it is good fun and I have to assume the price remains right.

But Tim's kinda put us off the track here a little anyway, hasn't he?  Nothing wrong with that... but if someone is considering playing in Novato, well recommending a course in Oakland doesn't match the geography.  

Anyway, here's another one likely to rile Matt (and Matt, I do consider this all in good fun):  I'd play Indian Valley five times before I'd play Stonetree -and that is regardless of price.  I find Indian Valley to be very, very fun - given the severity and penal nature, Stonetree seemed to me more like work.

TH

[Mike Benham]

My question to you is this: did we become these course hardasses because of this web site?  Or is it exposure to more great courses?  Combination of both?

No, I played Stone Tree before I became so smart here .

It has holes that I just don't like.  It has terrain on the back side that shouldn't be used for a golf course.  Take the 14th hole, here is the description:

Hole #14, Par 5:  The 3rd par 5 on the course offers a greater landing area for the tee ball than it might appear. A lay up short of the large bunker on the left leaves a short third shot, while big hitters may take a chance at the green for the opportunity of an eagle putt. Be prepared for a difficult up and down or lost ball for shots hit over the green.

And the diagram ...




And what the description or drawing fail to detail is the big valley effect on this hole; the tee and green are about equal but the fairway is a good 50-60 feet below the both of them.  Your second shot (if going for the green in two) is severly up hill.

Mike

[Tom Huckaby]

Mike - well said.  And 14 is among the head-scratcher holes there for me as well... which sometimes is a good thing, but in this case isn't.  It's just too much.

[Mike Benham]

especially with consideration given to the property they had to work with.

 Architectually I thought they did a fairly good job, its probably in an area that shouldn't even have a golf course but for what they had its not bad but it is expensive.

Winning a gold star for building an expensive but average course on a site that shouldn't have a golf course is not worth a second play, at least for me.

Mike

[ed_getka]

Mike & Tom,
    How uphill is that shot to #14? Is it anything like that hole at Cinnabar that goes straight uphill with the flagstick that is like 12 feet tall so you can see it?

[Tom Huckaby]

Mike & Tom,
    How uphill is that shot to #14? Is it anything like that hole at Cinnabar that goes straight uphill with the flagstick that is like 12 feet tall so you can see it?

Mike may be able to say for sure, but my recollection is it's not nearly as mountainous uphill as #7 Canyon nine at Cinnabar - which I find to be a pretty cool hole, btw.  Right up your alley I'd think also because it does have a very cool green.  But anyway, I don't think the issue with #14 StoneTree is so much the uphill nature of the approach but the fact it goes way down then way up, and is really freakin' tight.  As you know the hole at Cinnabar is nothing but up.

TH

[ed_getka]

I always take note when Iron Byron Huckaby calls a course tight. I'm sure it would feel like trying to thread the eye of a needle to wayward me.

[Tom Huckaby]

I always take note when Iron Byron Huckaby calls a course tight. I'm sure it would feel like trying to thread the eye of a needle to wayward me.

 
Well, I have my off shots and off days as well, but thanks.  I guess a hole does have to get pretty damn tight before it scares me.  Well this one did.  

[Matt_Cohn]

Last time I played #14, I hit a drive in the fairway, a 2-iron on the green, and two-putted for birdie. Seems fine to me.  

OK, more seriously though, I can see the problem with a hole like that. For a lot of players, the tee shot is very difficult to keep in play, followed by a narrow 250 yard uphill slog. For many people, not fun. The next 2 holes make good use of the hills I think, although they're not much wider.

Tom and everyone else, to what extent do you see each of these factors as problems with the course?: the routing; the features (bunkers, fairway cuts, etc.); and the land (in a way that simply couldn't be overcome).

By the way Tom, hit me up anytime you want to go check out Indian Valley. I've never been there. We'll stop at In-N-Out on the way back.

[Bill_McBride]

Somebody asked about good holes at Indian Valley.  Hmm, it's been many years (40+ but my memory is good!), let's see.

#4, very nice drop shot over a creek, semi blind.
#5, 320 yards, hit the iron, driver is death!  Everything slopes to the right.
#6, creek all down the right and crosses in front of the green, another shortish par 4 but tricky.  I think it was harder years ago before the big tree in the fairway went down.
#8, nice par 3 uphill mostly blind to back pins.
#14, wild par 4, downhill long iron, uphill pitch to deep very sloped green.  Many 4 putts here.
#16, par 5 with elevated tee and pinched landing area, trees and rough both sides.  Beautiful views here.

It's not a great course but lots of uneven lies and uphill/downhill shots.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()