Golfweek Snubs 9-Hole Course

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen - working in Oakland as long as I did, perhaps I'm also more attuned to danger areas.

But really the point was articulated perfectly by Matt Cohn above.  I'm just hopping on his bandwagon.

TH

[John Keenan]

Tom H

Yes I am local born in SF but I live in the East Bay.

I would not take a visitor to Gleneagles as it is not a "tourist " place. It is a great place for locals.   In general I agree with Matt comments. I think the same could be applied to many restaurants in SF great food and the locals go but an visitor wants I believe a different experience be it golf or food.

I do differ in that I see 9 as golf as much as 18. For me the experience of trying to get the ball into the hole matters not if I do it on 9, 18  or 12. That's just me. Lots of roads to Dublin as they say

Do not trash the fine 9 hole course on the edge of the western world GG parks own. A classic in its own mind

As to Oakland I seem to remember Montclair a rather unique course with astro turf tee areas.  Did have some drainage issues
 

[Tom Huckaby]

John:

Gotcha.  I'd concur it's all golf and can be very fun.  And don't get me wrong - I do remain a huge fan of courses like this - again, check out My Home Course for my further thoughts.  There is a great place for courses that take less time.  I guess our main difference is I wouldn't expect others to agree.  I'd expect others to not consider it "real golf", at least in a courses to seek out context.  And given that seems to be the point of the Golfweek article, I don't get why there should be outrage over Gleneagles being ommitted.

I surely haven't trashed any course, btw.  Not sure what course you mean by this though:


Do not trash the fine 9 hole course on the edge of the western world GG parks own. A classic in its own mind


And believe it or not I have played the tiny course in Montclair - great fun - but I'd recommend that to visitors in about the same way I'd recommend the par three course at Lake Chabot... that is, fun to play, take a few beers, but seek out only after you've already played everything else.

[Kalen Braley]

Nice call on the par 3 course at Lake Chabot.

That is undoubtedly the funnest little short par 3 course I've ever played.  If the conditions were kept up, it would have been off the charts.

[Forrest Richardson]

"Golf does remain an 18-hole sport, for better or worse." — Tom H.

Well, certainly so if we continue to make such claims. Actually, (1) I prefer golf as a "game", (2) nothing should "remain", and "better" is always, well, better.

Based on my very recent evaluation of City-run courses in SF, I would say that it is a large mistake to omit Gleneagles from any decent (even an indecent) story about SF golf. I have played there several times, including a now-famous Christmas-time round in which the southern-most hole was closed because neighboring hoods held a bonfire in the fairway bunker and had not yet left the area, even though it was close to 3pm the following afternoon.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Forrest,

Thanks for chiming in. I agree with you. The idea that "18-good" and "9-bad" holds no weight with me. Those who view golf that way, see and play a far different game than I do.

Anthony

[Jim Nugent]

I played Gleneagles a number of times in the late 1980's.  Never had any security problems, but wasn't even aware that was a possibility there!  To put that in perspective, I also lived in SF for several years, and barely ever saw any gays.  

Enjoyed Gleneagles much more than Lincoln Park and Crystal Springs.  When the wind kicked up, as it usually did, things could get interesting.  Even though it is nine holes, they have alternate tee boxes on several holes, that dramatically change the character of the hole.  I didn't trust the declared yardage: many holes seemed shorter in reality than the scorecard read.

As for a choice between Gleneagles and Alcatraz, it's no contest.  The golf course, hands down.  Out of ten rounds, I would probably go 7 Gleneagles, 2 Crystal Springs, 1 Lincoln Park.  

[Forrest Richardson]

With an infusion of baby boomers coming into the golfing age — that period of life when ther are supposed to have time to play golf — we shall see how this plays out in the next decade.

(1) These boomers will not have the time that their parents had...life is moving too fast.

(2) The logical disection of the "standard 18 holes" is 9. This is already commonplace in golf.

I do not buy the 12, 15, 6, etc. versions as much as I subscribe to 9-hole layouts, or rounds.

We are involved with 3 nine hole projects at this time. I had only worked on one previously — in 20 years having an opportunity.

[John Keenan]

Forrest

Interesting comment that in 20 years in the GCA business no 9 hole courses and today 3 are under way. I fully agree with the  reasoning you stated. I would add the cost of land as well as its availability in populated areas.

Question are they public or private? My guess is public but not sure

[Tom Huckaby]

Anthony:  heck I'm with you on the sentiment; I'd just say it's better for your sanity if you realize you are tilting at windmills.  Because you are.

Forrest:

Game/sport - that's a different issue.  I truly don't care what one calls it - I just love playing it far more than is wise for a man in my life situation.  And I too don't care if it's 5 holes, 23 holes, 9 holes or 18 holes.  But if I have a choice, it's 18 at the minimum.  As fun as the game can be over a lesser amount, it's still a fraction of the prescribed amount I want to play.  And I only dig fractions in this case if they include a 1 in front of them.  

I'd agree though that these courses definitely have their place, and will become more popular.  Once again I refer you to my My Home Course piece, written 5 years ago.  

I just continue to believe that as things stand today, well... we've got a long way to go.  People only care about 9-hole courses as curiousities, and only play them if they don't have a more suitable 18-hole choice.

As for inclusion of Gleneagles in a story about SF golf, I'd still say it merits sidebar inclusion at best... especially if the focus is on tourists, as this one seemed to be.  Matt Cohn nailed this.

TH

[Brent Hutto]

There's one fundamental problem with 9-hole courses, execute length courses and other non-"championship" golf venues. Most people who play golf expect a "round" to produce a number. That number needs to be 80-something for most halfway decent golfers, 90-something for less skilled golfers and 70-something for golfers who consider themselves strong players.

Ask the next 10 golfers you encounter about how they enjoyed their last round. I'll bet at least 8 of the 10 will mention a number in their first 20 words. The score is the thing, at least here in the USA. If a course doesn't play to something in the neighborhood of Par 72 (68 is stretching it and anything less won't do) then it doesn't produce valid numbers and is therefore something less than a real round of golf to most golfers.

This may change one day but if it does we're talking a generation or two down the line. Yes, people will drop the game if they don't have time/money/opportunity. However, the vast majority of them would rather drop the game than play at a Par 62 executive course or a Par 34 nine-holer. Irrational but it is what it is.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent:

You too nailed this.  And of course neither of us is saying this is RIGHT, or how it SHOULD BE (right?), but that it is the way it is.  First question you get is "what did you shoot" and if it's not something in the range you said, the looks are quizzical.  Perhaps Forrest is right that this is "worse", but that doesn't deny the reality.

This sums it up perfectly:

This may change one day but if it does we're talking a generation or two down the line. Yes, people will drop the game if they don't have time/money/opportunity. However, the vast majority of them would rather drop the game than play at a Par 62 executive course or a Par 34 nine-holer. Irrational but it is what it is.

Sad, but true.

[Mark_Fine]

That number for Forrest will be "four" starting next week as he and I expect to begin the design of a new 9-hole course in MA.    

[John Keenan]

For a unique spin on this take a look at the Paul Thomas post on Origins a new Love designed course.

Not sure I understand how they are able to do what is stated but unique it is.

[Willie_Dow]

Here in Vero Beach, FL there is great interest in bringing back the now City owned nine holer at Dodgertown.  It plays around the baseball stadium which has lighting for nite baseball.
Adam Messix and I walked the course and both agreed that little had to be done to make it playable once again.  It even had an Alps hole and a Redan green, which shows Walter O'Malley knew what he was doing in 1965.
The acreage is 39, and the cost to V/B was 9.9 million.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Brent,

You are right about the number but literally thousands and thousands of people play in 9-hole leagues. When I ask friends about their rounds they say "42" not "42 but it would have been an 84 if I played 18"

I think people on this site get too caught up in their own view of the golf world. A great percentage of rounds played is 9 holes. Go to any municipal course on a weeknight anywhere in the U.S. and you'll see 9-hole leagues going off both sides of 18-hole layouts.

There are five 18-hole courses, one 18-hole executive course and a 9-holer within 20 minutes of my house. I was talking to a pro at one of the courses a couple of years ago and they had leagues Monday through Thursday with seven leagues on the waiting list. That means every other course was packed with leagues as well -- all nine holes. The average golfer, not people obsessed with architecture and the distance the ball flies and the origins of the game, like us, have no problem playing nine holes and don't consider it an unofficial round, especially since the USGA now allows the posting of 9-hole scores.

Anthony

[Tom Huckaby]

Anthony:

I'd agree that people start with their own world view and assume it's the same all over.

I'd just say that if you believe 9holers are prevalent and normal and accepted, than you are guilty of the same thing.

Because they might be near you; they sure as hell aren't near me. After a quick count, I found that within 1/2 hour of my home in San Jose, CA, there are 33 total golf courses.  Of these, 26 are 18 holes.  Of the 7 nine-hole courses, only ONE is regulation size, and it's private.  The other 6 are execs and par threes.

Thus you can hopefully understand our differing world views.

The result is, nearly no one I know ever posts 9hole rounds; I know of exactly one 9-hole league, and that's at a par three course; and no one I know has ever stated anything but that playing 9holes is half a round, nothing more, nothing less.  When they play the 9holers that do exist, it's considered practice or the like and is definitely "unofficial."


Go to any municipal course on a weeknight anywhere in the U.S. and you'll see 9-hole leagues going off both sides of 18-hole layouts.


Not here in the SF Bay Area!  No way, not even close.  Such things do not exist here - not at public courses anyway.  I have heard of late pm leagues doing only 9holes, but no way in hell they ever go off both sides of 18 hole courses.

Like I say, I think your way is better, and is certainly the way of the future.  I wish these things did exist here.  But I am guessing what we have here is more of the norm than what you have where you live.  Of course it's my world view though and it starts here, so it's just a guess.

TH

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Tom,

Thanks for enlightening me. Nine-hole leagues are a major source of revenue for courses throughout New England.

Here's a Brad Faxon quote from the introduction of To the Nines - a good book. I highly recommmend it.

"Actually, a lot of people preferred to play nine-holers in our area, and many companies had their twilight leagues at nine-hole tracks, but that has changed."

[Tom Huckaby]

I love the book.  The forward is cool.

Let's just say New England is quite different from Silicon Valley - understatement of the year, no?

As for which represents the norm, here's hoping that yours does, if not now, then some day.

Just remember, your complaints here began with the SF Bay Area.  Our reality is quite different.

TH

[Kevin_Reilly]

Re Gleneagles, you went there once and emerged unscathed.   Others were not so fortunate - the stories are many.  In any case sure it's not Baghdad, but well... for many people the surrounding area plus the stories of on-course muggings are enough to keep them away.  

Tom, at some point these stories became more urban legend than anything else.  How many times have you heard about someone's brother's friend who had a ball stolen from the green on #4 or the left side of the fairway on #5 or even assaulted at gunpoint in the rough.  These stories have gone on for years and years and at some point they became "fact" even though they are short on specifics.

FWIW, I played there last week and felt no concern as I drove there, played a great game and drove out.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kevin:

I have zero doubt that the stories are worse than the reality.  But I've never driven there nor played there without feeling at least a little iffy - and I have played there at least a dozen times.  And remember I worked in downtown Oakland for 13 years, so I believe I am rather numb to bad areas.  It's not so much the stories, but just looking around.

In any case the point remains one still wouldn't direct a tourist to go there... or if one did, he'd mention to be careful.

TH

[Kevin_Reilly]

PS, here are some thoughts on the course.

#1 has the weirdest green in Northern Calif, I think.  Wedged on the side of a hill, this green (which was built as an alternative to the original green) is almost impossible to hold a ball on.  Long and very narrow with a giant ridge that divides the green into two tiers.

#2 almost always plays down wind, making the second shot tricky as you are sitting there with a wedge and the wind gusting behind you.  Many shots go long.

#3 the trees on the left are a magnet for tee shots on this downhill  par 4.  Easy to go long on your approach as the second shot is a bit downhill.

#4, assuming you survive this hole without a mugging, a relatively straightforward par 3 that is often straight into the wind.

#5, assuming your ball isn't stolen off the tee while you go through your pre-shot routine, from the back tee (there are two sets of tees on many of the holes out here so you can play the course twice) this is one of the longest playing par 4s in Nor Cal...into the wind with an uphill second shot.

#6, relatively benign par 5

#7, avoid the pot bunkers!

#8, straighforward downhill par 3

#9, uphill approach to the green is tricky...easy to leave it short or spin it too much to end up short left.

#10, the best golf course bar in NorCal, bar none.

[Tom Huckaby]

You did hit upon the two holes from which the stories derive.  As for the course, it is pretty interesting and it is definitely tough.  But I used the play the 9-holer in Colma a lot also (Cypress Hills or something?) and I always preferred it to Gleneagles... I hear it's been re-done yet again in recent years.

In any case I heartily concur re #10 Gleneagles.  That is a very cool bar.

 

TH

ps - ever hear gunshots there?  I have... something I can't say for 13 years of working in Oakland....

[John Keenan]

Kevin

I was quite amazed by the green on 1. As you noted cut into a hill side. Why did they build this alternative green.?

OK my approach shot hit the edge and then scurried down into the tree roots. Not  good

[John Kavanaugh]

I`m sitting here at a nine hole course where two Master's winners have won our local tournament.  I'm sure they would agree that Huck is an idiot.

note: first remote blackberry post.