Stanford GC

[Jon Spaulding]

Does anyone have decent photos or wording on the recent changes to the course? The website is a little weak as to detail. I've not been out there in a while (since Harbottle had done some work on #11), and was wondering.

[Mike Benham]

Photos taken a few years ago ...

New 3rd hole:




New 4th hole, to same green location:




Tiger tee on #5:

[Jon Spaulding]

Questions for Friar Benham:

#3; where are tee & green relative to original #3? How long is the walk to new #4 tee?

#4; has the greenside bunker been enlarged?

#5; is the balance of the hole the same?

 - Assume also that we're playing the new course as a par 71?

#5 looks like a bear with a r-l tee ball and a l-r approach, used to be a breather .

[Jon Spaulding]

Was able to answer some of my own questions a couple days ago. Not sure how I feel about #4 as a short par 3, but new #3 was an improvement on the original.

The new practice facility is under construction and looks to be quite impressive when complete. The course is in fine shape; with greens were a little on the slow side and the bunkers a little rough.

#12 was interesting, with new trees installed in the fairway since my last time out. The short tree has a memorial plaque for Bill Kirk, senior club champion numerous times....and I think the father of GCA's own John Kirk. The middle tree is offensive and further limits the approach after a well struck drive.

New #3


Behind #3


New #4


More #4


Three times the hot action on #12

[Mike Benham]

Sorry that didn't respond ...

Is #4 short?  I thought we played it at 180 or so ...


And on #12, they need to clear out the stuff on the right all the way to the creek.

[Jon Spaulding]

#4 was slightly downwind with a front pin, so pretty short (played 160ish). A little too similar in length to #8. I was not too fond of #8 tee sharing #13 cardinal tee either (semi-blind green over the ravine )

On #12, I see few options other than laying back anymore.... on a 475 yard par 4! A well struck drive in the mid-left of the fairway left me almost exactly behind the new middle tree....with 180 to the center. Ugh.

On a positive note, the bunkering has far more character than it did 10 years ago, throughout the course. Just needs a little TLC before it slips back into oval mode.

[Bill_McBride]

The tree planting on #12 appears to have effectively removed any semblance of a split fairway.  No way to go left anymore.  So Mike's right, if the trees on the far right aren't cleared away, there won't be much fairway at all!  This is all too bad, as the single tree did allow the option of playing to the left side.

[Jon Spaulding]

Perhaps the only time in my life that I've seen a tree planting program....in the middle of the fairway .

[John Kirk]

Bill,

The third tree can easily be carried for the stronger player.  Even when mature, this tree will not prevent playing left.  The tree is causing problems for the women, however.

Thee is a plaque beneath the new tree, which replaced a large oak tree that was part of the original Bell/Thomas design.  It says "The Bill Kirk Tree", and was planted about one month before my father died, in honor of his contributions to the club.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

The third tree can easily be carried for the stronger player.  Even when mature, this tree will not prevent playing left.  The tree is causing problems for the women, however.

By the "third tree" do you mean the farthest from the tee, the "Bill Kirk Tree?"  If so, that's yet another indicator of the difference between your game and mine!  I could never even consider trying to carry that tree!

[Jon Spaulding]

He's talking about the first tree; about a 180-200 yard carry. We went up and dusted off the plaque beneath it, to find the Kirk name......but I did not take a photo.

The tree that is offensive is the middle tree. I would say that the effective width of the LH area (to have a shot) is down to about 15 yards.

[Rich Goodale]

Good pics.  Mostly sad, but partly hopeful.  The latest incarnation of #4 is even worse than the last one, and the fact that the program also replaces the great old simple but classic #3 with an anodyne modern one is a real bummer.  The more I see pictures of that new corner of the course, the more I pine for the old #4 (c. 1968), a tight drive into a long narrow valley followed by an uphill shot to a severely two-tiered green.  From there you walked right on to the elevated tee at #5, whose resurrection is one of the hopeful points of the saga.  Also hopeful is the resurrection of the 12th to what it looked like 40 years ago.  That hole was never designed to be fair, and replacing the two trees that had been lightninged many years ago is a positive step.

A few more rants.  I didn't at all like the Harbottle bunkering when I last played there in 2001.  Like all the changes which have been made, they took character away from the course, in exchange for....what....?

I remember the days when you walked off the first tee onto a rickety bridge crossing Alameda des las Pulgas, and the 8th hole was a beautifully simple Bell/Thomas drop shot to a small and interesting green.  But I grow old.....

[Jon Spaulding]

You'll be happy that I didn't post up the view from the new Tiger tee on #2; 480 yards and the tee is across the road ....or the tee shot on #8, which has become a bland, 170 yard, semi-blind shot to a huge green with minimal character. I was always impressed with the photo that used to hang in the grill area of the original #8.....

I cannot decide whether the Harbottle work is a restoration of sorts or not. It is certainly visually better than the ovals. I am certain that if the Indians wanted a true Bell restoration then they certainly can afford one.

Was not aware of #4; are you saying that the 1968 green was not across the creek, but off to the right up the hill? I vaguely remember them keeping the green as a practice area or spare.

[Rich Goodale]

Jon

The old 4th green was indeed up the hill to the right and was used as a practice green for many years after being decomissioned sometime in the mid-70s.  The old 8th was cool, but to give them some credit, there were occasional flooding problems from the creek which forced the change in the mid-60's.  It doesn't really surprise me about the new 2nd tee as the hole has lost some of its teeth with new technology.  Back in the days when 420 was a long par-4 it was a bear.

Rich

[John Kirk]

It cannot be classified as a restoration.  Stanford GC would be a prime candidate for restoration, based on the general principles of our discussion group.

[johnk]

I'm always impressed how easy it is to get golfers to pine for a lost hole from their youth.  Rich never liked the previous 4th hole, because he remembers the old one.

I, now, dislike the current 4th, because I remember the one Rich never liked.

The new 3rd and current 4th are rather non-conforming, IMHO, to the rest of the course, esp. the 3rd, which looks like a Rees Jones watered-down attempt at a pseudo Redan.  It doesn't fit the look of the rest of the greens, in my mind.  The tee complex is too modern and barren as well, compared to others.

The walk from 3 green to 4 tee is very short.  The long walks are from 3 tee to 3 green - around the perimeter of the woods, and from 4 tee to 4 green, around the perimeter.  Both walks take you out of the bucolic zone that is the rest of the course, and right along the very busy Sand Hill Rd.

4 green does call for a lot of precision, especially with the mounding off of the left greenside bunker.  It's a reasonably testing short hole.

The new 5th tee is great.  But nowadays the drive from the lower tee calls for some thinking, since drivers can easily go thru the fairway, and big hits must be faded.  The #5 Tiger tee is just a great view, and it straightens the hole quite a bit.  It could also be even longer, since the elevation makes the hole play a bit shorter than the yardage would have you think.

The 12th, with its 3 trees engenders plenty of stragedy (sic).  There's still a left option, and there's a right option.  but they both are about 10 yards wide, and you must flirt with trees or hazard respectively.  Miss that corridor on either side, and you have to manufacture something, which can be really fun.

The most fun is watching a big hitter smoke one down the middle, and be absolutely dead.  That's golf unfairness at its very best.

12 is a great hole still.

The rest of Stanford is very susceptible to the problem of modern technology.  Holes that seemed insanely long to me 10 years ago, now are often driver / wedge.  I.e. 13.  it's pretty common for people to find the speed zone on 18 and have 90 yds in, as well...

#2 WAS a bear, but now I just cut the left corner and often have 145 or less in from the cardinal tees.  I have made a par from the new back tee (485), and the bunkers are in play from there, so I can't say it's bad at all...

[John Kirk]

...and it is still a beautiful walk through a great place in the world.  Stanford University is special, and not just because I was born and raised there.  Coastal range foothills, yellow with dried out native grasses, dotted with live and valley oaks, and air conditioned by ocean fog.  Smart people, too.

I agree with JK that the 3rd and 4th don't match the others, and I wish they would bring in a historically sensitive architect to restore the Bell/Thomas look that was lost.  If you've seen original photos of the course, you'll know how lovely it all was.

Also strongly agree the course has lost its original playing intent with technology improvements.  They had to narrow fairways and lengthen rough to defend par.  Back in the 1980s it was wide open, but long.

Another JK

[Jon Spaulding]

Agree with both JK's on most counts. Not having been there in 10 years, and being a lesser player today, I was still finding shorter shots than memory would serve. Watching TW the last time I was out there, on a rainy day, hit a driver around the corner on #1 and an iron into #16 is something that the memory will hang onto.

#12 continues as a tough, unfair hole.....and one that I look forward to next time! The course was still as good as I remember; one of the less spoiled settings one will find in CA.

[Steve Pieracci]

The most fun is watching a big hitter smoke one down the middle, and be absolutely dead.  That's golf unfairness at its very best.

12 is a great hole still.

You mean like this.....
This was taken from where my tee ball landed.  ~165 yards to a front right pin, into a slight breeze.  

[Patrick Schultheis]

I live outside Seattle now but typically play the course twice per year --- once in April for the Buck/Cardinal Club tourney and once in the fall with my father-in-law (an alum, like me, but > 80 years old now, so not hitting it as far as he did in his golfing prime).

I love the course, but believe that my fondness for the school and course make my opinion suspect.  I share John Kirk's nostalgia.

Trying to put that aside, there remain some very solid golf holes on the course --- at least for this mid-handicapper holes 2, 5, 7, 9, 13 and 15 in particular --- but the 3/4 re-do (while necessary from a Sand Hill Road perspective) hurt the course.  Certainly holes like 1 and 6 and 18 are too easy now for Tiger, Notah and even Mr. Watson.