San Francisco Golf Club--A Great Place (pics)

[Jed Peters]

This was a great day out at SFGC, certainly a day to remember. I would agree with Chip Gaskins who stated that this was the most magnificently routed course he's played. I would have to agree.

Just unreal.

Enjoy. If anyone feels motivated to post the actual pictures here, knock yourself out.

http://gallery.me.com/jedpeters#100425&view=grid&bgcolor=black&sel=1

[Matt_Cohn]

teaser

[Mike Benham]

Just a few questions ...


How were the conditions?  The quality of the fairway turf?


Where does SFGC rank among your NorCal favorites?

[Tom Huckaby]

One more question too:

Had you played the course before the Doak restoration of the Tillinghast holes on the back nine?  And if so, what was your impression?  Was it a net improvement?

TH

[Ian Andrew]

I can’t think of another better example of using scale and views.

On another thread someone posted an aerial and mentioned there was little room left – but what is lost in that overhead is the width in fairways and between holes. The scale of the course deceives you when looking at the aerial.

Jed’s images in the link often show the view across to other holes and that is one of the keys to enjoying San Francisco. There are many places – like around the clubhouse – where the absence of trees is impressive. I find that San Francisco is a rare setting where borrowed scenery is an integral part of the course. I can’t emphasize enough how often you are drawn to look over at the other holes – from interesting viewing angles – or back to the spectacular clubhouse.

The other thing I enjoyed was the openness under the Cypress trees. While there are many great trees, few seem to have an impact on the views across the property, while they still seem to manage enough separation between holes to frame the hole your on. It’s a wonderful balancing act that reminds me of Riviera.

I recommend everyone go through Jed’s images and think only about the setting for 5 minutes. I think there is an incredible lesson about how important the area beyond the fairways, bunkers and greens is to creating a great design.

Once you add in the details of bunkers and green contours and you can see why this is one of my biggest influences so far.

[Tom Huckaby]

I recommend Pat Mucci read this sentence and learn it, live it, take it to heart, get over this "setting has zero role" crap he's been spewing for too many years:

I recommend everyone go through Jed’s images and think only about the setting for 5 minutes. I think there is an incredible lesson about how important the area beyond the fairways, bunkers and greens is to creating a great design.

Ian is spot on about all of this, specifically to SFGC but also in general.

TH

[Jed Peters]

Just a few questions ...


How were the conditions?  The quality of the fairway turf?


Where does SFGC rank among your NorCal favorites?

The turf was playable. I was amazed at the amount of clay there, especially compared to olympic.

That being said, it's probably in worse "shape" than Olympic Lake was when I played there last in September. Greens were better, though.

Where does it rank? Best course or my favorite? I think the two are different.....

[Tom Huckaby]

Jed:

Give us both - best course, favorite.  I tend to think of those as the same (different logic than you) but most do call those different.

And I gather you hadn't played the prior iternation, darn it.  It would be interesting to get some more perspective on that.  Oh well.

TH

[Deucie Bies]

Tom,

I enjoyed the new holes more than the old holes.  I love short par 3s and I think the new 13 turned out nicely.  The new 14 is a straight, short par 4.  I think the new 15 has the potential to be a great golf hole.  Overall, I think it was a good move by the club.  Plus, I am a traditionalist.  And it might also have to do with the fact that I made a 7 on the old 15 which led to me not breaking 80 by one shot!

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

I enjoyed the new holes more than the old holes.  I love short par 3s and I think the new 13 turned out nicely.  The new 14 is a straight, short par 4.  I think the new 15 has the potential to be a great golf hole.  Overall, I think it was a good move by the club.  Plus, I am a traditionalist.  And it might also have to do with the fact that I made a 7 on the old 15 which led to me not breaking 80 by one shot!

Deucie:

Very cool.  That seems to be a common opinion, especially among participants in this forum.  Thanks!

BTW are you named such because you dominate par threes?

 

[Deucie Bies]

My previous post would indicate that that is not the case with my nice 7 on the old 15!  I am junior so "Deucie."  The curse of the nickname.

[Tom Huckaby]

My previous post would indicate that that is not the case with my nice 7 on the old 15!  I am junior so "Deucie."  The curse of the nickname.

Very cool, just having some fun with you.  Love the name.

 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ian

By "borrowed scenery" -- great, great term -- being an "integral" part, you mean that stuff which sits outside the hole provides some sort of function for that hole, be it scale, visual deception, that sort of thing.  Yes?

That is an amazing concept.

Tom, if that's what Ian is getting at then Pat Mucci likely would respond that he meant something like non-functional visuals, which is different from, say, "scenery for scenery's sake."

The scenery that is borrowed must play an integral role.  The oceans and other holes matter on Pebble 6 or CPC 16 only if they can be shown to provide some sort of practical function in the play of the hole; otherwise it's ornamentation.

Of course, some may debate what constitutes "integral," but I guess that's what lawyers do.

Mark

[Joel_Stewart]

Just a few questions ...


How were the conditions?  The quality of the fairway turf?


Where does SFGC rank among your NorCal favorites?

The turf was playable. I was amazed at the amount of clay there, especially compared to olympic.

That being said, it's probably in worse "shape" than Olympic Lake was when I played there last in September. Greens were better, though.

Where does it rank? Best course or my favorite? I think the two are different.....

There is no clay at SFGC.  The entire propery sits on a sand dune.  It is true that under 1/2 inch of the turf is mud, just thatch built up over many many years.   I've talked to many members, the pro and superintendent about it and they simply have to top dress the fairways.  Its the single best thing (and only) feature the superintendent has done at Olympic which had outstanding results.   The superintendent at SFGC said its very expensive and they have no plans to do it but it was maybe 2 years ago that I discussed it.

To me, the new holes are no better or worse that the old holes.  What I have tried to discuss with some members who liked the old holes is 1) they don't like change and need to adapt and 2) they did the right thing.  It was by far the right thing to do and restore the old holes.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ian

By "borrowed scenery" -- great, great term -- being an "integral" part, you mean that stuff which sits outside the hole provides some sort of function for that hole, be it scale, visual deception, that sort of thing.  Yes?

That is an amazing concept.

Tom, if that's what Ian is getting at then Pat Mucci likely would respond that he meant something like non-functional visuals, which is different from, say, "scenery for scenery's sake."

The scenery that is borrowed must play an integral role.  The oceans and other holes matter on Pebble 6 or CPC 16 only if they can be shown to provide some sort of practical function in the play of the hole; otherwise it's ornamentation.

Of course, some may debate what constitutes "integral," but I guess that's what lawyers do.

Mark

Mark:  I think you're right about what Ian means - I was just having fun picking on Mucci again.  Ther are no particular great outward views on SFGC, and it's more how it all functions in the playing of the golf holes as to what's going on there.

BUT.. as long as we are on this again... must I put you down with Mucci, among the soul-less, based on how you took it further?

Allow me to clarify and perhaps allow you to save your golfing soul.  My feeling is that what you call ornamentation does have SOME ROLE in enjoyment of the golf course.  Visuals extending outward - which do not come into "play" in any way other than perhaps some tiny bit of deception maybe, or distraction just due to their beauty - do matter, because they can inspire the golfer or make for a better experience.  Tom Doak himself has said that maximizing such things is a goal he has - and all architects should have - on courses with such views to be offered.  And it's not that such views are the be all and end all - far from it - it's more than the views do matter, to some small extent.

Mucci has claimed time and time again they have ZERO role.

So are you indeed with him in this, and against Doak (and me and all with souls)?

TH

[Patrick Kiser]

Visuals extending outward - which do not come into "play" in any way other than perhaps some tiny bit of deception maybe, or distraction just due to their beauty - do matter, because they can inspire the golfer or make for a better experience.
TH

My experience has been when vistas open up ... depth perception is affected and that alone makes it more difficult to judge distance and also ... the element of wind kicks in much more.  Wind becomes a more important component and naturally gets into your head.

So I think it certainly affects play.  At least, that's been my experience.

My two cents.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Deception: okay
Distraction: pointless

If the designer makes purposeful use of a feature out of play or a vista, he converts the external into the internal and renders it functional rather than pornographic.

I have been disappointed by courses and restaurants with pretty views more times than I can count.  It's the courses that lack soul.


Mark

[Tom Huckaby]

Deception: okay
Distraction: pointless

If the designer makes purposeful use of a feature out of play or a vista, he converts the external into the internal and renders it functional rather than pornographic.

I have been disappointed by courses and restaurants with pretty views more times than I can count.  It's the courses that lack soul.


Mark

Excellent.  So you do have a soul, and can appreciate these, as evidenced by your first line. 
Mucci maintains they have zero role no matter what, good or bad.  He'd disagree with your first line.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Visuals extending outward - which do not come into "play" in any way other than perhaps some tiny bit of deception maybe, or distraction just due to their beauty - do matter, because they can inspire the golfer or make for a better experience.
TH

My experience has been when vistas open up ... depth perception is affected and that alone makes it more difficult to judge distance and also ... the element of wind kicks in much more.  Wind becomes a more important component and naturally gets into your head.

So I think it certainly affects play.  At least, that's been my experience.

My two cents.

Cool.  You agree with me and Doak and disagree with Mucci the soul-less.  Welcome, friend.

 

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

Your comment about courses and restaurants with a view is very interesting.

In the restaurant business, when you have a great location (because of a view, or a busy corner), and people come for the location, the food doesn't have to be good to keep the place full, so the management doesn't spend on quality.

I don't know if that's true in golf courses, but it shouldn't be.  A beautiful site is a great opportunity in the right hands.

[Mike Benham]

The turf was playable. I was amazed at the amount of clay there, especially compared to olympic.

That being said, it's probably in worse "shape" than Olympic Lake was when I played there last in September. Greens were better, though.

Where does it rank? Best course or my favorite? I think the two are different.....

Thanks ... either category works or both ...

[Mark Bourgeois]

Yes, it may be different with restaurants.  Great restaurants require great eaters, discriminating palates.  Restaurant Culture is why New York, San Francisco and New Orleans have great restaurants from top to bottom and why the rest of the country is chained up. The chefs and management are not tested and so the strong can't differentiate themselves from the weak.  There's weak or no Darwinian selection.

On the other hand, if the setting is such that it drives the routing and design of the holes, i.e., give the golfers lots of views, rather than letting the terrain drive the design, then the design doesn't need to do much more than give golfers pretty views.

A beautiful site for views isn't the same thing as a beautiful site for golf, is it?

Mark

[Jason Topp]

The pictures seem to show a lot of flat fairways.  Am I being deceived?

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

You're right, what some people would consider a "beautiful site" isn't necessarily an ideal site for golf.

Jason:

Most of the fairways at SFGC are tilted -- the whole property tilts markedly from the east end (13th hole and 18th tee) to the west (4th hole) -- but they don't have much in the way of internal undulations, which is probably why there's so much fairway bunkering.

[Jed Peters]

The turf was playable. I was amazed at the amount of clay there, especially compared to olympic.

That being said, it's probably in worse "shape" than Olympic Lake was when I played there last in September. Greens were better, though.

Where does it rank? Best course or my favorite? I think the two are different.....

Jed:

Give us both - best course, favorite.  I tend to think of those as the same (different logic than you) but most do call those different.

And I gather you hadn't played the prior iternation, darn it.  It would be interesting to get some more perspective on that.  Oh well.

TH

Thanks ... either category works or both ...

Favorite course in Norcal to play:

MPCC Shore

Best course in Norcal design wise that I've played:

SFGC

I haven't played Cypress, but I've pretty much played all the other biggies.