News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Josh Smith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #50 on: January 07, 2009, 04:44:19 PM »
Nice work Ran,

        In addition to all those thanked in addition to the nematodes, we should thank the diseased mature pine trees that were deemed a safety hazard to golfers around 8 years ago.  The club pulled out thousands of trees at that point.  (as I have witnessed in photos, you couldn't see across fairways due to massive, thick pines, ie 13, 14, 15, those which are shared fairways today.  You can imagine the shade.

        And as importantly, not leave out BRAD KLEIN for helping the club realize how they should embrace their pedigree more, explaining how much this course could be improved.  Dave Wilber is also high among those whose involvment was so important.  The GM of almost 30 years Dennis Mahoney was the perfect guy to have at the helm.
        Also, on the straight "getting things done" side of thanking management people, assistant Grant Johnson and Roger Smidstra put long hours in to help carry out all the in house activities, which included tree clearing, stump gringing, chipping, hydroseeding, bunker drainage and finish work
        To answer a few questions...

        So far, the bunkers have drained excellent, and there have been few wash outs to date, and minor washes at that.  We plan to install sand trapper matting in those few spots this year.

        As for the number, most felt strongly we should not stray from what we found on the 37 and 38 aerials, given the pedigree there.  So we do have a lot, but not quite 150.  It is high 130s or low 140s on the course itself.  I would mentally count them now, but have exams to study for at Rutgers.

        The crew that maintains them is small, but does have a lot of work, this is mainly because we hand rake them all and cut a lot of the grass with weed eaters.  We feel these things are mandatory given the artistic nature of these hazards. 
 
        On the hole though, the fine fescue that surrounds the bunkers grows slower than the old poa annua and we do not edge the bunkers mechanically, which was very time consuming on the old course.  We will attempt to keep them from shrinking over time, but not by mechanically edging them and cuttiing into soil.  Also, many fairway edges go directly into the fronts of traps and as far as we can tell, those edges are less maintenance, the sidewinder riding mower can cut that grass in one or two passes.  No handwork really necessary there.

         No sod was used on this project, which is something we are really proud of. (except for right around the clubhouse where some walk paths were redesigned).  We hydroseeded 100 percent of the grassed areas, including bunker edges, roughs, natives, fws, and hydromulch capped greens and tees after drop seeding them.

         One final note, when ranking courses how much do you weigh the variety of shot options and shortgrass around all the greens?  I consider it pretty important.

Tom Huckaby

Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #51 on: January 07, 2009, 04:52:01 PM »
Josh - excellent stuff, and man when I was there in October, conditions were freakin' incredible.  Firm and fast, in an area where that would seem to be impossible.  I swear it was miraculous.  How has the winter treated things?\

As for this:  when ranking courses how much do you weigh the variety of shot options and shortgrass around all the greens?  I consider it pretty important.

I'd say it is pretty darn important also, and is one reason why Cal Club ought to be ranked/rated/assessed so highly.

Top 5 in our state, however... well.... hopefully you can understand that it's nothing AGAINST Cal Club if I believe that's overstating things a bit - it's just a matter of some very very very stiff competition.

TH

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #52 on: January 07, 2009, 04:54:19 PM »
Josh,

Very interesting point you make about no sod being used on this project. This undoubtledly had a very positive effect on the wonderful look of the renovated bunkers.

Almost without exception, bunkers come out better looking when (hydro)seeded as opposed to sod being laid. Agreed?
jeffmingay.com

Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #53 on: January 07, 2009, 05:29:10 PM »
Scott,

As Ran points out in his profile, Mackenzie rebunkered California Golf Club after Macan was there; only a few years after, actually. The Phillips bunkers were created on the Mackenzie model. And, I think they look fantastic.

As for Macan's bunker style. I've been doing a lot of research on Macan. I have historic photos of Colwood (1913), Inglewood (1920), Fircrest (1924) and Victoria (1928-30) for example. His bunker stylings seem to be varied from site to site, which is interesting. 

I'm glad to hear you say it's a shame so much of Macan's work has been erased. I wholeheartedly agree. Macan was a real talent, and certainly a pioneer golf course architect in the Pacific Northwest. He was remarkably passionate about his work as well.

I think a lot of changes were made to his original golf course designs, not to practically resolve problems, but more likely to simply justify consulting fees and keep up with design trends.

Unfortunate.

I'm looking forward to the day I have opportunity to work on a Macan course. Through my research I've learned there are a couple EXCELLENT candidates for "restoration". It'd be a nice tribute to the man, and a great asset for the club in question.

Jeff
And we shouldn't forget that the bunker work was undertaken by Mackenzie and Hunter, and accordingly Robert Hunter should get his fair share of the credit for the rebunkering of the course that was done back in 1927, as it is more than likely he spent a deal more time on site than Mackenzie ever did. While I have no information to confirm this, I would think that their American Golf Course Construction Co would have done the construction work - can any of Kyle's team confirm this from the club's records? Thanks in advance.

Great thread and profile, and well done to the club and all on Kyle's team.
Neil

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #54 on: January 07, 2009, 05:34:05 PM »
Good point about Hunter's involvement, and the American Golf Course Construction Co. doing the work, Neil. I'm sure Mark Thawley or Josh Smith probably have this info.
jeffmingay.com

mark chalfant

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #55 on: January 07, 2009, 06:51:55 PM »
I had a great time seeing the course  with Ed Getka and Josh in February.  It was a joy to play Calclub  on a sunny day this past November.

I must say that Ran M. got carried away  on his "top five"  grade for Calclub. I would rate it only number 5 or 6  in the state !!
Is there anyone that thinks par fours or par fives at Valley Club are the equal of Calclub ?   I sure dont.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2009, 12:13:35 AM by mark chalfant »

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #56 on: January 07, 2009, 07:09:27 PM »
OK, let's get down to brass tacks.  Just how high up can anyone put Cal Club?

I'm pretty close to how Robert Warren sees it... though I wonder if I can get it above SFGC.  Man that's a tough one.

BUT... and of course the key word is indeed "arguably"... can anyone make a case that Cal Club is rock-solid, no doubt, absolutely better than most in this list, such that it is top 5?

Cypress Point
Pebble Beach
SFGC
LACC North
Riviera
Pasatiempo
MPCC Dunes
MPCC Shore
Olympic Club Lake
Meadow Club
Valley Club of Montecito
Spyglass Hill
Mayacama
Preserve
Lake Merced
Lakeside
Stone Eagle
(all the other great courses in Palm Desert)
(all the great courses in the greater Sacramento / Tahoe area)

and I'm sure I am forgetting some.

My feeling is Cal Club - as great as it is - and I do think it is pretty damn great - should more correctly be assessed as "arguably Top 10" - which is one hell of a compliment considering the company.

The more I think about it, I can't see much justification for getting it Top 5.  Not when we consider the entire state.

TH


Tom, is this list in order?
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Josh Smith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #57 on: January 07, 2009, 08:50:32 PM »
Neil,

        Here is this.  Should back up the fact that the construction company you mention worked at Cal Club.  As you know Sean Tully has dug up a few gems regarding Mac and Hunter at Cal Club, it would be great if he could share those tidbits.



Thanks for the note, will get back to you soon.

Josh

Scott Stambaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #58 on: January 07, 2009, 09:43:05 PM »
On the hole though, the fine fescue that surrounds the bunkers grows slower than the old poa annua and we do not edge the bunkers mechanically, which was very time consuming on the old course.  We will attempt to keep them from shrinking over time, but not by mechanically edging them and cuttiing into soil. 

No sod was used on this project, which is something we are really proud of. (except for right around the clubhouse where some walk paths were redesigned).  We hydroseeded 100 percent of the grassed areas, including bunker edges, roughs, natives, fws, and hydromulch capped greens and tees after drop seeding them.


Josh-

Two questions on the above-

How do you plan to edge the bunkers?

What was the seed mix/rate you used around the bunkers?

Thanks.

Scott

Patrick_Mucci

Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #59 on: January 07, 2009, 10:13:22 PM »


Josh,

I've observed more clubs employing new methods for building their steep bunker faces.  Methods that tend to insure their structural stability, despite the steep nature of the bunker face.  I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on the technique used at the Cal Club.

Another question I have deals with the picture below.

Why was the ridge line row planted with those trees ?
I've seen the technique on other courses.
Was the planting intended as a wind barrier ?
Or for some other purpose ?
Was it a propertyl line issue ?
In light of the date of construction and limited play, it would seem that the safety issue wasn't the primary issue behind the initial planting. 
I'd appreciate any insight into the reason for the row planting.
What other clubs that you're familiar with have employed that technique ?




Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #60 on: January 07, 2009, 10:34:05 PM »
Thanks Josh
I had heard of this advert but not seen it before, thanks for posting it. Certainly confirms the AGCCCo doing the construction work and would also tend to indicate that Hunter had a good deal to do with the on-site construction work and detail design of the bunkers in particular. Hunter's son Robert Hunter Jr was Managing Director of the AGCCCo. Do you have any precise dates for when the construction happened in 1927? It would be interesting to see Mackenzie's movements during this time so as to see how often he could have visited.

Pat
Looking at that photo, I'd guess those trees behind the tenth green would be at least 10 years old, possibly 15.

This from Ran's profile:
"Originally incorporated in 1918, the club moved from its Ingleside location to its present site in 1924. Referred to as the Baden property after Baden Farms, the new site was well removed from what then constituted the city of San Francisco."

My take is that these trees were already there as part of the old farm boundary prior to the course opening in 1924. Perhaps they were intended as a wind break for the farm.

Neil

Carl Nichols

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #61 on: January 07, 2009, 10:59:14 PM »
Ran's profile and this discussion are, IMHO, one of the reasons why GCA is so great. There is terrific information here and great insights into things I wouldn't previously have considered.

Great stuff!

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #62 on: January 07, 2009, 11:50:10 PM »
I still think the turf grow-in is one of the most impressive things about the project besides the incredible bunker construction technique. 

Josh, is gibberellic acid added to the hydroseed slurry something of standard practice and a big factor in the success of the healthy grow-in? 
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Tom Huckaby

Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #63 on: January 08, 2009, 10:07:10 AM »
OK, let's get down to brass tacks.  Just how high up can anyone put Cal Club?

I'm pretty close to how Robert Warren sees it... though I wonder if I can get it above SFGC.  Man that's a tough one.

BUT... and of course the key word is indeed "arguably"... can anyone make a case that Cal Club is rock-solid, no doubt, absolutely better than most in this list, such that it is top 5?

Cypress Point
Pebble Beach
SFGC
LACC North
Riviera
Pasatiempo
MPCC Dunes
MPCC Shore
Olympic Club Lake
Meadow Club
Valley Club of Montecito
Spyglass Hill
Mayacama
Preserve
Lake Merced
Lakeside
Stone Eagle
(all the other great courses in Palm Desert)
(all the great courses in the greater Sacramento / Tahoe area)

and I'm sure I am forgetting some.

My feeling is Cal Club - as great as it is - and I do think it is pretty damn great - should more correctly be assessed as "arguably Top 10" - which is one hell of a compliment considering the company.

The more I think about it, I can't see much justification for getting it Top 5.  Not when we consider the entire state.

TH


Tom, is this list in order?

Not really - or at least not that I want to defend.  I was just thinking about great courses and these are how they came to my mind.  I didn't try to order them.  I sure as heck wouldn't leave the last part as two large geographic areas is I was to try to make an ordered list.

TH

Sean_Tully

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #64 on: January 08, 2009, 10:54:48 AM »


Josh,

I've observed more clubs employing new methods for building their steep bunker faces.  Methods that tend to insure their structural stability, despite the steep nature of the bunker face.  I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on the technique used at the Cal Club.

Another question I have deals with the picture below.

Why was the ridge line row planted with those trees ?
I've seen the technique on other courses.
Was the planting intended as a wind barrier ?
Or for some other purpose ?
Was it a propertyl line issue ?
In light of the date of construction and limited play, it would seem that the safety issue wasn't the primary issue behind the initial planting. 
I'd appreciate any insight into the reason for the row planting.
What other clubs that you're familiar with have employed that technique ?




Pat

If you look at the 1938 aerial you can see that it was an old property line that was retained for one reason or another. The site can be very windy and it serves a purpose of a wind break and this idea could very well have been taken to an extreme at the course, accounting for the over planting of trees. Over time the trees would also protect golfers on the 10th green from tee shots coming from the highly elevated tee shot on the 8th. One can also see that there is a bunker playing short and right trying to divert play towards the left as well.

Tully

Also interesting for those that want to see how drastic the changes to the course were during the renovation, look at he current google map!

mark chalfant

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #65 on: January 08, 2009, 12:11:28 PM »
Is there anyone that thinks the back nine at Pebble Beach is more interesting to play than Calclubs incoming nine ?


Is there anyone that thinks the collection of par fours or the group of par fives at Valley Club are better than  those at Calclub ?

Does anyone contend that  Riviera's par threes are less varied or  less interesting than Calclubs ?


thanks


p.s.  Tom Huckaby, David Stamm, Matt Cohn, Robert Warren,  etal...   I look forward to your thoughts
« Last Edit: January 08, 2009, 12:23:44 PM by mark chalfant »

Tom Huckaby

Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #66 on: January 08, 2009, 12:32:50 PM »
Mark:  I shall take these one at a time.  But you are asking very tough questions... some of which will not paint Cal Club in the best light it might be painted in.   ;)

Is there anyone that thinks the back nine at Pebble Beach is more interesting to play than Calclubs incoming nine ?
I'd give the nod to Pebble Beach.  10-11-14-18 are all better holes than any hole on the back nine at Cal Club, and all the rest is a wash.  I for one liked the front nine at Cal Club better than the back...


Is there anyone that thinks the collection of par fours or the group of par fives at Valley Club are better than  those at Calclub ?
have to plead the fifth here - don't remember Valley Club well enough to say.  I have only played there once and it's been a few years now.


Does anyone contend that  Riviera's par threes are less varied or  less interesting than Calclubs ?
basing this more on TV and pictures than play, given it's been 20+ years since I've played Riviera... but I'd give the overall nod to Cal Club here, very slightly.  The variation of par threes at Cal Club is very very cool.  Riv has this as well... tough call.  Both great sets.  But I will have to go with Cal Club, by a whisker.








Morgan Clawson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #67 on: January 08, 2009, 12:43:32 PM »
Great profile!

I played this course about 10 years ago.  The course was a mess as they were starting a massive tree removal project.  The member we played with was quite upset about the removal of the trees. 

I do not remember any of these terrific views; there were probably too many trees blocking the way!

TX Golf

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #68 on: January 08, 2009, 01:40:34 PM »
Mark,

These are definitely some tough questions and I will have to plead the fifth as well in regards to Valley Club as I have never had the chance to play there.

In regards to the back nine at Pebble, I thought it was interesting that Tom thought he liked the front more than the back. That shows how far this course has come as before the restoration you'd have to be legally insane to make that argument. I would say most people are now split on whether the front or back is better. Back to the question at hand.... and where I disagree with Tom. I agree that the 10th and 18th holes at Pebble are better than any of those on the back nine as they are two of the most famous golf holes in the world, with 18 maybe being THE MOST famous. However, after those two holes, I don't know if there is another hole I would rather play at Pebble over Cal. I know this doesn't directly answer the question but I was thinking a little hole by hole match play might be of help.

10- Pebble (unfortunately because I LOVE and think the 10th at Cal is one of the best on the course)
11- Cal (The tee shot is easy but needs to be positioned properly, and the options around the green are tremendous)
12- Cal (Don't think there is much of an argument here)
13- Cal (One of the most difficult yet fun par 4s out there. One of my favorite uphill par 4s out there)
14- Draw (I love both holes)
15- Cal (The uphill par 5 isn't only gorgeous, but there are options abound through out the entire hole. The more you flirt with the bunkers off the tee the more direct route to the hole. If you aren't going for the green in two the new central fairway bunkers make the lay up extremely interesting. The green and its surrounds are INCREDIBLE and one of the coolest around. I don't see how the 15th at Pebble can compare)
16- Draw (Great short par 3 for Cal and a fun little par 4 at Pebble. Neither is the best ever but I enjoy both holes)
17- Cal (par 5 vs par 3 makes it fairly difficult but I still give the nod to Cal as it presents so many options and challenges compared to a 4 iron that must be nutted to an incredibly small green.)
18- Pebble (Kinda obvious)


As to the par 3s at Cal and Riviera I will agree that Cal gets the slight nod.
Between the 6th, 8th, 12th, and 16th holes at Cal I don't know if you can get much more variation. The 6th is on of my favorite par 3s anywhere. The new 8th is a tremendous long downhiller with many options as Ran pointed out in his profile. The 12th is a gorgeous, uphill, and tough hole but still allows for the lesser player (or even better player from the back tees) to play a shot the runs up towards the green while the bunkering and short grass again allows for options galore around the green. Then the short 16th is in my opinion the perfect hole for its location on the course. After 3 tough long holes, and before the final 2 tough holes, it can act that the perfect savior or destroyer of a round. I have personally made two birdies, 2 pars, and a 6 (after hitting it in the back bunker). I spent time describing the holes at Cal as I think most are more familiar with those at Riviera. I love the 3s at Riviera as well but I think Cal has one of the better sets of 3s around.

Sorry I couldn't help with Valley Club but like I said I haven't ever had the chance to tee it up. Hopefully I will get the opportunity someday. Hopefully this helped answer a few of your questions.

Robert

John Handley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #69 on: January 08, 2009, 01:42:52 PM »
I think the most important thing here is the transformation of a pretty good golf course into a great one.  The design elements and shot making stratgey at the Cal Club is among the greats.  As for detemining which ones are best....that is subjective.  No offense to Tom, but it's kind of like determining which college team is #1 this year, Florida, Ou, Texas, USC or Utah.  Each has their own quality resume and everyone else has their own opinion.

I have played CPC, Pebble, LACC, SFGC, Riv, Pasatiempo, MPCC Dunes, Meadow, Lakeside, Olympic and Spyglass and am a member of the Cal Club.  What I would honestly say is that the Cal Club absolutey belongs in that list of great California Golf Courses.  Where it ranks in my opinion is purely subjective.  All I know is that I am very fortunate to have such a true test of golf awaiting me every time I step to the first tee.  And that my friends is a really cool thing.
2024 Line Up: Spanish Oaks GC, Cal Club, Cherokee Plantation, Huntercombe, West Sussex, Hankley Common, Royal St. Georges, Sunningdale New & Old, CC of the Rockies, Royal Lytham, Royal Birkdale, Formby, Royal Liverpool, Swinley Forest, St. George's Hill, Berkshire Red, Walton Heath Old, Austin GC,

Tom Huckaby

Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #70 on: January 08, 2009, 02:00:00 PM »
John H:

Hey, I was just commenting on Ran's calling it "arguably top 5 in the state".  I fully agree it's very subjective.  You are indeed very lucky to have that great course at your disposal.  And hopefully you understand it's absolutely no knock on your course if I say it's "arguably top 10" instead... My point was not to knock Cal Club at all but rather to point out that the competition is very stiff and thus that is a quite tall statement. 

What is inarguable (I think) is that it certainly belongs in the conversation with all of the courses you mentioned.  It is that great.  And I would not have said that about it before.


Robert:

I enjoyed the front nine more than the back primarily because I get somewhat turned off by any series of up and back golf holes - that's it.  That being said, each hole by itself is indeed quite great.  I won't quibble with the comparison to Pebble, as of course that is subjective... but let's just say we will continue to disagree.. But of course I have been fortunate to play Pebble many times, and the new Cal Club but once. 


TH


TX Golf

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #71 on: January 08, 2009, 02:00:51 PM »
Absolutely John.... I can't wait for Ran to post his before photos so people can really see the transformation that took place. It would be even better if anyone had some pictures from back in the late 90's!!!!

Tom,

Completely agree... Hopefully I will be able to play Pebble some more in the future if they start dropping prices!!!
« Last Edit: January 08, 2009, 02:03:47 PM by Robert Warren »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #72 on: January 08, 2009, 02:51:22 PM »
If Sean Arble sees this write-up I think his head will explode.   ;D

Based on his prior comments, he thinks a majority on this site are hyper-focused on bunkering.  Seeing the comments on here and the photos of Cal Club I'm sure it will just reinforce that opinion. 

The course looks gorgeous and I agree the bunkering looks very Mackenzien, but I go back to the maintenance and playability aspects of the course.  How does this bunker redo impact the course as a whole?  Aside from getting us all warm and fuzzy because someone placated to our restoration sensibilities, does the playing of the course improve from what it was prior to Phillips work? 

Chris

I don't know what all the fuss is about!!!  For some reason (and not unlike Muirfield), from the photos, the bunkering seems to work for me.  Perhaps its down to there being a bit of space without too many trees.  I don't know, but I think Cal Club looks to be a great course and one of a handful of courses profiled on this site which very much intrigues.  Tell me, somebody, anybody, what do Ballyneal, Longshadow, Leatherstocking, Cal Club, Wolf Point (and a few others whose names escape me right now) have in common?

Ran

Thanks for one of your best writeups to date!

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Josh Smith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #73 on: January 13, 2009, 03:28:01 PM »
Guys,

Below is a link to a turfnet video shot at Cal Club during construction.  In one of the shots you can see a paddlewheel scraper cutting where old lake bank fill dirt was and taking it up towards a back tee location on 10.  Kyle and Mark used a natual topo map from before there was a golf course here, from before 1926, to rearrange the natural swale where the lakes were later located in the early 90's near 11 and 18 green. The scraper also helped with the dirtwork between the old range and hole 2.  This video may explain why we were closed for 14 months.


http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1119170378?bclid=604573469&bctid=1119169264 

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...
« Reply #74 on: January 13, 2009, 06:06:31 PM »
Cool video, Josh. Thanks for the link.

As you know, I'm in the golf course design and construction business. But still, looking at the "after" photos of the California Golf Club renovation, I didn't get the sense that so much of the property was torn up in the process.

I think, in a round about way, this is another compliment to all involved  :)
jeffmingay.com

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back