California Golf Club of San Francisco profile is posted ...

[Kevin_Reilly]

This description about the 7th green ..

The green juts out into the same hazard that the tee ball carries, making it the proper definition of  a Cape hole

is hard for me to visualize from the standpoint of the second shot, where from the picture below the "jut" isn't as apparent.  I assume the green appears more into the hazard when standing in the fairway than it does from this picture?

[Kevin_Reilly]

A few questions about the bunkering.

What is the overall tally of bunkers now?

There appear to be some bunkers that should be out of play for all "mediocre and above" shots...e.g. the bunker on the far right of this picture of the 11th green:



Or are shaped/sized such that a shot to the hole would have to be absolutely horrible to be caught by that portion of the bunker...e.g. the back center bunker on the 125-yd 16th that has a tongue extending up the hill quite a ways...



Does the commentary re the bunkers on the 12th

Some members note with a wry smile that MacKenzie did his most lavish bunkering on the holes most visible from the clubhouse, namely, the tenth, eleventh, twelfth and eighteenth holes. Indeed, these four holes have twenty-seven bunkers which is nearly the same amount that Augusta National had on its entire course when it opened in 1933. In effect, the members wanted more bunkers and MacKenzie delivered, especially where they were in plain sight! Perhaps the biggest beneficiary is found here with this par three that plays away from the clubhouse to a green located across a gully. MacKenzie's artistry is such that even if not playing, one is content to soak up the view.

apply to these bunkers that might have flair but maybe not "strategic flair"?  The above comments/examples could probably apply to several of the bunkers pictured in the profile.  The "eye candy" discussion about CPC's 13th has probably been beaten to death here, but does the same question apply here?

I haven't played Cal Club since the early 80's, so these questions are based on the pictures, not walking the grounds or playing the course.

[Kyle Henderson]

When Kyle Phillips addressed a host of GCAers at Morgan Creek, he described the original hole at the Cal Club (can't remember the number) that ran along the winding creek (visible at the top of the 1938 aerial photo). It's a great pity that hole cannot be returned to its original state (that creek is now a major road). That irreversible blight aside, a spectacular effort by all involved, it appears.

I think the one component that made this project so successful, a lesson which should be taken to heart by other courses in need of renovation, is the sandcapping/conditioning component. Even the best courses become monotonous when you're throwing darts at every green from any distance. Let's just hope the USGA doesn't try to bring a major tourney into to the Cal Club. I'd hate to see a silly looking, narrow stripe of fairway cut out of deep rough between those wide cypress corridors (a la Harding Park).

[Tom Dunne]

This profile is a revelation, and the light in the photos has me pining for San Francisco. Congratulations to Kyle Phillips and the Cal Club--what a success story! With this, and DeVries at the Meadow Club, NorCal's fine old clubs seem to really be headed in a great direction.

[ed_getka]

Kyle's post reminded me of where I came up with the idea of seeing Cal Club in the first place. It was the day Jed Peters arranged for us to play Morgan Creek. That was followed by a discussion with Kyle P and Mark T about MC and then they talked about the Cal Club project. It was really cool to see two guys so obviously fired up about the work they were doing and the passion they brought to the table. I look forward to seeing more of their work in the future. Having a chance to talk to architects about their work in these different forums is one of the great rewards of being part of GCA.

[David Stamm]

apply to these bunkers that might have flair but maybe not "strategic flair"?  The above comments/examples could probably apply to several of the bunkers pictured in the profile.  The "eye candy" discussion about CPC's 13th has probably been beaten to death here, but does the same question apply here?

 

Is a bunker eye candy if one ends up in it?

[Kevin_Reilly]

No.

[TX Golf]

Kevin,

To answer a few of your questions briefly, most all of the bunkers have strategic importance. I believe there are around 150 bunkers as of now.

Also, the bunker you pointed out in your first picture is very much in play as it is actually short right of the eighteenth green and prevents any type of blind lay up shot to the bottom of the hill. There also happen to be a fair amount of cross bunker, such as on holes 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 17 that shouldn't come in play but play a large role in alignment and visual trickery. I have had the opportunity to play the new course a handful of times now and continue to be more and more amazed by the routing and placement of the bunkers. Hopefully that answered a few of your questions.

P.S.  I think Ran might be onto something as I find Cal Club to be a better course than both Olympic and San Francisco and would rank it near if not in the top five of CA as well.

[Rob Rigg]

Truly inspiring work by Kyle and his crew and an insightful profile from Ran.

The members must be blown away by the work.

Good for the club to have the balls to take this on - it must have been expensive and daunting at times, but if the only cost to convenience at the end of the day is having to trek 600 yards to the range, then this must be one of the best renovation decisions a club has ever made.

Also, to have a course that has been built or tweaked by the likes of Locke, Macan, MacKenzie and Phillips is like winning the lottery (nice to see the RTJ elements are gone).

Chapeau gentlemen!!!

[Mike Benham]

This profile is a revelation, and the light in the photos has me pining for San Francisco.

As it may not be obvious, Cal Club is not in San Francisco but is 6 or 7 miles south of The Olympic Club/SFGC/Lake Merced triangle in South San Francisco, directly in the path of the 28 departure from San Francisco International Airport.

[Patrick_Mucci]

While I like the look of the bunkers, some of which are pitched for visual effect, what's the additional cost of maintaining the bunker slopes ?

How much of a maintainance problem are those bunker slopes after a good rainfall ?

[Jeff_Mingay]

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.

[TX Golf]

Patrick,

I played the course the day morning after they had just received about an inch and a half of rain the night before and I only saw a few very minor washouts (just at the top of some of the very steepest bunkers). They used a new materials for the base of the bunkers which is supposed to be great with drainage and preventing washouts.

[Tom Huckaby]

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

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I am looking forward to playing the course. I only toured it due to having a lady with me. Cal Club was not female friendly or at least if I brought here anyway. lol

[RJ_Daley]

The write up mentions the conversion from primarily poa to a bent fescue mix in the FWs and Bent greens.  It states a whole new 4-6 inches of top soil cap was brought in.  How was this accomplished?  Was the old turf sward litterally striped, or glyphosate sprayed multiple times before recapping?  Were the greens also stripped?  How was the course reseeded or resodded?  Perhaps washed sod on greens, and grow in on FWs?  If so, the turf must be quite immature yet, I would think.  Yet the photos suggest a very healthy and advanced growth sward.  The beautiful bunker work had to have sod pinned upholstry style to be so exquisite so soon. 

How many on the crew are fully dedicated to just bunker maintenance daily?  I guess the only down side of this much artful recreation of MacKenzie's style bunkering is what the cost must be to maintain it to this absolutely gorgeous standard.  Is this club so well off that they may be somewhat immune to current economic crunch and forced budget cutbacks.  If not, do they have a plan to keep the bunkers up to a standard that is less exquisite, but returnable to this level in better times? 

After all, why were original fine bunkering presentations like MacKenzie's of the golden age lost?  I'd have to guess that hard economic times forced clubs to cut back.  In the earlier era, a cut back and loss of exquisite work like Mackenzie or Thomas bunkering would probably have been more easily lost to time and history, without faithful restoration when times got better.  I'd guess that once the old beautiful bunkers were lost, there simply wasn't talanted and restoration, recreation oriented archies to restore the lost styling.  So, it was an opening for a different set of GCA styling principles and techniques to take over like a plague (if you see the many stylings of the likes of RTJ and such as a detriment).  Now, we have people like Phillips and crew that are studious and motivated to bring back the grace and style that was lost.  That is a lucky thing for our era.  But, the wheel of fortune keeps spinning.  And, isn't it possible that a long and deep economic depression will once again work to diminish this extensive and artful, yet probably costly maintenance design.  I hope not, but at least when times turn better, there are talented folks to restore now, that there may not have been through the 40s-80s.

[Chris_Clouser]

If Sean Arble sees this write-up I think his head will explode.   

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? 

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

You guys are silly.  With all of its "faults" Olympic - Lake is among the top 5 in the state.  Now, I've not played SFGC or CPC, so I'll put an astericks on those, with the latter an obvious table-topper.  I loved Riviera and LACC, as well MPCC's courses (have not played the Strantz redesign either), but at the end of the day I'll still take the O Club... call me a homer.

And, TH, you forgot Pasatiempo.   An oversight I'm sure.

[Tom Huckaby]

Wayne - oversight about to be fixed.

 

As for OClub Lake, I'd say "arguably top 10" for that as well.  Sorry.  Man the top 5 is a very tough nut to crack.

TH

[Bill_McBride]

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, there are a lot of early photos of Columbia-Edgewater in the clubhouse if you ever get to Portland.  I didn't see anything really distinctive in those photos but I was more looking at the absence of trees than anything else!

[Jeff_Mingay]

Bill,

A startling absence of trees is pretty consistent amongst all of the historic photos of Macan courses I've seen, California Golf Club included. This problem is compounded by the nature of the trees in the Pacific Northwest, in particular, as you know!

[John Mayhugh]

Another great profile.  Seems like quite the transformation.  I really admire the vision that it took to accomplish the work.

However, it's pretty cruel timing to post it while some of us are watching it snow outside. 

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

A startling absence of trees is pretty consistent amongst all of the historic photos of Macan courses I've seen, California Golf Club included. This problem is compounded by the nature of the trees in the Pacific Northwest, in particular, as you know!

Especially the 100+ giant Sequoias planted at Columbia-Edgewater in the '60s that are now 200' tall......

[Kevin_Reilly]

While I like the look of the bunkers, some of which are pitched for visual effect, what's the additional cost of maintaining the bunker slopes ?

How much of a maintainance problem are those bunker slopes after a good rainfall ?

That was one of the reasons I asked how many bunkers there were now.  With 150+ bunkers (per Robert Warren), and some fairly large and irregularly shaped, there will be a large ongoing expense with maintenance.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Especially the 100+ giant Sequoias planted at Columbia-Edgewater in the '60s that are now 200' tall......

Bill,

Macan wasn't into playing through narrow corridors constricted by trees. It would be an interesting scenario if you could bring him back to look at his courses today... especially in light of his opinionated, vocal nature!

This said, I'm confident he'd be pleasantly stunned by the recent work at California Golf Club.