[Adam Clayman]

I'm curious how the process started at Cal Club.

How did the membership get such a good education?

Was there a single person that spearheaded the process? Educated the membership?

I ask because it seems so radical hearing a super talk about "brown" compared to most of the typical CC mindsets.

Reminds me of the Virginia Slims tag line. "You've come a long way baby".

[Joe Andriole]

It may be apocryphal but I was told that a primary cause for the renovation was noise reduction and the need for a better driving range.  Several architects were considered; it was narrowed to 3 and Kle Phillips refusal to give any preliminary plans/ thoughts won the day.  As most everyone agrees it appears to have been a good decision with a terrific outcome.

[Dave_Wilber]

I'm curious how the process started at Cal Club.

How did the membership get such a good education?

Was there a single person that spearheaded the process? Educated the membership?

I ask because it seems so radical hearing a super talk about "brown" compared to most of the typical CC mindsets.

Reminds me of the Virginia Slims tag line. "You've come a long way baby".

I helped and talked a lot about brown grass. A favorite subject.

I think it is really important, again, to give a serious shout out to Thomas Bastis and his staff. Grant, Josh and Roger, along with a ton of other dedicated and great people, pretty much gave up their lives for this project. Still have, in a lot of ways.

It was very hard for me, at times, to see Thomas and Co doing so much work and getting so little credit and I feel like cowbelling for them as much as possible.

Truth is, everyone did their Jobs. Some in different ways and some better than others. Phillips, Oliphant, Wilber, Bastis, etc...did their jobs and let others do theirs as well. I certainly have a few regrets and a few "should' haves", and I'm still confused about some First Time experiences, but for the most part, this was a very high level project and a complete and total redo unlike what most have ever seen. Daily and even hourly effort by all involved yielded some pretty spectacular results. Cal Club members were exceptional...and continue to be. I wish we had more maturation time, but delays due to several 50+ year rain events had everyone's back against the wall. The course will continue to mature and will get better, as a lot of what I see on my visits now are construction related and early play related issues.

Again...I have to speak up for Thomas and his Staff...and I'll keep doing it every time I can. He may never get to do another one of these and hey may never want to do another one of these. But this one was a serious win. As Josh can attest, there were days when we all thought that a jump off a Big Orange Bridge nearby would be a better alternative. I say we...and I wasn't even there every day. I would show up some days and the looks on everyone's face told the story. Hard just isn't the right word.

I have huge hopes for this place. I don't care if the club pays me another red cent to consult, my heart is deep in it, with my friends on staff and I'll do all I can and think all I can and be as creative as I can for the success of the place. We have a ton of things to learn and it really is a one-off situation.  This kind of thing is why I got into the business in the first place.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm curious how the process started at Cal Club.

How did the membership get such a good education?

Was there a single person that spearheaded the process? Educated the membership?

I ask because it seems so radical hearing a super talk about "brown" compared to most of the typical CC mindsets.

Reminds me of the Virginia Slims tag line. "You've come a long way baby".

Adam,

These are all good questions.

I'd like to hear the answers from a membership perspective and how the members reacted to the various issues involved with this project.

It might be a model for future projects.

[Mike Benham]

It may be apocryphal but I was told that a primary cause for the renovation was noise reduction and the need for a better driving range. 

Noise reduction?  Noise from what?

[Jed Peters]

All those damn big white birds, Mike.

As for cal club--what a gem.

Top 10 in Norcal, for sure.

Still got it behind Pebble, MPCC Shore, MPCC Dunes, and SFGC (not in that order) though for me.

Out of 10 plays in the City, it goes like this for me:

4 SFGC, 2 Cal, 2 Olympic Lake, 1 Lake Merced, 1 Harding.

[Jon Spaulding]

It may be apocryphal but I was told that a primary cause for the renovation was noise reduction and the need for a better driving range. 

Noise reduction?  Noise from what?

Noise from your new Callaway driver with a senior flex shaft......

[Jon Spaulding]

All those damn big white birds, Mike.

As for cal club--what a gem.

Top 10 in Norcal, for sure.

Still got it behind Pebble, MPCC Shore, MPCC Dunes, and SFGC (not in that order) though for me.

Out of 10 plays in the City, it goes like this for me:

4 SFGC, 2 Cal, 2 Olympic Lake, 1 Lake Merced, 1 Harding.

Jed, would you truly forego a round at SF/"new" Cal to play Harding or Lake Merced.....or are you just being nice? I could not imagine passing up an SF to play either of those two, and I like Lake Merced.

Mike/Jed.....what were some negatives about Cal Club which would place it behind SF in your personal scale. I've heard "other" locals put it behind SF, but none of them have been able to explain why.

[Kalen Braley]

Noise from these two things that someone like Barney would build...

[Jed Peters]

Jed, would you truly forego a round at SF/"new" Cal to play Harding or Lake Merced.....or are you just being nice? I could not imagine passing up an SF to play either of those two, and I like Lake Merced.

Mike/Jed.....what were some negatives about Cal Club which would place it behind SF in your personal scale. I've heard "other" locals put it behind SF, but none of them have been able to explain why.

I'm just being nice.

Really it would go 5 SFGC, 3 Cal, 2 Lake. And Lake isn't as good a course to warrant 2 plays, but I'd like to play one round from normal tees and another masochistic round from tourney tees.

I put it behind SFGC for this--

1. Property intimacy and "feeling". SFGC is better in that respect.

2. There was not a shot I "didn't like" at San Francisco. I didn't like the tee shot on 3 (need to remove trees on right side), 2nd shot on 14 (that green can't handle 200 yard shots coming in)

3. Lack of variety at Cal compared to SFGC. There were too many long uphill shots into greens at Cal where the surface is not visible for my tastes, and too many downhill shots that you couldn't really bring it in on the ground (while the fairway tumbles to the green on many holes, there are too many "valleys" or raised fronts to the green keeping the ball from rolling on--this takes away the ground game.)

4. I didn't make a putt at either of the courses, but SFGC's greens I liked more--more nuances, more subtle, etc.

5. SFGC is a more pleasant walk.

Okay, this is CRAZY I know. How the hell does one rate a course like Cal Club? The place is absolutely UNREAL. The golf course is ONE OF THE FINEST I HAVE EVER PLAYED. What they did out there is amazing. It is fantastic, a course I could play every day of the week, all week, for the rest of my life. There is literally every type of hole there--I think it's just fantastic.

PS: Dave Wilbur speaking about himself in the second person is pretty funny.

[Jed Peters]

Okay, here goes hole by hole match play with SFGC.

The fact that Cal can even be in this "match" says SO MUCH for that place--it is really that good.

1. Cal--1 up
2. SFGC--Even
3. SFGC--1 down
4. Cal--Even
5. Cal--1 up
6. SFGC--Even
7. Cal--1 up (this is the toughest call so far! The 7th at Cal is one of the best par 4s I've ever seen)
8. Cal--2 up
9. Cal--3 up
10. SFGC--2 up
11. SFGC--1 up
12. SFGC-Even
13. SFGC--1 down
14. SFGC--2 down
15. Cal Club--1 down
16. Cal Club--Even
17. Halve--both are particularly weak tee shots, both have great approaches.
18. SFGC--1 down (WINNER by 1!) Probably the best bunkered Par 5 i've ever played.

[TX Golf]

Jon,

Interesting that you mention that as I have heard many people say the same thing. "Its just better" without actually having an explanation.

It kind of goes along with Ian's new thread discussing how new courses could be just as good as some of the old greats but never have a chance of being ranked as high, just because they haven't been at the forefront of the golf community for 80 years.

After talking to Jed for a bit, he has some good points.

1. There are a couple holes at Cal where you can see houses and other crap, but at the same time that allows for some UNBELIEVABLE views. The intimacy of SFGC is pretty special, not that it is bad at Cal.

2./3. The course is pretty darn tough/long from the tips, leaving some shots for normal length golfers that they shouldn't have. 99/100 people would be better served playing the second from the back set of tees.
You have to try it from the tips at least a few times though.

4. The green complexes at Cal are AMAZING, leaving the possibility for much more "fun" and "creative" shots than exist at SF. The amount of short grass that exists helps to create the options. In terms of the greens themselves, I guess it is just personal preference. Both are great and tough to putt as there are many subtleties that that are almost impossible to read.

5. SFGC is definitely an easier walk. However, with probably 12/13 greens and tees being almost right next to each other at Cal, it is by no means a tough walk.

As for the hole by hole, I agree with Jed except for a couple holes. That is all just a matter of personal preference, as is all this stuff. Either way, they are both GREAT courses, ones that I would be happy to play every day. I have them on about even ground.

4 Cal, 4 SFGC, 2 OL.

[Jon Spaulding]

Jed, would you truly forego a round at SF/"new" Cal to play Harding or Lake Merced.....or are you just being nice? I could not imagine passing up an SF to play either of those two, and I like Lake Merced.

Mike/Jed.....what were some negatives about Cal Club which would place it behind SF in your personal scale. I've heard "other" locals put it behind SF, but none of them have been able to explain why.

I'm just being nice.

Really it would go 5 SFGC, 3 Cal, 2 Lake. And Lake isn't as good a course to warrant 2 plays, but I'd like to play one round from normal tees and another masochistic round from tourney tees.

I put it behind SFGC for this--

1. Property intimacy and "feeling". SFGC is better in that respect.

2. There was not a shot I "didn't like" at San Francisco. I didn't like the tee shot on 3 (need to remove trees on right side), 2nd shot on 14 (that green can't handle 200 yard shots coming in)

3. Lack of variety at Cal compared to SFGC. There were too many long uphill shots into greens at Cal where the surface is not visible for my tastes, and too many downhill shots that you couldn't really bring it in on the ground (while the fairway tumbles to the green on many holes, there are too many "valleys" or raised fronts to the green keeping the ball from rolling on--this takes away the ground game.)

4. I didn't make a putt at either of the courses, but SFGC's greens I liked more--more nuances, more subtle, etc.

5. SFGC is a more pleasant walk.

Okay, this is CRAZY I know. How the hell does one rate a course like Cal Club? The place is absolutely UNREAL. The golf course is ONE OF THE FINEST I HAVE EVER PLAYED. What they did out there is amazing. It is fantastic, a course I could play every day of the week, all week, for the rest of my life. There is literally every type of hole there--I think it's just fantastic.

PS: Dave Wilbur speaking about himself in the second person is pretty funny.

Thanks for the answers. I agree with your #3, assuming that the routing of "new" Cal is roughly the same as "old" Cal. I never found the property for Cal as good as that at SF....a bit too much up/down resulting in a lack of variety at the end of the day which kept it out of my short list.

I might ask if the new bunkering is as strategic as that at SF.

I always had the "old" Cal ahead of Lake and behind SF. The new version looks to be a huge improvement and I look forward to seeing it once the turf matures a little.

[Jed Peters]

Thanks for the answers. I agree with your #3, assuming that the routing of "new" Cal is roughly the same as "old" Cal. I never found the property for Cal as good as that at SF....a bit too much up/down resulting in a lack of variety at the end of the day which kept it out of my short list.

I might ask if the new bunkering is as strategic as that at SF.

Jon:

The new 1-8 are completely different from the old 1-8. COMPLETELY.

The bunkering is as strategic--BUT unlike SFGC, it doesn't "jump out at you", i.e. at SFGC, you'd carry one bunker, walk to your ball, then there would be like 5 more bunkers (or the same one!) behind it that you went into.

Examples of this on SFGC--1 fairway bunkers and layup bunkers;
2 bunkers on hill left and by green on right;
3 bunkers over the first carry set on the left;
6 bunkers left and short right
8, fairway bunkers
9 All over the place
10 bunkers left and right fairway, and back
12 carry first bunkers and cool bunkers on hill 50 yards short of green
13 those small bunkers everywhere
14/15 HUGE bunker complex on right
16 carry bunkers that make you NOT want to bail out right--and you end up hitting a hook into left trees (all 4 in my group did that!)
17 huge hidden bunker up right side short of green you don't see
18 bunkers after first carry bunkers on right side, huge bunker on left for the bailout person to be punished by, and the small perfectly placed fairway bunker on the left to pinch the fairway 100 yards out.

[Jon Spaulding]

Jon,

Interesting that you mention that as I have heard many people say the same thing. "Its just better" without actually having an explanation.

It kind of goes along with Ian's new thread discussing how new courses could be just as good as some of the old greats but never have a chance of being ranked as high, just because they haven't been at the forefront of the golf community for 80 years.

After talking to Jed for a bit, he has some good points.

1. There are a couple holes at Cal where you can see houses and other crap, but at the same time that allows for some UNBELIEVABLE views. The intimacy of SFGC is pretty special, not that it is bad at Cal.

2./3. The course is pretty darn tough/long from the tips, leaving some shots for normal length golfers that they shouldn't have. 99/100 people would be better served playing the second from the back set of tees.
You have to try it from the tips at least a few times though.

4. The green complexes at Cal are AMAZING, leaving the possibility for much more "fun" and "creative" shots than exist at SF. The amount of short grass that exists helps to create the options. In terms of the greens themselves, I guess it is just personal preference. Both are great and tough to putt as there are many subtleties that that are almost impossible to read.

5. SFGC is definitely an easier walk. However, with probably 12/13 greens and tees being almost right next to each other at Cal, it is by no means a tough walk.

As for the hole by hole, I agree with Jed except for a couple holes. That is all just a matter of personal preference, as is all this stuff. Either way, they are both GREAT courses, ones that I would be happy to play every day. I have them on about even ground.

4 Cal, 4 SFGC, 2 OL.

Robert, thanks for the answers; something like this:

Cal better than SF with respect to greens, surrounds, difficulty. Cal worse than SF on intimacy, walkability.

I'd be curious for your take on the strategic effect of the bunkering here versus SF.

Cal, in photos, certainly has the flair of a Mackenzie. It also looks to have some of the superflous Macbunkering that works from an aesthetic standpoint but not much else. SF, especially with some of the new tees, retains the strategy/appearance of AWT/Billy Bell and is one of the better bunkered courses one will ever play, along with Riviera.

[Jon Spaulding]

Thanks for the answers. I agree with your #3, assuming that the routing of "new" Cal is roughly the same as "old" Cal. I never found the property for Cal as good as that at SF....a bit too much up/down resulting in a lack of variety at the end of the day which kept it out of my short list.

I might ask if the new bunkering is as strategic as that at SF.

Jon:

The new 1-8 are completely different from the old 1-8. COMPLETELY.

The bunkering is as strategic--BUT unlike SFGC, it doesn't "jump out at you", i.e. at SFGC, you'd carry one bunker, walk to your ball, then there would be like 5 more bunkers (or the same one!) behind it that you went into.

Examples of this on SFGC--1 fairway bunkers and layup bunkers;
2 bunkers on hill left and by green on right;
3 bunkers over the first carry set on the left;
6 bunkers left and short right
8, fairway bunkers
9 All over the place
10 bunkers left and right fairway, and back
12 carry first bunkers and cool bunkers on hill 50 yards short of green
13 those small bunkers everywhere
14/15 HUGE bunker complex on right
16 carry bunkers that make you NOT want to bail out right--and you end up hitting a hook into left trees (all 4 in my group did that!)
17 huge hidden bunker up right side short of green you don't see
18 bunkers after first carry bunkers on right side, huge bunker on left for the bailout person to be punished by, and the small perfectly placed fairway bunker on the left to pinch the fairway 100 yards out.

I had thought #1-8 played thru the same area of the property as before....with 1-3 having altered corridors. Looks like I thought wrong!

Isn't what you describe the beauty of SF? Not to mention the visuals and shot difficulty if one chooses the safe route......throughout the entire round.

[TX Golf]

Jon,

I'm taking it you haven't played the new Cal?

In terms of better or worse I'm not sure how to really answer that question. SFGC is arguably the model golf course when it comes to strategic bunkering. The aesthetics of the bunkering at SF and Cal are both stunning.

There are obviously bunkers at Cal that aren't directly in play, but they do serve a purpose when it comes to alignment and visual trickery. Also, the strategic value of the bunkers is exponentially better than the previous course.

1. After a good drive, the right green side bunker wrecks havoc if going for the green in two. After a poor drive, or just the shorter player, the bunker complex at about 120 from the green play a HUGE role on the lay up. You DON'T want to be in those bunkers..

2. You would think the carry bunkers on the left hill aren't really that important, but they do serve as a an aiming point. I have also seen a handful of people end up in them after poor drives. The rest of the fairway bunkers are also very relevant, especially the cross bunker about 150 out, and the three bunkers about 40-70 yards short. Since the hole is over 450, the bunkers get much more action on second shots than you would anticipate.

Ok... I was going to go hole by hole but it is going to be a bit tedious and I don't have time for that today.

Either way, the bunkering from 100 yards and in is unbelievable and very strategic. The fairway bunkering on 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 17 is all well placed and influences play.

The green complexes are AWESOME on 1,3,5,6,7,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 (SOO Cool), 16,17, and 18... I guess that was kind of stupid because it was pretty much every hole but the bunkers is just awesome around the greens.

Even on holes with "bunkers not in play" such as 1, 9, 10, 11, 14 (in play on 13), and 17 the play the vital role of providing a target for alignment.

Oh... and all these bunkers that "aren't in play", I have seen people in pretty much every single one of them.

I tough to really discuss the differences between the bunkering at Cal and SF through typing, but they are both EXTREMELY well done and influence play to a great extent. With the UNBELIEVABLE WIDTH at both courses, the bunkers have to be well placed to influence play.

That isn't the best written analysis but I hope it says something about the bunkering.;

[TX Golf]

Jon,

For the sake of convenience I grabbed a couple photos of one of the threads to compare them to the ones from the profile. An interesting way to see the change.


17 Before


17 After


9 Before


9 After

[Jed Peters]

The golf course is 100 percent different. Wow.

[Jon Spaulding]

Robert; have not seen the revised version yet. My contact recommended that we wait until later this year to allow the turf to mature a little bit. He did state that the greens were in virtually perfect condition but that the fescue mix was a bit sparse and just needed some time.

The course was a bit thinned out the last time I played it (2001), as compared to Ran's "vintage photos".....thank God those trees have gone the way of sansabelt trousers!

[Niall Hay]

Just played Cal Club and thought it was awesome. More enjoyable than Olympic and as much fun as SFGC.

Bunkers are awesome. New green surfaces are excellent...difficult to make much, but very smooth, fast and playable.

[J_ Crisham]

I also just played the Cal Club last week and would say that I was blown away by how good it was. The new holes were spectacular -the usage of the ridgeline to create new holes  was very crafty. The greensites were beautifully bunkered ,fairways were firm,and the greens ran well. The tree removal completely opened up the vistas of this gem. Coming from Chicago I left the Cal Club thinking why have I never heard of this place?  If there are 10 better courses in California I would like to know where they are. I would be remiss if I failed to mention the hospitality of a fellow GCAer who hosted me and also 2 other gents that I could drink wine with all afternoon! What a place!                                                              Jack

[Chip Gaskins]

I also just played the Cal Club last week and would say that I was blown away by how good it was. The new holes were spectacular -the usage of the ridgeline to create new holes  was very crafty. The greensites were beautifully bunkered ,fairways were firm,and the greens ran well. The tree removal completely opened up the vistas of this gem. Coming from Chicago I left the Cal Club thinking why have I never heard of this place?  If there are 10 better courses in California I would like to know where they are. I would be remiss if I failed to mention the hospitality of a fellow GCAer who hosted me and also 2 other gents that I could drink wine with all afternoon! What a place!                                                              Jack

Jack

I agree with you, I think it is the third best in California and the best in San Francisco.

They truly have a special place there now.

Chip

[Phil_the_Author]

I had the fun of riding around the course three weeks ago with Kyle Philips who redid the course. Iy was a golf architecture junkies dream day! The course is wonderful and the restoration was done superbly.

[Niall Hay]

I also just played the Cal Club last week and would say that I was blown away by how good it was. The new holes were spectacular -the usage of the ridgeline to create new holes  was very crafty. The greensites were beautifully bunkered ,fairways were firm,and the greens ran well. The tree removal completely opened up the vistas of this gem. Coming from Chicago I left the Cal Club thinking why have I never heard of this place?  If there are 10 better courses in California I would like to know where they are. I would be remiss if I failed to mention the hospitality of a fellow GCAer who hosted me and also 2 other gents that I could drink wine with all afternoon! What a place!                                                              Jack

Completely agree Jack!  Awesome course and great experience. Hard to beat anywhere...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()