[Carl Nichols]

Matt:
I assume that aerial predates the work?  So it wasn't a super-short walk, though it wasn't as long as today's walk (and the cartpaths are less noticeable for sure).

[David Kelly]

I have only played the Lakeside course once, and it was not long ago, but before the recent work.  I can't comment on the new holes since I haven't seen them, but the mere idea of inserting a 100-150 yard walk from 7th green to 8th tee is blasphemous.  That is such a classic walk, classic routing with tees close to previous greens, that creating such a long walk is a bad thing.  I can understand Gib's wondrous rants just from that perspective.  If I were a member I'd be pissed.

Agreed and that would be the major problem I would have with the hole.  You could build Pine Valley #5 in place of the old #8 but if you put it at the end of a 160yd walk it completely disrupts the flow of the golf course.  I would rather have a good hole that maintains the integrity of the routing rather than a potentially great hole that is out of place and out of the way.

[Matt_Cohn]

Matt:
I assume that aerial predates the work?  So it wasn't a super-short walk, though it wasn't as long as today's walk (and the cartpaths are less noticeable for sure).

Right.

[Adam Clayman]

Ian Larson. The connection is with Wolf Run in Reno.

[Bill Brightly]

Having never played there, I really can't comment on the changes other than to say I LOVE the look of the pictures of old 8th. I can just imagine staring at the front bunker with an element of doubt in my mind about what will happen to my ball up on the green. But I'm sure the new 8th is a fine golf hole.

The reason for my post is that I don't think any person, committee, or board of directors should have the final say on changes to a golf course. I strongly believe that the final plan should be approved by a majority vote of the membership.

I am aware that the board and/or committee still weilds most of the power: they get to pick the architect and they have direct access to the architect throughout the planning process. But in my opinion, the knowledge that the plan will ultimately have to win membership approval alters the process in several significant ways.

At the outset, the planners have to create a spirit of openess. They have to be able to explain to any member who asks WHY the course needs to be changed and how the architect was selected. This can be very time consuming and frustrating for the club leaders, but in the end, it greatly reduces the possibility of hard feelings.

The final meeting before the vote becomes critical: this is when the planners have to FULLY make their case. It also becomes a meeting where the plan might fail; a point in time when all the hard work could go out the window.This is FAR different than a meeting where the final plan is simply presented to the membership and meaningful changes to the plan are not a real possibilty.

Opponents of the plan (and there will ALWAYS be opponents to any plan) are going to leave that meeting feeling frustrated; believing that it was just a dog and pony show for changes that the leaders want to make to the golf course. With a full membership vote, members like Mr. Stewart at least have the opportunity to rally enough votes to stop the plan. And the planners KNOW this from the outset, so they MUST proceed accordingly at every step in the process.

So I think Boards that hold on to the final say without giving members a vote are holding on to a power that they really should not want. They are asking for trouble. They are handing a  potential "club" to plan opponents, and it is quite likely that this "club" will be used to create unrest and much bad feelings for years to come. I think all Boards should pass a by-law REQUIRING full member votes on all course changes. Because when it is all said and done, Mr. Stewart's arguments would lose much of their merits if the full membership had approved the changes, and the committee and/or Board would not be subject to such easy criticism.

[Gib_Papazian]

JAL,

It has been brought to my attention that there is a Golden Bear Cub in the studio audience! It is a good thing you did not get the commission or the new 8th hole would have required a towering cut with a 1-iron. How you guys manage to force a left-to-right shot even on dogleg-left holes is beyond my imagination.

I'm going to admit that taken as an individual expression dropped from a flying saucer completely out of context with the rest of the routing, #8 looks pretty good - aside from the cart path with more concrete than the Hollywood Freeway and a multi-tiered tee pushed up farther than Dolly Parton's tits.

And just as artificial looking.

In reality, the tee looks no worse than the stairstep mess on the 12th and the putting surface/green complex looks very good. But once again, certain things do not go together. Classic and nouveau flash do not juxtapose well - like Joe Paterno and Venus Williams in a lip-lock on the red carpet. It is just wrong.



    

[Jordan Wall]

I don't want to respark anything, but I liked the eighth hole.  I never played the old version.  However, the new version is a good hole.  The bunkers look good the green is interesting.  From 220 or so yards it will be a bear.  Interestingly enough, I didn't find it played that uphill.  I played it the yardage and hit the correct club.

The walk from the seventh green is a slag, and the cartpath looks bad, but the new hole is not a bad one.  In fact I liked all the par-3's about evenly.  They are all good holes in their own right.

Out of curiosity, how much different was the seventh green prior to the work?

I really liked Olympic and it was cool to see the changes first hand.  It is one of the most unique courses I have ever seen.

[Tom Huckaby]

Cool you got to play the Lake, Jordan.

I played it myself about a month ago.  I hadn't played it in at least 3 years before that.  For me, the great gains made in three-thinning and the incredible firming and drying out of the course that resulted therefrom outweighed any architectural misdeeds; that is, I liked it a lot more now than I did three years ago.  However, I can understand the laments for 7 and 8 as they were... primarily because while I agree the current 8 is a strong golf hole, the old 8 wasn't bad and if anything was more unique; and regarding 7, they did a hell of a lot of work to gain SIX yards in distance (yep, was 288, is 294).  I actually think on the whole the new green might be better.. two tiers instead of three - but I am unsure about that.  In any case re the changes in the holes I just have to ask "why"?  That is, was it really a net gain?  Was it really worth it?

But those questions are answered FAR better by the members and others more up on the course than an infrequent visitor like me.  In the end, what is there now is pretty damn great.  I leave it to the members to show uproar.  I'm just a happy guest who really digs the course as it is now.

TH

[Gib_Papazian]

Huckster,

(Warning: Slightly Off-Topic)

I am confused. Your plaintive cries of outrage and accusations of emasculation of (and by) your beloved Bayonet does not square with your opinion of Olympic Lake's elevated status due to massive tree removal.

There was nothing more likely to lop off your testicles than the "Old" Lake course - endless corridors of dripping wet trees and tight, muddy lies even when the ball somehow miraculously found the short grass.

I thought you liked pain and suffering at Bayonet - salvation though Calvinist masochism, triple bogeys and soaking wet polyester socks . . . .  squish squish squish squish all the way down the fairway.

A double standard I do detect.  
          

[Tom Huckaby]

You read me wrong, oh great one.

The old Olympic Lake was tree-lined and wet.  But lots of courses are like that - in fact lots near it (Cal Club as it was, Presidio, Harding, need I go on)?  I just found it long and difficult and while it did possess ghosts in the feeling for sure, it was never gonna really be my cup of tea.  You see, it was all of those things but not really all that unique outside of the ghosts.

The old Bayonet was all of those things (besides the ghosts) but then ADDED:  foliage down to the ground, such that any ball past the tree line was lost or better off so; a few very weird and unique doglegs (11, 12) and the toughest staight hole one will ever play (#2); one of the weirdest and coolest tee shots on earth (#12, hit it in a box - bad if too short, too long, too left, too right - and this achieved with zero bunkers or water)... and a few other things that are difficult for me to explain.  In short, it was long and difficult AND UNIQUE.

Thus I pine away for its demise; when uniqueness dies, it seems logical to me to miss it.

But I do prefer the new Lake.  If anything it has BECOME unique - a parkland course that plays firm and fast, all the while with ghosts.

TH

ps - one other thing - for all it's claustrophobic tree-lined brutality, the old Bayonet rarely played WET.  It had fantastic drainage... because it was sand-based.  Still is, thank god.

[David Stamm]

I've heard so many tell how wet Olympic can play in the past that I have to ask, what is the soil base there? Does it drain well?

[Deucie Bies]

I played Olympic Lake on Sunday for the first time since it had been redone.  I was skeptical about the changes to 7 and 8, but after playing the course, I have no problem with them.  8 was much better than I expected it to be.  There is no doubt that there is a long walk from 7 to 8 and the cart paths take away from the look of the course, but I thought it was a good golf hole.  Plus, 15 is a short par 3 so the course still offers a short par 3 hole.  As for the changes to 7, I am not sure that they were needed, but I didn't have any problems with that hole either.  Overall, I am not sure that the course is any better or worse (so maybe the changes shouldn't have been made), but I didn't have a problem with the changes like I thought I would.  The new rough around the greens was very sticky and it was difficult to get the ball up and down from there.

[Gib_Papazian]

The vast majority of the property is on a sand dune, but the soil under the stand of turf used to get very mushy. I'm not Dave Wilbur, but it always seemed to me that because we had wall-to-wall shallow root poa that the Superintendent was faced with a choice of deep watering once every three days to encourage deeper root growth, or accept that the high spots on our rolling fairways were going to be brown.

It is difficult to assess how many of our members have evolved enough to grasp the beauty of brown, but for years - even on dewy mornings - the irrigation was going full blast.

I do not think we are going to be able to keep out the poa for long with the amount of play and both courses located hard by the sea, but what we have now plays fairly firm and fast. Whether it is sustainable is another question - and one beyond my knowledge base.

[JLahrman]

The new rough around the greens was very sticky and it was difficult to get the ball up and down from there.

I'll agree with that...I muffed a few chip shots and I can only blame so much on my lousy short game.

[David_Tepper]

David Stamm -

Aside from the soil base, some of the other reasons the Lake Course has had a "soft & wet" reputation are 1) the heavy coastal fog in the summer, 2) the property sloping to the east (which limits the amount of direct afternoon sunshine the property does get when the sun is shining) and 3) the here-to-fore heavily tree-lined fairways.

Over the past 4-6 years, the new greenskeeping regime has laid a lot of sand on the fairways and the trees have been removed and/or thinned substantially. Those actions have made a big difference. In my opinion, there are still plenty of trees that could and should be removed.

DT       

[Adam Clayman]

Vandalism it is !

Having just played the course for the first time, the new 8th hole sticks out in ways few holes can, or, ever will. The actual hole (Teeing ground and Green) is neither here nor there, but, It's placement (It's route) is simply horrible. The walk to the tee from the 7th green seems farther than the whole hole and it's all back tracking. OC is a tough enough walk. Allowing this hole to be built in it's current form is architectural mal-practice. Subsequent thoughts are frustratingly homicidal. Frustrating because one doesn't know who to off.

[Lou_Duran]

Adam,

A bit harsh/provocative don't you think?  Perhaps instead of going all the way back to the new tee on #8, you might have stopped and played the forward tee which, I assume, is probably where the old back tee was located.

Having said all this, one of the biggest routing errors I keep seeing primarily on courses which are trying to find more distance but also in some new construction is the long walk back to the tournament tees.  This is often further complicated with trees that now get in the way or bad angles to the originally intended lines of play.  I think that we both like to be able to pick our poison and too often some of these design changes force a golfer to hit a specific shot.  I sure hope that they didn't do this at Lake.

[Adam Clayman]

Lou, I played forward. Bill McBride described the old route as 20-30 yards.

My comments were not harsh, but as always, how I saw it.

I saw it from a far at first and was struck by just how awkward the route is. It reminded me of Lincoln CC in Nebraska. Where one tees of on 12, then tees off on 13. Plays out their ball on 12 and goes to the 13th fairway to finish that hole. It is that out of character and out of whack.
Gib's notion of just walking over to nine tee after putting out on 7 is the best idea on this thread, and entered my mind as we were there. If I had taken a cart, maybe the hideousness of it all would've been mitigated.

Since I was at the '98 Open, I was struck at the approach looks of the new O club. It appeared to be a bit repetitive and rote with a bunker right bunker left look. Back in '98 the angles looked much more enticing and difficult.

This whole subject matter is enough to make a person just give up realizing that politics, social climbing and ass kissing seem to always win out. Maybe today, after seeing Meadow Club my hope will be restored?

[Joel_Stewart]

Vandalism it is !

 Allowing this hole to be built in it's current form is architectural mal-practice. Subsequent thoughts are frustratingly homicidal. Frustrating because one doesn't know who to off.

As I have said before, the entire responsibility for this vandalism is the superintendent, Pat Finlen.  He is a rogue superintendent who ram rodded these poorly thought out changes through the greens committee, board of directors and membership.

[John Handley]

In the end, the Olympic Club is known for hosting US Open Championships.  Doing this is more important to the club than architectural significance thus guiding their decisions on the golf course.  Whether you like the "new" 8th hole or not, they needed to do it to continue to host US Open's and remain a test for the world's best golfers.  No doubt Olympic Club has it's place in history and is an excellent test of golf but I think the California Golf Club is preferred over Olympic.

[Adam Clayman]

John, All I can say is that the members who are allowed to play in between the U.S. Opens, are lucky to have the Cliffs and Ocean courses to play good fun golf, rather than this thing you are calling a good test.

[Joel_Stewart]

In the end, the Olympic Club is known for hosting US Open Championships. 

This is the mentality that the superintendent and general manger have and its exactly what the problem is.  Its a shame that they ignore the ten of thousands of rounds in between US Opens.  Going forward after 2012, when will Olympic get another Open?  Maybe 2025?

[Bill_McBride]

This whole subject matter is enough to make a person just give up realizing that politics, social climbing and ass kissing seem to always win out. Maybe today, after seeing Meadow Club my hope will be restored?

Adam, guaranteed you will love the Meadow Club.  It has a wonderfully peaceful feeling out there with the deer and the turkeys and that classic Mackenzie routing.  Note how he uses the hills just like he did at Valley Club and (from what I've heard) Royal Melbourne.  It's a great walk with a bunch of really strong holes like #7 and #9.   Please say hello to Jim and Tully, and give us some feedback after your round.

[Tyler Kearns]

This whole subject matter is enough to make a person just give up realizing that politics, social climbing and ass kissing seem to always win out. Maybe today, after seeing Meadow Club my hope will be restored?

Adam, guaranteed you will love the Meadow Club.  It has a wonderfully peaceful feeling out there with the deer and the turkeys and that classic Mackenzie routing.  Note how he uses the hills just like he did at Valley Club and (from what I've heard) Royal Melbourne.  It's a great walk with a bunch of really strong holes like #7 and #9.   Please say hello to Jim and Tully, and give us some feedback after your round.

Adam,

I think Bill captures the experience at the Meadow Club very well, a fine golf course and some excellent restoration work on the part of Mike DeVries. In addition to the holes noted above, take some time on the 3rd green, some awesome contouring there.

TK

[Kevin_Reilly]

Since I was at the '98 Open, I was struck at the approach looks of the new O club. It appeared to be a bit repetitive and rote with a bunker right bunker left look. Back in '98 the angles looked much more enticing and difficult.

Which "approach looks" changed for you since 1998?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()