[John Blain]

I'm just curious how SFGC, Cal Club and Pasatiempo stack up against each other in Northern California golf circles. I have played SFGC three times, Pasatiempo twice and Cal Club once and personally, I thought they were all terrific.

I would have to say Pasatiempo was my favorite followed by Cal Club with SFGC third. Is putting SFGC third heresy? I thought the front nine at SFGC was teriffic but from #14 on I honestly thought the finish (14-18) was a bit boring. I know it's a venerable old club that is diifficult to get on (and find  ) but the only thing seperating the fourteenth tee from I-280 was a chain link fence while Pasatiempo and especially Cal Club had spectacular views. The view from the fifteenth tee of the San Bruno mountains at Cal Club was terrific.

I love the ambiance of SFGC but am I being unfair saying I preferred Pasatiempo and Cal Club?

[Keith Doleshel]

I wouldn't say that putting SFGC is heresy, although most might differ with your opinion.  I have not played Cal Club, but have played the other two.  The front nine at SFGC is about as good as it gets, as is the back nine at Pasatiempo.  I actually played Pasatiempo on Tuesday, and could play that golf course everyday and not get tired of it.  It just has great hole after great hole and some of the best views in Northern California golf (Monterey excluded)  The view from #11 green especially is my favorite.  It is just a tremendous golf course.  Of course, the devil's advocate could say that the only thing separating a number of holes from someone's back yard at Pasatiempo is a fence or OB stakes.    I just really think that it is awesome that anyone can pony up and play Pasatiempo, there aren't enough clubs like that in these parts.  I would have to give the slight nod in my book to SFGC, but am quite torn.

I really look forward to playing Cal Club, I keep hearing that it is outstanding. 

[Tim Passalacqua]

I have played all 3 courses and I would rank them the same way you did.  Pasatiempo is one of the best routings I have ever seen over unique, beautiful, hilly terrain.  The way the back nine works around those barrancas is stunning.  The back nine gets a lot of credit (and it should), but I think the front is just as good.  It's probably a few strokes harder.  The greens at Pasatiempo are one of a kind with the slopes and shapes.The bunkering is incredible.  I have never seen anything else like it.  I love the place.  I would agree with your views of Cal Club and SFGC.  Both are terrific.  Cal Club is so fun.  Great layout and awesome playing conditions.  If I could only play one round and had to choose from the three....I would probably choose Pasatiempo.

[Carl Nichols]

JPBlain:
Where does Olympic (Lake) fit in your list? 

[Jed Peters]

If I had to play 10 rounds, I'd split em like this:

1. SFGC, 5x
2. Pasa, 3x
3. Cal, 2x

Olympic Lake is a GREAT golf course, but it's not a great place to play golf. I feel exhausted after playing there.

A guy can only hit so many long irons or fairway woods into tiny greens for so long!

[Kirk Moon]

I have played Pasatiempo and Cal Club and Olympic Lake and Ocean but not SFGC.  I have seen many photos of SFGC, talked to many who have played (and worked) there and have peered at a few holes through the fence (longingly.)

My take on Pasatiempo is that it is a fun but somewhat flawed course.  The back nine was more interesting and unique than the front nine (but there are some really good holes on the front.)  The greens are too tricked up for my taste.  Too much contour relative to the speed.  (I found the same thing to be true at the Meadow Club, another Mackenzie course in the area.)  Houses hug the margins of some of the holes in a way that I found somewhat intrusive.  A relatively unimpressive clubhouse.  A very basic range (with mats.)  All in all a very excellent course but with significant flaws.

I think the Cal Club is fantastic in almost every way.  More fairway width than Pasatiempo.  Outstanding greens with interesting contours but not so extreme that they draw attention to themselves.  Really nice views.  Virtually no real estate intrusion (one small corner next to 16th green).  Neat old clubhouse.  Excellent driving range.  As an everyday golf experience the Cal Club is pretty hard to beat.

I can't really comment on SFGC except to say that the conclusions I have drawn about it from reading about it, hearing about it from others, peeking at it through the fence and the like is that it is a very special place with a terrific historical feel about it.  The course is immaculately groomed.  The bunkering is outstanding and the greens are supposed to be excellent without being tricked up.  I have the sense that the course is less "interesting" than Pasatiempo and the Cal Club, particularly from 9 on.  I imagine that if SFGC didn't have the history it has and wasn't so exclusive its ranking would probably fall a bit relative to the above two courses (but it would remain as one of the iconic courses in the US.)  Nonetheless, I am sure it is an outstanding golf experience and that it would be a great course to play day in and day out.  I look forward to the day when I can get out there and see it firsthand. 

Olympic is wonderful in its own way but the Lake Course isn't what I would call a "fun" course.  SFGC had first rights over this property back in the day and they rejected it as being unsuitable for golf and chose their current site instead.  I think they weren't crazy.  The entire Lake Course is built on a hillside resulting in many sidehill lies and off camber fairways.  The fairway corridors are relatively narrow.  It is a stern challenge and will be a great site for the US Open, but as an every day golfing experience I think it leaves something to be desired.  The Ocean Course is, IMHO, more fun to play as a recreational course and when it reopens in September with all new greens complexes and tees it should be even better.  Can't wait to see it.

How they would be ranked would depend on whether you were looking at it from an architectural vs. enjoyable perspective.  

From an architectural perspective I would probably rank them:  Pasatiempo, Cal Club, SFGC, Lake, Ocean

From a "what would I like to play every day" perspective I would rank them:  Cal Club, SFGC, Ocean, Pasatiempo, Lake

If I could only choose one as the best combination of both I would go for the Cal Club with SFGC close behind.  

[Kalen Braley]

Kirk,

I'm be curious to hear what the "significant" flaws are with Pasa, other than 6/7 interchange...unless that's what you're referring to.

A modest clubhouse and range, in my opinion, are not significant flaws.  If you didn't like Pasa's clubhouse and range, then by all means never play CPC because they are both "lesser".

The back 9 at Pasa is about as good as it gets.  Its easily the best "9" I've ever played as the routing, flow, and green placement is just superb.

P.S. 16 - as crazy as some say it is, it remains the neatest/coolest "green complex" I've ever seen!

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

If I had to play 10 rounds, I'd split em like this:

1. SFGC, 5x
2. Pasa, 3x
3. Cal, 2x

Olympic Lake is a GREAT golf course, but it's not a great place to play golf. I feel exhausted after playing there.

A guy can only hit so many long irons or fairway woods into tiny greens for so long!

I recently played the Lake from the White tees... that was fun and a very different course.  It felt like the old days when I could hit the ball past my shadow, as I had much shorter irons in on a number of holes (most notably the par 3's as well as #6, #9. #11, and #12)  What I found interesting, is that i still had similar length approaches on #2, #4, #5, #12, #14 and #18 as i opted to play one less club off the tees (usually my 3W) to keep the trouble (i.e. running through the fairways) to a minimum.   

I was still exhausted though... but loved every minute of it and if i didn't have to run home, I would've gone rigth back to the first tee (theoretically) and played again.

WW

[John Blain]

JPBlain:
Where does Olympic (Lake) fit in your list? 

Carl-
I have only played Olympic Lake one time and in all honesty, I was a bit disappointed. Not in difficulty because it is plenty hard but when I compare it to the other U.S. Open sites I have played - Winged Foot West, Oakmont and Shiinecock - I would put it last in that group. I just thought there were too many holes where the hole went one way and the terrain went the other (did I explain that properly? ). It probably didn't help that the day we played the conditioning was just fair, at best. However, I have had several friends whom I like and respect and they feel as though it is terrific so I am likely missing something.

Tim- Nice post, I agree 100%.

Kalen- Totally agree, who really cares about the range and clubhouse.

[Tim Passalacqua]

Carl,

The Lake is at the top of the list.  Excellent routing with great greens.  I don't know if I would say the routing is better than Pasatiempo, but it gets the nod because of no homes hugging the fairways.  Of all the courses, it is the best examination to test your golf game (that is why they still host the US Open). You will know which part of your game needs work after playing it.  It is tough, but I think most people pick the wrong tees.  The blue tees are 6500 yards which can easily play longer than 7000 yards.  Wayne's post about the white tees being fun is an example of this.  The white tees, 6100 yards, is plenty for most.  I think from shorter tees, it is a lot more fun than high handicappers think.  You won't lose a ball and you can roll the ball up onto the majority of the greens.  It will be great to see in a few weeks for the Open.

JP - The slope of the fairways and how the holes dogleg is part of the beauty of the Lake, especially to test the pros in the US Open.  You have to work the ball into the slope if you want to hit the fairways (at US Open firmness and speed).  Picture that draw on four and that fade on five.  At the Open, you will need to hit all of the shots to win.  The modern pro that works the ball one way can't win there.  A bomber doesn't have the advantage here, which is nice to see.  This could be the most wide open major we have seen in a long time.  It is a great venue and always has a dramatic finish.

[K. Krahenbuhl]

I would split up the 10 rounds amongst those 3:

Cal Club 4
SFGC 4
Pasatiempo 2

[Bob_Huntley]

Kirk,

I'm be curious to hear what the "significant" flaws are with Pasa, other than 6/7 interchange...unless that's what you're referring to.

A modest clubhouse and range, in my opinion, are not significant flaws.  If you didn't like Pasa's clubhouse and range, then by all means never play CPC because they are both "lesser".

The back 9 at Pasa is about as good as it gets.  Its easily the best "9" I've ever played as the routing, flow, and green placement is just superb.

P.S. 16 - as crazy as some say it is, it remains the neatest/coolest "green complex" I've ever seen!

Kalen,
Have you ever been in the Cypress Point clubhouse?


Bob

[Garland Bayley]

Kalen,

You are being called out by Sir Boab!

What say ye?

[Bill_McBride]

I have been in the little room at CPC where one changes shoes, but never in the clubhouse proper.   

I suspect there's a pretty big difference!

[Kalen Braley]

Not in the clubhouse....but I have been in the changing room/locker room.

I should have clarified that in my original statement, so I can't speak to the clubhouse per se.

Kalen

[Bob_Huntley]

Not in the clubhouse....but I have been in the changing room/locker room.

I should have clarified that in my original statement, so I can't speak to the clubhouse per se.

Kalen

Not in the clubhouse....but I have been in the changing room/locker room.

I should have clarified that in my original statement, so I can't speak to the clubhouse per se.

Kalen

Kalen,

The interior of the clubhouse is rather like a comfortable English country house with a glass enclosed dining room adjacent to the original one. There is also a very attractive room for drinks and and lunch catering to the less formal dress code. It has bedrooms upstairs that are pleasing to the eye.

I have one Clubhouse that I like as much and that is the Valley Club of Montecito.  Both buildings were designed by George Washington Smith.

Bob

[Kirk Moon]

Kirk,

I'm be curious to hear what the "significant" flaws are with Pasa, other than 6/7 interchange...unless that's what you're referring to.

A modest clubhouse and range, in my opinion, are not significant flaws.  If you didn't like Pasa's clubhouse and range, then by all means never play CPC because they are both "lesser".

The back 9 at Pasa is about as good as it gets.  Its easily the best "9" I've ever played as the routing, flow, and green placement is just superb.

P.S. 16 - as crazy as some say it is, it remains the neatest/coolest "green complex" I've ever seen!

IMHO, the "flaws" of Pasatiempo are:

1) the front nine is quite a bit less interesting and unique than the back, resulting in a somewhat asymmetric golfing experience

2) the sixth hole and the seventh fairway are straight and relatively uninteresting corridors.  Both are too narrow for my taste.  The first is also straight and relatively boring.  The ninth hole is fairly bland (but the green complex is pretty good.)  The twelfth and seventeenth holes are relatively weak, particularly compared to the rest of the back nine.

3) the housing abutting many holes is visually intrusive and detracts from the experience

4) Some of the greens are too tricked up for my taste.  Too much contour relative to speed.  The 8th green is exasperating.  The 11th green ditto.  The famous 16th green is, IMHO, fairly ridiculous.   I hit a beautiful approach to the top tier of that green and ended up three levels down on the front fringe.  Putting from the front fringe (where most balls collect that don't end up on the upper level) to the top tier, where the pin is usually located, is an exercise in frustration.  Tiger Woods hates that green.  This is one of the few things that I like about Tiger.  : )  Even the par 3 18th green is relatively severe and an excellent shot into that green in no way guarantees a par.  The greens can be fun in a Disneyland/Fun House kind of way, but they are not something I'd care to have to deal with on a regular basis.

5) I thought the approaches to 11 and 17 were too difficult for average players. 

Things I really like about Pasatiempo include: 

1) The second, third, fourth and fifth holes are great. 

2) The tenth hole is astoundingly neat.  Eleven is very interesting.  Thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen and eighteen are very neat holes (green on sixteen notwithstanding.) 

3) The course is hardly ever boring.  It makes you think.  It makes you anxious at times.  But the rewards of success against such challenges are great. 

I don't place much import on clubhouses, etc.  But the clubhouse at Pasatiempo has a kind of 1960's vibe that I didn't think fit in with the classic era of the course.  I'm sure I would LOVE the clubhouse at CPC (and SFGC as well.)  I'm not into fancy or ostentatious display of wealth.  I like old time cool.  The clubhouse at the Cal Club has this kind of feeling.  The men's locker room looks straight out of the 1920's.  There are even little "lockers within the locker" inside each member's locker for stashing hooch during prohibition.  Quite cool.  I imagine the clubhouses and locker rooms at SFGC and CPC are similar. 

[Matt_Cohn]

I'd say 4 SF Club, 3 Cal Club, 3 Pasatiempo.

If we include Olympic-Lake I'd say 3 SF Club, 3 Olympic, 2 Cal Club, 2 Pasatiempo. Boy these are hard questions.

I just felt pretty affected by the compromised holes at Pasatiempo and the proximity of houses on a number of holes. They just seemed unnecessarily close given that they were built after the course!

I love Cal Club but it's hard!

My list is in the reverse order of likelihood of losing a golf ball...coincidence?

[Kalen Braley]

Bob,

Thanks for adding that description, sounds terrific.  I would have loved to have had a drink in the clubhouse after the morning round! 

[Joel_Stewart]

If we include Olympic-Lake I'd say 3 SF Club, 3 Olympic, 2 Cal Club, 2 Pasatiempo. Boy these are hard questions.

That is hard.  I'm going to be playing golf with a US Open participant and PGA player at SFGC in a few weeks and I'll ask him the same.

I would like to know what Johnny Miller would say given those 4.

[Bill_McBride]

Kirk,

I'm be curious to hear what the "significant" flaws are with Pasa, other than 6/7 interchange...unless that's what you're referring to.

A modest clubhouse and range, in my opinion, are not significant flaws.  If you didn't like Pasa's clubhouse and range, then by all means never play CPC because they are both "lesser".

The back 9 at Pasa is about as good as it gets.  Its easily the best "9" I've ever played as the routing, flow, and green placement is just superb.

P.S. 16 - as crazy as some say it is, it remains the neatest/coolest "green complex" I've ever seen!

IMHO, the "flaws" of Pasatiempo are:

1) the front nine is quite a bit less interesting and unique than the back, resulting in a somewhat asymmetric golfing experience

2) the sixth hole and the seventh fairway are straight and relatively uninteresting corridors.  Both are too narrow for my taste.  The first is also straight and relatively boring.  The ninth hole is fairly bland (but the green complex is pretty good.)  The twelfth and seventeenth holes are relatively weak, particularly compared to the rest of the back nine.

3) the housing abutting many holes is visually intrusive and detracts from the experience

4) Some of the greens are too tricked up for my taste.  Too much contour relative to speed.  The 8th green is exasperating.  The 11th green ditto.  The famous 16th green is, IMHO, fairly ridiculous.   I hit a beautiful approach to the top tier of that green and ended up three levels down on the front fringe.  Putting from the front fringe (where most balls collect that don't end up on the upper level) to the top tier, where the pin is usually located, is an exercise in frustration.  Tiger Woods hates that green.  This is one of the few things that I like about Tiger.  : )  Even the par 3 18th green is relatively severe and an excellent shot into that green in no way guarantees a par.  The greens can be fun in a Disneyland/Fun House kind of way, but they are not something I'd care to have to deal with on a regular basis.

5) I thought the approaches to 11 and 17 were too difficult for average players. 

Things I really like about Pasatiempo include: 

1) The second, third, fourth and fifth holes are great. 

2) The tenth hole is astoundingly neat.  Eleven is very interesting.  Thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen and eighteen are very neat holes (green on sixteen notwithstanding.) 

3) The course is hardly ever boring.  It makes you think.  It makes you anxious at times.  But the rewards of success against such challenges are great. 

I don't place much import on clubhouses, etc.  But the clubhouse at Pasatiempo has a kind of 1960's vibe that I didn't think fit in with the classic era of the course.  I'm sure I would LOVE the clubhouse at CPC (and SFGC as well.)  I'm not into fancy or ostentatious display of wealth.  I like old time cool.  The clubhouse at the Cal Club has this kind of feeling.  The men's locker room looks straight out of the 1920's.  There are even little "lockers within the locker" inside each member's locker for stashing hooch during prohibition.  Quite cool.  I imagine the clubhouses and locker rooms at SFGC and CPC are similar. 

Kirk, not sure I understand your take on the 17th.  First it's "relatively weak," but then the approach is "too difficult for average players."

I personally think the 17th is difficult because you are still in a state of shock from being beat up by the 16th.  It also has one of the sneakiest sloping greens on the course, down off the hill to the left.  At an early Kings Putter, a strong putter with a notoriously anti-cheater line bias somehow seven putted that seemingly innocuous green!

#12 is not a relatively weak hole" either, it requires a well-placed drive and a precision approach over the barranca to a tiny green.

I really don't think there is a weakness on the back nine.  Mackenzie's use of the barranca numerous times (#10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18) is outrageously good, and I admire the deep swale left side of #14.   There is such a nice ebb and flow but yes, you can't relax for a moment.

[Mike Benham]

I'm going to be playing golf with a US Open participant and PGA player at SFGC in a few weeks and I'll ask him the same.

Since all the sectional qualifiers are not yet complete, the "US Open participant" is one of the 77 exempt players.  You further disclose that it is a PGA player so if we eliminate the amateurs and non-PGA players among those exemptions, we can whittle the list down to come up with potential golfers that you will be playing with. 

But then again, unless he has played all the courses recently why does it matter what his answer is ...

[Mac Plumart]

Pasa 6 times to try out some of the shots and options

Cal Club 3 times 'cause its fun

SFGC 1 time trying to get a really dry day and see if that thing would be more fun and exciting on firm and fast turf

[Kirk Moon]

Kirk, not sure I understand your take on the 17th.  First it's "relatively weak," but then the approach is "too difficult for average players."

I personally think the 17th is difficult because you are still in a state of shock from being beat up by the 16th.  It also has one of the sneakiest sloping greens on the course, down off the hill to the left.  At an early Kings Putter, a strong putter with a notoriously anti-cheater line bias somehow seven putted that seemingly innocuous green!

#12 is not a relatively weak hole" either, it requires a well-placed drive and a precision approach over the barranca to a tiny green.

I really don't think there is a weakness on the back nine.  Mackenzie's use of the barranca numerous times (#10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18) is outrageously good, and I admire the deep swale left side of #14.   There is such a nice ebb and flow but yes, you can't relax for a moment.

By "weak" I don't mean easy.  I just mean that the holes are, to me, somewhat less compelling than the holes surrounding them.

I actually like the 12th since I think it is easier than most of the other holes on the back nine and serves as a bit of a breather.  The hole is short enough that most reasonable drives will result in a fairly straightforward short downhill shot into the green.  The barranca is less gnarly than the barrancas on 10, 11 and 18 and can actually be played out of.  It is not a bad hole in any way, shape or form.  Just a bit less amazing than some of the others on the back nine.

My beef with seventeen has to do with the combination of a relatively straightforward (almost boring) fairway combined with an extremely difficult approach shot to an "impossible" green.  As you say, you have just been beaten up by 16 and to face this unforgiving approach shot just drains a lot of the fun out of the experience.  I like scary (such as hitting the ball over the gaping barrancas on 10 and 18) but I hate "mandatory pinpoint precision", probably because I don't have that in my toolbox.  : )

As I said before, some of the greens are too tricky for my taste and I wouldn't want to have to deal with them every day, but for a special and unique experience the back nine at Pasatiempo is perhaps the best that I have personally experienced.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think all three are great courses and any order you put them in is just fine. It is a subjective analysis of three great courses. I would have it Pasa, SF 1 and 1a and Cal Club 2.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()