Harding Park

[Kevin_Reilly]

Re internal hazards, just remember that such would only be done in a complete REMODEL.  No way I want to add bunkers to what's there now - damn right it's tough enough as it is and that would make it take forever.  But give cart blanche for a re-do, wouldn't some holes with central bunkers - shorter but offering more strategic choices - be damn fun there?  It surely could be done....

Yes, maybe something further up the hole on #4...to make you think about clearing it with your second shot or laying up to force a longer approach.  Right now you have carte blanche for your second shot (as long as you hit it relatively straight   )

Re #10 green, well....you don't think the green moved left, closer to the lake, would add interest to the hole?  Man, that would complicate the tee shot, make one think more about the 2nd, make for one darn fun interesting third.... Oh, it's a pretty good hole as it is... I just look at all that room left and wonder, that's all.  Maybe in the interest of faster play, it's ok where it is... that's a valid issue... but I also don't want a dumbed-down course if I'm paying top dollar prices, which as a non-SF resident I did.

Yeah, maybe you're right about 10 green...I just didn't take notice of it.  And I paid $76 as well.  

Interesting re 13 and 14... on 13, the fairway bunker was definitely in play for me from the blues - I barely rolled one past it on the left side, and I'm not sure if I could clear it.  We did have a bit of a headwind.

You must have had a headwind.  I played in the morning and there wasn't much wind...I hit mine through the dogleg to the left side rough (playing from the blues), and as I said my dad had no problem with it playing from the whites.  

[THuckaby2]

Kevin:

I paid $88.  Fridays continue to be called "weekends" nearly everywhere here, and Harding has followed the trend.  Damn I hate that...

Re 13, two guys I was with both went all the way to the left rough also, from the blues.  I guess I'm just a weakstick.    Man I thought I hit it well and it barely got past the trap... but I was on a way different angle than they were, so I in effect I wasn't that much behind them pure yardage-wise... I still think clearing that bunker isn't gonna be all THAT easy, and thus it works, especially given that the angle in is SO much better from the right...

Good call re 4, also.  That is one hell of a great tee shot, but the 2nd is blah.  Fine green also.  Put a smallish bunker about 130-150 yards short of the green, right in the middle, and man then you really have something.  VERY good idea.... And that hole takes a long time to play anyway, given how long it is, so this should make much difference.... Why couldn't things like this be done?

TH

[Kevin_Reilly]

Good call re 4, also.  That is one hell of a great tee shot, but the 2nd is blah.  Fine green also.  Put a smallish bunker about 130-150 yards short of the green, right in the middle, and man then you really have something.  VERY good idea.... And that hole takes a long time to play anyway, given how long it is, so this should make much difference.... Why couldn't things like this be done?

Come to think of it, 17 at OC Lake (as a par 5) suffers the same on the second shot....blast it up the hill with impunity.  A bunker short and right would make the second more interesting.  I've always thought it was the weakest hole on the course.

[THuckaby2]

Call 17 at OC Lake a par 4 and does that change your opinion?

That's what it is for the USOpen....

I've always just thought that hole worked better as a brutal two-shotter, making sure to play tees at 460 or less.  Push it back to 500 where it is a real three-shotter, and you're right, a bunker short right would add interest....

TH

[Kevin_Reilly]

Call 17 at OC Lake a par 4 and does that change your opinion?

That's what it is for the USOpen....

I've always just thought that hole worked better as a brutal two-shotter, making sure to play tees at 460 or less.  Push it back to 500 where it is a real three-shotter, and you're right, a bunker short right would add interest....

TH

I don't think it ever really plays as a par 4...maybe a par 4.5 or so.  An elevated, bunkered, small green isn't really made to accept an approach shot with a wood or long iron (or maybe a 7 iron given technology   )  Sort of like that hole at Lake Merced that is long and uphill and won't accept a run-up.  So in its present form it is neither a good 4 or 5 par.  

It played as a par 5 in the Tour Championship and it was a let-down then.  It will be interesting to see how the Juniors play it next year at the Junior Am.  I wonder how many will try to get there in 2.  If the tee box is back then it will be drive, midiron, wedge.

[THuckaby2]

Well, I'd agree it's far from the best hole on the golf course, and you're right, it doesn't work really well whatever you call it.  I just did enjoy watching pro after pro in the USOpen try to reach that green in two, and fail... Given there really is nothing to stop them from trying other than it's a long shot - that is, there is no hazard or anything they need to avoid, no real reason to lay back to 100 - absent the addition of a bunker like you say, it works better played at the 460 tee, so those with enough distance not only will always try to go in two, since you then call it a par 4, they EXPECT to reach it in two... The mind-game is just better from that tee... At the 500 tee, it's just bash-bash-chip, with no pressure, no thought....

Given the absence of any real strategic choices to be made, to me it just works better to ratchet up the intensity a bit by playing it at 460 and calling it a par 4.  I'd guess that many people might score worse from this tee than from 500, even though they gain 40 yards, just due to the mind game...

TH

[Mike Benham]

... Given there really is nothing to stop them from trying other than it's a long shot - that is, there is no hazard or anything they need to avoid, no real reason to lay back to 100 - absent the addition of a bunker like you say, it works better played at the 460 tee, so those with enough distance not only will always try to go in two, since you then call it a par 4, they EXPECT to reach it in two... The mind-game is just better from that tee... At the 500 tee, it's just bash-bash-chip, with no pressure, no thought....

Given the absence of any real strategic choices to be made, to me it just works better to ratchet up the intensity a bit by playing it at 460 and calling it a par 4.  I'd guess that many people might score worse from this tee than from 500, even though they gain 40 yards, just due to the mind game...

TH

I would love to be able to put in some pointed Mucci type questions here but my question mark key is broken on my keyboard ...

I think you guys are simplfying the layup area on 17 a little too much.  It is a very well bunkered green and even at 491 (Blues) it would be a stern test by today's distance standards ...

The fairway still slants left to right as you start to go up the hill and it narrows, so a layup shot will still bound left and under the current firm conditions, could likely end up in the rough.  The rough, from 125 in right of the green is no picnic and it requires an uphill shot over the bunker to a slick green.  I would bet that from that point, you would get within 10 feet of the pin less than half the time.

If you do stay in the fairway then you are guaranteed an uneven lie to hit your approach from ...

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

Oh, I never said any part of this golf hole was EASY - far from it - it's a bitch no matter what tees one plays from.  I just don't see any reason why one would ever lay back... The entire hole is bitchly, with no "good spot"... You tell me, if I am sitting with 230 up that hill (fair guess if I hit from tees from 450-480), what makes me want to go 9-iron to 100, wedge from there?  What's stopping me from just bashing 3wood and hoping for the best?

Take me back to the 500+ tees and there's even LESS reason to lay back... from those I have no real choice, I can't get there anyway... so it's driver/3wood/PW - why do it any differently?

In each case, oh sure, many things can and do go wrong.  But there's no strategic reason to do it any other way, not that I can see... the shot into that green ain't gonna get any easier....

This is why I say the hole either needs to have a bunker at 100 in - and then you play from the 500+ tees and have a real decision to make on the 2nd shot - or just always play it at 460 or less.  

Of course, I haven't played the golf hole all that many times... so I most definitely defer to the expertise of you members.

TH

[Kevin_Reilly]

I agree with you...from 125 yds on any hole I get closer than 10 feet away less than 50% of the time!  Try 1%!

I don't think you get as much left to right ground movement on the approach because it is an uphill shot that you usually hit it with a mid or long iron...with backspin.  It is a pretty big target to hit with a 4 or 5 iron for your second.  It doesn't move anything at all like the downhill second shot (layup) on #1 where it is pretty easy to lose it to the right.

I agree with Tom that this is a better hole as a par 4, but I think more needs to be done than simply moving the tee up to the US Open length.  

[Kevin_Reilly]

Mike:

Oh, I never said any part of this golf hole was EASY - far from it - it's a bitch no matter what tees one plays from.  I just don't see any reason why one would ever lay back... The entire hole is bitchly, with no "good spot"... You tell me, if I am sitting with 230 up that hill (fair guess if I hit from tees from 450-480), what makes me want to go 9-iron to 100, wedge from there?  What's stopping me from just bashing 3wood and hoping for the best?

Take me back to the 500+ tees and there's even LESS reason to lay back... from those I have no real choice, I can't get there anyway... so it's driver/3wood/PW - why do it any differently?

In each case, oh sure, many things can and do go wrong.  But there's no strategic reason to do it any other way, not that I can see... the shot into that green ain't gonna get any easier....

This is why I say the hole either needs to have a bunker at 100 in - and then you play from the 500+ tees and have a real decision to make on the 2nd shot - or just always play it at 460 or less.  

Of course, I haven't played the golf hole all that many times... so I most definitely defer to the expertise of you members.

TH

Tom from the par 5 tees you wouldn't have a PW left if you go Driver, 3 wood.  The 3 wood should put you on the upper flatter section in front of the green so you'd have a shorter shot.  A longer or mid iron second puts you in the more full PW range.

[THuckaby2]

Kevin:

Fine.  My point is that from there, it's driver/3wood/whatever's left.  What is there to make me not try and hit 3wood as close to the green as possible?  Why am I better off going driver/4iron/full PW?

It just seems kinda mindless to me from those tees, but I could have it wrong...

From 460, we add the EXPECTATION of getting there in two, so at least the mind-game exists, which to me adds interest.

TH

[Kevin_Reilly]

The 3 wood for the second would leave you one of those "tweener" wedge shots for the approach, which I agree is desirable if you are comfortable with them...I like giving myself a fuller shot for the approach since I can put more spin on it and not have to worry about my L-O-F-T for those partial wedges.

I think we're in general agreement about things...we just play the hole differently.  For you it's blast away with a 3 wood, for me it's do the same with an iron.

[THuckaby2]

Kevin:

Gotcha.  In general, heck yeah I too want a full shot - I suck at the tweeners as much as anyone else.  I just see things magnified by the slopes on that hole so much, that I'm not sure I can keep an iron on the fairway anyway... and well, from those kinda hanging lies, I just figure the shorter I have the better off I am.... and if I get REALLY lucky, maybe I get it on in two even from the back tees.

In any case, as you so rightly pointed out, there's sure no hazard to change the thinking of either of us... put a bunker at 100 and then we each have to give it a bit more thought.

TH

[Mike Benham]

Yes, a full third shot is the better choice than having a half wedge to an elevated pin over a bunker.

The preferred angle of play into the green for your third shot is tucked on the left edge of the fairway, it is the flatest lie (on top of the hill) and gives the angle with the least carry over the bunkers, regardless of the hole placement.  I think Kevin can agree to that.

That being said, it isn't easy to get your ball to that location.  Your shot from the fairway is likely off a side-hill lie, with wind left to right or slightly in to you.  And with the firm conditions, a shot hit slightly right of perfecrt, the ball will squirt down the slope into the rough.  Pull it a hair and your are in the left rough.  

In fact I would prefer to be in the left rough than the bound down into the right rough, which is why a bunker on the left would force a more stragetic decision ...

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

Got it.  So let's get that bunker on the left put in!

I still think the hole plays a lot better at 460, btw.  Much more temptation.
 

TH

[Kevin_Reilly]

Mike:

Got it.  So let's get that bunker on the left put in!

Mike and I will write the mission statement.

[Mike Benham]

The mission statement might require research ...

How about a field trip    

[les_claytor]

Good observations on Harding, very interesting.  

The old maintenance yard is temporary.  The new facility will be in the trees on the left side of #13.  They're scheduled to start construction in a couple of weeks.  OB left of the trees will make 13 a much tighter hole.  15 will be all the better after that yard is remved.  They want a nursery / short game practice area in the old maint. yard.

The course will take some setbacks due to traffic for the first several months.  I thought the grow in was pretty good considering several factors.  They just hit it hard with CA and K nitrate fertilizer just prior to opening. They should start to see the effects now.  How were the greens? Kemper's agronomist thought he was a couple weeks away from recovering from a rocky aerification.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Les, greens were pretty good...smooth, mid-speed.  I saw no traces of aerification.

Some felt a little soft but most were firm.  One of the guys in the group hit his approach to 13 literally 2 inches from the cup and his ball ended up 10 yds over the green past the collection area...the green was firm.  

It will be interesting to see the greens evolve when the poa arrives.

[Peter Galea]

Les, any idea why they aerified prior to opening?

[mwtrx67]

I was lucky enough to play last friday.  Played with a couple of others who had payed the first weekend.  Already, they had noticed that the maintenace was slipping.  Didn't notice any maintenace workers on the course as well.  Is this their plan?  To maintain the course after or before hand?  Is it me, or are the cup holes cut differently?  Our foursome had 2 or 3 lip outs that seemed pretty peculiar.  Maybe it was just us though

[Evan_Green]

I played today and I was dissapointed- the bunkers are very shallow and the greens are very uninteresting. The course is in tenuous condition- some of the fairways have very sparse gras- i dont think its going to last throught he tortures of the winters and hackers.

They didnt make the bunkers deep to make them easier to maintain and so the 80 yr old 40 handicapers wont spend the whole day out there, however it makes the course very benign.

Plus the course is downright dangerous- some of the tees are 10 yards from the previous green- one group member got hit today on 9 tee (fortunately on a bounce)- but scary nonetheless.

Bottom of the line: Harding is no Olympic Club.

[THuckaby2]

Concur with Kevin R. re the greens....

And Evan brings up a good point also - there are several places where they are one beaning away from putting up a fence... or at least they ought to be if they have any sense in this overly-litigious world we live in.  #2 tee, especially the blue, is downright scary... It would only take the slightest pull from 1 fairway to cause decapitation there.  Beyond that, the line for your teeshot goes RIGHT over the stone marker by the white tee... the slightest thin tee shot there is gonna hit that marker and God knows the carnage that could result...

I understand the issues here - you want to keep the green to tee distance short, to favor walkers.... but there are some scary instances like this sprinkled throughout...

I'd have to guess it won't be too long before many tees have fences by them.  This kills the "aesthetic", but that in the end has to be better than killing some human beings...

TH

[Kevin_Reilly]

Tom, you're correct about #2 tee....a ball from #1 missed us on that tee by about 2 feet.  No "fore" call either from the guy who hit it    

However the course still has a long way to go to approach the dangers of Tilden Park...the 14th tee there (the blue tee) is an insurance company's worst nightmare.  It is elevated, and you have to hit a diagonal shot to reach the fairway, but there is a giant tree that forces you to aim a bit left...problem is that left is the entire 18th hole.  So if you top it, you'll hit guys on the 18th green below, if you pull it or draw it you'll hit someone on the 18th fairway.  It is absolutely scary on that tee unless you are Bruce Lietzke with a 100% fade move.

[THuckaby2]

Oh heck yeah, Tilden remains a battle zone.

Interesting that you had the near miss on #2 at Harding... we had no such instances, thank God, but I stood on that tee and did experience a certain amount of fear, as I looked back and saw a guy on the left side of 1 fairway flailing at a fairway wood.  Praise the Lord that most hack shots miss right.... Still, that was enough to get me really thinking.

They're gonna have to put a fence to the right of 2 tee.

TH