Is the back nine at Lake Merced the best 9 holes in the Bay Area.

[Joel_Stewart]

It has to be in the conversation.


Start with a driveable par 4 with a great green and then just a wonderful collection of fabulous unique golf holes with two world class par 3s. The par 5 18th seems simple but the bunkers are everywhere you want to hit it so it forces you to think and maneuver.


The back 9 at Pasatiempo is better but that's world class and 75 miles away. 

[Joe Zucker]

It's certainly very good. Rather than offering all the points where I agree, I'll offer two problems I see in the back 9.


First, I did not love #11.  Unless the wind is blowing into you, it's fairly easy for a single digit handicap to get over the bunker and down the hill.  Any drive that is hit between 240 and 300 ends up in the same place (I have the same complaint about #5 where most balls collect at the bottom of the hill).  Secondly, the clear strategy for #18 if you are playing medal play is to aim for 15 tee off the tee on 18.  There is absolutely no sense in taking on the boundary line and trees on the left.  It may be against the spirit of the hole, but I would be aiming right of the fairway bunker every day if I were a member.   The bunkering in the layup zone is fantastic and makes for a very thought provoking shot. 


I loved the day I spent at Lake Merced earlier this year, but those two flaws stood out to me right away when I was playing #11 and #18.

[John Foley]

Yup! Have not played SF or Cal Club but was surprised how mush more I liked it than Olympic.

[David_Tepper]

The back-9 at Harding Park is pretty good too!

[Mark_Fine]

As is the back nine at Berkeley CC!

[Matt Schoolfield]

It's certainly very good. Rather than offering all the points where I agree, I'll offer two problems I see in the back 9.

First, I did not love #11.  Unless the wind is blowing into you, it's fairly easy for a single digit handicap to get over the bunker and down the hill.  Any drive that is hit between 240 and 300 ends up in the same place (I have the same complaint about #5 where most balls collect at the bottom of the hill).  Secondly, the clear strategy for #18 if you are playing medal play is to aim for 15 tee off the tee on 18.  There is absolutely no sense in taking on the boundary line and trees on the left.  It may be against the spirit of the hole, but I would be aiming right of the fairway bunker every day if I were a member.   The bunkering in the layup zone is fantastic and makes for a very thought provoking shot. 

I loved the day I spent at Lake Merced earlier this year, but those two flaws stood out to me right away when I was playing #11 and #18.

I want to push back on #11. I've played this hole and ended up with an eagle putt simply because if you run down the hill, you have a good chance of ending up on the green, whereas if you fly the hill, you're going to get an unfriendly kick and end up at the bottom.

I'm also confused by your strategy on 18, where you'd need to place a shot from 270-320 yards, around one tree and under two others, which would leave you still possibly blocked out by a third. From there, even if you're not in the rough, you have a 200+ yard carry to clear the greenside bunker. I mean, it's certainly a strategy for the bomb and gouge folks, but for any course undergoing a (mostly) historical restoration, that's going to be a vulnerability, and it's bad-faith strategies like these that bring in the arborists. If I were to criticize the 18th, which I very much enjoy, it would be that the obvious addition of an earthen berm on the left side would do wonders.

If I were to criticize any of the holes, I'd say that 14 is the weakest in my mind both architecturally and from a pure fun perspective. I presume it exists as it does for historical reasons, and as a chance to let the fair police reward the big hitters. I think that 17 is an underrated hole from a match play mindset, because of it's potential for extremely high variance given the awkward tee shot. And obviously 13 might be the most beautiful par 3 in the bay area.

As far as the original question, I tend to reject "bests" out of hand. For me, Corica North, the front nine at Lake Chabot, GGPGC, both nines at the Meadow Club, and even the front nine Lake Merced are all obvious contenders for the top spot. It just depends on what you value, and I tend to value fun and irreverence, so I got a soft spot for Chabot.

[Tom_Doak]

There is so much disrespect for SFGC on this DG.


I like the front nine there more than the back, but they are both excellent.

[Joe Zucker]

Matt,


Interesting to hear you ball rolled all the way down the hill and onto the green. In my two rounds there, all of the balls (from a variety of handicaps) ended up within 20 yards of one another.  It still seems like a design flaw for shots hit that differently to end up so close together.  I think it's fine in the grand scheme of things for this to happen occasonally, but if we are talking about the "best", it's a detraction for me. 


Regarding 18 - It's not about where the perfect shot ends up, it's what your options are after a <50th percentile shot.  If I aim down the middle of the fairway, I have ~30 yards of room between a bunker and a cart path/lost ball.  That is far too narrow of a slot for me to attempt a driver.  If I aim right of the trap, I have 60 yards of space to work with before I lose a ball and re-tee. 


It's possible I may end up in the bunker or behind those trees, but as long as I am not absolutely stymied, all I have to do is advance the ball 150 yards to have a wedge into the green. And I have near 0% chance of losing the ball.  Aiming right probably has a higher scoring average on by best 20% of drives than if I were to hit a good shot down the fairway.  But on most of my poor drives, I'll be in reasonable shape if I bail to 15 tee.


Lastly, I agree this is against the design of the hole and I can see the limitations of the restoration that were present.  As a sometimes competitive golfer, I play the hole the best I can as I see it.  I acknowledge the downsides this can present.

[zachary_car]

SFGC front 9 gets my vote as well. Although the back 9 has probably my two favorite holes (12 and 14), there's such a tremendous variety among the first nine holes: plungers and climbers (2, 7, 8,); ridge riders (3, 6, and even 1 albeit a tad differently); and a stout par 3 and par 5 (4, 9). I find the routing refreshingly simple yet effective: two holes going north-to-south, with the others going east-to-west

[Matt Schoolfield]

There is so much disrespect for SFGC on this DG.


I like the front nine there more than the back, but they are both excellent.

They might get more attention if they ever opened their doors. I know a number of people in this thread were able to play Lake Merced because they hosted an event with Club TFE.

SFGC wants their privacy and they can have it.

[Kevin_Reilly]

When I first read Joel's post, I wondered how he would compare the back nine at LMGC with the first nine at SF Club.  At SF, aside from the 8th which is good but not great (relatively short uphill par 4), the first nine has to be among the best in golf.

[Michael Morandi]

It’s too bad that the 13th hole at Lake Merced is marred by the cart path.  It is otherwise a remarkable hole. I’m biased, but I think the short 16 th at CalClub with a back right hole location is its equal and the long 12th is unmatched.

[Mark_Fine]

Quote from a former Grounds Committee Chairman at The Olympic Club:


“The set of greens at Berkeley CC might be the best in the Bay Area.”


Berkeley CC gets no respect on this DG 

[Matt_Cohn]

I like 10 at LMGC. I like 11 at LMGC. Back-to-back—at least for players who can reach the green on both—might not be ideal. I like the idea of playing 10 from the 8th tee at around 385 yards, though I haven't done it myself.


18 does have an issue with the way-right option. I think they've planted a few trees that will eventually make the way-right option unappealing. I think a slight improvement to the course might be to take out the fairway bunker on 18 (making the "proper" route more appealing) in exchange for adding a bunker somewhere on 14 (which is a breather hole, but perhaps slightly too much so).


Best 9 in the Bay Area? That's a tough comparison. But it's pretty cool that it's even included in that conversation.

[Ben Sims]

.

[Jeff Schley]

I haven't played LM, but if the back 9 is in the same conversation as the front at SFGC, then I'd love to see it.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Joel hasn't returned to the thread, but when he does, am sure he can compare 1-9 at SF versus 10-18 at LM, as he has played SF quite a bit.

[Tom_Doak]

There is so much disrespect for SFGC on this DG.

They might get more attention if they ever opened their doors. I know a number of people in this thread were able to play Lake Merced because they hosted an event with Club TFE.

I'm probably biased here, because when I was 19 years old I wrote a letter to SFGC asking if I could come and see the course and study it, and they invited me to play.  They did ask me to sign something that I would never publish my photos of the course, because they didn't like to attract attention from outsiders, but that hardly puts them in the same class as White Oak or Ladera.



If you're going to rate courses on the basis of which clubs let Andy Johnson make $ selling tee times to his club members, for promotional purposes, remember the old saying, you get what you pay for.

[Pierre_C]

I vote for back 9 at Cal Club. Course opens up and wind comes into play.


12th (great view on tee box, long up hill and usually into wind) & 16th (short, elevated tee and narrow horizontal green) are great par 3s. 11th, 14th & 18th are great par 4s requires you to think abt 2nd shot into green & dependent on wind. 17th par 5 gives you a chance to hit 2nd shot into green if your tee shots get over left side of hill and down wind.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I'm probably biased here, because when I was 19 years old I wrote a letter to SFGC asking if I could come and see the course and study it, and they invited me to play.  They did ask me to sign something that I would never publish my photos of the course, because they didn't like to attract attention from outsiders, but that hardly puts them in the same class as White Oak or Ladera.

I mean times change. When I went to play the Old Course, around 2008, my buddy and I got up at 3am to go get in line, and there was one other person ahead of us. When I first heard about that system changing, it was stories on reddit in 2022 of the line stretching all the way to golf shop before midnight. I don't know why that tradition had to change, but I suspect it's just that there are more people wealthy enough to travel.

My point here is just that there is no disrespect for SFGC's course here, it's just that their preference for privacy creates a situation where their course won't be in a lot of conversations. I presume everyone in this thread not mentioning SFGC is missing out, but what are they going to do...

If you're going to rate courses on the basis of which clubs let Andy Johnson make $ selling tee times to his club members, for promotional purposes, remember the old saying, you get what you pay for.

I'm am confused by this take.  Yes, I'm sure the clubs and the hosts make some money from these events, but I mean, I'm still usually paying a visitors fee when I'm invited to a course. I've looked at the tax code, and this is as close as a club in America can get to opening up their doors without losing their tax-exempt status.^{1 2} I don't think these clubs need the money.

Now, I can't speak for the events at The Golfers Journal, Random, or other new media organizations hosting theses things, but I've been to a couple Bay Area events that Fried Egg hosted, and the prices have been downright reasonable. I'm a pretty frugal guy, and they are not cheap, but they have been reasonable. Wildly cheaper than Pebble Beach Company prices and with all the included meals and extras, I'd say the prices per round at both events were arguably cheaper than Bandon green fees. You (mostly) don't even need to be a subscriber to attend.

[John Kirk]

I've never played Lake Merced.  I've played the Cal Club once, Olympic twice and SFGC twice.  Most recently (about 12-14 years ago) I played the Cal Club and Olympic (Lake) on successive days in September when it was hot and clear in San Francisco, an amazing treat.  Course conditions on both courses were to die for.

I first acquired a golf course picture book in the early 1970s, several years before I began to play the sport. "100 Greatest Golf Courses...and Then Some" is a Golf Digest book that featured short descriptions and handsome photos of many great courses.  In this book, a photo of the par-4 10th hole at San Francisco Golf Club made an early impression of the ideal golfing ground.

The subtitle of this two-page spread is "San Francisco: From tragic duels to a stellar membership today."

I don't think I've ever seen a golf course which presents itself to the visitor in a more impactful fashion.  You head down this small, nondescript lane and park your car.  As you approach the small pro shop, you begin to see holes 1, 9, 10 and 18 as part of a spacious field where the golf begins and ends.  It's magnificent.

It's been a long time since I've played any of these courses, so I really can't talk authoritatively about any of them.   I don't remember much of it, frankly.  I played SFGC before and after the major renovation which restored the Tilly Hole, the small par 3 13th which replaced the medium length par 3 15th in the old design.  This allowed the restoration to add considerably more variety to the par 4s (14-17) that traverse the northeast part of the property.

What I do remember is that I loved the new/old 13th, a little postage stamp of a hole with sand all around.  And since I also like the medium-length par 3 11th and dogleg-right par 4 12th holes a great deal, I think the four-hole stretch from #10 to #13 is really good.  Other than that, I probably liked the front nine better, and I remember the par-5 9th hole as being my favorite hole on the course.

Finally, when viewing the course on Google Maps and thinking about things to say, it occurred to me that SFGC may have the most symmetrical course layout among all great courses.


Despite the fact these three courses are all considered to be in the top 50-60 in the U.S., it does seem obvious that the best front or back nine in the vicinity is the back nine at Pasatiempo.  The only argument that I could imagine against that assessment is that the 16th is simply too wild.  If I had to make a call based on my fuzzy memories, I'd probably vote for the front nine at Olympic (Lake) as the best in San Francisco, on that glorious day when the temperature was in the mid-eighties, the greens were fast and smooth and the rough was only 1-1.5 inches long. 

[Joel_Stewart]

When I first read Joel's post, I wondered how he would compare the back nine at LMGC with the first nine at SF Club.  At SF, aside from the 8th which is good but not great (relatively short uphill par 4), the first nine has to be among the best in golf.

You're making me break my habit of logging on to GCA more than once a month.


Obviously I thought about SFGC and I've played there more than most.  The strength of SFGC are the par 4s which are all fantastic, except for #8 which was Tilly's only option to get from the lowest spot on the course back up to the ridge.


I see the front as:


1. Medium length par 5. straight to a pushed up green that slopes back to front. Nothing special.


2. World class


3. Great


4. Long par 3 with a lot of bunkers. Completely manufactured, another pushed up green that slopes hard back to front. Nothing special.


5. Great


6. Great.


7. Great and historic.


8. Worst hole on the course. Uphill. blind second shot, tricked up green.


9. Okay, nothing great. Its harder now that Tom put in a new back tee but its still a long straight par 5 with 11 bunkers scattered randomly making it an obstacle course which is similar to the 18th at Lake Merced.


The back 9 is really good and I could make a case its better than the front.


 

[Tom_Doak]

If you're going to rate courses on the basis of which clubs let Andy Johnson make $ selling tee times to his club members, for promotional purposes, remember the old saying, you get what you pay for.

I'm am confused by this take.  Yes, I'm sure the clubs and the hosts make some money from these events, but I mean, I'm still usually paying a visitors fee when I'm invited to a course. I've looked at the tax code, and this is as close as a club in America can get to opening up their doors without losing their tax-exempt status.^{1 2} I don't think these clubs need the money.

Matt:  No, the clubs don't need the money . . . they are chasing prestige and rankings by allowing some of these groups to play.  Several people on this thread apparently played in one such event, which has facilitated this discussion, which is the whole point.  I don't know the financial arrangements between the clubs and the organizers, but I sure don't think they are charging the same as they get for corporate outings, say.  The organizers are selling access, in the exact same way that GOLF DIGEST and GOLFWEEK have panelists pay for rater cards to gain access.


I appreciate that SFGC doesn't play that game.  I can tell you for a fact that they DO care about their ranking -- I was surprised to hear it mentioned in green committee meetings, but it was.  However, their only response was to ask if it meant that they should be doing something different to the course.  I told them it was just a blip on the radar and they shouldn't make any changes to chase rankings.

[Matt Schoolfield]

If you're going to rate courses on the basis of which clubs let Andy Johnson make $ selling tee times to his club members, for promotional purposes, remember the old saying, you get what you pay for.

I'm am confused by this take.  Yes, I'm sure the clubs and the hosts make some money from these events, but I mean, I'm still usually paying a visitors fee when I'm invited to a course. I've looked at the tax code, and this is as close as a club in America can get to opening up their doors without losing their tax-exempt status.^{1 2} I don't think these clubs need the money.

Matt:  No, the clubs don't need the money . . . they are chasing prestige and rankings by allowing some of these groups to play.  Several people on this thread apparently played in one such event, which has facilitated this discussion, which is the whole point.  I don't know the financial arrangements between the clubs and the organizers, but I sure don't think they are charging the same as they get for corporate outings, say.  The organizers are selling access, in the exact same way that GOLF DIGEST and GOLFWEEK have panelists pay for rater cards to gain access.


I appreciate that SFGC doesn't play that game.  I can tell you for a fact that they DO care about their ranking -- I was surprised to hear it mentioned in green committee meetings, but it was.  However, their only response was to ask if it meant that they should be doing something different to the course.  I told them it was just a blip on the radar and they shouldn't make any changes to chase rankings.

Now, I'm even more confused. The only one preventing SFGC from being in this conversation is SFGC. That's all well and good, and as I said before, they value their privacy and they can have it. If I wanted to dunk on SFGC, I could say they very selectively value their privacy, while opening their doors for the exactly the folks who will maintain their status, and I've yelled about the access economy in American golf here before, but that's not really even relevant here.

This isn't a conversation of raters who have any influence on rankings, it's just a conversation of golf nerds on an (admittedly influential) golf website, but again, there is nothing about the events that even involve this website or membership to any website (the LM event was just open to the public). If a course gains status because a bunch of people are talking about it, because they enjoined it... isn't that just a course being a good course?

You say you appreciate that SFGC doesn't play "that game." I assume by "that game" you're talking about is "selling access." I agree that selling rater cards to get access is a kind of grift that I very much find objectionable, but that's not at all what we're talking about. We're talking about courses "selling access" like every public course does. It's effectively no different from opening their doors to the public (and legally the closest thing to that). If allowing random interested people to enjoy the place is a kind of marketing, then "yay" I guess? Isn't allowing people to try the product a pretty noble form of marketing?

Now, I will agree with you that new clubs are probably trying to build hype. And bringing people in to establishing equity value for their members could be a bit objectionable. This is explicitly why I skipped their Bay Area event at Brambles. That seems like clear marketing to me. Establish that everyone loves this place, then close the doors, and maximize the mimetic dominance, and thus value. That kinda sucks.

But again, we're talking about Lake Merced and SFGC here, they've both been around a long, long time. They aren't trying to sell memberships or make good on price discovery for their equity. It honestly just seems like LM's just proud of their reno-redo (redovation?) and wanted to invite some golf nerds to appreciate it. I guess that's a form of marketing, but it's marketing to people who have effectively no influence on ratings beyond potentially being in a conversation that the actual raters maybe see? And again, there's literally nothing stopping SFGC from just letting people in every once in a while, god forbid they get prestige by demonstrating their excellence to the public.

Again, I do value the opinion of folks who've been in the industry for a long time, but I'm not sure what I'm missing here.

[Jeff Schley]

If you're going to rate courses on the basis of which clubs let Andy Johnson make $ selling tee times to his club members, for promotional purposes, remember the old saying, you get what you pay for.

I'm am confused by this take.  Yes, I'm sure the clubs and the hosts make some money from these events, but I mean, I'm still usually paying a visitors fee when I'm invited to a course. I've looked at the tax code, and this is as close as a club in America can get to opening up their doors without losing their tax-exempt status.^{1 2} I don't think these clubs need the money.

Matt:  No, the clubs don't need the money . . . they are chasing prestige and rankings by allowing some of these groups to play.  Several people on this thread apparently played in one such event, which has facilitated this discussion, which is the whole point.  I don't know the financial arrangements between the clubs and the organizers, but I sure don't think they are charging the same as they get for corporate outings, say.  The organizers are selling access, in the exact same way that GOLF DIGEST and GOLFWEEK have panelists pay for rater cards to gain access.


I appreciate that SFGC doesn't play that game.  I can tell you for a fact that they DO care about their ranking -- I was surprised to hear it mentioned in green committee meetings, but it was.  However, their only response was to ask if it meant that they should be doing something different to the course.  I told them it was just a blip on the radar and they shouldn't make any changes to chase rankings.

Now, I'm even more confused. The only one preventing SFGC from being in this conversation is SFGC. That's all well and good, and as I said before, they value their privacy, and they can have it. If I wanted to dunk on SFGC, I could say they very selectively value their privacy, while opening their doors for the exactly the folks who will maintain their status, and I've yelled about the access economy in American golf here before, but that's not really even relevant here.

This isn't a conversation of raters who have any influence on rankings, it's just a conversation of golf nerds on an (admittedly influential) golf website, but again, there is nothing about the events that even involve this website or membership to any website (the LM event was just open to the public). If a course gains status because a bunch of people are talking about it, because they enjoined it... isn't that just a course being a good course?

You say you appreciate that SFGC doesn't play "that game." If the "game" you're talking about is "selling access." I agree that selling rater cards to get access is a kind of grift that I very much find objectionable, but that's not at all what we're talking about. We're talking about courses "selling access" that's effectively no different from opening their doors to the public (and is legally the closest thing they can do). If allowing random interested people to play is a kind of marketing, then "yay" I guess? Isn't allowing people to try the product a pretty noble form of marketing?

Now, I will agree with you that new clubs are probably trying to build hype. And bringing people in to establishing equity value for their members could be a bit objectionable. This is explicitly why I skipped their Bay Area event at Brambles. That seems like clear marketing to me. Establish that everyone loves this place, then close the doors, and maximize the mimetic dominance, and thus value. That kinda sucks.

But again, we're talking about Lake Merced and SFGC here, they've both been around a long, long time. They aren't trying to sell memberships or make good on price discovery for their equity. It honestly just seems like LM's just proud of their reno-redo (redovation?) and wanted to invite some golf nerds to appreciate it. I guess that's a form of marketing, but it's marketing to people who have effectively no influence on ratings beyond potentially being in a conversation that the actual raters maybe see? And again, there's literally nothing stopping SFGC from just letting people in every once in a while, god forbid they get prestige by demonstrating their excellence to the public, instead of "not playing the game" and earning prestige from genteel patricians, as is American golf culture's custom.

Again, I do value the opinion of folks who've been in the industry for a long time, but I'm not sure what I'm missing here.

Matt, I'm not sure SFGC has the chops to pass those ahead of it, even if it had more raters. Yes, it is a wonderful course, however let's take a look at the GM courses ahead of them.  Who would they pass?
Top 10

• Pine Valley
• Cypress
• Shinnecock
• NGLA
• Oakmont
• Sand Hills
• Augusta
• Merion
• Fishers
• LACC
• Pebble
• Pinehurst 2
• Chicago
• Riviera
• Friars head
• Winged foot
• Pacific Dunes
• Prairie Dunes
• Oakland Hills
• Crystal Downs
• Seminole
• The Country Club

SFGCPretty tough lineup to pass.  IMHO the only possible ones they could pass would be Prairie Dunes, Oakland Hills, maybe TCC. But you are talking about a minute difference. Would that actually help SFGC to move up to say 19? Probably not worth the openness and access in the members minds, or they would do so.