[Joel_Stewart]

This article appeared yesterday regarding Olympic.  Written by Gib it outlines the work being performed on the Lake course.  Any comments would be appreciated.


http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87%7E29590%7E1917777,00.html?search=filter



Tree-trimming gives club new life
THE UNITED STATES Junior Amateur is coming to the Olympic Club this summer, and partly in preparation for it, the club is undergoing the most drastic modifications of its historic golf course undertaken since Sam Whiting redesigned it in 1927. Readers who have played or watched the various tournaments over the years will be shocked at the changes, mostly the result of removing hundreds of trees and acres of brush. The history of how the course evolved is interesting in that the Lake Course has come nearly full circle, 80 years after it was first laid out by Willie Watson. Though the Lake has long been known as an arboreal parkland, in recent years the layout had become badly overgrown. Whether this contributed to a drop in rankings on both the Golf Digest and Golf Week Top 100 list is a matter of speculation, there is no doubt that narrow, excessively penal golf courses have gone out of vogue in favor of more strategic layouts. So what are the main changes? To begin with, massive tree removal to reopen the vistas on the leeward side of the hill overlooking Lake Merced. Originally, the club purchased the land from the struggling Lakeside Country Club in 1917 and put the wheels in motion to superimpose a new course atop the existing layout. At the time, the property was made up almost entirely of sand dunes, with only a smattering of foliage. After the first World War, it was decided that the club would need two courses to accommodate the golf boom, and Willie Watson constructed both the Lake Course and what was then known as the Pacific Links -- later changed to the Ocean Course. The Lake Course was considered the lesser of the two and went largely ignored by the press in favor of the spectacular Pacific Links, routed mostly on the bluffs overlooking the ocean. Unfortunately, this marquee layout did not last past the winter of 1930, where torrential rains washed most of the course into the sea. The club opted to do some major redesign work of the Willie Watson courses and brought in Sam Whiting to reroute many of the holes and undertake an ambitious tree planting program once the fairways were established. In this way, it can be said that the Olympic Club's courses were built in reverse. Usually, tree-lined layouts are cut through existing forest, but Whiting converted the dune-scape into a parkland course with thousands of pines, cypress and redwood trees. Golf courses are like gardens in that they need to be pruned and controlled, and as happened to many Golden Age courses, trees became sacrosanct in the minds of many members who ceased to view them as plants that needed to be controlled. This condition of overgrowth eventually choked off most of the air and light essential for growing grass -- as well as making the course almost impossible for anyone lacking the skill to hit the ball straight and long on the perpetually damp fairways. Now, visitors will find a completely different aesthetic, and one that brings back the flavor of the original layout. The Lake Course wriggles, twists and writhes down the hillside, but the experience was disorienting because every hole was hemmed in by dense thickets. Now, for the first time in more than 50 years, the sparkling vistas that surround the golf course are in full view. The wind, never much of a factor in the strategy of the golf course, now demands golfers allow for firm fairways and swirling ocean breezes. In some measure, the native grasses, planted in place of the unkempt brush, strongly resemble Shinnecock Hills on Long Island, N.Y. The removal of so many trees on a highly ranked course is not unprecedented, but with the exception of Oakmont, site of six U.S. Opens, this is the first time in recent memory a "Top 25" club has had the courage and vision to admit its golf course was becoming a dowager and take drastic action. In some respects, the improvement at California Golf Club, attained by removing more than a thousand trees, emboldened the club to restore the course. It has been suggested that Cal Club is now in the same class as Olympic and San Francisco Club. In conjunction with the tree removal, the club is considering the idea of extending the golf course with the construction of new tees. Following the U.S. Junior this summer, Olympic has been honored with another United States Amateur championship in 2008. Is another United States Open in the works after that? Perhaps, but players in future championships will find the Lake Course looking and playing more as a strategic links instead of a claustrophobic march through a dripping wet forest.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Link fixed:

San Mateo Times Article

[Mike Benham]

This article appeared yesterday regarding Olympic.  Written by Gib it outlines the work being performed on the Lake course.  Any comments would be appreciated.

Hey Joel, any pictures?  

I expect that some of the people who have visited the O Club or saw it during the last US Open would be speechless by the dramatic results ...

Ps:  Good work ...

[Jeff_Mingay]

Great article, Gib. And good news, too.

[Joel_Stewart]

Ps:  Good work ...

Yea my arms are really sore from the chainsaw.  Actually the credit goes to the new superintendent (Pat Finlen) and the chairman of the green committee as well as the board.  There is still quite a bit of work, the rough lines have become distorted, some bunkers need to be rebuilt, etc. etc..

 

[Evan_Green]

The course looks amazing different than before - do you guys think this effort will help it climb up the ratings list?

Im just glad it isnt my job to cut the trees, I saw a guy 50 feet up cutting limbs down next to the 7th green- he was literally tied to the tree! I was scared watching him the ground (and then 3 putted)

[brad_miller]

Hope that article gets wide distribution. Congrads, OC

[Scott_Burroughs]

It's nice to see Gib back doing articles for the SMC Times, as it had been more than 2 months since his last article.

Have the trees on the right side of #5 been trimmed/removed any in the past 9 months?

How about along the right side of #4?  Both sides of near tee of #12 (previously hit through a narrow chute).

How about along left side of #16?

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I think the tree removal will be a great revitalization of the course.  The green complexes are nothing less than awesome.  When playing there in a June 1998 tournamet I spent a few idle moments viewing the many old photographs.  I came to the conclusion that the course could play as tough as it did that week if there was no rough and it was maintained hard and fast.  The trees completely choked the wind after the first three holes.  Having hit a few wayword shots, I found quite a few humps and bumps that would be very interesting if the course played hard and fast.  It seemed like a few holes could easily be lengthened without the abundance of trees.  As hard as the course plays, I think it is  very enjoyable with a variety of shots required.  I look forward to playing there  again sometime in the future.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Have the trees on the right side of #5 been trimmed/removed any in the past 9 months?

Yes, significantly.  All Eucalyptus have been removed, and all deadwood taken out.

How about along the right side of #4?  

Yes, you wouldn't believe how it looks from the #4 tee now.

Both sides of near tee of #12 (previously hit through a narrow chute).  How about along left side of #16?

Dunno about #12 and #16.  Eucalyptus Tree to the left of #14 at the dogleg has been significantly cut back.  Opens up the hole from the left.

[Evan_Green]

Trees to the right of #1 & right of #2 have been trimmed/removed- a new tee is being constructed that will add approx 25 yards to the hole many trees behind #3 green/ left of #4 the entire 4th have been removed. This will greatly add to the difficulty of #3 since there will be much more wind now. Trees to the right of #4 have been gone for many months now- you can see all the way to the 8th tee and beyond.

As stated all eucalyptus have been removed from right of 4 and right of 5.

Trees to the right of #7 were being trimmed as well.

#12 has not yet been trimmed/ removed yet as far as I know- I always thought that was too narrow of a chute. Hopefully they will get around to that one if nothing else.

As far as conditioning of the course is concerned- it is my understanding that the soil system had gotten very thin and will need another 4 years or so before reaching its potential since the fairways had never been punched before the new superintendent came in. More sunlight should help with less trees.

I have heard that some 300 yards will be added to the course- with some of the new wind conditions should make things interesting to say the least. I just hope they dont go too far with this project and damage the course.

[Gyrogolf]

What follows (two posts) is an attempt to codify some guidelines not only for rough-line modifications to the golf course, but also a rough list of suggestions made by Neal Meagher, Joel Stewart and myself. In addition, some of these comments originally were pointed out to me over the last few years by Mike DeVries, John Harbottle, Tom Doak, Doug Nickels, George Bahto, Tommy Nacarrato, Dave Wigler, Lou Duran, Stettner, Scotty Clem, Steve Meeker, Brains Goodale  . . . . oh heck, just about all my friends on the site who have been out there with me seem to be of *one mind* regarding the necessity of opening up the golf course.

I would like to solicit the opinion of everyone for your comments or feedback.

-Gib

Thoughts on trees and their relationship to rough lines:

#1. Rough lines must always tie into an existing tree line or land form.

#2. Whenever possible, rough lines must be consistent as to their distance from the tree line.

#3. When tying-in a rough line to a land form - be it a hump, swale, fairway contour or bunker complex - the paramount goal is to increase shot-making options.

#4. When in doubt, widen the fairways as much as possible.

#5. Rough lines must never be arbitrary.

#6. Rough lines should always be as simple as possible. Squiggly mowing patterns, without visual reference to tree-lines or tangible land-forms are jarring, inaesthetic and artificial in appearance.

#7. The reverse-camber fairways on the Lake Course are a highly strategic feature. They force players to move the ball off the tee and use the slope of the fairway to direct their ball. It defeats the purpose to arrange rough lines to stop balls struck on an incorrect line from bounding into the trees.

#8. There should be no rough in front of any bunker. Ever. The purpose of a bunker is to give a golf hole strategic geometry. Firm, fast turfgrass at fairway-height in front of bunkers encourages balls to enter the hazard.

#9. Deep rough adds nothing to the enjoyment of the experience and gives advantage to physically stronger players at the expense of thoughtful shot-makers. We can eliminate much of the benefit provided by modern balls and drivers by highlighting the twists and turns of our fairways. If the fairways are kept hard and fast, with only sparse rough, it will be nearly impossible to overpower the golf course without extremely accurate ball placement.

#10. Deep grass or penal rough lines discourage the ground game. Aerial golf was a fad that has fallen out of favor with national course rating panelists. The perception that Olympic is penal, claustrophobic and perpetually damp contributed to our drop in the rankings. Wherever possible, we must work to present the golf course in such as way as to highlight the strategic angles and not eliminate them with deep grass.

[THuckaby2]

WOW!  Great stuff, fantastic, incredible.  I sure as shit have nothing to add - what's left to say other than "bring on the back nine"?  And more importantly,

Welcome back, oh great one.  You were sorely missed.

Can't wait to see the Lake.  I've been one of those who always thought of it over the years as a definitely fine course, with the history alone making for a wonderful golf experience, and sure as shit it always has been a test... but I always thought of it as more work than fun, if that makes any sense - not really overly penal, but rather a long wet slog and an endless series of 2irons and fairway woods.  With these changes, those terms may well just turn around and it should be way more fun than work, which really is what it was always supposed to be, right?

I do have one question though, and it's not as smartass as it sounds:  why the seeming focus on rankings?  I read your comments on #10 particularly and I cringe... Isn't it enough that you're making the course BETTER and MORE FUN, which it sure as hell seems to me that you are?  

TH

[JakaB]

Huck,

I don't get you...I thought the day we played Olympic is was the funnest course I had ever played and now you go with this no fun rant...did you forget or was I just so lucky to find the course in great shape that one rare day....What the hell is so unfun about the place...name one shot.  

[THuckaby2]

JakaB:

Read my words more carefully.

I've been fortunate to play the course quite a few times.  That day with you was a BLAST for two reasons:

a) the people
b) they had already begun some of the work Gib highlights now, thus drainage had already improved a LOT.  

You might recall my eyes wide open, freaking out at the roll we were getting... well if not, that did occur, time and time again.  I was really surprised.  I expect to be FLOORED the next time I see it, based on Gib's descriptions.

And that is because in all my rounds prior to that, it was indeed a long slog through claustrophobic trees with drives backing up from their pitch marks.  As I say, the history alone made it a great course in my book, I just would never have called it "fun"... It was a TEST for sure, and definitely fun to be there... but the shots were work more than they were fun.  I just don't dig an endless parade of 2irons and 3woods into tiny greens, you know?

But as you saw, just clear some things out, dry it up, and wow does it change... You and I saw just the tip of the iceberg on that day, and already it was noticeable...

Does this make better sense?

TH

[JakaB]

Does this make better sense?

TH

No...Two facts that prove you wrong...the reverse canter of the fairways would be easier in a slog and Gib would have learned to hit the ball high if what you say is true.   I really get pissed at course gypsies that think everytime they visit either god or the superintendent needs to have brought the course to the edge for their personal enjoyment.  I agree that the things Gib mentions is manking a great course greater...I don't agree that the course was ever more work than fun...even on that dry day we played the up tees...maybe you just didn't understand the set up on the previous days you played...or the rain patterns of the previous week.

[THuckaby2]

JakaB:

Ok, I get what you are trying to say, but you have me wrong, my friend.

Let me repeat:  I have played the course MANY times, over the period of quite a few years.  All four seasons, no matter what the rain was or wasn't, no matter if there were fog or not, no matter if it was 80 degrees and not a cloud in the sky, it was ALWAYS WET, and only on the very best days would one get any roll at all.  Now I'm no expert on these things - far from it - but it seems to me the overgrown forest of trees had more to do with this than any weather patterns.  Combine this with the fact that the rough lines were always pretty darn close in, and the rough has always been kept pretty darn high, and what you had was a fine test of golf, just not a "fun" golf course - not under those conditions - not by my definition of fun, which likely does differ from yours and others.  So be it.... Plenty of others had no problem with it... but plenty of others agreed with me as well.

As for Gib, he hits the ball so damn low, only he managed to get roll.   So he doesn't count.  But I doubt he has the ability to change his game based on a course, no offense... none of us do really... nor would he have cared to - he does play many other places outside his home.  But he can answer this himself if he wishes!

Hey, I don't want to knock OClub - as I say I always enjoyed my rounds there.  As it was before though, it was just too severe, too wet, too long, too claustrophic - all because of the overgrown trees, I think, as well as how carried away they always got with the rough.  If you like that kind of golf, then more power to you.  Just do realize also you didn't see it.  Or had you played there before that day with us?

TH

ps - as for reverse canter of fairways being easier in a slog, I don't agree with that either - give me 50 more yards and I'll take the worse angle in, every time, on those holes. Remember we are talking LONG golf holes... the absence of roll takes away so much distance that to me it trumps any gain one gets from the ball staying put.

pss - re this quote:  "I really get pissed at course gypsies that think everytime they visit either god or the superintendent needs to have brought the course to the edge for their personal enjoyment. "  You have me REALLY wrong there and I am on the verge of getting pissed myself.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is just you being you, in your inimitable way... but if you think that's how I look at golf courses, well... them's fightin' words.  

[JakaB]

Couple of more things...

Much like a pet owners face mirrors his pet a golfers game mirrors the architecture of his home course...

Olympic is the only course in the world that I have played once that I care deeply to play again...

How many times a year can a course be brought to the perfect edge of destruction that allows the optimum fun you so desire....my guess is once every six weeks given minimal private play.

[THuckaby2]

JakaB:  your posts are provocative, as always - you've just picked the wrong example this time, and you have me all wrong, based on your one round seeing it in damn near perfect conditions, brought about by the beginning of the changes Gib describes, which seem to be coming to full fruition now.

I don't want this course to be anything, for me.

I want it to be what it can be, what it always should have been, at all times, for everybody.  That really does seem to be exactly what they are doing now.

So no, I'm not talking making it screaming firm and fast, bring the greens up to 12 speed, all the crap they try to do for US Opens.  Far from it.  All I'm advocating, all I ever wished those many times I played a course that really wasn't as much fun as it should have been, was give the course a chance to show what it can be.  Clear out the forests... let the sun come through on those rare times it's cloudless... give the grass a CHANCE to dry up... cut the rough lines correctly - as Gib so artfully describes - giving the golfers a chance to play the course at its maximum fun level...

See, that's another thing you miss.  Gib's game mirrors the architecture of OClub Lake AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE, AS IT COULD BE, but not as it was.  His game was patently unsuited for OClub Lake as it was, and he'd freely admit that, methinks.  Why the heck do you think he's such a strong proponent of these recent changes?  

You really think all OClub members hit it as low as him, also?  Puh-leeze.  Just like in so many things, our buddy Gib is the exception, not the rule.  

I don't want the course optimal, never have.  I want it what it can be, and wasn't.  Big difference.

Look at it this way:  if my first and only round ever at OClub was that day with you, I'd absolutely agree with every word you say.  It wasn't, and I don't.  Please understand the history...

I too VERY much look forward to playing it again, and would say that just based on that day with you.  Of course I'd say it anyway even based on how I felt about it before, but that's beside the point.  

TH

[ChipRoyce]

God be praised!

They have seen the light!

Now only if greens committess around the country (including my own) would:

1) track down any information on the architects' original intent for the design

2) ignore #1, if that designer determined that trees were integral in the line of play

3) Identify those trees that should be removed

4) build consensus amongst the members about what can be achieved by tree removal

5) find the cash to be able to accomplish a major tree removal process

[THuckaby2]

It is pretty damn incredible, Chip.  Methinks a miracle has occurred in San Francisco, and though I have no knowledge of how it came about, I'm guessing Saint Gib and Saint Joel had a lot to do with it.  

[THuckaby2]

Great stuff Joel - thanks.  Re rankings, it was just surprising coming from Gib, that's all.  I do see the worth of it - makes great sense as a benchmark, helps the sell, means a lot to a lot of people.  My bad for missing that before.  

It's all very exciting news, in any course.  However much or little influence or role you guys have, well... keep it up, it sure seems to be working!

TH

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I am looking forward to looking at Gib/gyro's question and answering it. Much to much going on at the office today. thanks Gib for giving us the opportunity to discuss rough and tree lines on a course many of us are familiar with. John

[THuckaby2]

JB - though I look forward to your take, I'm gonna be surprised if you don't just leave it as "yes, yes, yes, uh-huh, you're right, right on, that's a great idea" as I did for every single point Gib lists, thus my lack of comments on such....

But go Tigers in any case.

 

[THuckaby2]

Shivas:  obviously NO course plays long for you.  

And the point is as it used to be, so wet, it just played longer than it SHOULD, with zero roll.  Add that to the fact of the constant dead-air there, and well, for us normal hitters anyway, it always did play pretty damn long.  But the point remains I found it more work than fun just because it played longer than it ought to - so 6800 seemed to play more like 7700.

As for the rest, heck yeah you had to work the ball both ways... but good shots in the fairway being blocked by trees, as often used to happen, that also to me is more work than fun.

A lot of this might be my personal preference for fun over tests, granted.  But I also had this feeling that man, what might the course be if it weren't so overgrown... I'm not kidding...

To me it did feel claustrophobic, also - sure, I also have played far tighter courses ... but add to it the length, the test involved, the fact that to have any chance at all an average hitter absolutely had to hit driver out to every one of those fairways with overgrown, overhanging trees... and well, ok, claustrophpobic is too strong a word, but man it seemed pretty damn tight.

Hey, you want claustrophobic?  Screw Medinah - that's kid's stuff compared to Fort Ord-Bayonet as it was in up until about 10 years ago.

In any case, all of this is beside the point, which is really that the course is gonna be a hell of a lot better now than it has been in many years.  I believe you'd agree with that, no?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()