[Ran Morrissett]

This course has both very staunch admirers and vocal critics as well. Rarely do you see a course polarise opinions to the same degree. Please refer to the David Eger's Q&A from September for a well articulated pro-sentiment. Also GP from this site is a long time honored member. Other contributors to this site have called it the "most overrated recent major tournament site."My question is this: if you had the course to yourself for one month (with all the men and accessories at your ready disposal), what (if anything) would you do? Tree pruning? Soften the 18th green? Lower the lip of the par three bunkers? Plant more trees? Raise the lip on the bunkers? What would you do?The question is born out of curiosity to see if the pro and con camp might meet somewhere together.

[Bill Vostinak]

When I lived in San Francisco I belonged to a club that allowed reciprocity to the O, so that whenever there was a little ho-hum tournament at the CalClub, I was off to play the O.The improvement in the trees in the last 4-5 years is dramatic since the 80's, yet I would continue the process.  It is a special ambiance to many that the SF clubs have these corridors of Cypress trees and fog, but the trees are a damned nuisance.  Holes such as 4, 5, 9, 12!, 16 come to mind as still needing a good chainsaw or two. The trees unfortunately take the (3-D) place of fairway contouring and bunkering.  One thing that can never be changed is the soil and the climate.  The degree of wetness at times creates a quagmire at the SF courses, it is all a prt of the local geology.  if firm conditions could be more prevalent, I would do it.The mix of holes and the layout is sound.  THe course is a good test.  It just is not that special combination that makes it one of the very best. Variety probably is what lacks the most.  Oh!  Another tree lined hole!

[T_MacWood]

I agree with Bill V., the features that make San Francisco golf course's so visually charming, the trees and the fog, are also its downfall. I also lived in S.F. for a short time and used drive by Olympic every morning. Looking up at the course clinging to the hillside, narrow allies created by beautiful old cypress and eucalyptus and the ever present shroud of fog. Great to look at, but tough to play in.  I understand they have eliminated many trees in recent years, but from what I've seen many more should go. Not only would it improve the claustraphobic play, but I think it would allow for more air circulation which would help in drying out the playing surfaces. It would also no doubt provide for some beautiful views of Lake Merced and the surrounding area. It's hard to believe that when the course was built it was virtually treeless.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Ran,I am a bit biased about Olympic simply because I played fairly well in a college event there. Well, I putted myself to a 74 the last day with the course set up as hard as possible...it certainly wasn't my stellar ball striking that got me through the day or a lovely bogey on 1.But I've always admired the course because there is a great deal of variety and a nice mix of shots called for. Each hole is quite memorable despite how it looks from the outside looking in. The tree on 5 fairway just has to go. It is the worst in all of golf. But all in all, Olympic has a lot to offer, and I think it gets an unfair rap. It really does grow on your and must be great fun to play often, as there are many subtle elements to it. No, it's not ever going to win awards for artistic bunkering, but there is plenty of strategy and creativity allowed out there IF the fairway contours are a proper width. But with fast fairways and narrow contours that don't take into account the slopes of the fairways (as it was in the 98 Open), the course loses its charm and character. But what course doesn't lose those elements when you-know-who sets it up to protect par and his ego?Geoff

[Bob Ellington]

I have only played it once but I thought the land movement within the holes was very good. Unfortunately the undistinguisehed bunkers coupled with too many trees tends to mask it. I would chop down 50% of the trees except those on the perimeter and build flash bunkers like those in the early pictures of Pasatiempo. The dark green cypress trees against thoses white bunkers would be marvelous.

[Gib_Papazian]

Ok, it is very difficult to evaluate one's own home course, so anything I say ought to be taken with a grain of salt. Nobody believes they have ugly children,including me. However, here are a few thoughts:#1. The course is vastly improved in the last 10 years. Many holes had such severe tree encroachment that tee shots frequently needed to be hit through a tunnel beneath a canopy of branches. Many members were upset, whining that the course was being enmasculated, but it is far better and the air circulation has improved drastically.#2. Our fairways have been too narrow in the past. This has largely been the fault of Green Committees who do not understand the nature of our game and strategic vs penal course set-ups. I would widen them drastically. Our Super has been slowly doing this. Rough lines are a source of great controversy. Generally, the higher the handicapper, the tougher he wants the course. Maybe somebody can explain that to me. Any time fairways are simply a slender corridor between deep rough lines you eliminate the strategic option of using the contours of the ground to direct your ball. Olympic is a perfect spot to exercise this option - sadly past Green Committees have been too ignorant to understand this basic precept of golf architecture. This would also introduce the temptation of cutting corners arouned tree-lined doglegs.#3. We have one of the finest Superintendents in America in John Fleming. There is still a contingent amongst our membership who believes that brown spots on the fairway are a sign of poor greenkeeping. Therefore, in order to avoid confrontations with dullards, he does not dry out the course as it should be to maximize the strategy of the layout. NGLA has the same problem sadly. I would keep the course firm firm firm. Brown is good!!!!!#4. I would continue what Fleming is doing in re-detailing the greensite bunkers to sharpen their appearance from the fairway. You either have rough-hewn hazards a'la County Down, or sharp edges like Cherry Hills. You must be either fish or foul.#5. I would not be afraid to add in some fairway bunkering in the following places:6th hole: enlarge and move existing fairway trap back 30 yards. Cut rough in front and behind it.10th hole: Insert some bunkering off the tee on the left hand side to frame the hole and visually turn the fairway.14th hole: Cut that ugly eucalyptus tree down at the corner of the dogleg and mow the rough back close to edge of the creek. This would temp players to challenge the corner without being forced to aim tee shots 40 yards right to avoid those artificial rough lines on the left.15th hole: Take that hideous abortion that Tom Weiskopf built in the place of our old par-3 15th green and bulldoze it into Lake Merced. It looks like something beamed in from Troon North. Fine if you are in Scottsdale, but it is an architectural non-sequitur on the Lake. Zat's it.

[M. Ahern]

As a lifelong member of Olympic I must confess I hold the Lake Course close to my heart so when I first read Ran's prompt the Irishman in me wanted to grab someone by the neck and say "change my course over my dead body!". However I have released, enjoyed a sizeable helping of single malt, and am now prepared to pretend I know what I am talking about. Holes 1-6...perfect. I like the tree on 5. It has been placed there by God to remind you not to hit driver. Hole 7. This short par 4 is truly a fun and can be a challenging hole with the pin on the back level. However, I might like to see the hole extended 125 yards as a slight dogleg right keeping in-place the grove of trees just short and right of current green side. There would be no need for any fairway bunkers however the slope would require shaving and the green raised slightly. Keeping the 8th hole a par 3 one could then play from a set of elevated tees positioned in the forested area below and behind the 4th teebox. Currently there is a "nursery tee" built in this position. I find this fact interesting.I agree with GP that the big euc. on 14 should be removed. Keeping in mind that the Lake has all but one fairway bunker (hole 6)I would like to see a second one on the corner replacing the euc. Finally I would like to see the return of a red, white and blue flag policy. The current method or lack of is aberrent.

[Mark_Fine]

When you get right down to it the main complaint with Olympic is lack of width.  However, as far as I am concerned, I can't see it falling out of my own personal favorites top 10 list anytime soon.  I thoroughly love playing there and happen to have a round coming up later this month.  

[BillV]

M AhernGod didn't put that tree on #5, it was a guy named Fred , Horace or Melvin on the tree planting detail..........ahem......That course was a bare naked lady, once upon a time.  

[TEPaul]

BillV:Are you sure about that tree? Maybe it was just a little bird his friends knew as tweety that deposited it there on his way over.

[Pete G.]

TePaul,Bill's right. There were few trees on Willie Watson's "O". John Fleming Sr., one of McKenzie's right hand men made the Lake what it is today. A solid test of golf, whether you like trees or not. Gib or Mike, will you verify that?

[Ran Morrissett]

Gib says, and I quote, "10th hole: Insert some bunkering off the tee on the left hand side to frame the hole and visually turn the fairway."And all this time, Gib, I thought you were a fan of Macdonald, who deployed bunkers for strategic reasons, not for "framing" holes by placing bunkers on the outside of doglegs!Shame on you - how do you plead? Also, as a general comment, wouldn't Olmypic better showcase its terrain if it removed 750-1,250 interior trees? I agree completely with Bob Ellington's prior post - the place could be quite stunning.

[Scott Seward]

While Lake gets and deserves all the attention, the Ocean course has some very strong holes.  It is truly a shame the holes on the ocean side of the skyline freeway did not survive - they looked truly special.  It might still be an interesting idea to play a tournament there on a composite course consisting of the strongest holes from both.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Two small changes I trust many could agree on.  Take out the 3 tiers on the 7th green.  Didn't RTJ, Sr. put those in?  And eliminate good shots on the 8th from staying in the trees.  When it happened to me, the caddy says it happens often.  Didn't make me any happier.

[Gib_Papazian]

Ran,The rationale for the modification of the 10th hole is as follows:The rough to the left side looks artificial because of its expansive separation from the tree line. Planting more trees over there to insert a more intimate feel to the hole would be consistent with the rest of the course, but we need more air circulation, not less.Simply converting most of the rough to fairway is a solution, but the fairway is already exceptionally wide. Further fairway expansion will introduce a proportionality problem inconsistent with the rest of the course.Therefore, unless we want to build some C.B./Raynor diagonal bunkering (I'd love it, but it would look ridiculous), my thought is it would be best to build a simple and tasteful bunker on the left side to fill the space. I get the same feeling looking at the right side of the 11th hole at Bandon Dunes, directly adjacent to the green. It just looks visually unbalanced to me.Scott,You are right, the new Ocean course has some really exceptional holes. Perhaps the novelty will wear off, but when both tees are empty I find myself going off on the Ocean more often these days. Lynn,I don't know how long it has been since you played, but the "golf ball eating tree" on the right side of the 8th hole has been drastically cut back. You actually have to think about avoiding the bunkers on the right side now!I did forget one thing on my post above that given the money and authority I would do. Tough to believe I forgot the most annoying addition to the course since I joined in 1974.Those stupid mounds (grass bunkers) on the right side of the 7th hole are absolutely the ugliest and most obnoxious case of architectural malpractice I have ever seen. It is bad enough that Weiskopf built that goofy looking par three at the 15th hole (since modified) and those rounded and terraced tees on the 12th, but the 7th is simply an eyesore. The 7th green (Jones Sr.) I do not find as objectionable as some, although I remember what it was before and recall it being much less contrived looking. Pete: I think the person who planted most of the trees was Sam Whiting, not John's father.

[John Bernhardt]

I just want to be able to read those damn greens. Sorta just kidding! It is a joy to play there. Olympic is worthy of a major and yes, probably can stand a little tree removal. I love the tree on 5 and think 4 and 5 are as good as it gets for back to back par 4's. Yet holes like 11 and 12 make my heart soar much as 8 and 9 do.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Here are some quick comments about OC:Eliminate the "family" tees on some of the holes (like the tee 50 yrds down the fairway on 2).  I bet they never get used.Get rid of the cart paths.  I can't believe that path in front of the 8th green. If Bethpage can ban 'em then so should an athletic club like OC.A weakness of 7 is that you really don't have a strategic choice off the tee, which is unusual for a 280 yd par 4. You can put an iron or fairway wood fairly close, so why pull out the driver with the hope of running it onto the green, or more likely, into the front bunker).8 is better now that the tree on the right is less prominent, but it is still a pretty benign hole, and possibly seems even more benign since it follows the short 7th hole.  Just hit a reasonably straight 8 or 9 iron. Not the toughest shot, since the green is fairly deep.I agree with Gib's take on the 10th. Pretty blah. The interesting part of this hole is the green that slopes from front to back.17 has always struck me as the worst hole on the course.  As a par 5 the 1st and 2nd shots are incredibly boring...boom a drive (straight or crooked, it doesn't matter)...then hit a layup second shot that can also go anywhere with impunity. I would change 17 to a good par 4 and reduce par on the course by a stroke.  As it stands now 17 is a lousy par 5 and also pretty bad as a USGA-spec par 4.Ocean CourseToo many paths...on the right side of the 3rd hole there is a path that runs parallel with a path on the right side of the 4th hole....two parallel paths separated by 15 or 20 yards! But I guess they wanted an all-weather course.Please find a way to do something with 8 and 9...these really don't fit in.Everything else is really good.

[Gib_Papazian]

Kevin:Excellent call my friend. The Ocean Course mandate wa that we had to have a track that would always be playable for "riders."There are an awful lot of older players at the club who do not want to tackle the hills as well as guys with bad knees etc. yes, it is an athletic club, but modern realities dictate that one of the courses accomodate the wishes of the cart users.The 8th and 9th don't fit in, primarily because they are segmented from the course and on the opposite side of Humphrey Drive, which has the topography, foilage and textural feel of the Lake Course. There was not sufficient land to abandon that plot. Although they do not fit in seamlessly, they are still a couple of pretty good holes. Even the finest cuts of leather have scars, but with what John Fleming had to work with, I have to give him all the kudos in the world.You are right though, that certainly detracts from the overall creation.As far as the 17th on the Lake is concerned, I have to agree. there is a need fro something to give it a bit of character, but if we are to move the tees up and turn it into a par 4, the greensite would have to be drastically rearranged.

[Mike Benham]

I'm bringing this thread back to the top, primarily so that we can read what Gib commented on +3 years ago and the recent changes with the tree removal/clean-up program.

Also of note is that the GCSANC has elected Pat Finlen, the relatively new Superintendent at the O Club as Supe of the Year.  I would have to believe that this award to Pat might be a wake-up call to many other tree-infested clubs to allow their superintendents (and green committees) to partake in a tree removal program.  

Gib's Article in the SM Times (Feb. 17th):

THE GOLF COURSE Superintendents Association of Northern California, one of America's most prestigious professional associations for the noble profession of greenskeeping, has honored Pat Finlen as superintendent of the year.

We recently chronicled in this column the astonishing improvements Finlen has brought to the Olympic Club since departing from the famed Bayonet and Black Horse courses near Monterey. Finlen directed not only extensive tree removal, but complete renovations of the maintenance practices at both facilities.

A recent visit by United States Golf Association official confirmed the accolades; the Lake Course has been deemed ready for the upcoming United States Junior Amateur. Finlen will also oversee the preparation of both courses for the 2008 U.S. Amateur.

Greenskeepers are forever in the background, receiving little credit when conditions are perfect, but always the blame when they are not. Yet few patrons of public layouts or members of private clubs have the slightest idea what is involved in presenting a golf course in prime condition. Snappily dressed pro shop staffers are the faces you see behind the counter, but the real work starts before dawn at the maintenance shed. Golf shops organize tee sheets, run tournaments and sell sweaters. Yes, they offer lessons, but in my experience, rarely does expertise in merchandising come packaged with a staffer who can actually cure your slice.

The superintendent is the unsung hero. He must be a skilled expert in all facets of his craft: agronomy, botany, equipment maintenance, turfgrass varieties, scheduling, budgets, chemistry and staff management. The superintendent must also possess a comprehensive understanding of architecture and how to stay faithful to the intent of the designer. If something is lacking, there is no place to hide. Flaws are obvious to every golfer, from the crackerjack player to the worst hacker.

Your superintendent also must deal with endless red tape from regulatory agencies in the form of cumbersome paperwork and combative demands from anti-growth organizations masquerading as environmentalists. The endless carping by environmental activists has poisoned the public perception of the true environmental impact of golf courses given the small amount of herbicides applied. A study was done in 1999 measuring the amount of pesticides and herbicides used in the state of Ohio. Ninety-five percent of the chemicals applied across the state were entirely unregulated. Your superintendent has authorities to answer to, your next-door neighbor does not. The truth: turfgrass is an incredible filter. Crystal Springs is an Audubon Society-certified facility, but this is largely because of the philosophy and goal set by CourseCo, the managing company. In 70 years, there has never been a single shred of credible evidence that the golf course has impacted the adjacent watershed. Money always talks. The San Mateo Golfers Association, which worked for three decades for our rights against the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, finally disbanded in failure. Thirty-eight years after the establishment of a recreational easement off Edgewood Road on Interstate 280, San Mateo County residents still do not have a golf course. This is entirely due to well-funded and powerful lobbies bent on denying the public their rights to reasonable land use.

Professionals such as Finlen and Dulbag Dubria at Poplar Creek manage to give you the golf courses you enjoy despite the hurdles in their path. The first impression of a golf facility may be the pro shop, but never forget that the lasting impression is the work done by the man and his crew who labor in obscurity. [/b]

Mike

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I would not dare to go hole by hole with Gibby and the other members. However, I do agree that additional tree work is needed. I would also undo the Weiscoff work on the par 3 on the back nine. I would also try to work some of the grain out of the greens which is not an architectual change.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I have always felt that Olympic is underated because it is so incredibly difficult.  Reviewers probably left feeling devestated.  I think that a radical tree removal effort will effect great changes without making it easier for the competitive golfer.  In addition, maintaining the course firm and fast with only slight rough.  I am certain that the up and downs under such conditions will  resemble what you see at Dornach and perhaps even harder for the accomplished player!

[Kevin_Reilly]

A visit in December, 2003, showed yet further decimation (In the true sense of the word) of the trees, but the change from the old 16th hole sticks out in my mind negatively

B, what change to the 16th....did you mean the 15th?

PS, jeez you should see the 5th now, it has changed more than any other hole out there with the tree "management" between the 5th and 4th fairways, and behind the 6th tee.  My gawd you wouldn't recognize the hole.  Absolutely fantastic!

[Kevin_Reilly]

As you recall, the closest we got to #5 was on #3, not a good place to make a judgement, sorry to be misleading.  

I knew you didn't mean #5...the work there hadn't started when you were out there.  To summarize it...all euchalyptus (a bunch of it) between 4 and 5, including the big grove behind the 6th tee...has been removed.  It makes the hole look BIG now.  Not to mention the fact that the turf on 5 will be better.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Kev

Please note the date of the original post (under my own name, yet).    Easy to get fooled with these old threads dragged up.

I don't get ya...I was replying to your post from yesterday!  I have a pearl of wisdom up above as well!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()