Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Ran Morrissett on January 06, 2009, 03:24:46 PM
-
... under Architecture Timeline and Courses by Country.
Photographs showing the transformation of the California Golf Club of San Francisco have already graced this Discussion Group. Is it the best course in San Francisco now? With its combination of expansive property, superior playing surfaces, acres and acres of short grass, and MacKenzie bunkers all leading to some outstanding holes, it's easy to construct such an argument. Regardless, everyone at the very least is startled by how a course could come so far, so fast. In fact, in ~ 24 hours after you have had a chance to look at some of these photographs, I am going to post a couple of photographs from 2003 to demonstrate this point.
At the heart of this renovation/restoration centers the successful marriage of Kyle Phillips's proposed sweeping changes and how the club board lead by Al Jamieson was able to convince the membership that it was the best direction to go. Originally, the project could have been curtailed to addressing the nematode issue of the greens but thankfully, it grew into something far more grand. Very few clubs can lay claim to their Golden Age course being the best that it has ever been - the Cal Club now joins that select company. As he displayed at Kingsbarn, Kyle Phillips has an uncanny ability to take a big picture approach and create something special that most other architects can't either fathom or execute.
Here, his five new holes meld into the Locke/Macan/MacKenzie ones with no one being able to tell who did what. Though hindsight shows Phillips's plan was the right one to pursue of the fourteen that the club board considered, every plan needs a sponsor, especially one that involves shutting down the course for fifteen months. Fortuitously, the then club president was Al Jamieson, whose favorite golf credo is, "Play the course as you find it. Play the ball as you find it. Leave the course better than you found it." That mindset helped guide him throughout the process of shepherding this through. Though the approval process took a chunk of time, he was more than glad spend it as, in his words, it represented ‘a once in a lifetime opportunity to give back to a place that has given much to me. I'm glad it happened on my watch, assisted by many able and dedicated hands.’
The net result is that starting six feet under ground, this is a Golden Age golf course with the best that modern agronomy has to offer. What could be better?! As Al states, ‘The goal was to leave the course better than we found it, for the benefit of future generations’ and this was hands down accomplished.
One of the neat aspects about this project is the impact that several 30-35 year olds had. There is Mark Thawley at Phillips Design whose research proved a key guiding factor to the overall project. His passion for the project started five plus years ago when he first discovered a 1938 aerial. Though the potential was evident before any dirt work commenced, Mark's back and forth with the shapers Kyle Franz and George Waters during construction on the black and white aerials was critical to the project's overall success.
Also, Mark tried to get Josh Smith to the site at least a year before Josh ended up taking the Second Assistant Green Keeping position. Even after Josh took the job, the members had not yet voted on the project. Al is quick to pile credit on Josh and according to Al, 'All of the finishing touches that highlight the golden age of American golf are a direct result of his influence and artistic eye, including research as well as some of the material objects on the course including rakes, flags, benches. etc. ' Having listened to Josh talk about this project for three years, I can personally attest to how much heart and soul he invested into it. Bottom line: he was there each and every day and if, for instance, a bunker was ever so slightly misaligned, everyone heard about it from Josh.
Such devotion to detail nearly became commonplace as everyone involved sensed something special was going on. Take Kyle Franz and George Waters. Late on an October evening, a group of us were going over the finer details and the conversation turned to the feeder mound in front of the long par three eighth green. It turned out that George had shaped that one and he talked about some of the holes in Britain where a ridge begins out in the approach area and then carries through the putting surface, holding up a narrow high shelf and acting as a feeder for the broader lower shelf. He noted the seventeenth at St. George's Hill as well as Old Tom's sixth green on the Valley Course at Rosapenna. It did make me think that the ease of travel and the better world economy/politics of the start of the 21st century allowed someone's interest like George's to foster and grow as opposed to people who pursued the profession from 1950 through 1980 that weren’t afforded such opportunities of studying UK courses. Here is an in the dirt example of the benefit of that.
Hopefully, this is the next generation of folks who will be shaping the future of golf course architecture. Based on their work at the Cal Club, we are in very good shape indeed. In the meanwhile, we are all left with this 'new old' gem to savor once again.
Cheers,
-
Don't know much about history... don't know much biology....
But I do know that this course used to be pretty good, but an overly-treed, not all that much slog.\
It's now as fun as golf can possibly be.
Yet another excellent profile, Ran.
TH
ps - apparently we missed each other by a week there.
-
Ran,
Thanks for the post. Mark Chalfant and I had an eye-opening tour of the course with Josh last year and I was amazed by the land up there. I had heard indifferent things about the course over the years so had never made an effort to see the property. It must really be amazing to those who saw the course before thousands of trees came down to restore vistas across the course and to see the new holes and the removal of the pond near the clubhouse. The course just seems so right that it is hard to imagine how it got off track in the recent past. The one hole I wonder about is the par 4 on the back side that curves around the range. I'm not sure if that one is going to work or not. I will be interested to hear from those who have played it what their thoughts are. A couple of greens on the course seemed to have a little too much movement which seemed like it would reduce significantly the pinnable area of the green, but not having played the course I could be totally off base with that observation. Overall I think Cal Club is very impressive in its current iteration.
-
Congrats to all involved with this...it looks amazing. And just from the pictures, it sure has to be considered in a very short list of the best in SFO if not NorCal or even California.
Everyone affiliated with this must be thrilled. Great job.
-
Ran says it's arguably in the top 5 of our state... think about what that means.
While I'm not sure I can get it to those lofty heights, well.. at least he's not crazy. It's definitely arguable.
It is one hell of a great course.
TH
-
This transformation of California Golf Club is remarkable... a very special project involving a bunch of talented and dedicated individuals. Though I haven't visited the course in person yet, I'm fortunate to call Mark Thawley, George Waters and Josh Smith friends. I've followed this project closely, and I'm stunned by the outstanding results.
Congratulations to all involved. Hopefully California Golf Club will become an inspiration to other clubs with similar potential.
-
I played it a few months ago and its a wonderful piece of work. The bunkers are like art.
This little section of San Francisco is a case study for golf courses and renovations and restorations. Two have done it correctly and others have not. It just goes to show that if you hire a world class architect, who has a vision, along with a great superintendent who also has a vision and a membership that appreciates and understands architecture you come out with a product that is world class.
-
Google's satellite view has captured it mid-renovation it appears.
-
Ran,
Great job on the profile. I was drooling over it last night. Cal Club is a place that I can't wait to see. It looks every bit as good as any other course in the area and that is saying a lot.
-
Cal Club, next years Kings Putter? ;D
-
I'm excited to visit this Club next Thursday with two other GCA'ers!
;D
-
I'm excited to visit this Club next Thursday with two other GCA'ers!
;D
We're excited for you!
-
From the pictures, the look of the Cal Club has changed rather dramatically. Besides the obvious bunker changes and the new holes, it looks like there were a lot of trees removed. I seem to remember the course be rather heavily treed, what's there now looks awesome.
-
Ran certainly has ever improved in his turn of classic golf phrases. What an enjoyable read!
I was particularly interested to read that Mark Thawley had some hand in the teamwork there. Mark was a rare but early contributor to this whole GCA discussion network as a new L.A. student out of (I think AZ state). He was immediatley very interested in the discussion of the ODGs it seemed, and now he has taken his interests and acquired knowledge to a place where real impact on the art of GCA can be appreciated for many years to come. He worked early on just after school, living in a trailer and working as an assistant at a Lohmann project near here in WI. Then, I think he moved on with Harbottle to CA. Now, I'm not sure if he is a floater gun for hire, or permanently with Phillips. But, we all like to see an original enthusiastic student of these golf discussion groups get up in the world and apply his sensibilities so finely. ;D
I'm very glad to see the well written piece by Ran, particularly as he spare no words to give great credit to the likes of the whole team, Mrrs. Franz and Waters, included.
Also, to continue to be a bit of a homer, Olliphant has a Madison WI connection. I beleieve he did the Nicklaus remodel work of the par 3 at Pebble and has a pretty big resume of projects that don't seem to get discussed much in terms of his construction company input. Man, what a collaboration he struck with the use of the permanent crew at Cal Club!
All hail to Kyle Phillips, what a project architect leader, what a great team, what a result! :o ;D 8)
-
All hail to Kyle Phillips, what a project architect leader, what a great team, what a result! :o ;D 8)
Maybe I'm just a homer as well....but Phillips, in my opinion, is one of the best out there.
I'm extremely excited to play Cal.
-
WOW.
Out of a lot of very cool looking holes, 11 looks really cool -- first you get the view of 18 behind 11, then as you turn left, you get the view of the clubhouse (which itself is quite stunning) behind/above 11.
-
RJ,
Mark Thawley is a full-time associate of Kyle Phillips.
-
Ran says it's arguably in the top 5 of our state... think about what that means.
While I'm not sure I can get it to those lofty heights, well.. at least he's not crazy. It's definitely arguable.
It is one hell of a great course.
TH
Huckster:
The key word here is "arguably". I have been fortunate to have the opportunity to play there many times over the years. To me it was always a great course. Admittedly the Club does not have the strength of Olympic in the par 4's but not many do.
Top 5 not sure but top 10 or 15 absolutely.
Happy New Year
Best
Dave
-
Great write up, Ran! And well done Kyle! The course looks absolutely magnificent!!! What a special looking place!
-
Ran,
It's unfortunate that your golf game doesn't come close to matching your observation and writing skills, which are brilliant.
I now understand why you've elected to enroll in a golfer's protection program on the west coast, thereby avoiding any potential golf matches on the east coast or Florida.
There's really something special about MacKenzie's bunkering isn't there.
It's a unique art form unto itself.
Kyle Phillips is to be complemented for a remarkable job.
But, we'd be remiss if we didn't sing the praises of the visionary behind the project, Al Jamieson. He's the person responsible for bringing the project from concept to reality. Those familiar with club politics know how difficult that process can be. Al Jamieson should take great pride in what he's accomplished.
If I return to the San Francisco area, I'd sure like to play the California Club, it looks rather special, and your write-up seems to confirm the outstanding nature of the golf course.
Other clubs might want to use the California Club as exhibit "A" when considering any work on their golf course.
Thanks for the great write up and please thank Kyle and Al for the exceptional product they produced.
-
For all (maybe mostly Jeff Mingay)
Macan is credited for the original placement of greens/greenside bunkers. To me, the rebuilt bunkers look more like MacKenzie-type bunkers than Macan.
Does anyone know if the bunker style was modeled after one or the other?
SS
-
For all (maybe mostly Jeff Mingay)
Macan is credited for the original placement of greens/greenside bunkers. To me, the rebuilt bunkers look more like MacKenzie-type bunkers than Macan.
Does anyone know if the bunker style was modeled after one or the other?
SS
Scott, if you read the profile again, I beleive Ran stated the club hired MacKenzie to redo the bunkers and the club decided to go with Kyle's proposal of bringing that style back. He's done a great job and there is no mistaking the influence. Bell is the only other architect that was close to producing such a stunning look like MacKenzie's.
-
For all (maybe mostly Jeff Mingay)
Macan is credited for the original placement of greens/greenside bunkers. To me, the rebuilt bunkers look more like MacKenzie-type bunkers than Macan.
Does anyone know if the bunker style was modeled after one or the other?
SS
Scott, I don't know if there is a Macan bunker style. Most of his existing courses have been extensively redone, including Columbia Edgewater in Portland where I was a member.
Thanks,
Bill
-
Ran-
Sorry I missed you when you were at the Cal Club. The profile is outstanding and I can speak for the membership that we are proud of what we have in the golf course. Kyle Phillips and his team did a brilliant job, Thomas Bastis and his team have busted their asses and the leadership of the club has made the Cal Club something very special. It is a physical challenge as well as a mental challenge to get around the golf course with the fewest amount of mistakes made. The golf course gives you nothing, it is all earned. I hope those on this board who appreciate the game of golf and architecture get a chance to experience the Cal Club. You won't be disappointed.
John
-
For all (maybe mostly Jeff Mingay)
Macan is credited for the original placement of greens/greenside bunkers. To me, the rebuilt bunkers look more like MacKenzie-type bunkers than Macan.
Does anyone know if the bunker style was modeled after one or the other?
SS
Scott, I don't know if there is a Macan bunker style. Most of his existing courses have been extensively redone, including Columbia Edgewater in Portland where I was a member.
Thanks,
Bill
I would agree on your modern-day observation. Most of his courses have been redone (i.e. ruined) and there is nothing left resembling his style.
But, of the few photos of the Golden-Age Macan courses (Inglewood, Colwood, Fircrest) a certain 'style' is evident.
For a reference- think Wine Valley with grass faces...
-
This description about the 7th green ..
The green juts out into the same hazard that the tee ball carries, making it the proper definition of a Cape hole
is hard for me to visualize from the standpoint of the second shot, where from the picture below the "jut" isn't as apparent. I assume the green appears more into the hazard when standing in the fairway than it does from this picture?
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Cal7a2.jpg)
-
A few questions about the bunkering.
What is the overall tally of bunkers now?
There appear to be some bunkers that should be out of play for all "mediocre and above" shots...e.g. the bunker on the far right of this picture of the 11th green:
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Cal11f2.jpg)
Or are shaped/sized such that a shot to the hole would have to be absolutely horrible to be caught by that portion of the bunker...e.g. the back center bunker on the 125-yd 16th that has a tongue extending up the hill quite a ways...
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/CalClub16.JPG)
Does the commentary re the bunkers on the 12th
Some members note with a wry smile that MacKenzie did his most lavish bunkering on the holes most visible from the clubhouse, namely, the tenth, eleventh, twelfth and eighteenth holes. Indeed, these four holes have twenty-seven bunkers which is nearly the same amount that Augusta National had on its entire course when it opened in 1933. In effect, the members wanted more bunkers and MacKenzie delivered, especially where they were in plain sight! Perhaps the biggest beneficiary is found here with this par three that plays away from the clubhouse to a green located across a gully. MacKenzie's artistry is such that even if not playing, one is content to soak up the view.
apply to these bunkers that might have flair but maybe not "strategic flair"? The above comments/examples could probably apply to several of the bunkers pictured in the profile. The "eye candy" discussion about CPC's 13th has probably been beaten to death here, but does the same question apply here?
I haven't played Cal Club since the early 80's, so these questions are based on the pictures, not walking the grounds or playing the course.
-
When Kyle Phillips addressed a host of GCAers at Morgan Creek, he described the original hole at the Cal Club (can't remember the number) that ran along the winding creek (visible at the top of the 1938 aerial photo). It's a great pity that hole cannot be returned to its original state (that creek is now a major road). That irreversible blight aside, a spectacular effort by all involved, it appears.
I think the one component that made this project so successful, a lesson which should be taken to heart by other courses in need of renovation, is the sandcapping/conditioning component. Even the best courses become monotonous when you're throwing darts at every green from any distance. Let's just hope the USGA doesn't try to bring a major tourney into to the Cal Club. I'd hate to see a silly looking, narrow stripe of fairway cut out of deep rough between those wide cypress corridors (a la Harding Park).
-
This profile is a revelation, and the light in the photos has me pining for San Francisco. Congratulations to Kyle Phillips and the Cal Club--what a success story! With this, and DeVries at the Meadow Club, NorCal's fine old clubs seem to really be headed in a great direction.
-
Kyle's post reminded me of where I came up with the idea of seeing Cal Club in the first place. It was the day Jed Peters arranged for us to play Morgan Creek. That was followed by a discussion with Kyle P and Mark T about MC and then they talked about the Cal Club project. It was really cool to see two guys so obviously fired up about the work they were doing and the passion they brought to the table. I look forward to seeing more of their work in the future. Having a chance to talk to architects about their work in these different forums is one of the great rewards of being part of GCA.
-
apply to these bunkers that might have flair but maybe not "strategic flair"? The above comments/examples could probably apply to several of the bunkers pictured in the profile. The "eye candy" discussion about CPC's 13th has probably been beaten to death here, but does the same question apply here?
Is a bunker eye candy if one ends up in it?
-
No.
-
Kevin,
To answer a few of your questions briefly, most all of the bunkers have strategic importance. I believe there are around 150 bunkers as of now.
Also, the bunker you pointed out in your first picture is very much in play as it is actually short right of the eighteenth green and prevents any type of blind lay up shot to the bottom of the hill. There also happen to be a fair amount of cross bunker, such as on holes 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 17 that shouldn't come in play but play a large role in alignment and visual trickery. I have had the opportunity to play the new course a handful of times now and continue to be more and more amazed by the routing and placement of the bunkers. Hopefully that answered a few of your questions.
P.S. I think Ran might be onto something as I find Cal Club to be a better course than both Olympic and San Francisco and would rank it near if not in the top five of CA as well.
-
Truly inspiring work by Kyle and his crew and an insightful profile from Ran.
The members must be blown away by the work.
Good for the club to have the balls to take this on - it must have been expensive and daunting at times, but if the only cost to convenience at the end of the day is having to trek 600 yards to the range, then this must be one of the best renovation decisions a club has ever made.
Also, to have a course that has been built or tweaked by the likes of Locke, Macan, MacKenzie and Phillips is like winning the lottery (nice to see the RTJ elements are gone).
Chapeau gentlemen!!!
-
This profile is a revelation, and the light in the photos has me pining for San Francisco.
As it may not be obvious, Cal Club is not in San Francisco but is 6 or 7 miles south of The Olympic Club/SFGC/Lake Merced triangle in South San Francisco, directly in the path of the 28 departure from San Francisco International Airport.
-
While I like the look of the bunkers, some of which are pitched for visual effect, what's the additional cost of maintaining the bunker slopes ?
How much of a maintainance problem are those bunker slopes after a good rainfall ?
-
Scott,
As Ran points out in his profile, Mackenzie rebunkered California Golf Club after Macan was there; only a few years after, actually. The Phillips bunkers were created on the Mackenzie model. And, I think they look fantastic.
As for Macan's bunker style. I've been doing a lot of research on Macan. I have historic photos of Colwood (1913), Inglewood (1920), Fircrest (1924) and Victoria (1928-30) for example. His bunker stylings seem to be varied from site to site, which is interesting.
I'm glad to hear you say it's a shame so much of Macan's work has been erased. I wholeheartedly agree. Macan was a real talent, and certainly a pioneer golf course architect in the Pacific Northwest. He was remarkably passionate about his work as well.
I think a lot of changes were made to his original golf course designs, not to practically resolve problems, but more likely to simply justify consulting fees and keep up with design trends.
Unfortunate.
I'm looking forward to the day I have opportunity to work on a Macan course. Through my research I've learned there are a couple EXCELLENT candidates for "restoration". It'd be a nice tribute to the man, and a great asset for the club in question.
-
Patrick,
I played the course the day morning after they had just received about an inch and a half of rain the night before and I only saw a few very minor washouts (just at the top of some of the very steepest bunkers). They used a new materials for the base of the bunkers which is supposed to be great with drainage and preventing washouts.
-
OK, let's get down to brass tacks. Just how high up can anyone put Cal Club?
I'm pretty close to how Robert Warren sees it... though I wonder if I can get it above SFGC. Man that's a tough one.
BUT... and of course the key word is indeed "arguably"... can anyone make a case that Cal Club is rock-solid, no doubt, absolutely better than most in this list, such that it is top 5?
Cypress Point
Pebble Beach
SFGC
LACC North
Riviera
Pasatiempo
MPCC Dunes
MPCC Shore
Olympic Club Lake
Meadow Club
Valley Club of Montecito
Spyglass Hill
Mayacama
Preserve
Lake Merced
Lakeside
Stone Eagle
(all the other great courses in Palm Desert)
(all the great courses in the greater Sacramento / Tahoe area)
and I'm sure I am forgetting some.
My feeling is Cal Club - as great as it is - and I do think it is pretty damn great - should more correctly be assessed as "arguably Top 10" - which is one hell of a compliment considering the company.
The more I think about it, I can't see much justification for getting it Top 5. Not when we consider the entire state.
TH
-
I am looking forward to playing the course. I only toured it due to having a lady with me. Cal Club was not female friendly or at least if I brought here anyway. lol
-
The write up mentions the conversion from primarily poa to a bent fescue mix in the FWs and Bent greens. It states a whole new 4-6 inches of top soil cap was brought in. How was this accomplished? Was the old turf sward litterally striped, or glyphosate sprayed multiple times before recapping? Were the greens also stripped? How was the course reseeded or resodded? Perhaps washed sod on greens, and grow in on FWs? If so, the turf must be quite immature yet, I would think. Yet the photos suggest a very healthy and advanced growth sward. The beautiful bunker work had to have sod pinned upholstry style to be so exquisite so soon.
How many on the crew are fully dedicated to just bunker maintenance daily? I guess the only down side of this much artful recreation of MacKenzie's style bunkering is what the cost must be to maintain it to this absolutely gorgeous standard. Is this club so well off that they may be somewhat immune to current economic crunch and forced budget cutbacks. If not, do they have a plan to keep the bunkers up to a standard that is less exquisite, but returnable to this level in better times?
After all, why were original fine bunkering presentations like MacKenzie's of the golden age lost? I'd have to guess that hard economic times forced clubs to cut back. In the earlier era, a cut back and loss of exquisite work like Mackenzie or Thomas bunkering would probably have been more easily lost to time and history, without faithful restoration when times got better. I'd guess that once the old beautiful bunkers were lost, there simply wasn't talanted and restoration, recreation oriented archies to restore the lost styling. So, it was an opening for a different set of GCA styling principles and techniques to take over like a plague (if you see the many stylings of the likes of RTJ and such as a detriment). Now, we have people like Phillips and crew that are studious and motivated to bring back the grace and style that was lost. That is a lucky thing for our era. But, the wheel of fortune keeps spinning. And, isn't it possible that a long and deep economic depression will once again work to diminish this extensive and artful, yet probably costly maintenance design. I hope not, but at least when times turn better, there are talented folks to restore now, that there may not have been through the 40s-80s.
-
If Sean Arble sees this write-up I think his head will explode. ;D
Based on his prior comments, he thinks a majority on this site are hyper-focused on bunkering. Seeing the comments on here and the photos of Cal Club I'm sure it will just reinforce that opinion.
The course looks gorgeous and I agree the bunkering looks very Mackenzien, but I go back to the maintenance and playability aspects of the course. How does this bunker redo impact the course as a whole? Aside from getting us all warm and fuzzy because someone placated to our restoration sensibilities, does the playing of the course improve from what it was prior to Phillips work?
-
You guys are silly. With all of its "faults" Olympic - Lake is among the top 5 in the state. Now, I've not played SFGC or CPC, so I'll put an astericks on those, with the latter an obvious table-topper. I loved Riviera and LACC, as well MPCC's courses (have not played the Strantz redesign either), but at the end of the day I'll still take the O Club... call me a homer.
And, TH, you forgot Pasatiempo. ??? An oversight I'm sure.
-
Wayne - oversight about to be fixed.
;D
As for OClub Lake, I'd say "arguably top 10" for that as well. Sorry. Man the top 5 is a very tough nut to crack.
TH
-
Scott,
As Ran points out in his profile, Mackenzie rebunkered California Golf Club after Macan was there; only a few years after, actually. The Phillips bunkers were created on the Mackenzie model. And, I think they look fantastic.
As for Macan's bunker style. I've been doing a lot of research on Macan. I have historic photos of Colwood (1913), Inglewood (1920), Fircrest (1924) and Victoria (1928-30) for example. His bunker stylings seem to be varied from site to site, which is interesting.
I'm glad to hear you say it's a shame so much of Macan's work has been erased. I wholeheartedly agree. Macan was a real talent, and certainly a pioneer golf course architect in the Pacific Northwest. He was remarkably passionate about his work as well.
I think a lot of changes were made to his original golf course designs, not to practically resolve problems, but more likely to simply justify consulting fees and keep up with design trends.
Unfortunate.
I'm looking forward to the day I have opportunity to work on a Macan course. Through my research I've learned there are a couple EXCELLENT candidates for "restoration". It'd be a nice tribute to the man, and a great asset for the club in question.
Jeff, there are a lot of early photos of Columbia-Edgewater in the clubhouse if you ever get to Portland. I didn't see anything really distinctive in those photos but I was more looking at the absence of trees than anything else!
-
Bill,
A startling absence of trees is pretty consistent amongst all of the historic photos of Macan courses I've seen, California Golf Club included. This problem is compounded by the nature of the trees in the Pacific Northwest, in particular, as you know!
-
Another great profile. Seems like quite the transformation. I really admire the vision that it took to accomplish the work.
However, it's pretty cruel timing to post it while some of us are watching it snow outside. :P
-
Bill,
A startling absence of trees is pretty consistent amongst all of the historic photos of Macan courses I've seen, California Golf Club included. This problem is compounded by the nature of the trees in the Pacific Northwest, in particular, as you know!
Especially the 100+ giant Sequoias planted at Columbia-Edgewater in the '60s that are now 200' tall...... :P
-
While I like the look of the bunkers, some of which are pitched for visual effect, what's the additional cost of maintaining the bunker slopes ?
How much of a maintainance problem are those bunker slopes after a good rainfall ?
That was one of the reasons I asked how many bunkers there were now. With 150+ bunkers (per Robert Warren), and some fairly large and irregularly shaped, there will be a large ongoing expense with maintenance.
-
Especially the 100+ giant Sequoias planted at Columbia-Edgewater in the '60s that are now 200' tall...... :P
Bill,
Macan wasn't into playing through narrow corridors constricted by trees. It would be an interesting scenario if you could bring him back to look at his courses today... especially in light of his opinionated, vocal nature!
This said, I'm confident he'd be pleasantly stunned by the recent work at California Golf Club.
-
Nice work Ran,
In addition to all those thanked in addition to the nematodes, we should thank the diseased mature pine trees that were deemed a safety hazard to golfers around 8 years ago. The club pulled out thousands of trees at that point. (as I have witnessed in photos, you couldn't see across fairways due to massive, thick pines, ie 13, 14, 15, those which are shared fairways today. You can imagine the shade.
And as importantly, not leave out BRAD KLEIN for helping the club realize how they should embrace their pedigree more, explaining how much this course could be improved. Dave Wilber is also high among those whose involvment was so important. The GM of almost 30 years Dennis Mahoney was the perfect guy to have at the helm.
Also, on the straight "getting things done" side of thanking management people, assistant Grant Johnson and Roger Smidstra put long hours in to help carry out all the in house activities, which included tree clearing, stump gringing, chipping, hydroseeding, bunker drainage and finish work
To answer a few questions...
So far, the bunkers have drained excellent, and there have been few wash outs to date, and minor washes at that. We plan to install sand trapper matting in those few spots this year.
As for the number, most felt strongly we should not stray from what we found on the 37 and 38 aerials, given the pedigree there. So we do have a lot, but not quite 150. It is high 130s or low 140s on the course itself. I would mentally count them now, but have exams to study for at Rutgers.
The crew that maintains them is small, but does have a lot of work, this is mainly because we hand rake them all and cut a lot of the grass with weed eaters. We feel these things are mandatory given the artistic nature of these hazards.
On the hole though, the fine fescue that surrounds the bunkers grows slower than the old poa annua and we do not edge the bunkers mechanically, which was very time consuming on the old course. We will attempt to keep them from shrinking over time, but not by mechanically edging them and cuttiing into soil. Also, many fairway edges go directly into the fronts of traps and as far as we can tell, those edges are less maintenance, the sidewinder riding mower can cut that grass in one or two passes. No handwork really necessary there.
No sod was used on this project, which is something we are really proud of. (except for right around the clubhouse where some walk paths were redesigned). We hydroseeded 100 percent of the grassed areas, including bunker edges, roughs, natives, fws, and hydromulch capped greens and tees after drop seeding them.
One final note, when ranking courses how much do you weigh the variety of shot options and shortgrass around all the greens? I consider it pretty important.
-
Josh - excellent stuff, and man when I was there in October, conditions were freakin' incredible. Firm and fast, in an area where that would seem to be impossible. I swear it was miraculous. How has the winter treated things?\
As for this: when ranking courses how much do you weigh the variety of shot options and shortgrass around all the greens? I consider it pretty important.
I'd say it is pretty darn important also, and is one reason why Cal Club ought to be ranked/rated/assessed so highly.
Top 5 in our state, however... well.... hopefully you can understand that it's nothing AGAINST Cal Club if I believe that's overstating things a bit - it's just a matter of some very very very stiff competition.
TH
-
Josh,
Very interesting point you make about no sod being used on this project. This undoubtledly had a very positive effect on the wonderful look of the renovated bunkers.
Almost without exception, bunkers come out better looking when (hydro)seeded as opposed to sod being laid. Agreed?
-
Scott,
As Ran points out in his profile, Mackenzie rebunkered California Golf Club after Macan was there; only a few years after, actually. The Phillips bunkers were created on the Mackenzie model. And, I think they look fantastic.
As for Macan's bunker style. I've been doing a lot of research on Macan. I have historic photos of Colwood (1913), Inglewood (1920), Fircrest (1924) and Victoria (1928-30) for example. His bunker stylings seem to be varied from site to site, which is interesting.
I'm glad to hear you say it's a shame so much of Macan's work has been erased. I wholeheartedly agree. Macan was a real talent, and certainly a pioneer golf course architect in the Pacific Northwest. He was remarkably passionate about his work as well.
I think a lot of changes were made to his original golf course designs, not to practically resolve problems, but more likely to simply justify consulting fees and keep up with design trends.
Unfortunate.
I'm looking forward to the day I have opportunity to work on a Macan course. Through my research I've learned there are a couple EXCELLENT candidates for "restoration". It'd be a nice tribute to the man, and a great asset for the club in question.
Jeff
And we shouldn't forget that the bunker work was undertaken by Mackenzie and Hunter, and accordingly Robert Hunter should get his fair share of the credit for the rebunkering of the course that was done back in 1927, as it is more than likely he spent a deal more time on site than Mackenzie ever did. While I have no information to confirm this, I would think that their American Golf Course Construction Co would have done the construction work - can any of Kyle's team confirm this from the club's records? Thanks in advance.
Great thread and profile, and well done to the club and all on Kyle's team.
Neil
-
Good point about Hunter's involvement, and the American Golf Course Construction Co. doing the work, Neil. I'm sure Mark Thawley or Josh Smith probably have this info.
-
I had a great time seeing the course with Ed Getka and Josh in February. It was a joy to play Calclub on a sunny day this past November.
I must say that Ran M. got carried away on his "top five" grade for Calclub. I would rate it only number 5 or 6 in the state !!
Is there anyone that thinks par fours or par fives at Valley Club are the equal of Calclub ? I sure dont.
-
OK, let's get down to brass tacks. Just how high up can anyone put Cal Club?
I'm pretty close to how Robert Warren sees it... though I wonder if I can get it above SFGC. Man that's a tough one.
BUT... and of course the key word is indeed "arguably"... can anyone make a case that Cal Club is rock-solid, no doubt, absolutely better than most in this list, such that it is top 5?
Cypress Point
Pebble Beach
SFGC
LACC North
Riviera
Pasatiempo
MPCC Dunes
MPCC Shore
Olympic Club Lake
Meadow Club
Valley Club of Montecito
Spyglass Hill
Mayacama
Preserve
Lake Merced
Lakeside
Stone Eagle
(all the other great courses in Palm Desert)
(all the great courses in the greater Sacramento / Tahoe area)
and I'm sure I am forgetting some.
My feeling is Cal Club - as great as it is - and I do think it is pretty damn great - should more correctly be assessed as "arguably Top 10" - which is one hell of a compliment considering the company.
The more I think about it, I can't see much justification for getting it Top 5. Not when we consider the entire state.
TH
Tom, is this list in order?
-
Neil,
Here is this. Should back up the fact that the construction company you mention worked at Cal Club. As you know Sean Tully has dug up a few gems regarding Mac and Hunter at Cal Club, it would be great if he could share those tidbits.
(http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l7/jcfsmith/Black%20and%20White/CalClub1926FWY-1.jpg)
Thanks for the note, will get back to you soon.
Josh
-
On the hole though, the fine fescue that surrounds the bunkers grows slower than the old poa annua and we do not edge the bunkers mechanically, which was very time consuming on the old course. We will attempt to keep them from shrinking over time, but not by mechanically edging them and cuttiing into soil.
No sod was used on this project, which is something we are really proud of. (except for right around the clubhouse where some walk paths were redesigned). We hydroseeded 100 percent of the grassed areas, including bunker edges, roughs, natives, fws, and hydromulch capped greens and tees after drop seeding them.
Josh-
Two questions on the above-
How do you plan to edge the bunkers?
What was the seed mix/rate you used around the bunkers?
Thanks.
Scott
-
Josh,
I've observed more clubs employing new methods for building their steep bunker faces. Methods that tend to insure their structural stability, despite the steep nature of the bunker face. I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on the technique used at the Cal Club.
Another question I have deals with the picture below.
Why was the ridge line row planted with those trees ?
I've seen the technique on other courses.
Was the planting intended as a wind barrier ?
Or for some other purpose ?
Was it a propertyl line issue ?
In light of the date of construction and limited play, it would seem that the safety issue wasn't the primary issue behind the initial planting.
I'd appreciate any insight into the reason for the row planting.
What other clubs that you're familiar with have employed that technique ?
(http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l7/jcfsmith/Black%20and%20White/CalClub1926FWY-1.jpg)
-
Thanks Josh
I had heard of this advert but not seen it before, thanks for posting it. Certainly confirms the AGCCCo doing the construction work and would also tend to indicate that Hunter had a good deal to do with the on-site construction work and detail design of the bunkers in particular. Hunter's son Robert Hunter Jr was Managing Director of the AGCCCo. Do you have any precise dates for when the construction happened in 1927? It would be interesting to see Mackenzie's movements during this time so as to see how often he could have visited.
Pat
Looking at that photo, I'd guess those trees behind the tenth green would be at least 10 years old, possibly 15.
This from Ran's profile:
"Originally incorporated in 1918, the club moved from its Ingleside location to its present site in 1924. Referred to as the Baden property after Baden Farms, the new site was well removed from what then constituted the city of San Francisco."
My take is that these trees were already there as part of the old farm boundary prior to the course opening in 1924. Perhaps they were intended as a wind break for the farm.
Neil
-
Ran's profile and this discussion are, IMHO, one of the reasons why GCA is so great. There is terrific information here and great insights into things I wouldn't previously have considered.
Great stuff!
-
I still think the turf grow-in is one of the most impressive things about the project besides the incredible bunker construction technique.
Josh, is gibberellic acid added to the hydroseed slurry something of standard practice and a big factor in the success of the healthy grow-in?
-
OK, let's get down to brass tacks. Just how high up can anyone put Cal Club?
I'm pretty close to how Robert Warren sees it... though I wonder if I can get it above SFGC. Man that's a tough one.
BUT... and of course the key word is indeed "arguably"... can anyone make a case that Cal Club is rock-solid, no doubt, absolutely better than most in this list, such that it is top 5?
Cypress Point
Pebble Beach
SFGC
LACC North
Riviera
Pasatiempo
MPCC Dunes
MPCC Shore
Olympic Club Lake
Meadow Club
Valley Club of Montecito
Spyglass Hill
Mayacama
Preserve
Lake Merced
Lakeside
Stone Eagle
(all the other great courses in Palm Desert)
(all the great courses in the greater Sacramento / Tahoe area)
and I'm sure I am forgetting some.
My feeling is Cal Club - as great as it is - and I do think it is pretty damn great - should more correctly be assessed as "arguably Top 10" - which is one hell of a compliment considering the company.
The more I think about it, I can't see much justification for getting it Top 5. Not when we consider the entire state.
TH
Tom, is this list in order?
Not really - or at least not that I want to defend. I was just thinking about great courses and these are how they came to my mind. I didn't try to order them. I sure as heck wouldn't leave the last part as two large geographic areas is I was to try to make an ordered list.
TH
-
Josh,
I've observed more clubs employing new methods for building their steep bunker faces. Methods that tend to insure their structural stability, despite the steep nature of the bunker face. I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on the technique used at the Cal Club.
Another question I have deals with the picture below.
Why was the ridge line row planted with those trees ?
I've seen the technique on other courses.
Was the planting intended as a wind barrier ?
Or for some other purpose ?
Was it a propertyl line issue ?
In light of the date of construction and limited play, it would seem that the safety issue wasn't the primary issue behind the initial planting.
I'd appreciate any insight into the reason for the row planting.
What other clubs that you're familiar with have employed that technique ?
(http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l7/jcfsmith/Black%20and%20White/CalClub1926FWY-1.jpg)
Pat
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/CalClub1938Aerial.jpg)
If you look at the 1938 aerial you can see that it was an old property line that was retained for one reason or another. The site can be very windy and it serves a purpose of a wind break and this idea could very well have been taken to an extreme at the course, accounting for the over planting of trees. Over time the trees would also protect golfers on the 10th green from tee shots coming from the highly elevated tee shot on the 8th. One can also see that there is a bunker playing short and right trying to divert play towards the left as well.
Tully
Also interesting for those that want to see how drastic the changes to the course were during the renovation, look at he current google map!
-
Is there anyone that thinks the back nine at Pebble Beach is more interesting to play than Calclubs incoming nine ?
Is there anyone that thinks the collection of par fours or the group of par fives at Valley Club are better than those at Calclub ?
Does anyone contend that Riviera's par threes are less varied or less interesting than Calclubs ?
thanks
p.s. Tom Huckaby, David Stamm, Matt Cohn, Robert Warren, etal... I look forward to your thoughts
-
Mark: I shall take these one at a time. But you are asking very tough questions... some of which will not paint Cal Club in the best light it might be painted in. ;)
Is there anyone that thinks the back nine at Pebble Beach is more interesting to play than Calclubs incoming nine ?
I'd give the nod to Pebble Beach. 10-11-14-18 are all better holes than any hole on the back nine at Cal Club, and all the rest is a wash. I for one liked the front nine at Cal Club better than the back...
Is there anyone that thinks the collection of par fours or the group of par fives at Valley Club are better than those at Calclub ?
have to plead the fifth here - don't remember Valley Club well enough to say. I have only played there once and it's been a few years now.
Does anyone contend that Riviera's par threes are less varied or less interesting than Calclubs ?
basing this more on TV and pictures than play, given it's been 20+ years since I've played Riviera... but I'd give the overall nod to Cal Club here, very slightly. The variation of par threes at Cal Club is very very cool. Riv has this as well... tough call. Both great sets. But I will have to go with Cal Club, by a whisker.
-
Great profile!
I played this course about 10 years ago. The course was a mess as they were starting a massive tree removal project. The member we played with was quite upset about the removal of the trees.
I do not remember any of these terrific views; there were probably too many trees blocking the way!
-
Mark,
These are definitely some tough questions and I will have to plead the fifth as well in regards to Valley Club as I have never had the chance to play there.
In regards to the back nine at Pebble, I thought it was interesting that Tom thought he liked the front more than the back. That shows how far this course has come as before the restoration you'd have to be legally insane to make that argument. I would say most people are now split on whether the front or back is better. Back to the question at hand.... and where I disagree with Tom. I agree that the 10th and 18th holes at Pebble are better than any of those on the back nine as they are two of the most famous golf holes in the world, with 18 maybe being THE MOST famous. However, after those two holes, I don't know if there is another hole I would rather play at Pebble over Cal. I know this doesn't directly answer the question but I was thinking a little hole by hole match play might be of help.
10- Pebble (unfortunately because I LOVE and think the 10th at Cal is one of the best on the course)
11- Cal (The tee shot is easy but needs to be positioned properly, and the options around the green are tremendous)
12- Cal (Don't think there is much of an argument here)
13- Cal (One of the most difficult yet fun par 4s out there. One of my favorite uphill par 4s out there)
14- Draw (I love both holes)
15- Cal (The uphill par 5 isn't only gorgeous, but there are options abound through out the entire hole. The more you flirt with the bunkers off the tee the more direct route to the hole. If you aren't going for the green in two the new central fairway bunkers make the lay up extremely interesting. The green and its surrounds are INCREDIBLE and one of the coolest around. I don't see how the 15th at Pebble can compare)
16- Draw (Great short par 3 for Cal and a fun little par 4 at Pebble. Neither is the best ever but I enjoy both holes)
17- Cal (par 5 vs par 3 makes it fairly difficult but I still give the nod to Cal as it presents so many options and challenges compared to a 4 iron that must be nutted to an incredibly small green.)
18- Pebble (Kinda obvious)
As to the par 3s at Cal and Riviera I will agree that Cal gets the slight nod.
Between the 6th, 8th, 12th, and 16th holes at Cal I don't know if you can get much more variation. The 6th is on of my favorite par 3s anywhere. The new 8th is a tremendous long downhiller with many options as Ran pointed out in his profile. The 12th is a gorgeous, uphill, and tough hole but still allows for the lesser player (or even better player from the back tees) to play a shot the runs up towards the green while the bunkering and short grass again allows for options galore around the green. Then the short 16th is in my opinion the perfect hole for its location on the course. After 3 tough long holes, and before the final 2 tough holes, it can act that the perfect savior or destroyer of a round. I have personally made two birdies, 2 pars, and a 6 (after hitting it in the back bunker). I spent time describing the holes at Cal as I think most are more familiar with those at Riviera. I love the 3s at Riviera as well but I think Cal has one of the better sets of 3s around.
Sorry I couldn't help with Valley Club but like I said I haven't ever had the chance to tee it up. Hopefully I will get the opportunity someday. Hopefully this helped answer a few of your questions.
Robert
-
I think the most important thing here is the transformation of a pretty good golf course into a great one. The design elements and shot making stratgey at the Cal Club is among the greats. As for detemining which ones are best....that is subjective. No offense to Tom, but it's kind of like determining which college team is #1 this year, Florida, Ou, Texas, USC or Utah. Each has their own quality resume and everyone else has their own opinion.
I have played CPC, Pebble, LACC, SFGC, Riv, Pasatiempo, MPCC Dunes, Meadow, Lakeside, Olympic and Spyglass and am a member of the Cal Club. What I would honestly say is that the Cal Club absolutey belongs in that list of great California Golf Courses. Where it ranks in my opinion is purely subjective. All I know is that I am very fortunate to have such a true test of golf awaiting me every time I step to the first tee. And that my friends is a really cool thing.
-
John H:
Hey, I was just commenting on Ran's calling it "arguably top 5 in the state". I fully agree it's very subjective. You are indeed very lucky to have that great course at your disposal. And hopefully you understand it's absolutely no knock on your course if I say it's "arguably top 10" instead... My point was not to knock Cal Club at all but rather to point out that the competition is very stiff and thus that is a quite tall statement.
What is inarguable (I think) is that it certainly belongs in the conversation with all of the courses you mentioned. It is that great. And I would not have said that about it before.
Robert:
I enjoyed the front nine more than the back primarily because I get somewhat turned off by any series of up and back golf holes - that's it. That being said, each hole by itself is indeed quite great. I won't quibble with the comparison to Pebble, as of course that is subjective... but let's just say we will continue to disagree.. But of course I have been fortunate to play Pebble many times, and the new Cal Club but once.
TH
-
Absolutely John.... I can't wait for Ran to post his before photos so people can really see the transformation that took place. It would be even better if anyone had some pictures from back in the late 90's!!!!
Tom,
Completely agree... Hopefully I will be able to play Pebble some more in the future if they start dropping prices!!!
-
If Sean Arble sees this write-up I think his head will explode. ;D
Based on his prior comments, he thinks a majority on this site are hyper-focused on bunkering. Seeing the comments on here and the photos of Cal Club I'm sure it will just reinforce that opinion.
The course looks gorgeous and I agree the bunkering looks very Mackenzien, but I go back to the maintenance and playability aspects of the course. How does this bunker redo impact the course as a whole? Aside from getting us all warm and fuzzy because someone placated to our restoration sensibilities, does the playing of the course improve from what it was prior to Phillips work?
Chris
I don't know what all the fuss is about!!! For some reason (and not unlike Muirfield), from the photos, the bunkering seems to work for me. Perhaps its down to there being a bit of space without too many trees. I don't know, but I think Cal Club looks to be a great course and one of a handful of courses profiled on this site which very much intrigues. Tell me, somebody, anybody, what do Ballyneal, Longshadow, Leatherstocking, Cal Club, Wolf Point (and a few others whose names escape me right now) have in common?
Ran
Thanks for one of your best writeups to date!
Ciao
-
Guys,
Below is a link to a turfnet video shot at Cal Club during construction. In one of the shots you can see a paddlewheel scraper cutting where old lake bank fill dirt was and taking it up towards a back tee location on 10. Kyle and Mark used a natual topo map from before there was a golf course here, from before 1926, to rearrange the natural swale where the lakes were later located in the early 90's near 11 and 18 green. The scraper also helped with the dirtwork between the old range and hole 2. This video may explain why we were closed for 14 months.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1119170378?bclid=604573469&bctid=1119169264
-
Cool video, Josh. Thanks for the link.
As you know, I'm in the golf course design and construction business. But still, looking at the "after" photos of the California Golf Club renovation, I didn't get the sense that so much of the property was torn up in the process.
I think, in a round about way, this is another compliment to all involved :)
-
I'm curious how the process started at Cal Club.
How did the membership get such a good education?
Was there a single person that spearheaded the process? Educated the membership?
I ask because it seems so radical hearing a super talk about "brown" compared to most of the typical CC mindsets.
Reminds me of the Virginia Slims tag line. "You've come a long way baby".
-
It may be apocryphal but I was told that a primary cause for the renovation was noise reduction and the need for a better driving range. Several architects were considered; it was narrowed to 3 and Kle Phillips refusal to give any preliminary plans/ thoughts won the day. As most everyone agrees it appears to have been a good decision with a terrific outcome.
-
I'm curious how the process started at Cal Club.
How did the membership get such a good education?
Was there a single person that spearheaded the process? Educated the membership?
I ask because it seems so radical hearing a super talk about "brown" compared to most of the typical CC mindsets.
Reminds me of the Virginia Slims tag line. "You've come a long way baby".
I helped and talked a lot about brown grass. A favorite subject.
I think it is really important, again, to give a serious shout out to Thomas Bastis and his staff. Grant, Josh and Roger, along with a ton of other dedicated and great people, pretty much gave up their lives for this project. Still have, in a lot of ways.
It was very hard for me, at times, to see Thomas and Co doing so much work and getting so little credit and I feel like cowbelling for them as much as possible.
Truth is, everyone did their Jobs. Some in different ways and some better than others. Phillips, Oliphant, Wilber, Bastis, etc...did their jobs and let others do theirs as well. I certainly have a few regrets and a few "should' haves", and I'm still confused about some First Time experiences, but for the most part, this was a very high level project and a complete and total redo unlike what most have ever seen. Daily and even hourly effort by all involved yielded some pretty spectacular results. Cal Club members were exceptional...and continue to be. I wish we had more maturation time, but delays due to several 50+ year rain events had everyone's back against the wall. The course will continue to mature and will get better, as a lot of what I see on my visits now are construction related and early play related issues.
Again...I have to speak up for Thomas and his Staff...and I'll keep doing it every time I can. He may never get to do another one of these and hey may never want to do another one of these. But this one was a serious win. As Josh can attest, there were days when we all thought that a jump off a Big Orange Bridge nearby would be a better alternative. I say we...and I wasn't even there every day. I would show up some days and the looks on everyone's face told the story. Hard just isn't the right word.
I have huge hopes for this place. I don't care if the club pays me another red cent to consult, my heart is deep in it, with my friends on staff and I'll do all I can and think all I can and be as creative as I can for the success of the place. We have a ton of things to learn and it really is a one-off situation. This kind of thing is why I got into the business in the first place.
-
I'm curious how the process started at Cal Club.
How did the membership get such a good education?
Was there a single person that spearheaded the process? Educated the membership?
I ask because it seems so radical hearing a super talk about "brown" compared to most of the typical CC mindsets.
Reminds me of the Virginia Slims tag line. "You've come a long way baby".
Adam,
These are all good questions.
I'd like to hear the answers from a membership perspective and how the members reacted to the various issues involved with this project.
It might be a model for future projects.
-
It may be apocryphal but I was told that a primary cause for the renovation was noise reduction and the need for a better driving range.
Noise reduction? Noise from what?
-
All those damn big white birds, Mike.
As for cal club--what a gem.
Top 10 in Norcal, for sure.
Still got it behind Pebble, MPCC Shore, MPCC Dunes, and SFGC (not in that order) though for me.
Out of 10 plays in the City, it goes like this for me:
4 SFGC, 2 Cal, 2 Olympic Lake, 1 Lake Merced, 1 Harding.
-
It may be apocryphal but I was told that a primary cause for the renovation was noise reduction and the need for a better driving range.
Noise reduction? Noise from what?
Noise from your new Callaway driver with a senior flex shaft......
-
All those damn big white birds, Mike.
As for cal club--what a gem.
Top 10 in Norcal, for sure.
Still got it behind Pebble, MPCC Shore, MPCC Dunes, and SFGC (not in that order) though for me.
Out of 10 plays in the City, it goes like this for me:
4 SFGC, 2 Cal, 2 Olympic Lake, 1 Lake Merced, 1 Harding.
Jed, would you truly forego a round at SF/"new" Cal to play Harding or Lake Merced.....or are you just being nice? I could not imagine passing up an SF to play either of those two, and I like Lake Merced.
Mike/Jed.....what were some negatives about Cal Club which would place it behind SF in your personal scale. I've heard "other" locals put it behind SF, but none of them have been able to explain why.
-
Noise from these two things that someone like Barney would build...
-
Jed, would you truly forego a round at SF/"new" Cal to play Harding or Lake Merced.....or are you just being nice? I could not imagine passing up an SF to play either of those two, and I like Lake Merced.
Mike/Jed.....what were some negatives about Cal Club which would place it behind SF in your personal scale. I've heard "other" locals put it behind SF, but none of them have been able to explain why.
I'm just being nice.
Really it would go 5 SFGC, 3 Cal, 2 Lake. And Lake isn't as good a course to warrant 2 plays, but I'd like to play one round from normal tees and another masochistic round from tourney tees.
I put it behind SFGC for this--
1. Property intimacy and "feeling". SFGC is better in that respect.
2. There was not a shot I "didn't like" at San Francisco. I didn't like the tee shot on 3 (need to remove trees on right side), 2nd shot on 14 (that green can't handle 200 yard shots coming in)
3. Lack of variety at Cal compared to SFGC. There were too many long uphill shots into greens at Cal where the surface is not visible for my tastes, and too many downhill shots that you couldn't really bring it in on the ground (while the fairway tumbles to the green on many holes, there are too many "valleys" or raised fronts to the green keeping the ball from rolling on--this takes away the ground game.)
4. I didn't make a putt at either of the courses, but SFGC's greens I liked more--more nuances, more subtle, etc.
5. SFGC is a more pleasant walk.
Okay, this is CRAZY I know. How the hell does one rate a course like Cal Club? The place is absolutely UNREAL. The golf course is ONE OF THE FINEST I HAVE EVER PLAYED. What they did out there is amazing. It is fantastic, a course I could play every day of the week, all week, for the rest of my life. There is literally every type of hole there--I think it's just fantastic.
PS: Dave Wilbur speaking about himself in the second person is pretty funny.
-
Okay, here goes hole by hole match play with SFGC.
The fact that Cal can even be in this "match" says SO MUCH for that place--it is really that good.
1. Cal--1 up
2. SFGC--Even
3. SFGC--1 down
4. Cal--Even
5. Cal--1 up
6. SFGC--Even
7. Cal--1 up (this is the toughest call so far! The 7th at Cal is one of the best par 4s I've ever seen)
8. Cal--2 up
9. Cal--3 up
10. SFGC--2 up
11. SFGC--1 up
12. SFGC-Even
13. SFGC--1 down
14. SFGC--2 down
15. Cal Club--1 down
16. Cal Club--Even
17. Halve--both are particularly weak tee shots, both have great approaches.
18. SFGC--1 down (WINNER by 1!) Probably the best bunkered Par 5 i've ever played.
-
Jon,
Interesting that you mention that as I have heard many people say the same thing. "Its just better" without actually having an explanation.
It kind of goes along with Ian's new thread discussing how new courses could be just as good as some of the old greats but never have a chance of being ranked as high, just because they haven't been at the forefront of the golf community for 80 years.
After talking to Jed for a bit, he has some good points.
1. There are a couple holes at Cal where you can see houses and other crap, but at the same time that allows for some UNBELIEVABLE views. The intimacy of SFGC is pretty special, not that it is bad at Cal.
2./3. The course is pretty darn tough/long from the tips, leaving some shots for normal length golfers that they shouldn't have. 99/100 people would be better served playing the second from the back set of tees.
You have to try it from the tips at least a few times though.
4. The green complexes at Cal are AMAZING, leaving the possibility for much more "fun" and "creative" shots than exist at SF. The amount of short grass that exists helps to create the options. In terms of the greens themselves, I guess it is just personal preference. Both are great and tough to putt as there are many subtleties that that are almost impossible to read.
5. SFGC is definitely an easier walk. However, with probably 12/13 greens and tees being almost right next to each other at Cal, it is by no means a tough walk.
As for the hole by hole, I agree with Jed except for a couple holes. That is all just a matter of personal preference, as is all this stuff. Either way, they are both GREAT courses, ones that I would be happy to play every day. I have them on about even ground.
4 Cal, 4 SFGC, 2 OL.
-
Jed, would you truly forego a round at SF/"new" Cal to play Harding or Lake Merced.....or are you just being nice? I could not imagine passing up an SF to play either of those two, and I like Lake Merced.
Mike/Jed.....what were some negatives about Cal Club which would place it behind SF in your personal scale. I've heard "other" locals put it behind SF, but none of them have been able to explain why.
I'm just being nice.
Really it would go 5 SFGC, 3 Cal, 2 Lake. And Lake isn't as good a course to warrant 2 plays, but I'd like to play one round from normal tees and another masochistic round from tourney tees.
I put it behind SFGC for this--
1. Property intimacy and "feeling". SFGC is better in that respect.
2. There was not a shot I "didn't like" at San Francisco. I didn't like the tee shot on 3 (need to remove trees on right side), 2nd shot on 14 (that green can't handle 200 yard shots coming in)
3. Lack of variety at Cal compared to SFGC. There were too many long uphill shots into greens at Cal where the surface is not visible for my tastes, and too many downhill shots that you couldn't really bring it in on the ground (while the fairway tumbles to the green on many holes, there are too many "valleys" or raised fronts to the green keeping the ball from rolling on--this takes away the ground game.)
4. I didn't make a putt at either of the courses, but SFGC's greens I liked more--more nuances, more subtle, etc.
5. SFGC is a more pleasant walk.
Okay, this is CRAZY I know. How the hell does one rate a course like Cal Club? The place is absolutely UNREAL. The golf course is ONE OF THE FINEST I HAVE EVER PLAYED. What they did out there is amazing. It is fantastic, a course I could play every day of the week, all week, for the rest of my life. There is literally every type of hole there--I think it's just fantastic.
PS: Dave Wilbur speaking about himself in the second person is pretty funny.
Thanks for the answers. I agree with your #3, assuming that the routing of "new" Cal is roughly the same as "old" Cal. I never found the property for Cal as good as that at SF....a bit too much up/down resulting in a lack of variety at the end of the day which kept it out of my short list.
I might ask if the new bunkering is as strategic as that at SF.
I always had the "old" Cal ahead of Lake and behind SF. The new version looks to be a huge improvement and I look forward to seeing it once the turf matures a little.
-
Thanks for the answers. I agree with your #3, assuming that the routing of "new" Cal is roughly the same as "old" Cal. I never found the property for Cal as good as that at SF....a bit too much up/down resulting in a lack of variety at the end of the day which kept it out of my short list.
I might ask if the new bunkering is as strategic as that at SF.
Jon:
The new 1-8 are completely different from the old 1-8. COMPLETELY.
The bunkering is as strategic--BUT unlike SFGC, it doesn't "jump out at you", i.e. at SFGC, you'd carry one bunker, walk to your ball, then there would be like 5 more bunkers (or the same one!) behind it that you went into.
Examples of this on SFGC--1 fairway bunkers and layup bunkers;
2 bunkers on hill left and by green on right;
3 bunkers over the first carry set on the left;
6 bunkers left and short right
8, fairway bunkers
9 All over the place
10 bunkers left and right fairway, and back
12 carry first bunkers and cool bunkers on hill 50 yards short of green
13 those small bunkers everywhere
14/15 HUGE bunker complex on right
16 carry bunkers that make you NOT want to bail out right--and you end up hitting a hook into left trees (all 4 in my group did that!)
17 huge hidden bunker up right side short of green you don't see
18 bunkers after first carry bunkers on right side, huge bunker on left for the bailout person to be punished by, and the small perfectly placed fairway bunker on the left to pinch the fairway 100 yards out.
-
Jon,
Interesting that you mention that as I have heard many people say the same thing. "Its just better" without actually having an explanation.
It kind of goes along with Ian's new thread discussing how new courses could be just as good as some of the old greats but never have a chance of being ranked as high, just because they haven't been at the forefront of the golf community for 80 years.
After talking to Jed for a bit, he has some good points.
1. There are a couple holes at Cal where you can see houses and other crap, but at the same time that allows for some UNBELIEVABLE views. The intimacy of SFGC is pretty special, not that it is bad at Cal.
2./3. The course is pretty darn tough/long from the tips, leaving some shots for normal length golfers that they shouldn't have. 99/100 people would be better served playing the second from the back set of tees.
You have to try it from the tips at least a few times though.
4. The green complexes at Cal are AMAZING, leaving the possibility for much more "fun" and "creative" shots than exist at SF. The amount of short grass that exists helps to create the options. In terms of the greens themselves, I guess it is just personal preference. Both are great and tough to putt as there are many subtleties that that are almost impossible to read.
5. SFGC is definitely an easier walk. However, with probably 12/13 greens and tees being almost right next to each other at Cal, it is by no means a tough walk.
As for the hole by hole, I agree with Jed except for a couple holes. That is all just a matter of personal preference, as is all this stuff. Either way, they are both GREAT courses, ones that I would be happy to play every day. I have them on about even ground.
4 Cal, 4 SFGC, 2 OL.
Robert, thanks for the answers; something like this:
Cal better than SF with respect to greens, surrounds, difficulty. Cal worse than SF on intimacy, walkability.
I'd be curious for your take on the strategic effect of the bunkering here versus SF.
Cal, in photos, certainly has the flair of a Mackenzie. It also looks to have some of the superflous Macbunkering that works from an aesthetic standpoint but not much else. SF, especially with some of the new tees, retains the strategy/appearance of AWT/Billy Bell and is one of the better bunkered courses one will ever play, along with Riviera.
-
Thanks for the answers. I agree with your #3, assuming that the routing of "new" Cal is roughly the same as "old" Cal. I never found the property for Cal as good as that at SF....a bit too much up/down resulting in a lack of variety at the end of the day which kept it out of my short list.
I might ask if the new bunkering is as strategic as that at SF.
Jon:
The new 1-8 are completely different from the old 1-8. COMPLETELY.
The bunkering is as strategic--BUT unlike SFGC, it doesn't "jump out at you", i.e. at SFGC, you'd carry one bunker, walk to your ball, then there would be like 5 more bunkers (or the same one!) behind it that you went into.
Examples of this on SFGC--1 fairway bunkers and layup bunkers;
2 bunkers on hill left and by green on right;
3 bunkers over the first carry set on the left;
6 bunkers left and short right
8, fairway bunkers
9 All over the place
10 bunkers left and right fairway, and back
12 carry first bunkers and cool bunkers on hill 50 yards short of green
13 those small bunkers everywhere
14/15 HUGE bunker complex on right
16 carry bunkers that make you NOT want to bail out right--and you end up hitting a hook into left trees (all 4 in my group did that!)
17 huge hidden bunker up right side short of green you don't see
18 bunkers after first carry bunkers on right side, huge bunker on left for the bailout person to be punished by, and the small perfectly placed fairway bunker on the left to pinch the fairway 100 yards out.
I had thought #1-8 played thru the same area of the property as before....with 1-3 having altered corridors. Looks like I thought wrong!
Isn't what you describe the beauty of SF? Not to mention the visuals and shot difficulty if one chooses the safe route......throughout the entire round.
-
Jon,
I'm taking it you haven't played the new Cal?
In terms of better or worse I'm not sure how to really answer that question. SFGC is arguably the model golf course when it comes to strategic bunkering. The aesthetics of the bunkering at SF and Cal are both stunning.
There are obviously bunkers at Cal that aren't directly in play, but they do serve a purpose when it comes to alignment and visual trickery. Also, the strategic value of the bunkers is exponentially better than the previous course.
1. After a good drive, the right green side bunker wrecks havoc if going for the green in two. After a poor drive, or just the shorter player, the bunker complex at about 120 from the green play a HUGE role on the lay up. You DON'T want to be in those bunkers..
2. You would think the carry bunkers on the left hill aren't really that important, but they do serve as a an aiming point. I have also seen a handful of people end up in them after poor drives. The rest of the fairway bunkers are also very relevant, especially the cross bunker about 150 out, and the three bunkers about 40-70 yards short. Since the hole is over 450, the bunkers get much more action on second shots than you would anticipate.
Ok... I was going to go hole by hole but it is going to be a bit tedious and I don't have time for that today.
Either way, the bunkering from 100 yards and in is unbelievable and very strategic. The fairway bunkering on 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 17 is all well placed and influences play.
The green complexes are AWESOME on 1,3,5,6,7,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 (SOO Cool), 16,17, and 18... I guess that was kind of stupid because it was pretty much every hole but the bunkers is just awesome around the greens.
Even on holes with "bunkers not in play" such as 1, 9, 10, 11, 14 (in play on 13), and 17 the play the vital role of providing a target for alignment.
Oh... and all these bunkers that "aren't in play", I have seen people in pretty much every single one of them.
I tough to really discuss the differences between the bunkering at Cal and SF through typing, but they are both EXTREMELY well done and influence play to a great extent. With the UNBELIEVABLE WIDTH at both courses, the bunkers have to be well placed to influence play.
That isn't the best written analysis but I hope it says something about the bunkering.;
-
Jon,
For the sake of convenience I grabbed a couple photos of one of the threads to compare them to the ones from the profile. An interesting way to see the change.
17 Before
(http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff327/Rcknrobert/CalClub1980_17th.jpg)
17 After
(http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff327/Rcknrobert/Cal17.jpg)
9 Before
(http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff327/Rcknrobert/CalClub1980_9th.jpg)
9 After
(http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff327/Rcknrobert/CalClub9a2.jpg)
-
The golf course is 100 percent different. Wow.
-
Robert; have not seen the revised version yet. My contact :-\ recommended that we wait until later this year to allow the turf to mature a little bit. He did state that the greens were in virtually perfect condition but that the fescue mix was a bit sparse and just needed some time.
The course was a bit thinned out the last time I played it (2001), as compared to Ran's "vintage photos".....thank God those trees have gone the way of sansabelt trousers!
-
Just played Cal Club and thought it was awesome. More enjoyable than Olympic and as much fun as SFGC.
Bunkers are awesome. New green surfaces are excellent...difficult to make much, but very smooth, fast and playable.
-
I also just played the Cal Club last week and would say that I was blown away by how good it was. The new holes were spectacular -the usage of the ridgeline to create new holes was very crafty. The greensites were beautifully bunkered ,fairways were firm,and the greens ran well. The tree removal completely opened up the vistas of this gem. Coming from Chicago I left the Cal Club thinking why have I never heard of this place? If there are 10 better courses in California I would like to know where they are. I would be remiss if I failed to mention the hospitality of a fellow GCAer who hosted me and also 2 other gents that I could drink wine with all afternoon! What a place! Jack
-
I also just played the Cal Club last week and would say that I was blown away by how good it was. The new holes were spectacular -the usage of the ridgeline to create new holes was very crafty. The greensites were beautifully bunkered ,fairways were firm,and the greens ran well. The tree removal completely opened up the vistas of this gem. Coming from Chicago I left the Cal Club thinking why have I never heard of this place? If there are 10 better courses in California I would like to know where they are. I would be remiss if I failed to mention the hospitality of a fellow GCAer who hosted me and also 2 other gents that I could drink wine with all afternoon! What a place! Jack
Jack
I agree with you, I think it is the third best in California and the best in San Francisco.
They truly have a special place there now.
Chip
-
I had the fun of riding around the course three weeks ago with Kyle Philips who redid the course. Iy was a golf architecture junkies dream day! The course is wonderful and the restoration was done superbly.
-
I also just played the Cal Club last week and would say that I was blown away by how good it was. The new holes were spectacular -the usage of the ridgeline to create new holes was very crafty. The greensites were beautifully bunkered ,fairways were firm,and the greens ran well. The tree removal completely opened up the vistas of this gem. Coming from Chicago I left the Cal Club thinking why have I never heard of this place? If there are 10 better courses in California I would like to know where they are. I would be remiss if I failed to mention the hospitality of a fellow GCAer who hosted me and also 2 other gents that I could drink wine with all afternoon! What a place! Jack
Completely agree Jack! Awesome course and great experience. Hard to beat anywhere...
-
I also just played the Cal Club last week and would say that I was blown away by how good it was. The new holes were spectacular -the usage of the ridgeline to create new holes was very crafty. The greensites were beautifully bunkered ,fairways were firm,and the greens ran well. The tree removal completely opened up the vistas of this gem. Coming from Chicago I left the Cal Club thinking why have I never heard of this place? If there are 10 better courses in California I would like to know where they are. I would be remiss if I failed to mention the hospitality of a fellow GCAer who hosted me and also 2 other gents that I could drink wine with all afternoon! What a place! Jack
Jack
I agree with you, I think it is the third best in California and the best in San Francisco.
Chip
Third best? Cypress and what? Also where do you put SFGC and OC?
-
I had the fun of riding around the course three weeks ago with Kyle Philips who redid the course. Iy was a golf architecture junkies dream day! The course is wonderful and the restoration was done superbly.
How did you pull that off? Must have been pretty awesome....
-
3rd best in California is a reach but we are cherry picking here.
CPC and Pebble are easily top two. I would place Riviera and SFGC ahead of it as well. After those you could flip a coin for MPCC, OC, LACC and Cal Club. Regardless it's pretty good company.
-
As Joel said its pretty strong company, but my favorites in CA are:
1) Cypress
2) Riviera
3) Cal Club
4) Pebble Beach
5) Pasatempio
6) Olympic Club
7) San Francisco
8 ) Valley Club
9) Mayacama
10) Rustic Canyon
Not played LACC, MPCC or Bel Air and I could probably make the argument that Cal Club is more of my favorite than Riviera. Though it is really hard to compare something like Pebble to something like SFGC, etc etc
-
Chip, Cal Club is on the same level as MPCC in my book. The Shore gets great fanfare here as it should -it's a hell of a course but my opinion is that the Dunes is a better overall course. After the first 3 holes at the Dunes the course just takes off. Collectively the best set of par 3's on the Monterey Peninsula. That includes the other club just down the road and I'm not talking about Spanish Bay! The par 3 holes at the Dunes are that good. CPC's are damn good but #3 and 7 are not in the same league as MPCC's. Just my opinion ,
Jack
-
As Joel said its pretty strong company, but my favorites in CA are:
1) Cypress
2) Riviera
3) Cal Club
4) Pebble Beach
5) Pasatempio
6) Olympic Club
7) San Francisco
8 ) Valley Club
9) Mayacama
10) Rustic Canyon
Not played LACC, MPCC or Bel Air and I could probably make the argument that Cal Club is more of my favorite than Riviera. Though it is really hard to compare something like Pebble to something like SFGC, etc etc
Where does Meadow Club fit in the NoCal landscape? Or on the opposite end of the spectrum CordeValle?
-
Meadow Club is a very nice members course but it doesn't rank among these championship golf courses. Cordevalle pretty much the same.
My top 10 would probably include Spyglass and Martis Camp and Mayacama would definitly be out.
-
I know this topic is a bit old...
I played Cal Club for the first time yesterday. I played with two friends - we were all guests. It rained yesterday for the first time in (literally) months, but given Ran's profile and all the commentary about the Cal Club, I was going to play no matter what. We saw exactly 5 other golfers in 4 hours due to the conditions.
We played from the Venturi tees (7200 yards) and it rained pretty hard for the first 5 holes. I was amazed at how firm it fast it played in the rain (especially relative to other offerings in the Bay Area). I would love to play it again when the ball is really rolling. I've never shot 89 and had so much fun.
I'm not going to add much to previous discussions other than to say that the Cal Club now owns probably the finest course in the Bay Area (and this is coming from a biased Olympic Club member). I think California golf clubs have a lot to learn from the restoration (the sandy, firm and fast conditions, the open playing areas, the tree removal, the shaved "run-off" areas beside greens). It was a pleasure to play, especially for a someone who misses East Coast golf a bit. I used nearly every club in my bag (other than a 3-wood or 2-iron off of a par 4 tee).
Out of the courses I have played, it reminds me the most of Old Sandwich - it has a "Coore & Crenshaw" feel. This is a "product" not readily available in California.
There is no question that this a top 10 course in California...I think its at least top 5.
What features disappointed you all, if any? Why isn't this better than OC of SFGC?