Harding Park - SF

[Mark Arata]

Got to play Harding Park on last Thursday....was a very nice course, much better than I expected. Greens were on the smallish side, and were running slow because of all the rain, but it sort of reminded me of the light beer version of Olympic Club.

It was pointed out to me that the course would be much better if they cleared the trees on the holes that ran along the lake to give a full view of the water, and I agree, although I doubt the tree huggers would ever allow it. Also, there seems to be some issues about the upkeeping of the place. City workers and all......I very much enjoyed the course, wondering what others think of it.

[Tom Huckaby]

Mark - cool you got to play it.. imagine it in dry conditions...

In any case, it's been battled over many times in here.  Some think it's great, others wonder what might have been if they renovated it based on fun for all more than trying to make it tough for the pros.  I fall in the latter camp.  Many are in the former.

In any case it's one HELL of a lot better than what was there before, that's for sure.  I just do wonder what might have been.

It's also too damn expensive.

And yes, we do worry about conditions... especially when the Tour stops coming, which they eventually will.

Perhaps it's all nitpicking, I don't know.  They just did spend a hell of a lot of money there, and I wonder if in the end it was all worth it.

But the very bottom line is that it's a pretty damned good golf course.  I just went to play it once, never have gone back other than one time a friend paid for me and it was our only place to go (he owed me a round).  I really can't see spending $90 to play there again.

TH

[Mark Arata]

It was closer to 140 for the out of towners, had to pay the fee to book a tee time in advance, but for some reason, I figured 100 a round was about the norm for a decent to good public course in that part of the world. You should see what they charge down here in what is left of the bayou for what they call a top public course.....ouch.

I didnt see it before the renovation, but it was a fun course, and it had some very nice holes on it, just seems like they stopped short of the mark. The more I think about it, the more I agree with the comment about the trees on the lake holes, if they were cleared and you saw that water on all of those holes, it would have been much more intimidating visually.

I would play it again if the oppertunity arose, provided they keep the place up.

[Tom Huckaby]

Mark - yikes - my $90 is already out of date I see.  Good god.

In any case, yes, $100 is just about the norm for a good public course, sadly enough. We are the home of overpriced golf.  That doesn't mean it's RIGHT, anywhere.  But more importantly, Harding Park is supposed to be the crown jewel of the SF Muni system, and as great as it is, well... $140 is ludicrous for a muni course.

In any case I'm right with you re the holes along the lake... but imagine if they actually placed some greens nearer to the edges, bringing such into play?  How about some shortish par4s or other holes where thinking comes into the equation more than slugging and staying between the trees?  Again for me it's hard not to imagine what might have been.

I have no doubt I will play it again.  I'm just likely gonna be pissing and moaning over the cost the whole round.  

[Tim Pitner]

I played Harding for the first time in May 2004.  I was in SF on business and a friend took me there to play.  I was happy to play a course in the city and one that had some of the fantastic vegetation that you guys on the West Coast probably take for granted but that is very different from what I see in Colorado.  I had a very pleasant experience and it was cool to see the course before the tournament.  Obviously, I can't compare it to the run-down, former version.  It has quite a few mundane holes on the front.  The topography on the back is more interesting--there are some very good holes on the back.  All in all, it was a good course, but nothing spectacular.  I was quite surprised to see it show up on list of top courses recently.  Certainly a good municipal course.

[Mark Arata]

I am quite sure that is not 140 to play if you are a resident. There were a ton of older men and women out on the course, and I doubt many of them were paying full freight like we were.

I wish they had added more undulation into the greens. You could tell that it was set up for the tour guys, inside 3 ft, everthing was dead straight. No wonder they hardly ever miss the short ones.

Now, for a bargain, we played Brookside #2 (1 was closed for a tournament) on Monday between raindrops. We paid 26 bucks for a 6100 yard course that ate our lunch.....I would play there every day if I had anything like that in my neck of the woods. Throw in the occasional eye candy jogging around the place, and all is good.

[Tom Huckaby]

You guys just said all that needs to be said about Harding.  So why would it ever be worth $140?

I know neither of you is saying it is worth that... just trying to make my frustration better understood.

BTW, it is a lot less for residents of SF.  But WAY WAY WAY more people play it than those who actually live in city limits.  Of course they ought to get preference... that's not my issue... mine is the outrageous price for someone who might live 50 miles away, like me.  

[cary lichtenstein]

Bette and I played it, we both liked it very much. Recommend it.

[Sean Leary]

Tom,

 I played Pasa last weekend and it was $200 with advance notice.  Great course and  but conditions were awful for $200.  

[Tim Pitner]

I don't remember the holes at Harding very well and I think that's telling despite the fact that I was somewhat hungover from a night out in the city.  Normally, if I've played the course within the last five years and it made much of an impression on me, I'll remember everything about the course (with a small child, I don't play as much as some).  I do remember liking what I think is #15--downhill drive, dogleg left.  Very fun driving hole.

[John Keenan]

Sean

I would suggest that you do not judge the conditions of any courses in the Bay Area right now as typical. We have been hit with an tremendous amount of rain over the past month. I pity greens crews attempting to keep course in any shape at all

Greetings from a very wet and soggy Bay Area

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean - JK is right re conditions.  And to me, even a truly great course like Pasa is overpriced at $200.  But let's just say I'd feel a lot better about paying $200 at Pasa than $140 at Harding.

TH

[Wayne Freeman]

I played Harding last year and thought it was very good, especially the finishing holes.  It might be a little steep, but what in S.F. isn't expensive.  I know the residents have a great deal there and may only pay $25 or so.
   Out of area players who go to Torrey Pines pay up to $140 and for what-  a chance to play a very average course with maybe the worst greens in the state (except for 2 weeks a year).  I'd probably take Harding given the choice of the two.

[ceHufnagel]

harding park has becme my home course more or less since i moved to san francisco two years ago.  i do the – "up at 4am, drive to course, put my name on the list, wait for a golfer to not show-up, and join a foursome" – most saturdays when my wife lets me.  

it is a good deal for residents – $48 dollars on the weekend if you have purchased an annual resident golf card which i believe is $50 per year.

as far as the course goes – i believe #7 (short par four) and #8 (long par 3) are the best on the front.  i really enjoy the back more – particularly #10 (par 5 - dogleg left), 12 (par 5 for us, 4 for the pro's),  and 16 (short par 4.)  18 is just a tough finishing par four and, to me, a bit out-of-character with the balance of the course.

[AndrewB]

In any case I'm right with you re the holes along the lake... but imagine if they actually placed some greens nearer to the edges, bringing such into play?

That's sort of what I was thinking.  Bringing down the trees would probably provide a nicer view, but I don't see it increasing the intimidation factor at all.  The only place where the hazard is at all in play is left of 17 green, and even that's a pretty big hook.

The trees left on 18 actually make it tougher since you have to clear them too, rather than just the hazard.

Oh, and it's way too expensive to warrant playing more than once or twice at the non-resident rates.  But, if you're a resident, I think it's a great deal relative to the other options.