Will Harding Park crack a Top 100 List?

« **on:** October 11, 2005, 09:09:11 PM »

Will Harding get a nice boost because of the AmEx ala Torrey Pines?

Perhaps one of the magazines will come out with a new category "Top 100 Inner-city Courses" ...

« **Reply #1 on:** October 11, 2005, 09:33:56 PM »

Mike -

Let's not get carried away. "The Top 100 You Can Play" list, maybe.

P.S. I hope you saw the newest Geoff Shackelford column on Harding from golfobserver.com. I linked it to the thread on what other munis should be renovated. Even HE warmed up to Harding over the weekend!

DT

« **Reply #2 on:** October 12, 2005, 04:20:56 AM »

Harding Park is a solid golf course in an exceptional setting with a very good story line attached to its rise, demise and rebound. But the course itself is pretty simple, with basically flat, dished out fairways built with large bulldozers and low-profile greens - except for that goofy 18th.

That makes it a nice pleasant, enjoyable and playable course capable of absorbing a lot of play at a reasonable pace - which by today's standards is perfectly fine and certainly welcome in public golf. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's far cry from your standard muni. But that's a far cry from a top-100, which may be more of an indictment of top-100 lists than of Harding Park.

« **Reply #3 on:** October 12, 2005, 04:50:07 AM »

I was interested to hear what Ken Venturi said about Harding: that when he was playing as an am in SF, most of the top players there thought Harding was a better layout than Olympic.

« **Reply #4 on:** October 12, 2005, 11:19:52 AM »

Quote from: Brad Klein on October 12, 2005, 04:20:56 AM

Harding Park is a solid golf course in an exceptional setting with a very good story line attached to its rise, demise and rebound. But the course itself is pretty simple, with basically flat, dished out fairways built with large bulldozers and low-profile greens - except for that goofy 18th.

That makes it a nice pleasant, enjoyable and playable course capable of absorbing a lot of play at a reasonable pace - which by today's standards is perfectly fine and certainly welcome in public golf. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's far cry from your standard muni. But that's a far cry from a top-100, which may be more of an indictment of top-100 lists than of Harding Park.

And how is your description of Harding any different then Torrey Pines (#89 on Golf Digest's Top 100 Public ... which includes resort courses)? And Torrey Pines only shot up into the list after the much ballyhooed remodel and national exposure ...

« **Reply #5 on:** October 12, 2005, 11:23:48 AM »

Quote from: Jim Nugent on October 12, 2005, 04:50:07 AM

I was interested to hear what Ken Venturi said about Harding: that when he was playing as an am in SF, most of the top players there thought Harding was a better layout than Olympic.

Well thats the stupid statement of the year. Its like the golfers on Long Island saying Bethpage is better than Shinnecock. Harding is the 4th best course in San Francisco and would be the 2nd best muni in SF if Sharp Park was restored.

I would say that there is no way that Harding could crack the top 100 but Trump International and The Preserve made it so who knows. The problem for Harding would be out of town panelists who come to San Francisco would prefer to play Olympic, SFGC and then head down to Pebble then put up with the hassels of Harding.

« **Reply #6 on:** October 12, 2005, 11:37:21 AM »

Quote

Well thats the stupid statement of the year. Its like the golfers on Long Island saying Bethpage is better than Shinnecock. Harding is the 4th best course in San Francisco and would be the 2nd best muni in SF if Sharp Park was restored.

I would say that there is no way that Harding could crack the top 100 but Trump International and The Preserve made it so who knows. The problem for Harding would be out of town panelists who come to San Francisco would prefer to play Olympic, SFGC and then head down to Pebble then put up with the hassels of Harding.

Quote

Joel, as I live on the opposite coast, what course is #3 in SF? Is it Lake Merced?

« **Reply #7 on:** October 12, 2005, 12:16:54 PM »

Quote from: Joel_Stewart on October 12, 2005, 11:23:48 AM

Quote from: Jim Nugent on October 12, 2005, 04:50:07 AM
I was interested to hear what Ken Venturi said about Harding: that when he was playing as an am in SF, most of the top players there thought Harding was a better layout than Olympic.

Well thats the stupid statement of the year. Its like the golfers on Long Island saying Bethpage is better than Shinnecock. Harding is the 4th best course in San Francisco and would be the 2nd best muni in SF if Sharp Park was restored.

I would say that there is no way that Harding could crack the top 100 but Trump International and The Preserve made it so who knows. The problem for Harding would be out of town panelists who come to San Francisco would prefer to play Olympic, SFGC and then head down to Pebble then put up with the hassels of Harding.

My first thought was that he had been smoking wacky tobacky.

What is number 3 on your list?

« **Reply #8 on:** October 12, 2005, 12:22:56 PM »

Here's one man's take at a San Francisco top 7:

1. SFGC
2. OClub Lake
3. Lake Merced
4. Presidio
5. OClub Ocean
6. Harding
7. Lincoln Park

And I love Lincoln. Just give it a bit better conditions and man I can see moving it up a notch or two.

Sharp Park is in Pacifica.

But for whatever reason it is included in the SF muni system, so he's right - if restored Harding falls even further.

That being said, never say never when it comes to magazine ratings. I can see Harding cracking a top 100, though it doesn't come close to deserving it. I think Joel's right though - not many raters are going to go through the hassle of playing it. But now that it's been on TV, more will try... and heck, management there could easily find a way to make some tee times available....

Never say never.

TH

« **Reply #9 on:** October 12, 2005, 12:31:46 PM »

Joel keeps on alluding to Sharp Park being in San Francisco which is about the same as the New York Giants and Jets playing in New York.

The courses within the City and County of San Francisco are:

Harding Park
Harding Park - Fleming (9 holes)
Lincoln Park
Golden Gate Park (9 holes)
Gleneagles International (9 holes)
Presidio
San Francisco Golf Club
Olympic Lake
Olympic Ocean (splits the county line)
Olympic Cliffs

Sharp Park is in Pacifica, 8 miles south of Harding Park.

As John Daly stated, he preferred Harding over Olympic because he could hit driver. Also, Harding has nothing but flat fairways, very little elevation change tee to green and fairly flat greens. All those factors will make for more enjoyable scoring for a touring professional. Olympic has none of those features.

« **Reply #10 on:** October 12, 2005, 12:37:42 PM »

Mike - Sharp is counted as an SF Muni, it's in their system, they run it or whatever. So while it's not in city limits, well... I can see calling it a San Francisco course.

And right on re Daly's comments. I tried to tell David Tepper that praise from Daly doesn't make it a good course, and in fact puts it more into my camp... but to no avail.

« **Reply #11 on:** October 12, 2005, 12:50:51 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on October 12, 2005, 12:22:56 PM

Here's one man's take at a San Francisco top 7:

1. SFGC
2. OClub Lake
3. Lake Merced
4. Presidio
5. OClub Ocean
6. Harding
7. Lincoln Park

And I love Lincoln. Just give it a bit better conditions and man I can see moving it up a notch or two.

Sharp Park is in Pacifica. But for whatever reason it is included in the SF muni system, so he's right - if restored Harding falls even further.

That being said, never say never when it comes to magazine ratings. I can see Harding cracking a top 100, though it doesn't come close to deserving it. I think Joel's right though - not many raters are going to go through the hassle of playing it. But now that it's been on TV, more will try... and heck, management there could easily find a way to make some tee times available....

Never say never.

TH

I would substitute Gleneagles for Lincoln -- at least that was true 17 years ago, the last time I played there.

« **Reply #12 on:** October 12, 2005, 12:51:18 PM »

Quote from: Mike Benham on October 12, 2005, 12:31:46 PM

Joel keeps on alluding to Sharp Park being in San Francisco which is about the same as the New York Giants and Jets playing in New York.

Sharp Park is in Pacifica, 8 miles south of Harding Park.

Mike:

You are right and wrong. Yes its not in the city but it is owned by the city. Check out the citys web site,
http://www.parks.sfgov.org/site/recpark_page.asp?id=1863

« **Reply #13 on:** October 12, 2005, 12:52:43 PM »

Jim:

I included only 18 hole courses. Allow nine-holers to count and hell, Gleneagles might jump up as high as #3. BUT... that's only if "fear for one's life" is discounted as a factor.

« **Reply #14 on:** October 12, 2005, 01:05:26 PM »

Tom H. -

The Presidio at #4? Surely you jest! How many rounds have you played there in the last 5 years? It's even more expensive than Harding!

I was a PGC member from 1983-99 and probably played 700-800 rounds over that timeframe. It is the one course in the Bay Area I probably actually know something about.

If there was ever a course that needs to be shut down for 2 years and given a COMPLETE overhaul (turf, drainage, trees, greens, the works), the Presidio is it. Between the overall age of the course, the years of under-funded maintanence from the Army and the way the Palmer group has screwed things up, the Presidio needs a knight in shining armor. Too bad it is not going to happen.

DT

« **Reply #15 on:** October 12, 2005, 01:08:42 PM »

Quote from: Joel_Stewart on October 12, 2005, 12:51:18 PM

Quote from: Mike Benham on October 12, 2005, 12:31:46 PM
Joel keeps on alluding to Sharp Park being in San Francisco which is about the same as the New York Giants and Jets playing in New York.

Sharp Park is in Pacifica, 8 miles south of Harding Park.

Mike:

You are right and wrong. Yes its not in the city but it is owned by the city. Check out the citys web site,
http://www.parks.sfgov.org/site/recpark_page.asp?id=1863

Yes, Joel a technicality but since The City also owns Crystal Springs land, shouldn't we include that course? Perhaps the definition should be based on whether or not you can take the Muni !!!

Speaking of The City (and anyone who grew up in these parts refers to San Francisco as The City, no Frisco, San Fran, etc., just The City), is this one of the simpliest, coolest jerseys of all-time.

« **Reply #16 on:** October 12, 2005, 01:10:57 PM »

David:

I was hoping you'd see that.

I like Presidio. But I've only played it a dozen or so times, and none in the last two years. I've heard it's fallen on tougher times recently. When it first opened to the public post-military it was pretty neat. I do like that version of it better than the current Harding. But there is no accounting for taste some times... and in any case I will defer to your judgment.

So OK, we can move that one down. I can live with that. I'm still not sure Harding gets to #4 though. Is it really better than OClub-Ocean? I can't see it really competing with the top 3, also...

TH

« **Reply #17 on:** October 12, 2005, 01:12:17 PM »

Mike - that is one of the coolest unis ever produced.

But re Sharp, I do think the key is it is part of the SF Muni golf system. Crystal is not.

But if you want to leave it out, then we can leave it out. Hell no restoration is bloody likely to happen there anyway!

« **Reply #18 on:** October 12, 2005, 01:13:03 PM »

Mike B

Nice choice of numbers for the old Warriors jersey.

a classic free throw if there ever was one

« **Reply #19 on:** October 12, 2005, 01:17:21 PM »

If you are including Sharp Park and Lake Merced, you might as well add Cal Club aka California Golf Club of San Francisco.

Therefore:

1. Olympic Lake
2. SFGC

5. Lake Merced

7. Cal Club
7a.Olympic Ocean

9. Harding Park

12. Sharp Park
13. Presdio

17. Lincoln

« **Reply #20 on:** October 12, 2005, 01:22:11 PM »

Mike:

Isn't Lake Merced in SF city limits?

If not well then by gosh by golly it gets eliminated. No way Cal Club counts also - you know that.

You really like the current Sharp more than the current Presidio? Oh man... Sharp now is damn near what Harding was pre-revival. Border-line unplayable at least 9 months of the year, and barely doable in summer. Fun layout, yes. But the game is meant to be played, not slogged through.

No love for Lincoln I see. Oh well. It is an acquired taste. I love it. As I say poor conditions only keep it down as far as I put it.

At least we're copacetic re Harding though. All the rest is quibbling.

BTW, played Poppy Ridge in NCGA Commiteemen's event yesterday... it's still wet, I'm still gonna be in the NCGA yearbook.

« **Reply #21 on:** October 12, 2005, 01:55:38 PM »

Mike Benham,

you'd have to ask Golf Digest about that, though you are comparing apples and oranges, since I was responding in terms of top-100 Classic or Modern and now you tell me Torrey PInes ranks 89th on a public-access list, which is not my reference point.

Having said that, Harding Park probably does belong solidy in a top-100 daily-fee list, though I'm not sure I'd rank it quite as highy if resorts are included. I also happen to think Torrey Pines is generally overrated wildly by most magazines - though mnot by the Golfweek crew. In the case of the two monthlies, people confuse "a good story" with "a good golf course."

Still, Harding Park is a fine course. But if it gets a U.S. Open, it will because of its market value, not its shot value.

« **Reply #22 on:** October 12, 2005, 02:01:02 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on October 12, 2005, 01:22:11 PM

Mike:

Isn't Lake Merced in SF city limits? The county line runs through Olympic Ocean and maybe a touch of SFGC. Lake Merced is south of John Daly Blvd.

If not well then by gosh by golly it gets eliminated. No way Cal Club counts also - you know that.

You really like the current Sharp more than the current Presidio? Oh man... Sharp now is damn near what Harding was pre-revival. Border-line unplayable at least 9 months of the year, and barely doable in summer. Fun layout, yes. But the game is meant to be played, not slogged through. I've never been a fan of Presidio, a poorly maintained Sharp is still more enjoyable, but still way down the list

No love for Lincoln I see. Oh well. It is an acquired taste. I love it. As I say poor conditions only keep it down as far as I put it.

At least we're copacetic re Harding though. All the rest is quibbling.

BTW, played Poppy Ridge in NCGA Commiteemen's event yesterday... it's still wet, I'm still gonna be in the NCGA yearbook. Way to beat up on a bunch of 60 year old blue coats

As for the Sharp / Crystal debate, what is the defining factor? Both are on land owned by the city. Is Sharp managed by the City? Is Harding managed by the City? Is Gleneagles managed by the City? Is Crystal managed by the City? Same question but with maintenance?

« **Reply #23 on:** October 12, 2005, 02:06:46 PM »

Brad:

You are right on about USOpen prospects for Harding. Well said there.

And also well said about people confusing a good story with a good golf course. There's way too much of that going on right now.

Now as for where Harding fits in a ranking of public-access courses, that is indeed going to depend on how you define it. Base it on green fees and it loses - it's app. $100 fee makes it compete with damn near all resorts. Base it on municipally-owned and it makes a Top 100 solidly, I agree - but only because there aren't 100 really good ones of those anyway!

Bottom line question: which is the better course, Harding or Torrey? I really can't answer, haven't played the new Torrey. Interested in your take - or that of anyone else.

TH

« **Reply #24 on:** October 12, 2005, 02:09:49 PM »

Mike:

Look at the link Joel gave. Sharp is run by SF City, is part of the SF muni golf system. That speaks powerfully to me to call it an SF course, but like I say we can leave it out if you like, because it needs a restoration big-time before it moves up in any ranking, and such isn't very likely to happen in our lifetimes!

As for the rest, we're close enough - including your assessment of my "achievement" yesterday. Those pics do tend to look like the winner of the father-son events... and thankfully I am the son!

News:

Mike Benham

David_Tepper

Brad Klein

Jim Nugent

Mike Benham

Joel_Stewart

DTaylor18

Jim Nugent

THuckaby2

Mike Benham

THuckaby2

Jim Nugent

Joel_Stewart

THuckaby2

David_Tepper

Mike Benham

THuckaby2

THuckaby2

John Keenan

Mike Benham

THuckaby2

Brad Klein

Mike Benham

THuckaby2

THuckaby2