Kalen - working in Oakland as long as I did, perhaps I'm also more attuned to danger areas.

But really the point was articulated perfectly by Matt Cohn above.  I'm just hopping on his bandwagon.

TH

John:

Gotcha.  I'd concur it's all golf and can be very fun.  And don't get me wrong - I do remain a huge fan of courses like this - again, check out My Home Course for my further thoughts.  There is a great place for courses that take less time.  I guess our main difference is I wouldn't expect others to agree.  I'd expect others to not consider it "real golf", at least in a courses to seek out context.  And given that seems to be the point of the Golfweek article, I don't get why there should be outrage over Gleneagles being ommitted.

I surely haven't trashed any course, btw.  Not sure what course you mean by this though:


Do not trash the fine 9 hole course on the edge of the western world GG parks own. A classic in its own mind


And believe it or not I have played the tiny course in Montclair - great fun - but I'd recommend that to visitors in about the same way I'd recommend the par three course at Lake Chabot... that is, fun to play, take a few beers, but seek out only after you've already played everything else.

"Golf does remain an 18-hole sport, for better or worse." — Tom H.

Well, certainly so if we continue to make such claims. Actually, (1) I prefer golf as a "game", (2) nothing should "remain", and "better" is always, well, better.

Based on my very recent evaluation of City-run courses in SF, I would say that it is a large mistake to omit Gleneagles from any decent (even an indecent) story about SF golf. I have played there several times, including a now-famous Christmas-time round in which the southern-most hole was closed because neighboring hoods held a bonfire in the fairway bunker and had not yet left the area, even though it was close to 3pm the following afternoon.

I played Gleneagles a number of times in the late 1980's.  Never had any security problems, but wasn't even aware that was a possibility there!  To put that in perspective, I also lived in SF for several years, and barely ever saw any gays.  

Enjoyed Gleneagles much more than Lincoln Park and Crystal Springs.  When the wind kicked up, as it usually did, things could get interesting.  Even though it is nine holes, they have alternate tee boxes on several holes, that dramatically change the character of the hole.  I didn't trust the declared yardage: many holes seemed shorter in reality than the scorecard read.

As for a choice between Gleneagles and Alcatraz, it's no contest.  The golf course, hands down.  Out of ten rounds, I would probably go 7 Gleneagles, 2 Crystal Springs, 1 Lincoln Park.  

Forrest

Interesting comment that in 20 years in the GCA business no 9 hole courses and today 3 are under way. I fully agree with the  reasoning you stated. I would add the cost of land as well as its availability in populated areas.

Question are they public or private? My guess is public but not sure

There's one fundamental problem with 9-hole courses, execute length courses and other non-"championship" golf venues. Most people who play golf expect a "round" to produce a number. That number needs to be 80-something for most halfway decent golfers, 90-something for less skilled golfers and 70-something for golfers who consider themselves strong players.

Ask the next 10 golfers you encounter about how they enjoyed their last round. I'll bet at least 8 of the 10 will mention a number in their first 20 words. The score is the thing, at least here in the USA. If a course doesn't play to something in the neighborhood of Par 72 (68 is stretching it and anything less won't do) then it doesn't produce valid numbers and is therefore something less than a real round of golf to most golfers.

This may change one day but if it does we're talking a generation or two down the line. Yes, people will drop the game if they don't have time/money/opportunity. However, the vast majority of them would rather drop the game than play at a Par 62 executive course or a Par 34 nine-holer. Irrational but it is what it is.

That number for Forrest will be "four" starting next week as he and I expect to begin the design of a new 9-hole course in MA.    

Here in Vero Beach, FL there is great interest in bringing back the now City owned nine holer at Dodgertown.  It plays around the baseball stadium which has lighting for nite baseball.
Adam Messix and I walked the course and both agreed that little had to be done to make it playable once again.  It even had an Alps hole and a Redan green, which shows Walter O'Malley knew what he was doing in 1965.
The acreage is 39, and the cost to V/B was 9.9 million.

Anthony:

I'd agree that people start with their own world view and assume it's the same all over.

I'd just say that if you believe 9holers are prevalent and normal and accepted, than you are guilty of the same thing.

Because they might be near you; they sure as hell aren't near me. After a quick count, I found that within 1/2 hour of my home in San Jose, CA, there are 33 total golf courses.  Of these, 26 are 18 holes.  Of the 7 nine-hole courses, only ONE is regulation size, and it's private.  The other 6 are execs and par threes.

Thus you can hopefully understand our differing world views.

The result is, nearly no one I know ever posts 9hole rounds; I know of exactly one 9-hole league, and that's at a par three course; and no one I know has ever stated anything but that playing 9holes is half a round, nothing more, nothing less.  When they play the 9holers that do exist, it's considered practice or the like and is definitely "unofficial."


Go to any municipal course on a weeknight anywhere in the U.S. and you'll see 9-hole leagues going off both sides of 18-hole layouts.


Not here in the SF Bay Area!  No way, not even close.  Such things do not exist here - not at public courses anyway.  I have heard of late pm leagues doing only 9holes, but no way in hell they ever go off both sides of 18 hole courses.

Like I say, I think your way is better, and is certainly the way of the future.  I wish these things did exist here.  But I am guessing what we have here is more of the norm than what you have where you live.  Of course it's my world view though and it starts here, so it's just a guess.

TH

I love the book.  The forward is cool.

Let's just say New England is quite different from Silicon Valley - understatement of the year, no?

As for which represents the norm, here's hoping that yours does, if not now, then some day.

Just remember, your complaints here began with the SF Bay Area.  Our reality is quite different.

TH

Kevin:

I have zero doubt that the stories are worse than the reality.  But I've never driven there nor played there without feeling at least a little iffy - and I have played there at least a dozen times.  And remember I worked in downtown Oakland for 13 years, so I believe I am rather numb to bad areas.  It's not so much the stories, but just looking around.

In any case the point remains one still wouldn't direct a tourist to go there... or if one did, he'd mention to be careful.

TH

You did hit upon the two holes from which the stories derive.  As for the course, it is pretty interesting and it is definitely tough.  But I used the play the 9-holer in Colma a lot also (Cypress Hills or something?) and I always preferred it to Gleneagles... I hear it's been re-done yet again in recent years.

In any case I heartily concur re #10 Gleneagles.  That is a very cool bar.

 

TH

ps - ever hear gunshots there?  I have... something I can't say for 13 years of working in Oakland....

I`m sitting here at a nine hole course where two Master's winners have won our local tournament.  I'm sure they would agree that Huck is an idiot.

note: first remote blackberry post.