[PThomas]

(full disclosure alert:  (I've played neither...but for those who have...)

if you had to play only 1, which would it be and why?

I've read how the last 6 at SF "hurt" the course, and how Olympic has "gotten better" due to tree removal

a good weekend to all

pt

[THuckaby2]

That's a great question.  You beat me to the punch too re SFGC... I was formulating a separate new topic about that.. one which I shall still do, as the issue is different....

But man, it is a tough choice.  OK, Dave M. has cautioned recently that this is not necessarily a good way to look at things - this "if you had one round" approach discounts the good over the long term.  And he's right.

BUT... it remains a fun discussion.  So not taking this too seriously, I'd say....

SFGC, by the tiniest of margins.  God they are both great places... it's a wash in terms of ambiance, feel, coolness factor, visuals... so just sticking to the two golf courses (and I assume the question is OClub LAKE course v. SFGC)... to me, SFGC is just a tiny bit more fun, and a tiny bit more interesting.  At least for me, I hit a wider variety of shots at SFGC.  But it is VERY, VERY close.  I could happily live playing OClub Lake all the rest of my days.

As for the finish at SFGC, that shall be the focus of the topic I will start shortly.

TH

[THuckaby2]

redanman:

OK, so this is to go beyond the golf courses?

I continue to call it a wash, having had the good fortune to now play SFGC three times to go against my dozen or so visits to Olympic.  Yes, SFGC does have a stuffy reputation and a stuffier private nature, but Olympic also isn't exactly Santa Teresa Muni.  They both have gates, they both are private.  The issue there all depends on who you know or who you are with.  Good lord, I've had GREAT times at Olympic and being there with Gib is better than being at any watering hole - obviously that man and the word stuffy go together like me and brevity.    BUT.. I have also been there at other times where I was treated very much like an outsider, a necessary evil as it were, as happens at some private clubs.  On the other hand, I do see the stuffy nature of SFGC but my record so far is three for three in being treated very warmly and being made to feel at home... So yes I am not blind, I can see that SFGC is more "private" by nature than OClub... I just doubt I'd make this the determining factor between the two places.

GREAT point re Muirfield, btw.  I never could put into words why I found no offense at the over-the-top stuffiness there... because YOUR'RE RIGHT - IT IS A PUT ON!  I just never took it seriously... it was like being in costume in a golf show or something... and thus to me great fun.

I have faced stuffiness at American clubs, and that is not fun.  I'm thinking one with the namesake of a windy city.  

So in any case, well... I do call it a wash between SFGC and OClub in all non-golf course issues.  Both are pretty freakin' great, equally so in my book.

So taking it to the golf course, well... it does remain SFGC by a nod.

TH

ps - good point re belt-notching, also.  Obviously the notch is quite a bit better at SFGC.  But that is NOT affecting my assessment, I assure you.  

[THuckaby2]

r - understood completely.

And my opinions are nothing but personal also!

 

[Brent Hutto]

however, one must enjoy himself whilst playing.  Personally, I hate "having to play with a pro", for example - which applies to none of the three mentioned by me here.....

To what does the phrase "having to play with a pro" refer?

[THuckaby2]

Brent - when doing ratings, some courses make you play with the pro or an assistant, don't trust you to roam the place unescorted.

It's understandable, sure.  And in the end it can actually turn out to be fun sometimes also.

But it doesn't give one a warm fuzzy feel...at some places anyway.

TH

[Kyle Harris]

What's so bad about playing with a pro?

You'll probably beat him...  

[Brent Hutto]

So the fact of playing with one of the pros isn't necessarily a bad thing, only if it's done in a way that seems to imply you're untrustworthy or unwelcome. For my part, at an unfamiliar course it's always nice to have a tour guide.

[THuckaby2]

Brent, you got it.  Of course here I am speaking for redanman, he ought to comment himself.. this is just my understanding of his take.  As Joe Q. Public in my life outside of doing NCGA ratings and magazine ratings, and as America's Guest, it never bothers me HOW I play a course, I'm always just happy to be there.

But yes, some welcomes are warmer than others, that's all.

But yes, it is good to have a tour guide also.

And well... I haven't had the experience of beating a pro at his home course yet... and it ain't bloody likely to happen any time soon.  But that would be very fun in its own right.  

[PThomas]

Redanman gets the final word with his "play them both " advice!!  I'm sure they are both fabulous and hope I can experience both someday!!

[Mark Brown]

San Fran all the way - strategy, alternate routes of play, wide open feeling

[Sam Sikes]

I wouldn't call the last 6 at SF weak golf holes, but then again, I like somewhat schizophrenic golf courses.  I particularly like how the front nine goes in and out of the lower cypress type trees, emerging from the shadows in the corners to the exposed center of the property.  And, after 3 brilliant holes 10, 11, 12 (12 being the most intimidating bunkering I have ever seen) you venture into the ampitheater of trees.  I wish I coud find a picture of the tee shot on 12.

Never before have I been amongst huge overhanging trees without feeling claustrophobic, and if my memory serves me properly, the limbs never really come into play because they are so high.  IMO 13-17 have matured as golf holes as well as any anywhere.  Can you imagine the holes without those canopies?

Moreover, the emergence back into the open as you approach 18 green is just awesome.  I can't really imagine that the back nine, confined to that side of the property could have been routed much better be cause the property is nothing special.  Also, I think Tillie was able to keep the property line out of play, which imo is worth having a few parallel holes.  He was not so fortunate at Fenway where the fence on 14, to me, really detracts from the overall appeal of the golf course.  But at SF, I never felt like the scheme of the holes didn't work.  And the front 9 speaks for itself.

[Lou_Duran]

Tom,

For many courses, playing with a pro is not a matter of not trusting you.  It has to do with club bylaws which do not allow outside play without being accompanied by a member or a representative of the club.

Personally, I enjoy playing the course with another player who knows about the history of the club and does not try to hype up the place.  I also enjoy evaluating a course while playing by myself with a good course guide and no one holding me up or pushing me.  Hitting extra shots on #s 4 and 10 at Riviera is lots of fun, and helps to understand the holes better.

Among the best experiences I've had thus far in this regard was in SoCal last year when three of us had a well-informed member take us around the course.  He regaled us with information on how to play the course during our competitive 18-hole match, then tied it together with a good recounting of the club's history over lunch.

For desert, after my companions departed fully sated, the club allowed me to go back out on the course by myself and play to my heart's desire.  On the backside I picked up another member and his guest and got another highly entertaining glimpse of the club (this member had played competitive tenis and had been invited to Heff's tournament at the mansion several times).

As to Olympic vs. SFGC, they are both favorites.  They are two different courses with different strengths.  As a golf course and place to play, SFGC is probably a bit better.  If I could join one and not the other, I would go with Olympic for the reasons BillV cites, plus the second 18 and the par-3 Cliffs.  I wonder if there are many members of both.

[THuckaby2]

Lou:

Point taken, and well said.  This is redanman's beef far more than mine... and I'm not sure how much of a beef it is even for him.  To me, the thought is far more unappealing IN CONCEPT than it ever has been in reality.

Bottom line is a round with a well-informed and nice guide is ALWAYS to be welcomed, as we experienced at said SoCal institution.  I had a great dose of this yesterday at SFGC.  That is never a bad thing.

Great question though re which course one would rather be a member at... on the surface, I was prepared to say OClub too, for the reasons Bill gives and the multiple courses, as you say... but thinking about it more... well... seems to me the OClub members have to work pretty hard for tee-times, even with the multiple courses.  There ARE no such things as tee times at SFGC.

So... I'm gonna stick with SFGC, and god help me when or if Gib sees this.  My thinking is the social stuff doesn't matter to me that much, my interest is far more in the golf... and I'd never have to hassle a tee time, and I'd have a lot of friends who'd take me to OClub when I wanted some variety... or a good time over a few beers.  

In any case it would be a pretty great choice to have.  How awful when one's second choice is Olympic, which has to be one of the world's greatest clubs?

TH

[Kevin_Reilly]

These two club/courses are geographically adjacent, but not too similar, as described in part above.  But since the flavor of the month is the Golfweek rankings, I will use their published ratings criteria as a guide to comparing these two courses...which Golfweek rates at approx 9.5 and 9.1 in favor of SFGC (note I am not a rater so I don't have the benefit of training in the application of these criteria).  

I will use a 10 point must system so the leader of a category will by definition get 10 points.  A couple of the categories seem more pass/fail by nature and I have no idea what a walk in the park means so they will both pass that one as well.

Ease and intimacy of routing - this should be a tie because both courses follow the natural contours but with the 10 point system I am forced to go 10/9 in favor of OC because the redo at SF at 13 onward is "forced" when the criteria grades whether the holes are unforced.  THere are no forced holes at OC.

Integrity of original design - this by first glance should go 10/8 to OC because of the much chronicled changes to the back nine at SF, but one must remember that OC itself has changed much since it was first layed out. Is that bad, by definition?  I don't think so but I would give this a 10/8.5 to OC.

Natural setting and Overall Land plan - this is a 10 for SF, and the question is whether the (few) cart paths at OC, the apartment buildings behind 5 tee and 12 green (how the hell were those ever allowed to be built) push OC down to an 8.  For today, I will assume they don't...10/9 to SF.

Interest of greens and surrounding contours - a 10 for SF and somewhere around an 8-9 for OC...this is the strength of SF, and at OC the greens are smaller, flatter, a bit slower, tougher to judge, perhaps, and the bunkering is getting a bit tired.  10/8.5 to SF.

Variety and memorability of par 3's - I would go 10/9 to SF because there is more variety in the 3's, 8 and 15 at OC are maybe a bit too similar in length and SF has the fun and definitely memorable #7.

Same for par 4's - 10/9 to OC, the strength of the Lake cse are the 4's that come in all lengths, directions and contours.  SF has some really good 4s as well, though...2, 3 and 10 stand out...but also has 13 and 16 which aren't to the standard of the rest.  At OC really only 10 is not to the standard of the rest, IMO.

Same for par 5's - not a great strength of either, relative to courses of this overall calibre, but here I would go 10/9 to OC simply because there is no 5 par at SF that is the equal of 16 at OC...a hole that does not just rely on length for its challenge...the rolling fairways that cant a bt to the left while the hole requires you to favor the right side to have an approach to the green...great fun and a real reality check at that point in the round...a 5 there is well earned, even with today's technology.

Condtioning - an unfair fight, given level of play, but this is a closer 10/9 than you'd expect because of the awesome work done by Pat Finlen the super at OC...the fairways and greens are in tremendous condition there.  

Landscape and tree management - hmmm, not sure how to grade this since OC has really opened things up in the last year...remarkable really, and someone who hasn't seen 1-6 in a while would marvel at it.  SF never really had a tree issue...so I guess it gets the edge, but I would go 10/9.5 in SF's favor with a full expectation that later this year the two will be absolutely equal as the last bits of extra trees are removed from the OC property.

Walk in the park - yes, I would be happy spending 4 hours at either.  I have no idea how to grade this on a relative scale.

Totals using the 10 point must system - OC 85, SF 85.5.  From my stat classes in business school...not statistically significant...enjoy both!

[THuckaby2]

Kevin:

Excellent work.

And remember I said SF "noses out" OClub?  It would seem lazyass generalizations end up the same as painstaking detailed thought... in this case anyway.  

Your former course is in absolute primo shape right now, btw.

 

[Mike Hendren]

Kevin,

Thank you for that well-reasoned analysis.

SFGC impressed me as a broad-shouldered golf course where the total exceeds the sum of the parts.   Plenty of opportunities to swing-away with subtleties that penalize those who foolishly do so.  It's "feel" (not the amenities or exclusitivity) was surprisingly similar to that of Augusta National Golf Club in some intangible sense.  Or maybe it was just the outstanding company of Messrs. Huckaby and Moriarty.

Hope to see the O-club one fine day to make my own comparison.  

Mike

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

Great point about the feel.  Now I've never had the great fortune to set foot inside the gates of Augusta, so I can only guess at this.  But perhaps is it the expansiveness of the holes, combined with the pretty large elevation changes, all packed into a large rectangle bordered on all sides so that you can't see in from the outside?  That is, it looks cramped and crowded and flat from the outside, but once inside is SO not any of those things, that the feeling is one of amazement?

That's the feel I get at SFGC, anyway.  From seeing Augusta on TV and what I read and hear about it, that does seem like a match.

And the company was excellent that day, for sure.  But of course you omit my friend Kevin, who was also with us that fine day.  He does lurk here and to date has been steadfast in his refusal to post.  Perhaps this with finally end his silence.

 

[Joel_Stewart]

This entire conversation is for fun but its absurd on many parts.  Its the same for Shinnecock vs. NGLA or Pebble vs. Cypress.

I'm willing to bet that I have played both of these courses more than anyone on this web site.  Regardless, SFGC is fairly boring after the 12th and shot for shot doesn't compare against Olympic.  Sure it has a few really good holes but 99.9 percent of the members at SFGC feel that Olympic is a far better test of golf and 3 to 5 shots harder than SFGC.

Kevins breakdown is fair, but when you look at the routing at SFGC, every hole runs lateral except for 4,9,10 & 11 which run vertical.   Its fairly flat except for 7 and 8 and you can hit driver on every hole.

Olympic is not without its problems as well.  Jones Sr. messed with the course in 1954 and really screwed with it in 1964-65.  He destroyed the 8th hole and then Sandy Tatum rebuilt the green on #7 in the late 1960's.  A really bad super (John Fleming) dinked around with a few greens but are on the mend due to Pat Finlan.   All of the bunkers need to be rebuilt and a few bunkers need to restored.  With that (as in SFGC) the greens will be brought back due to encrochment.

IMHO, the more you play SFGC, the more you will see Olympic is superior.

[Evan_Green]

Joel-

Could you please elaborate on what Jones Sr.did  to the 8th hole ? Was it building that bunker in front, or is there more to the story?

Did Jones also do something to#7 also that prompted Sandy Tatum to have to redo it?

[Kevin_Reilly]

I'm willing to bet that I have played both of these courses more than anyone on this web site.  

 Do you have a wager in mind?  

[THuckaby2]

Joel:

I have no doubt you are the most qualified of anyone posting here to make this comparison.

Thus your words hold great weight.

But I have played OClub quite a bit... and SFGC now three times.  Each time I play SFGC I like it more.

So I suppose I'll defer to you.  I must be seeing it wrong.

But one thing:  why is the question absurd?

TH

[THuckaby2]

Hi Kevin:

Doubt has just entered my mind.
I shouldn't be so quick to defer.

 

[Joel_Stewart]

Could you please elaborate on what Jones Sr.did  to the 8th hole ? Was it building that bunker in front, or is there more to the story?

Did Jones also do something to#7 also that prompted Sandy Tatum to have to redo it?

There are so many things I've discussed with Ran about writing an article about the "history of a golf hole".  The hole originally was a square biarittz green with a fortress front.  The front bunker was added sometime in the 30's extending all the way around to the left.  In the 1940's a small walk way was built in order to get to the 9th tee.  The slope down to the 9th tee was much steeper.   The tee was a walk off tee adding extra length to the tee shot.  

In 1965, Jones bulldozed the hole under the walking orders to "modernize the course". He flattened the green, made the bunker on the left into two pot bunkers and built up the tee.  The back bunker was one of the great bunkers in the US slowly lost its shape and now is a sliver of itself having given way to a cart path.

Over the years the green has become round, the bunkers have turned into ovals, the trees have been taken down and essentially the hole has become architectually the worst hole on the golf course.  We were fairly close to restoring it last year but ran out of time.  The new greens committee doesn't have a vision and really doesn't have the balls or interest in doing anything.  I'm not sure what will happen in the long run although the superintendent is interested.

Huck:
The conversation is absurd because they are very different golf courses, vastly different memberships that just happen to be next door to each other.  

[Bob Konopacz]

Having played both several times I would still prefer to play O (Lake course).  The SFGC harder to obtain an invitaion usually so if torn between the two I would take the SFGC knowing that in the future I could get on the O easier.
 
The O because:
History of great opens and better greens.  Members at O have been more enjoyable over the years especially the grill room card games after the round.  18th is unforgetable finish hole. I believe they have modified the steep green.  While the par three holes are similar the O's, more demanding 4's with strategic tee  shot placement and test of skill second shots are more challenging.  The lack of fairway bunkers at O is possibly less demanding then other courses of its stature, this did not bother me.  

Favorite moment surprising my father, a Hogan fanatic, by playing a round at the O.  He got down on his knees at the first tee and kissed the ground.   So if he could have a religious experience playing there so can you!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()