News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #25 on: October 31, 2006, 03:44:37 PM »
Tom H. -

The Golden Gate Park par-3 course is all the away out by the Great Highway, just about as far away from downtown SF as you can go without getting wet! (although Harding is even farther away).

Steve L. -

Another option would be the 9-hole Fleming course that is set within the confines of Harding. I think the course has 4 par-4's and 5 par-3's. It definitely gives you some of the flavor of Harding. Conditionwise, it is in far, far better shape than either the Golden Gate par-3 course or Lincoln Park. I am pretty sure you can rent clubs at Harding to play the Fleming course.

DT    


Tom Huckaby

Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #26 on: October 31, 2006, 03:47:38 PM »
DT:

Whoops - yeah, that's not a cab ride you would want... but I was thinking in relation to Harding, and it is closer.  Heck, the City geography remains a mystery to me - I try to stay the hell away as much as I can.   ;D

Good call re Fleming - but of course that's at Harding, so too far for the cab ride also.

I still say he should play Lincoln.  Most fun, most bang for the buck, just expect poor conditions and laugh through it.

TH


Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #27 on: October 31, 2006, 04:03:10 PM »
New to me that Harding has a discount on fees for "Northern Calif" residents:

http://www.parks.sfgov.org/wcm_recpark/Golf/Golf184-06.pdf
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Tom Huckaby

Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #28 on: October 31, 2006, 04:05:33 PM »
Thanks, Kevin.

What's interesting to me is that the price remains the same as it was before for a guy like me (Santa Clara county resident)... they've just decided to really screw non-locals.

$135/$155 for that course is ludicrous.  I felt ripped off paying $89 when I played it....

TH

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2006, 04:25:14 PM »
Steve L. -

You could take BART from downtown SF to the Daly City station (which would cost $1.50) and then take a cab from there to Harding (which I am guessing should cost no more than $5) to play the Fleming 9-holer (or Harding itself).

A cab from downtown SF to Lincoln will cost at least $15 one-way. Alternatively, you can catch the #38L Muni Bus on Geary ($1.50) and take it to 33rd/34th Avenue. From there, it is a block or two walk to the 1st tee at Lincoln.  

DT

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #30 on: October 31, 2006, 04:29:55 PM »
How cool would it be to take the 38 Muni bus out to Lincoln Park!   And is there a putting green anywhere with worse conditions but more action?   :o  At least that's the way it was years ago, lots of gambling on that green which was mostly moss in the shade.

Tom Huckaby

Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #31 on: October 31, 2006, 04:31:07 PM »
David:

Is the Fleming nine really worth BART plus cab ride, time-wise?  I can't see it being worth the cost taking a cab... Either way it seems to me a lot of effort for not much return.   ;)

Seems to me Lincoln is still the call.  If price is an issue, take the bus.  If time is of the essence, take a cab.  Especially if the weather is nice - and particularly as a visitor - he will certainly enjoy Lincoln more, no?  It does scream out San Francisco, as Aaron said more or less.

TH


Tom Huckaby

Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #32 on: October 31, 2006, 04:32:32 PM »
How cool would it be to take the 38 Muni bus out to Lincoln Park!   And is there a putting green anywhere with worse conditions but more action?   :o  At least that's the way it was years ago, lots of gambling on that green which was mostly moss in the shade.

Not sure if "cool" is the word I'd use to describe that bus ride... hide your wallet.   ;D

But you are oh so correct about that putting green.... many a happy hour was spent on there, and in the bar right next to it....

OK, I'll say it.  I love Lincoln.  It's irrational for sure, but heck, isn't all love more or less?

 ;D

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #33 on: October 31, 2006, 04:45:37 PM »
Tom H. -

The reality of the situation is that it would be hard to justify almost ANY aspect of golf in terms of the time and money spent! The wonder of the game is that it is a marvelous waste of both.

Steve L. -

If you do take the #38 Muni Bus line out to Lincoln (which is crowded, but hardly life-threatening) but sure to take the "limited" bus which makes many. many less stops. It is marked "38L."

DT

 
« Last Edit: October 31, 2006, 06:19:26 PM by David_Tepper »

Tom Huckaby

Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #34 on: October 31, 2006, 04:50:11 PM »
David - very well said.

I still say he should go to Lincoln, and take a cab.  Money can be reacquired - time cannot.

 ;D

Steve_Lemmon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #35 on: October 31, 2006, 05:04:37 PM »
very cool.  I will take Bart/cab and play the 9 holer.  When I say "cheap" I mean I hate to pay a lot of money to play an ordinary course (heck, I hate to pay a lot to play a great course).  I just feel a little ripped off (and like a chump) by those experiences.  I would much rather whack it around a muni.  Thanks for all the input.

Tom Huckaby

Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #36 on: October 31, 2006, 05:08:05 PM »
Steve:

Understand that the cost to play Lincoln isn't all that much more than the cost to play the Fleming nine... which is an exec... ALL of these are munis (with the exception of Presidio)... Fleming is rebuilt high-end 9-holer inside of rebuilt high-end Harding...

Lincoln - $31 for 18 holes
Fleming - $25 for 9 holes

You will NOT be ripped off at Lincoln.  Unless you demand immaculate conditions, you WILL enjoy it more than the Fleming nine.

Please reconsider.

 ;D ;D
« Last Edit: October 31, 2006, 05:12:24 PM by Tom Huckaby »

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #37 on: October 31, 2006, 05:30:16 PM »
I'd continue to suggest Gleneagles, except that it is likely impossible to get a cab to take you there, and taking a bus there would be hazardous to your health.

I dare say that the other locals would agree with that.
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Tom Huckaby

Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #38 on: October 31, 2006, 05:34:56 PM »
Kevin - well said, concur completely.

 ;D ;D

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #39 on: October 31, 2006, 08:05:48 PM »
Just in from another day of looking at this interesting collection of golf courses. Gib, I agree — we need to walk them.

When I return to the comfort of my office (messy desk, piles of un-read magazines and lists of things-to-do) I will pour through the comments above and correspond with a few of you.

As for Gleneagles...yes, it is still owned by the City, but now a 100% leased entity. Tom Hesigh runs it. And does an excellent job. Conditions are off, but it is coming along.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2006, 08:06:34 PM by Forrest Richardson »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #40 on: October 31, 2006, 08:28:23 PM »
Like many I have played all of them a number of times.  As a group I can't think of a city that has mis-managed their golf courses worse than San Francisco.  I assume the meetings are how can the city now get out of this mess they created with Harding Park and how to stop bleeding money from the rec department.

Although all of the courses could improve, especially in conditioning the only course IMHO that has any real potential to be world class is Sharp Park and it probably would be the most expensive to fix.  Any investor and then architect taking the job on at Sharp Park would be under pressure to do it correctly (restore Mackenzie's original work) which would then make it something special.  Any half ass cheap way out would be a waste.


David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #41 on: October 31, 2006, 08:48:22 PM »
Joel -

It seems to me the primary purpose/object of any work done on the existing SF golf courses would be to provide/create an enjoyable golf experience at a reasonable price (for SF residents at least) on courses that can be maintained & operated without too much expense.

Personally, having creating a "world class" course or making a Mackenzie-faithful restoration of Sharp Park are so far down the priority list as to not be relevant at all to the task at hand.

What these courses need (and what any future work on them should provide) as the highest priorities are good drainage, good grasses and the ability to stand up to 50,000+ rounds of play a year.

Hopefully, any future design/alteration work can be along the conceptual lines of a Rustic Canyon and both form & function can be achieved at a reasonable expense.

DT    


Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #42 on: October 31, 2006, 11:15:17 PM »

What these courses need (and what any future work on them should provide) as the highest priorities are good drainage, good grasses and the ability to stand up to 50,000+ rounds of play a year.

Hopefully, any future design/alteration work can be along the conceptual lines of a Rustic Canyon and both form & function can be achieved at a reasonable expense.


Dave:

I agree but my point is after all the good drainage and good grass the only course with any interesting merit is Sharp Park.  Furthermore, if they are going to do it, they might as well do it right and rebuild something world class since the bones and heritage are there.

Your reasonable expense argument such as Rustic Canyon is good in concept but impossible in this city.  I won't even start to explore this but remember this entire mess is a direct result of financial mismanagement boardering on fraud mostly by Tim Finchem and especially Chris Gray of the PGA tour architectural division.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2006, 11:16:17 PM by Joel_Stewart »

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #43 on: October 31, 2006, 11:28:32 PM »
As for Gleneagles...yes, it is still owned by the City, but now a 100% leased entity. Tom Hesigh runs it. And does an excellent job. Conditions are off, but it is coming along.


Agree with that...I went to high school with Tom Hsieh and he was a regular at the course before he got the lease from the city, so his goal was to keep the Hill the same as under prior operator Erik DeLambert .  Agree that conditioning is a challenge, but that's understandable given with what he has to work with.
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Sean_Tully

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #44 on: November 01, 2006, 02:23:52 AM »
Having done some research into all but the Gleneagles course I think it is safe to say that from almost the beginning in each case the course suffered from a lack of maintenance. I have numerous articles that speak of the poor conditions at Lincoln and with the growth of golf in the 1920's it saw its first decline as most of its regulars moved to the country clubs.

To speak of which course needs the most work and in some cases cost prohibitive would be Sharp Park. I for one would love to see the holes that are now lost to the sea wall restored, but knowing the past history it is not a logical idea. The sea wall in its current eyesore state is necessary for the welfare of the course. Orignally that lake was a salt water inlet that was turned into a fresh water lake by Supt. of Parks McClaren before the property became a golf course. That should give you an idea as to how often the ocean made its way inland there. Technically, all the holes except for the old 3rd could be restored. The old third was basically on the beach and I have been told by an old timer that during low tides one can still see some of the old irrigation pipe. The old 7th was shifted inland and the old 8th is still intact with the greensite hugging the sea wall near the current 12th green. There is not much to define the old 4th hole but its general location is still there. The 6th was abandoned after the 1983 storms and replaced with the current short hole in the old 14th's location. The holes across the road were added by Fleming when Hwy 1 was enlarged in the 1940's.

Lincoln has seen a number of routing changes most notably when Fowler and Watson developed two seperate routings when the city  decided to build the Legion of Honor. They went with Watson's plan and made some changes to the routing. I still have to look deeper into the changes so I can't go into detail just yet. I am a big fan of Lincoln for the simple reason that it is probably playing very similar to the way it did in the 1920's. Some fo the same complaints we have are similar to theirs. The setting is one of a kind and makes it a special place. My favorite hole is the 11th with the Legion just over your shoulder and a hogback fwy to contend with on a hole that is driveable. The old third hole must have been pretty cool as well instead of it s current par three form. At one point there was 10 par threes out there, so we should feel lucky.

Gleneagles, all I can say is restore the first green. Man that hole is bad and in need of some attention. I love the old greensite for its own merits and not simply because the current green is just plain bad. Yeah they have other issues, but lets cut to the chase.

Just by looking at the history of the courses the maintenance was never really there. They have been looked after more like a park. With more emphasis given towards conditioning the courses would benefit greatly and no doubt, more golf would be played. It will be a tough sell after Harding, but we owe it to ourselves, the coming generations, and to the future of golf in the Bay area to get back to the true game of golf at these courses.  

As to what course to play I would have to go with Lincoln. As usual, I am biased towards the history of the course. If there is one course that brings tears to my eyes it is Sharp. The front nine routing was amazing and its too bad it was so short lived!

Tully

John Keenan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #45 on: November 01, 2006, 09:41:48 AM »
Question, I was born and raised in "The City" and am sure that Gleneagles was called something else. McClarren I think  but frankly I am not sure. Can anyone help? If so when did the name change take place.

I agree with Huck go off and play Lincoln. Where else can you tee off into a graveyard (ok a few tomb stones) and a bit later get a stunning view of the bay. All this for  $30.00+ or so.

John
The things a man has heard and seen are threads of life, and if he pulls them carefully from the confused distaff of memory, any who will can weave them into whatever garments of belief please them best.

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #46 on: November 01, 2006, 11:29:28 AM »
John K. -

Yes, Gleneagles is the old McClaren Park 9-hole golf course. When Erik de Lambert (a Scot)  took over the management of the course 25 years ago, he re-named the course Gleneagles.

DT

Glenn Spencer

Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #47 on: November 01, 2006, 11:47:34 AM »
Steve,

These guys would all know better than me, but fwiw, I really enjoyed my trip around Presidio. I found it fun to get to and very pretty, but also beat you up hard, but I am different, I typically don't play golf when I am looking to have fun.

Aaron Katz

Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #48 on: November 01, 2006, 01:10:55 PM »
I agree -- avoid Fleming/Harding and go to Lincoln.  Both Fleming and Lincoln, in the grand scheme of things, suck.  But Lincoln is a unique experience and plays around some of the most beautiful parts of the City (I don't county Daly City as part of San Francisco, although it is right nearby).  Also, you're actually likely to get a far better pace of play at Lincoln.

John Keenan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:City of San Francisco — Opinions
« Reply #49 on: November 01, 2006, 01:22:44 PM »
David

Thanks much for solving that one for me.

Yikes 25 years ago the name changed makes me feel old. Then again my kids tell me I am  ;D

I have never played Gleneagles  but this thread coupled with "To the Nines" and  I am committed to finally play it.

What I hear is AM is better due to lack of wind.

John
The things a man has heard and seen are threads of life, and if he pulls them carefully from the confused distaff of memory, any who will can weave them into whatever garments of belief please them best.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back