[Chip Gaskins]

On my recent Northern California trip I had the chance to play Olympic Club - Lake course.  I continue to stand by the fact that Olympic is in rarefied air when it comes to difficulty.  I put is side by side with Oakmont and Bethpage in difficulty.  For different reasons, but very difficult.  The USGA could play the U.S. Open there every year with little excess prep. 

For some crazy reason (mainly because my member buddy likes to exploit my lack of frequent play) we played the very back tee box all the way around an already very long course. 

On Hole #5 the new back box in Hawaii.  Seriously the tee box is almost 100 yards from I used to play it from.  Sort of like #11 at Augusta.  It was 505 from the back.  I hit a great drive and had 3 wood to just short of the green.

The course was in great shape and the weather was a perfect San Francisco indian summer day.  But, damn is this course hard!

Hole #3



Hole #12

OK, that's pretty narrow...ugg, that tree on the right sure is in the way, eh? 
With all due respect to Olympic Club, this tee shot is too narrow.  They have moved the tee back about 30 yards and shifted it to the right about 10 yards.  That puts the trees on the right clearly in play off the tee, that is unless you have hit a 310 yard cut shot.



Approach #18
Doesn't get much better than this.  I finally decided to not hit driver off the tee and it paid off with birdie (to still lose the match )



In summary, I can't wait to see the new 7th and 8th greens when they are done.  I sure do like it the way it is, hard and all.

[TX Golf]

Does anybody know when the construction starts??? I am going to play the course in about a month and was hoping to play it before the changes. Thanks.

Robert

[Mike Benham]

Does anybody know when the construction starts??? I am going to play the course in about a month and was hoping to play it before the changes. Thanks.

Robert

Olympic gets some tweaking for 2012 Open
Ron Kroichick
Thursday, August 28, 2008

(08-27) 18:47 PDT  -- Three years, nine months and 17 days remain until the opening round of the 2012 U.S. Open at the Olympic Club. But it's not too early to start picturing what the Lake Course will look like when the national championship returns to the southwest corner of San Francisco.

It will look different than it does today, in many ways. That's because the Olympic Club board of directors, at its meeting Aug. 20, approved a plan to replace all the greens on the Lake Course, restore significant slope to the No. 18 green - where Payne Stewart famously stewed during the 1998 Open - and redesign No. 8, the par-3 adjacent to the clubhouse.

The impetus for the changes was the nematode, a ubiquitous worm prone to damaging poa annua greens at courses along the cool California coastline. So, much like its neighbors at Lake Merced, San Francisco Club and California Club, Olympic will replace poa greens with a strain of bentgrass.

"If the greens were fine, we wouldn't be doing this work," said Pat Murphy, chairman of Olympic's green committee. "But since we're doing this work, we think it will be a better course."

No. 18 created lively debate in '98, before Lee Janzen surged past Stewart to win the Open. USGA officials chose such a precarious pin placement for the second round, one of Stewart's putts inched past the hole and slid 20 feet downhill. He was not happy.

Olympic Club officials later flattened the green, but many members thought the new green had become too tame for a short par-4. Murphy said the next version will have more slope than it does now, though it won't be quite as severe as it was for the 1998 Open.

That sounded fine to Mike Davis, the USGA's senior director of rules and competition. Davis expects no problem finding suitable hole locations on No. 18, so he can avoid an encore of the '98 mess.

"Even if they were to move the green back to exactly what it used to be, we could do it," Davis said Wednesday. "I think the USGA just made a mistake in '98, putting the hole there. ... If we meet somewhere in the middle (on the slope), we can have that green the same speed as the others."

Davis knew the Olympic Club was contemplating changes, but he said he learned of last week's board approval only when On Golf called. He echoed Murphy's statement that the changes were member-driven, not demanded by the USGA.

The other striking wrinkle in this project: moving No. 8 to the right of its present location. That will turn a 137-yard par-3 into a much longer hole - with championship tees at 200 to 210 yards - with a different angle. It also allows Olympic officials to push back the green on No. 7.

"One short par-3 is fine," Murphy said, knowing No. 15 measures only 149 yards, "but two short par-3s just doesn't work in this day and age."

There will be other tweaks to the Lake Course, including lengthening a few holes and re-contouring the greens on Nos. 7 and 15. The work will begin Nov. 4 and last until approximately June 1, 2009.




E-mail Ron Kroichick at rkroichick@sfchronicle.com.

[Jim Nugent]

Chip, how do you rate Olympic next to the other great courses you played this trip?  CPC, SFGC, etc.

[CJ Carder]

Admittedly my knowledge of Olympic is a little on the short-side.  Still, I seem to recall an interview one time with Johnny Miller where he was talking about either his favorite or his least favorite par 3.  Can anyone recall which hole that was? 

Would that be #8?  Chip, any pics of that hole?  The scorecard makes it look really short, but I wonder what the championship yardage usually plays. 

[Chip Gaskins]

Chip, how do you rate Olympic next to the other great courses you played this trip?  CPC, SFGC, etc.

Jim- 

Well that is pretty stiff competition going against SFGC and CPC.  There are very few places in the world like CPC so that is not really fair to compare probably and SFGC is just a joy to play because you can score and have plenty of room off the tee to hit driver.  They are so different because SFGC is one the best (if not the best) fairway bunkered courses I have played and Olympic only has one fairway bunker on the whole course.  Don't get me wrong I think Olympic is a solid golf course.  It is just simply too hard for me (call me a wuss)...great U.S. Open venue but would be a beast to play all the time, I would take up fishing.

Chip

[George Freeman]

Chip,

Do you have more pictures of Olympic that you could post or did you not take the quantity that you did at CPC and SFGC?

Thanks for the threads and pics, they're fantastic!

Cheers,

George Freeman

[Chip Gaskins]

Would that be #8?  Chip, any pics of that hole?  The scorecard makes it look really short, but I wonder what the championship yardage usually plays. 

Olympic is anything but short.  Here is what I hit:

1 = wedge (par 5)                              10 = 6 iron
2 = 6 iron                                            11 = 4 iron (chip out sideways)
3 = 3 iron                                            12 = hybrid
4 = 4 iron (chip out sideways)         13 = 6 iron
5 = 3 wood                                         14 = 7 iron
6 = 4 iron                                            15 = 7 iron
7 = wedge                                          16 = wedge (par 5)
8 = 8 iron                                            17 = wedge (par 5)
9 = 5 iron                                            18 = 9 iron

The par 4s are just brutes.  I hardy ever hit my 3 and 4 irons and hit them a lot around Olympic.

[Mark_Fine]

Chip,
Nice photos.  I've played the course many times, most recently about a month or so ago.  It has always been one of my favorites (for a variety of reasons) but I'm not sure what to think about the upcoming changes   

Not to make a big deal about it, but it is not nearly as difficult as Oakmont, in fact not even close.  The back tees at Olympic are very playable and actually enjoyable for someone like me (a 2 handicap).  Whereas the back tees at Oakmont require bandages, tourniquets, and anything else you might have on you to recover from the battle   

[Chip Gaskins]

Do you have more pictures of Olympic that you could post or did you not take the quantity that you did at CPC and SFGC?

Here is the whole course: http://www.golfcourseclassics.com/2008/09/olympic-club/

[Deucie Bies]

Chip,
Nice photos.  I've played the course many times, most recently about a month or so ago.  It has always been one of my favorites (for a variety of reasons) but I'm not sure what to think about the upcoming changes   

Not to make a big deal about it, but it is not nearly as difficult as Oakmont, in fact not even close.  The back tees at Olympic are very playable and actually enjoyable for someone like me (a 2 handicap).  Whereas the back tees at Oakmont require bandages, tourniquets, and anything else you might have on you to recover from the battle   

I agree that this course is nowhere near as hard as Oakmont.  I found it to be challenging, but very playable.  I played it in 2005 and I believe the distance from the tips was just under 7,000 yards.  It plays quite a bit longer though considering there is at least one short par 3, a par 4 around 300 yards and another one around 340 yards.  Plus there are some doglegs.  Overall, I thought it was a great golf course that I could play everyday (and probably become a very good player).

[CJ Carder]

Would that be #8?  Chip, any pics of that hole?  The scorecard makes it look really short, but I wonder what the championship yardage usually plays. 

Olympic is anything but short. 

Right, but I was thinking more of just hole #8.  Judging by your 8-iron and what I remember of your distances, I'd say #8 played somewhere in the 155-160 neighborhood?

[David_Tepper]

CJ -

As noted is the article posted above, the par-3 8th hole (and short par-4 7th hole) will be changed a bit over this winter.

The teeing ground will be moved 50-75 across a valley area and the green will be rotated to handle shots from that new angle. I am guessing the hole will play 20-40 yards longer than it now does.

DT   

[JNC Lyon]

Those changes to 7 and 8 sound awful.  This is exactly what Great American golf courses DON'T need. 

Why is that classic green on 7 being removed??? I'm pretty sure the hole got ranked as one of the best in the world by Golf Magazine.  From the photos it looks like the best green complex on the course.

Making 8 into a long par three is disgraceful as well.  I was reading the old feature interview today with Mike Strantz where he lists this hole as one of his favorite short par threes in the world.  The quote that "two short par threes don't work this day in age" is ludicrous.

[Carl Nichols]

I agree that it's too bad they're changing 7 and 8 -- those holes were a great change of pace after the tough stretch from 2-6.

More generally, one reason I find Olympic so difficult is that I have a very hard time figuring out where on several of the dogleg par 4's -- e.g., 5, 6, 9, 10 -- is the ideal line for a tee shot.  I think this has to do with the lack of fairway bunkers framing the tee shot; does anyone else have this issue?  (I've also only played the course twice.)

[Mike_Cirba]

Those changes to 7 and 8 sound awful.  This is exactly what Great American golf courses DON'T need. 

Why is that classic green on 7 being removed??? I'm pretty sure the hole got ranked as one of the best in the world by Golf Magazine.  From the photos it looks like the best green complex on the course.

Making 8 into a long par three is disgraceful as well.  I was reading the old feature interview today with Mike Strantz where he lists this hole as one of his favorite short par threes in the world.  The quote that "two short par threes don't work this day in age" is ludicrous.

I couldn't say this any better....I feel sad for these changes because there is no way they will make Olympic a better course and it's already more than tough enough.

[JSPayne]

It may be too hard to tell, but it doesn't look to me like there are any gnarly fescues around the bunkers in the above photos.

Didn't they do that for the Amatuer? Was it not received well? Did they just cut it all back down for normal member play? Do they plan on bringing it back for the Open?

Or am I just off my rocker and thinking of something that was never really there? 

[Matt_Cohn]

It may be too hard to tell, but it doesn't look to me like there are any gnarly fescues around the bunkers in the above photos.

Didn't they do that for the Amatuer? Was it not received well? Did they just cut it all back down for normal member play? Do they plan on bringing it back for the Open?

Or am I just off my rocker and thinking of something that was never really there? 

They just didn't do a very good job of putting it in, as far as I could tell - it never really grew a lot - and I think they abandoned the gnarly concept and just mowed it the same as the rest of the rough. The overall effect was to outline the bunkers in dark green.

[Mike Benham]

It is a tall fescue, thick, stiff blades and was never intended to be kept long and gnarly.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Posted by: JNC_Lyon      Posted on: Today at 02:46:16 pm

Why is that classic green on 7 being removed???

Rock from the 70's is "classic", but I don't think a green from that era is.

As an aside, Chip's blog says that 7 is being lengthened by 40 yds.  That is not the case.

[Chip Gaskins]

I agree that it's too bad they're changing 7 and 8 -- those holes were a great change of pace after the tough stretch from 2-6.

More generally, one reason I find Olympic so difficult is that I have a very hard time figuring out where on several of the dogleg par 4's -- e.g., 5, 6, 9, 10 -- is the ideal line for a tee shot.  I think this has to do with the lack of fairway bunkers framing the tee shot; does anyone else have this issue?  (I've also only played the course twice.)

I totally agree, the stretch from 2-6 is as hard as there is in golf.  uphill, side hill, downhill, dogleg, long, no framing bunkers, etc

[Chip Gaskins]

Posted by: JNC_Lyon      Posted on: Today at 02:46:16 pm

Rock from the 70's is "classic", but I don't think a green from that era is.

As an aside, Chip's blog says that 7 is being lengthened by 40 yds.  That is not the case.

i like both classic rock from the 70s and the 7th green

sorry, i was not trying to mis-lead about what is going on with the new 7th green location.  that is just what the member told us when we were playing.  "moving 40 yards back and 10 yards to the right"  he said it puts the tree a little more in play and it puts the new green location right in the middle of the current 8th hole.  i thought that is what the new plans reflected in the clubhouse drawings as well, but i will stand down, there is enough controversy and i certainly don't want to add to it.  maybe joel stewart and help clarify.

[JNC Lyon]

It is indeed possible that this is not the case.  At Oak Hill, people have been discussing moving the fantastic 16th green back for many years, and at points members have been certain that it was going to occur.  It still hasn't been done yet, but now they want to move the tee back from its current (and perfect) location to make it longer.  Did I mention that it's a 440 par four with two 490 par fours following it?

The problem is that these moves from the original location are not only costly and out of character from the rest of the course, they may adversely affect the conditioning of the course. 

The Fazio greens on 5 and 15 on the East Course are certainly out character, but they also present drainage issues.  Why? Because while the original Ross greens were placed on high points that would allow water to flow away from the greens into neighboring low areas, Fazio moved the greens into the low areas.

Subsequently, any time the course saw a heavy rain, the new greens would wash out.  This meant that the maintenance staff had to build up both greens to avoid such flooding, much of which has occurred in major championships.  If these repairs hadn't been made to the original Fazio nightmares, the 1989 US Open likely would not have been played.

Despite the efforts of the maintenance staff to build a retaining wall, the 15th green is still sinking into its neighboring pond.  The wall should collapse in the next 10-20 years.  Interestingly enough, the current 16th tee shares the same ridge as the old 15th green, whereas the new tee would be moved back into the low area of the current 15th green.  The  ridge on which the current tee sits would be knocked down, potentially throwing off the drainage of that entire area of the property (and Irondequoit country club next to it).

Ross built the green on 15 where he did, not simply because he wanted to create a blind par three, but because it would be the location that would drain the best in that corner of the property.  The 14th green still sits atop the same ridge, and it drains perfectly.  Of course, the members involved in the decision making about the changes have no respect for Ross as an intelligent golf course architect, so they never even gave it a thought.

My point after this long diatribe is this:  I do not know the lay of the land at Olympic, but I am guessing, because of the notoriously hilly nature of the course, that drainage from greensites should be considered heavily.  Moving a green that was placed perfectly for 80 years could easily upset the condition of the new green in ways which might otherwise not be considered.  Instead of thinking simply about length, think about why the course was laid out as it was before ruining two classic (not rock from the 70s) holes.

[AndrewB]

"moving 40 yards back and 10 yards to the right"

I believe the plan calls for the green to be moved 18 yards back directly on its current line.

[Kevin_Reilly]

I took some pics of the work on the 8th hole about a month ago.  Also includes a picture of the extended 6th tee and one picture shows the new 7th green in the background.

Olympic pics on Picasa

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()