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.


Ian_L

  • Karma: +0/-0
Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #15 posted)
« on: December 11, 2008, 11:11:47 PM »
I couldn't find any hole-by-hole threads on GCA.com of the course at Stanford, so I thought I'd give it a shot.  It's a course I'm starting to get to know a bit better, although I've only played it about eight times.  I'm certainly no expert in architecture, so commentary and discussion from others who have played the course would be greatly appreciated.

The course was designed by Thomas and Bell (mostly Bell from what I hear), and opened in 1930.  A great site to visit is http://stanfordmensgolf.org/aerials.htm , where you can see aerial comparisons between the current course and the course as it was in 1930 (with the exception of holes 3 and 4).  I expect to be referring to this site frequently in this thread.

The architectural features of the course may suffer from the fact that it hosts NCAA tournaments, and its managers feel forced to make the course difficult for the longest hitters.  This often means narrowing the fairways and reducing strategic options off the tee for the rest of us.

Tees:

Cardinal -- par 70 -- 6727 yds
Black -- par 70 -- 6212 yds
White -- par 71 -- 5821 yds
Blue -- par 71 -- 5401 yds

Finally, if you would like any pictures of the course I don't have, I will be out there fairly regularly and would be glad to take some for you.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2010, 12:41:57 AM by Ian_Linford »

Ian_L

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- Hole-by-Hole Photos
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2008, 11:27:49 PM »
Hole #1 -- Par 5

Cardinal: 521 yds
Black: 501 yds
White: 486 yds

In 1930: 490 yds

Quite an interesting tee shot, crossing over busy Junipero Serra Boulevard (my playing partner recently broke his driver here, the head landing on the street below).  The hole doglegs left around the stables, with 250 yards needed to clear the left bunker from the back tees.  The hole is quite reachable for a longer hitter, although a pulled tee shot will likely be blocked from the green by trees on the left.

Come to think of it, it would be nice if the grass beyond the left fairway bunker were cut to fairway height to tempt players to take on that left side.  Although I suppose the college players would clear the bunker easily.



The fairway narrows substantially to less than 20 yards after the dogleg.  The bunker 50 yards short of the green seems to have been taken out of play with the growth of rough in front; I imagine it was much more of a factor when the 2nd shot to the green was a bouncing one.  Aerial comparisons can be seen at http://stanfordmensgolf.org/aerials/aerial1.htm .



I've noticed I don't have many up-close pictures of the green complexes.  This is probably because I don't find many of the greens all that inspiring, although it could simply be my untrained eye not knowing what to look for.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2010, 12:47:05 AM by Ian_Linford »

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- Hole-by-Hole Photos
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2008, 11:39:20 PM »
Hello Ian,

I happen to be one of the few here that know Stanford very well, as my father was a member there for many years.

That 50 yard bunker almost never comes into play.  Not only does the rough encroach there, the barn and out of bounds fence are very close to it.  The green is designed so that laying up in front of, or clearing the 50 yard bunker on the second shot, leaves the best approach angle into the green.

Before the most recent renovation by John Harbottle, the front of that first green was very steep.

Tom Huckaby

Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2008, 11:49:05 PM »
Hi Ian:

I too know Stanford pretty well.  I work nearby and practice there often... play it less but I have played it many times.  Ian, I didn't know you were a local....

In any case my most common haunt is about 60 yards right of the 1st green -  there's a cool practice green at which I spend many a lunch hour chipping and putting.

Re #1, it is a darn good hole, I think.  There is something cool about hitting over a street to start one's round, although the rickety old bridge one uses to used to cross was much cooler than the down and around one does these days.  And given a successful drive the 2nd shot is always interesting. Good hole, fun start.

TH

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2008, 12:29:29 AM »
Hi Ian -

I three know Stanford pretty well.

I am surprised that you can see the fairway from the first tee - what happen to the hedges/vegetation ?

Mike
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Peter Galea

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2008, 01:07:01 AM »
the rickety old bridge one uses to used to cross was much cooler than the down and around one does these days. 
TH

I used to love walking across that bridge, knowing Tom Watson did it daily, when he was there.
He used to practice on the putter at midnight, using the lights of his VW bug.
Stanford was the first course I ever played with a bye hole, about 135 .
Probably the only bye hole in the world with a radio telescope in the background.
6&13 are my favorite holes.
Then again, let's not forget about the Dutch Goose!
« Last Edit: December 12, 2008, 08:24:19 AM by Peter Galea »
"chief sherpa"

Jon Spaulding

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2008, 01:58:45 AM »
One of my favorites. Keep it coming!

There was some discussion a while back about the new/altered holes, with some photos....also some regarding whether the design should be considered Thomas, or Bell, or both. The start certainly fits in the Thomas mold; easy 5, hard 4. The aerials show very strong Bell bunkering on the scale of a Riviera or a Bel Air.

In either event, it's an excellent routing, over a fantastic property, with strategic elements just dying to be restored. See old #12/13 and #5 aerials, wow! Pop quiz; which mid-90's work by Harbottle was worse? A) LACC, B) Stanford, C) both :-[

My best memory of #1 (to date) was watching Tiger hit it OVER the tree on the left, leaving what I would estimate as 150 into the green. One can only imagine Huckaby's reaction if he were to witness this.
You'd make a fine little helper. What's your name?

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2008, 02:46:54 AM »
Pete -

The Goose can not be mentioned without a shout-out for the deviled eggs.  I was in the Goose a few weeks ago, during a Sunday night NFL game and it was $ 1.75 24 oz. PBR night, how cool is that.

I spent many a day as a young lad wading through the rocks, tree limbs and poison oak in San Francisquito Creek finding golf balls and then sneaking onto the 3rd or 4th holes before the marshall would scare us away.

Mike
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Ian_L

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2008, 03:28:16 AM »
Hi all, thanks for your replies.  John, thanks for bringing up the point about the best angle for your pitch.  I can definitely see how staying well left would be a huge advantage to attack a right-side pin position.  Unfortunately, as you can see in the foreground of the second picture, there is rough short of the bunker.

Tom, I've been to that practice area a few times.  The humpback green makes for some interesting sidehill putts...

Mike, I think the hedge is still there, it's just past the curb.  I could be wrong, though.

I look forward to everyone's comments for the rest of the holes.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2010, 12:44:43 AM by Ian_Linford »

Rich Goodale

Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2008, 04:41:33 AM »
Thanks for this series, Ian

As one who played the course a lot in the late 1960's (in lieu of studying), it is sobering to think that most of my experiences there are closer to the course of 1930 than that of today!

Look at the old aerial of #1 and you can see how much more width the course had in ye olden days.  You can also see the simpler, less foo foo bunkering and a closely-mown lay up area to the left that JK III would have liked.  In in my day for the best players (i.e. Watson), the hole was often a drive and an 8-iron when the ground was firm (or so I was then told).  Both aerials also show the natural barranca which cuts across the fairway at about 180-200 yards.  this feature, alas, is now NLE having been filled in to assuage the complaints of the shorter hitters in the club, ladies and gentlemen alike.  Sic transit gloria....

I played Stanford in October for the first time in about 7 years, and while much remained of the genius of the original course, too much was buried in a sequence of ill-conceived remodelling and renovation choices.  More importantly, as you said above, the conditioning/preparation is now more relevant to a PGA tour stop than a natural California quasi-desert Bell/Thomas creation.  In October one would expect the course to be at its brownest, with cracks in the hardpan "rough" areas, and green grasses barely surviving their wait for the winter rains.  This October, it was as lush as any McChampionshipcourse in Palm Springs or Scottsdale or Naples, and the robles (native oaks which thrive in drought conditions) were continuing to die due to being exposed to too much water.

Great place, great memories, but a shadow of what it used to be.

As for the hole itself, it is a very good starter.  If you drive long and true you can try to fashion a shot to the green, although it must be some sort of cut unless you are Watson/Woods long.  The canted angle of the green adds to the interest, and in October I thought that the back-front slope (particularly at the front) was still pretty scary (the pin was there that day), even though John is probably right that the green has been softened to accomodate higher green speeds.  There are options for the shorter player, all of which entail a troublesome pitch for the third shot.

Finally, as to the greens, all the old ones are relatively "uninteresting" if you are enamored/attuned to wild heaving masses of quirk such as done by Mackenzie or RT Jones.  In fact, the only heaving greens at Stanford are those designed by either Jones Jr. or Knott (3, 4, 8, 11).  The others are far less showy but require one's complete attention if a birdie is to be made or a three-putt avoided.  They remind me of Tillinghast's Brook Hollow or the few original Coore/Crenshaw greens I have seen.  Some times in GCA, less is really more.....

rich
« Last Edit: December 12, 2008, 04:47:47 AM by Rich Goodale »

Jon Spaulding

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2008, 09:23:48 AM »
Great post Rich. Ware there really any "formal" changes to the course between opening and Harbottle's truimphant arrival on the scene? I believe that #4, revision 1 (the across the creek version) was created shortly after you were there. You reference RTJ2, was not aware that he had done much of anything there. If so, what did he do and when?

Will always remember seeing the classic photo in the locker room of #8, when I started playing golf, and thinking "hey, it don't look anything like that anymore..and that fronting bunker is amazing!". An early moment that really piqued my interest in the original quality and eventual degradation of the classics.
You'd make a fine little helper. What's your name?

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #11 on: December 12, 2008, 09:56:34 AM »
Maybe I missed it, but is the hole a short 5, or a long 4?

Rich Goodale

Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #12 on: December 12, 2008, 10:00:14 AM »
Jon

I played the old 8th before it was changed (in 1966?) and even being the duffus I was then could see that a grave crime had been committed.  It was one of the RT Jones' what did that--Sr. or Jr. I don't know.  A little bit later the Jones gang altered the 11th, adding the pinching fairway bunkers and whoop-de-dooing the green.  Then in the mid-late 70's one of them did the alteration to the late, great 4th (look at the 1930 view of the 5th tee to see the old 4th green).  Jones' new 4th green is still there, now as a par-3.  Don Knotts did the new 3rd green ("Golly gee, Andy, I was just doin' as I was told!").

Keep 'em rolling, Ian!

Rich

Tom Huckaby

Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2008, 10:03:08 AM »
Kalen - the hole is a par five.  It can be reached, especially by the big boys - but in no way shape or form is it now or has it ever been called a par four.  Or at least I don't think so; Rich can correct that if so.

And Ian, if you see a short fat guy, that's me.  We can average out the humpback on that practice green.  Hell I'll likely be there some time later today.

Good stuff one and all.  Given my time at the course is first round early 80s, last round a few months ago - with gaps in between interspersed by searching for golf balls as a 20+ year old in the same creeks frequented by a kid Mike Benham, and suffering poison oak for it - I don't have the same sense of history about the course that Rich does.  Rich is right though - it is damn lush and wet these days.

TH

Eric_Terhorst

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2008, 10:10:36 AM »
Ian,

I'll add my thanks for the thread as I was privileged to play Stanford dozens of times at student rates in the early 80s, remember it fondly, and haven't been back as often as I'd like. 

I too liked this elevated tee, easy 5/hard 4 start--boo-hoo that the old bridge is gone...

Patrick Kiser

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2008, 10:16:04 AM »
Can't think of too many starts like this where the tee ball has to immediately clear a street / road to reach the fairway.

One comes to mind ... Fallbrook GC.  Can't remember though if it's at the start of the front or back nine.
“One natural hazard, however, which is more
or less of a nuisance, is water. Water hazards
absolutely prohibit the recovery shot, perhaps
the best shot in the game.” —William Flynn, golf
course architect

D_Malley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2008, 10:17:06 AM »
has anyone ever hit that curb in front of the tee and had the ball come right back at them?

Brad Tufts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2008, 10:22:24 AM »
Can't think of too many starts like this where the tee ball has to immediately clear a street / road to reach the fairway.

One comes to mind ... Fallbrook GC.  Can't remember though if it's at the start of the front or back nine.

Cypress Pt.
So I jump ship in Hong Kong....

Richard Boult

Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2008, 10:53:26 AM »

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2008, 11:13:21 AM »
Having not played the course, the first hole appears to be a poor combination of architecture and maintenance.  As Ian points out, the big hitter who boldly carries the left hand bunker with his first swing of the day is rewarded by a lie in the rough and is thwarted from reaching the green in two by the small tree(s).  Moreover, if it's 250 to carry the left bunker it must be 280 to reach the right hand bunker, assuming the ball can roll through the rough between the bunker and fairway.  Seems that bunker should be pulled in tight to the fairway and perhaps located 40 yards closer to the tee to be relevant.  If not, it should be eliminated altogether.  It's only redeeming quality is that "it's pretty."

Let me retract:  it's not poor, it's awful.

Bogey

Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2008, 11:24:26 AM »

  Rich is right though - it is damn lush and wet these days.




Free water ...
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Ian_L

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- Hole-by-Hole Photos
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2008, 01:37:59 PM »
Edit: strange, this post came up when I edited the original...
« Last Edit: December 12, 2008, 02:09:41 PM by Ian_Linford »

Matt_Cohn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2008, 02:02:56 PM »
For those who haven't played the hole, we should be clear that the thing you see in the foreground is not the road. (Was anyone confused?) The road is at the bottom of the hill, about 40-50 feet (?) below the level of the tee. It's a big road, too - a couple of lanes in each direction.

Would you guys support moving that fairway bunker back by 30 or 40 yards?

BTW, any pictures of the bridge?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2008, 02:04:34 PM by Matt_Cohn »

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2008, 02:18:35 PM »
Everyone realizes that at Stanford (as viewed in the first picture) the Blue tees, in honor of their arch enemy across the bay, are not the back set as is normal at many courses but is in fact the Ladies tee blocks, the easiest tees on the scorecard.  The Cardinal (red) tee markers are the back tees.


Men's Course Ratings:
Cardinal Tees - Rating 73.0, Slope 140
Black Tees - Rating 70.5, Slope 133
White Tees - Rating 69.0, Slope 126

Women's Course Ratings:
White Tees - Rating 74.0, Slope 132
Blue Tees - Rating 71.5, Slope 128
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Eric_Terhorst

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stanford Golf Course -- (Hole #1 posted)
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2008, 02:40:42 PM »
Would you guys support moving that fairway bunker back by 30 or 40 yards?

Matt, looking at the old aerial which shows the left-side bunker in the old days, with trees blocking the path to the green, and considering my own experience, playing down the left side it seems was never a good option.  Mr. Hendren may be right about the bunker being unnecessary, although he's wrong about the hole being "awful."  The most interesting aspect of the hole for me is in the decision-making for the second shot.

The tee shot is downhill, and the landing zone is wide, so you feel like you can swing away (good for a starting hole).  A drive right is better, because the second shot is tricky from the left side, not so much because of the rough but because of the necessity to deal with the trees both left and right.  Reaching in two requires a very-well executed second shot even from the optimal position, so the lay-up is often used and as Rich says can lead to trouble on the third shot. 

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back