Harding Park

[brad_miller]

Is the newly renovated Harding Park now one of the Bay Area's best? Does anyone have pic's? How will it hold up to the 75,000 plus rounds it will do? A friend and SFGC member played it last Thursday and had great things to say.

[Evan_Green]

I havent played it yet, but i went over to look at it today- it looks phenomenal- the 18th hole looks especially great- conditioning looks fantastic. Right now they are only letting 200 a day on the course (no one after 3pm)- they will re-evaluate whether or not to increase it once the agronomists they have evaluate how the play is affecting the turf. Cant wait to get out there

[Neal_Meagher]

Ok, Mr. Schmidt, I'll bite.

I had the opportunity to take a look at it a couple of  2 or 3 times at various points of its reconstruction as I had previously worked with its grow-in superintendent on two projects, its project designer while with Robert Muir Graves and its construction superintendent for Kubly Golf (an arm of Landscapes Unlimited).

So, first of all, lets all acknowledge that the present Harding Park is light years and warp speed above what it replaced, which was a worn-out old dowager that had had far too many one-night-stands fortified by very cheap whiskey and even cheaper Top Flites.

That said, and with its current crop of very verdant rye grass fairways and bentgrass putting surfaces, I offer the following candid, yet respectful opinion (yes, Les Claytor, I appreciate your efforts there tremendously).

One can look upon the historical record to see what Harding was originally in the 20's, which was an upstanding member of the SFGC, Olympic Club, Lake Merced ilk.  Simply put, they stood for the San Francisco style which mimicked to some degree the ragged and fog-lashed stylings found in the omnipresent cypress trees.  It was and, to a point, is still a trademark style that fits in beautifully with this spot of the planet.  Yet, with this renovation, the overall hand of the PGA Tour governing bodies has bestowed upon this land something else.

It is not something else in a bad sense, for the long-suffering public golfers of San Francisco County will absolutely LOVE what they will see now.  But, it is something else in the sense that it seems somewhat remote and apart from that 20's idyll.  The reality of modern-day maintenance for a public course, along with the threat of the Tour Championship someday being played there has placed upon this version of Harding Park a look and feel and individual hole design that is quite objective.  There is a pure purpose to each and every hole, with nary a glint of subjective quirk or bizarre intrigue.  Quite simply, it is a straight-forward examination of golf ball striking and putting skill.

Perhaps this is what is expected and perhaps this is what will be most interesting to the everyday S.F. golfer who will, invariably, still call Harding their home.  Yet, I walked among the course during its transformation wondering.  I wondered about what course it may have taken without the strict guidelines placed upon it by the PGA Tour Services designer, Chris Gray, whom I am confident is a sure-fire talent, a fine individual and superior designer.

It just seems to lack soul.  It is fair, to be sure, but the oddly placed feature or hazard is just not there.  It is straight-ahead, yardage-check-fire-away golf which is most appealing to PGA Tour interests.  Is it a disappointment?  No.  Is it a harbinger of what it could have been?  No.  What it is, is an expression of how safely PGA Tour Design Services and the management company involved, treat their multi-million dollar investment.  And, looking closely through that looking glass, how can one fault them on their decision?

[Kevin_Reilly]

I cancelled my game with my dad on Wednesday.  Damn work.    But based on my walkaround over the weekend (limited), I'd have to say things look good.  Best I've seen it since Harding hosted a Seniors event back in 1981.  Too many cart paths though for my taste.

Long run, though, the maintenance will be the biggest question mark.  Here is a few sentences from the SF Chronicle on opening day.  I'm wary when someone says they are "stressed" before opening day:

*********************************

"It's beautiful, very nice, and I just hope they keep it this way," Lommori said.

Therein lies the next chapter of Harding's rebirth. Course superintendent Dan Briesach has a crew of 25 men and new equipment, and says he and his men are proceeding with cautious optimism. The manpower helps, Briesach said, but then again "there's a lot more work than there used to be. We're wall-to-wall grass now . . . it's a little stressful. We're stretched.

"We still have our first winter to go through, so it's a little early to run the flag up quite so high," Briesach said. "But with a bit of caution, yes, we could be one of the finest courses around."

[GeoffreyC]

Neal

That's a very interesting description and one that is quite reminiscent of Bethpage but with a few differences. Bethpage didn't lose its playing integrity that essentially maintained the same shot values as the original but it did lose its soul and raw feel. My feelings well known here are that it was worth the "deal/tradeoff with the devil" to sell its soul for the vastly improved playing conditions.

I sense that is perhaps even more so in the Bay area where public golf is so difficult to take.  I lived there for almost five years and I was lucky enough to have the Stanford course as a home and for $2.50 per round no less but I did manage to experience Shoreline, Palo Alto muni and the old Harding Park. It was not pleasant.  

Was the old design of "championship caliber" for today's tour championship?

If so was it maintainable for the (guess) >70,000 rounds per year?

[Mike Benham]

Here is a link to the Harding Men's Club webpage that has photos taken last may.  The supe's word is correct, they are now wall-to-wall grass ... for a heavily treelined course, it seems from the photos that you really have to hit it wild to be bothered by the trees.

I'm curious about the 18th green position, if it is back left of the old location, and with the lake on the left, whatever is right of the green will get peppered with stray shots ...

http://www.hardingparkgolf.com/renovation.htm

[Kevin_Reilly]

"Wall-to-wall-grass"...I guess that means something different to me.  Photo from the 18th from the Mens Club webpage...this is what caught my eye and led to my comment re Cartpaths.  This is a picture taken from an unflattering angle, but is not a misrepresentation.

[Mike Benham]

Kevin -

Yes, the cart paths do seem to stand out a bit.  By wall-to-wall grass, I interpret that as meaning that the grass is now even growing under the trees ... the old days of muddy lies are gone (at least until the SF City which always brings rain ...).

[Pete Lavallee]

Thanks for the link to pictures Mike, it seems like Harding has what Bethpage and Torrey both possess, a great site that typifies the natural environment in the region. I can't help but think that the locals will still enjoy a game there. But Neal point out an obvious flaw: the bunker outlines do not match the outlines of the cypress trees that frame them. It gives the course that oh so maintainable, but doesn't fit the landscape look. We've seen a slight comprimise to the bunkers at Bethpage (I think that comprimise worked well), and then the addition of numerous sterile greenside bunkers at Torrey (they all have very flat areas of sand with mildly sloped grass faces: very easy to groom). Is the comprimise in difficulty worth the maintenance factor. What I want to know is why can't impressive bunkers be maintained at a public facility these days? The generic, flat, easy to groom bunkers seem to rob these courses of any soul. The PGA imposing fairness for its' one event seems to take away the qualities that could really make this an endearing course to the locals that support it the other 358 days of the year.

[Mike Benham]

The generic, flat, easy to groom bunkers seem to rob these courses of any soul. The PGA imposing fairness for its' one event seems to take away the qualities that could really make this an endearing course to the locals that support it the other 358 days of the year.

Pete,

The comments by yourself and Neal are spot on, and unfortunate.  I haven't been on Harding in 10-years and I forgot how flat the course really is, and from the photos, it looks even flatter.  Other than the dip in 14th fairway, there is probably no more than a 5-foot elevtion change across the entire course.

Do any of the wide fairways, cleared out trees, remind anyone of SFGC?

Mike

[golfer4life]

Talked with someone who played last thurs.  His comments were consistent with what many have already said (i.e. it could only be better than before).  Only negative comment was that he felt the greens had not matured enough for regular play.  He said it was impossible to fix a pitch mark, since roots hadn't taken hold.  I believe they went with A4 bent, which from what I understand (and that isn't much), takes longer to mature.  My two cents.

[les_claytor]

I have some exceptional digital pictures from Harding's openining last week.  I'll be glad to post them if someone can walk me through the technical difficulties.

I'll let the course stand for what it is, and was, a polished up Harding Park.  I've had this discussion with Neal before, do you try to bring out the potentials of Harding Park, or do you venture into the obscure and reinterpet the course.  I think we changed enough without drastically changing the place.  

Yes it's pure golf, and I had fun and was challenged playing the course.  Was I inspired, does it have a soul? You're damn right it does.  You go out there and play that track, and don't feel inspired by that site, and you're not paying attention to that very special place on our planet.  That's just my opinion, and I almost came to tears a couple of times last week.  

I do feel the maintenance crew is doing a good job getting started.  Actually, it's a little over maintained, but what can you do.  The bunkers, in retrospect, were edged too flowing, and have evolved into a very polished almost Augusta National look.  That's my fault, and I'll take the blame for that.  But they're damn sure not flat, so get it straight.  Flat bottoms, and flashed faces all the way.  Gingerbread edges wouldn't fly here, just my opinion.  

Neal, I'd prefer if you just comment on the work and not hide behind what design confines the PGA Tour straps on us.

If anyone can help me post some pics, I'll be glad to post.

By the way, temporary clubhouse, but a new cart bath barn (although it is fabric).  Guess we know what drives the profit.

[golf444]

I was at the opening of Harding on Friday and got the chance to play the Thursday before.  It is a tremendous transformation from 3 years ago.  The back nine is fabulous...starting with 14, there is a pretty spectacular finish..except for elevation, it holds its own against Olympic and SFGC

But can the City workers maintain it?  I know they hired KemperSports (Bandon Dunes developer and manager) to manage, but the city unions won't let Kemper maintain the courses...that may be the missing ingredient

But go play it, it's unique!

[Kevin_Reilly]

My Dad played today and enjoyed it.  Getting hole-by-hole commentary is like pulling teeth  , so I have nothing specific to report.  But we will likely play next week so I will play hopefully with camera in hand.  I'd like to get a vista particularly of the second shot to 13.

[Bill_McBride]

I played Harding for years, from the 50's through the 70's, and pretty much tolerated the front nine (at least through say #7) and just loved the back nine.  I think if they just kept the routing, tweaked the design and bunkering, and vastly improved the conditioning, you'd have one heck of a good course.  The back nine is one of my favorite anywhere, and there is a lot of movement of the ground there.  The problem, as several have mentioned in this and earlier threads, will be the ability of the city's unionized maintenance crew to keep the conditions up to a level which matches the routing and improvements.  I was in SF over the weekend and took a look at #17, 18 and 1.  It all looked good to me, particularly that new green tucked far left of the original #18 green site.   Would have seen more but by then my wife and daughter were asking, can we go now?  

[Peter Galea]

On a tour during construction, my 8 year old son got a chance to ride in the water truck and apply water to the 18th. They buried it right in the core of the green. When you hit that putt from the left side...if there's a little wiggle....that's my boy!

[Gyrogolf]

Les,
You are an extremely talented guy and I do not think Neal was commenting on anything more than the general philosophy of the PGA Tour guys.

We all went over the golf course together and first, I will echo the sentiment of everyone else that the remodel is a drastic improvement. The new placement of the #13th and #18th greens is terrific. The *look* of the bunkers does not bother me because despite what you may think, there is ZERO chance that those complete fools who run San Francisco Park and Wreck have a chance in Hell of keeping that golf course in respectable condition without the PGA Tour wiping their asses and pouring money into the facility.

They will devolve into a rough-hewn look whether anybody likes it or not.

You are a traveling gun and don't understand the culture of labor faking, incompetance and egregious stupidity that has turned all of the City owned courses into little more than sewers with a few sprigs of crabgrass growing from the mud.  

You almost came to tears playing it last week?

Just wait and come back in five years when the City starts to run short of jing to pay for the Gay Pride Parade or free condoms for 3rd graders. I'll leave a box of kleenex in the pro shop for you.

The first piggy bank they raid is the golf course revenue.

I guess what I am saying is that I do not believe that the Tour Championship will come to Harding more than once. When Tim Finchem gets a load of that city hall circus act of men wearing lipstick and rouge, and women in comfortable shoes, all you are going to see is the tail light of his limo.

So, I do not think the golf course should have been designed with the professionals in mind. Face it, the layout wasn't all that great to begin with. The front was bland at best and the back nine was a decent routing with some awkward green complex placements that did not blend into the natural landscape.

I would have put aside all this maudlin puke about endearing old Harding Park. Besides, the routing on the front is quite a bit different from Venturi's era.

It would have been better to look at the entire property as a whole - irrespective of where the Harding or Fleming holes were placed - and maximize all the natural features. Who cares if you blow up the "original" routing? The front sucked eggs. Steal a little land from the nine-holer and you might have really had something.      

San Francisco is funky, wierd, offbeat and pushes the envelope in all things social and artistic. Why not a golf course with features that reflect the social texture of the area?

Harding needs more internal hazards, some risk/reward for the average shmoe. For example, Chris Gray could have done all sorts of things to #4 to give it some visual Chi' - but Neal is right, too much is just pace the yardage, pull a stick and fire.

Now, I realize I'm being a dogmatic, hypercritical, Naccarato-esque, unrealistic Monday morning armchair architect. So call me a fool.

But don't tell me that if I could wave my magic wand, turn back the clock and put YOU in charge of the design with complete autonomy, that you would not have jazzed it up.

It is nice. It is good. It is enjoyable. It is pretty. . . . .

[ForkaB]

gyro

You and your Armenian doppelganger generally give good prose, but you have stumbled onto something really big when you said:

"San Francisco is funky, wierd, offbeat and pushes the envelope in all things social and artistic. Why not a golf course with features that reflect the social texture of the area?"

My imagination is still in overload 30 minutes after reading that statement.  Why not, for example:

--a 35 yard chipping hole, for the strength-challenged, or to challenge the imagination challenged....
--a 900 yard par-7 "Bay-to-Breakers" hole that would please the holistic fitness lobby
--holes where the ladies tees are 30 yards behind the "tips."
--AC/DC holes where you are allowed to play whichever tees suit your gender preference du jour
--handicap designations reflecting the degree of historical discrimination experienced by the player and his or her antecedents, rather than the difficulty of the hole
--a halfway house imported from Amsterdam and/or Tibet after visiting which total consciousness would be possible, if not inevitable
--an 18th where the hole swallows up your ball just like the "putt-putt"'s d'antan.  All Prov1x's donated to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, of course.......
--a starter straight off of Market Street who begs you for your green fee
--"glory hole" bunkers that even Naccarato wouldn't wan't to hit into
--greens that stimp at 25, just like Fillmore Street heading down to the Marina

The possibilities are endless.....

[THuckaby2]

Now THAT would be a golf course that does "the City" justice.

Re the rest, you guys have to keep in mind what Harding had become... the absolute HORRID, unplayable conditions that existed there... Sure, we can wish they would have re-done it a bit and added the things "gyro" suggests, that would have been great.  But damn, just cleaning it up and growing real grass is such a HUGE improvement, I believe all Bay Area golfers will be pretty happy with the result.

You can't overstate how awful conditions were before.

I have a tee-time there for 10:30 tomorrow morning.  I shall report back on Tuesday, the next time I'll get to a computer after that!

TH

[les_claytor]

Let me first say that I enjoy and welcome criticism / debate, and am wise enough to detach myself from a piece of work to not take anything persoally.  That's the first thing you learn in design school, and the only hope we have of being professional.  Believe me, I see at leastas many things I'd like to change or improve than retain when I look at any course.  I am perhaps more critical when I evaluate a course I was involved in.

I would have done a couple of things differently, if I had carte blanche, but not a whole lot.  I was responsible for recording the exisiting course, and patterning the new features after the relevant principles.  I adhered to some features perhaps too strictly at the start.

Chris Gray and the project as a whole was almost sacrificed by a scheme the altered the Flemming.  Such is the politics of San Francisco.

I was actually quite moved by Mr. Tatum's opening remarks, and also the kid's shotgun on the Flemming was cool.

I would like to post some picutures, if someone can help.

Les

[Gyrogolf]

Les,
Specifically, I am interested in your thoughts regarding the relative lack of internal hazards on the fairways.

Now, I fully understand that the Fleming issue most certainly tied everyone's hands from the beginning, so I want you to understand I am not diss'ing what you did out there.

It just seems as if there was too strict an adherence to preserving something that may not have been worth saving.

When I was involved in the Poplar Creek remodel, we looked at the possibilities from 100 different angles and concluded that the best golf course we could build for the money required moving the clubhouse - only utilizing the existing tree corridors where it fit into the overall schematic.

I am not ever going to pretend that Poplar Creek is comparable to what you built out at Harding. For the record, the best routing did not have the nines return to the clubhouse, but a certain Armenian insisted that it was insanity to build a public course where both #1 and #10 could not be controlled from the pro shop.

But once we established that parameter, Steve Halsey conjured up some interesting stuff. In the end, it was not the best routing, but the golf course is drastically improved because we ignored what was there before if it did not fit into the best possible routing given the constraints of practicality.

P.S. In person, you are about the most laid back, soft spoken man I have ever met in my life. I find it interesting that the tone of your writing communicates a much different personality. . . . I sort of wondered what was actually going on inside that head of yours.

[les_claytor]

Gyro,

The width of the corridors had alot to do with not adding alot of fairway bunkers on the front.  The new fairways look wide, but they are actually 28 - 30 yards wide which is a "US Open" typical width.  That 28 yards fills up many of the corridors almost wall to wall.  

The front nine from the back tees offers some challenging drives after the first two holes.  In time it'll make a difference which side of the fairway you position the ball.

For tournament play, narrow fairways and decent rough is probably the toughest test, see Olympic.  For daily play, we felt the exisiting corridors will catch up to 90% of the players.  Also, open fairways encourage bold play, which can be death at Harding.  I agree, strategic bunkering such as SFGC is the ideal, but I don't know if that's the right model for Harding.

I did walk Torrey Pines after the remodel, and felt the fairway bunkering was a little repetitive.  I know it was set up for Open conditions, and more penal than strategic, so it probably doesn't apply to your question, but I guess it's another approach on a more open site.

PS: I think I was very pre-occupied when you guys came out, so I imagine I came off as pretty distant.  I can't remember what I was doing, but we'll have to play some golf some time.  I probably was a little guarded after reading some of your initial comments about Harding.

[THuckaby2]

I played Harding Park on Friday 8/29.  I had really looked forward to seeing it, being a Bay Area public course player I had always imagined what Harding might be with some TLC...

Well....

It is one hell of a tough course, as fine a "test of golf" as we have anywhere around here, public or private.  Oh yeah, I'm not kidding about that... grow the rough a little more, narrow the fairways even further, use the black tees which seemed to me can stretch to app. 7300 yards, call it a par 70 (make 9 and 10 par 4s, easily done), then par will be protected there very well, thank you.  As it was, from the 6825 yard blue tees, relatively light rough, and at a par of 72, the Old Man was not challenged by anyone in my group, yours truly included!

Conditions are a night and day improvement on what was there before, as expected.  My it was nice to have actual fairways and be able to putt on greens.... The mandate to "restore" Harding was completed with fantastic success.  It is one hell of a beautiful, challenging test of golf and people will love it.

All this being said, I did come away feeling sort of cold... The comments of Gyro and Neal M. do make great sense to me.  There is just no "soul" there... Oh, as I say it is a wonderful test of golf - and what they did with 18 is very cool, moving the green back and left - that is one hell of a fine golf hole now - but outside of that, there is really nothing there to make me want to play it again, at least not often.  Conditions truly aren't THAT great - though worlds better than they were before, fairways and greens are both pretty soft and pretty slow... I guess I just expected better, especially considering the high fee we paid (as non-SF residents)...  And there really just isn't much there of any real strategical interest... Hit it hard, hit it straight, get rewarded; don't, get punished - severely.  If you're into having your game tested, you'll love Harding - it will reveal faults.  But if you want your MIND tested, well... There's not much strategic thought required.

I had only played Harding a few times over the years - mainly due to the horrid conditions previously - so I don't really know, perhaps the course was always this way.

I just can't help asking what more could have been done...  why not move 10 green farther left, as 18 was?  Why not put 13 green all the way back to the cliff edge, then shorten 14 a little?  Why not add a central fairway bunker or two - any number of holes would be really neat with such... These are just obvious amateurish thoughts, but they did occur to me as I played... I know, that wasn't the mandate.  But damn it now is really easy to wonder what might have been... Would this have caused prices to be even higher?  If so, I can understand it...

Oh well.  As I said way up above, nearly everyone who plays it will be ecstatic, just because it is so much nicer than before.  The tree trimming makes it a bit more playable also, which is appreciated.  The Tour won't tear it up, not at 7300 par 70 which is what they ought to do....

I know this is all very vague, my apologies, I just can't really pinpoint what I found missing, other than the "lack of soul"...

TH

[Kevin_Reilly]

I played there today.  I rather enjoyed the round (in large part b/c I played with my dad who was a 2x week regular at "old" Harding).  I myself have played easily 150+ rounds there...used to be my old stomping grounds in high school...sneak on to the 2nd tee on summer nights and play until dark.

First of all I want to retract my comments re cartpaths....they were well obscured.  The photo above of 18 doesn't reflect reality unless you really hit your drive to the right.

Conditions are good....not great which bodes poorly for the future since play has been restricted so far.  I think drainage will be an issue , as it rained a little bit last night and the course was very soft today.  In some low points in the fairway the sod felt like it was moving as you walked across it.  In January or Feb it will play VERY VERY soft.  

My favorite holes on the front were 5 (nice punchbowl green IIRC) and 7 (devilish green with a back left section that seemed hidden from the fairway, and bunkers added short left to catch any long drives).  3, 4, 8 and 9 were very similar to the old holes.  Sort of disappointing to me that 4 was so blah....I had high expectations for it.  After the drive, the hole looked essentially the same as before.  #1 was a nice opener.  Easy.  #9 is a long par 4 these days for the big boys.  Nice grass bunker or collection area front right...I hit my wedge into it after being suckered into it.

#10 is a nice par 5 now, with some contour to the fairway.  I disagree with Tom...I don't see it as a par 4.  I also didn't mind that the green wasn't moved to the left.  

#11 is essentially unchanged.  Looked like the front of the green was a bit more open to run-ups.  But a pretty bland hole, as it was before.  #12 is now reachable and is likely a par 4 for the pros.  I had 235 for my second but hit it chunky and ended up 20 yds short.  Note that it was a par 4 for the Senior Tour in 1981 so I'm not surprised that it is a likely 2-shotter.

#13 has a different green altogether, farther left though like Tom I wondered why it wasn't even farther left.  My dad (73) who drives it 150-175 at best hit it 20 yds past the fairway bunker from the white tees so it is puzzling to me why they left the bunker in the same spot.  It is not in play at all.  Hasn't really been in play for a long time.

#14 is essentially unchanged...they always had unused back tees.  That is a disappointment...it has always been an interesting "looking" hole, but it is pretty blah in actual play since it doesn't take much to drive it past the depression.  I had driver 8 iron from the blues and I'm not a long hitter.  

On #15 the maintenance yard is now in play...I pushed my drive and it flew into a bunch of city trucks...3 wood off the tee is the play there.  Looked like the fairway bunker might have been moved to the left.  It might need a larger bunker at some point for 1) added difficulty and 2) containment...it is too easy to hit your drive well through the dogleg.  Beautiful hole, but lack of length hurts it.

#16 remains the best hole on the course, a great short par 4.  Man that expanse of fairway to the right sure beckons you.  It is really hard to aim for the open line on the left .  That hole ruined my day...smooth 6 after trying to hit my second through a gap.  

#17 is essentially unchanged...a fairly easy hole given that the green is reasonably large and it is just a mid-short iron for better players (I hit a 6 from the blues).  Too bad this hole couldn't be lengthend a tad.  Or the green made narrower with more bunker coverage.

#18 is the biggest change, wow what a fun tee shot...bite off as much as you dare.  I aimed for the bunkers on the right and landed just short, had 185ish to the green...I never had more than a pitching wedge or 9 to that hole in the old days.

We played in a shade over 4 hrs...tee times are at 10 min intervals so we never had to wait on a shot.  Have fun, play it soon because I believe that the condition is going to get worse over time.  

Re: Gib and Tom's suggestion re internal hazards etc...the course played VERY hard for my dad and his friends.  They struggled with the wet rough, and I think a lot more fairway bunkers would make the course too tough for a lot of players.  Plus it would take too long to play (an important consideration on a muni that gets a lot of 25-30+ hdcp play).

[THuckaby2]

Kevin:

Re internal hazards, just remember that such would only be done in a complete REMODEL.  No way I want to add bunkers to what's there now - damn right it's tough enough as it is and that would make it take forever.  But give cart blanche for a re-do, wouldn't some holes with central bunkers - shorter but offering more strategic choices - be damn fun there?  It surely could be done....

Re #10, I'm only saying they make that a par 4 for the PGA TOUR if and when it comes, if they want to "protect par."  Heck yeah it's short enough to do that, same goes for 9.  But good point, 12 works better as a par 4 so make that the two shotter, leave 10 as a par 5, voila, there's your par 70 at 7300 yards and they won't go too low based on that.

Re #10 green, well....you don't think the green moved left, closer to the lake, would add interest to the hole?  Man, that would complicate the tee shot, make one think more about the 2nd, make for one darn fun interesting third.... Oh, it's a pretty good hole as it is... I just look at all that room left and wonder, that's all.  Maybe in the interest of faster play, it's ok where it is... that's a valid issue... but I also don't want a dumbed-down course if I'm paying top dollar prices, which as a non-SF resident I did.

Interesting re 13 and 14... on 13, the fairway bunker was definitely in play for me from the blues - I barely rolled one past it on the left side, and I'm not sure if I could clear it.  We did have a bit of a headwind.

Re 14, it is so darn pretty that I'm ok with leaving that as is (unless they were to do a total re-do).  Yeah, one CAN get past the depression - my friend did, and he too had 8-iron in - but it doesn't take much to go miss that fairway, have the rough catch it, and have 200 in from a hanging sidehill lie.  Don't ask how I know this.  

Good point re 15 also... not sure how you could change it though.

Great points re conditions.  Good but not great, and thus disappointing to me in that respect.  And darn right, I too fear with the winter will bring...

TH