[Mark_Rowlinson]

....Lake so variably appreciated on this site? I've played it once - it was the first big-time course I played in the US - and I enjoyed the experience, but my view was probably influenced by the fact that I couldn't drive the ball far enough to be able to reach the greens on many par 4s in two. It was the first time I was made aware of the onset of age.

[Jim Sweeney]

Mark:

Lake is a very good golf course. It obviously suffers from lack of spectacular scenery. IMO this may be a good thing as far as analyzing the architecture because it forces one's fucus toward the course instead of the surroundings. There is a lot of architectural merit, interesting quirks (like the sole fairway bunker), but litle "wow" factor.

It is also true that Lake forces the golfer to play certain shots; i.e., there is a lack of strategic quality. Many people here seem to think that strategic options are the primary hallmark of good course design. I do not disagree, but think there is room in this world for situations that require specific shots. Olympic may be too one dimensional for many who frequent GCA.

Do not dispair over your lack of distance at Olympic- it happens to everybody. Heavy, damp air and generally soft conditions conspire to keep tee shot yardage under control. I plyed the US Amateur there in 1981 and not even the longest hittersc could consistently hit the ball over 250 yards.

[Chip Gaskins]

Olympic is no doubt a very hard golf course.  Like you, the first time I played it years ago I thought it was good, not great.  In more recent visits, and after tree removal, I think it is a really good golf course.  It is still very hard, Bethpage type hard, and without fairway bunkers it makes tee shots hard to frame in my mind and therefore hard to hit many of those fairways.  Try it again, I bet you like it better.  Play the forward tees and don't keep score!

[David_Tepper]

I agree with much of what Jim Sweeney has said. The Lake is a very challenging, albeit one-dimensional golf course. The bunker shaping is more functional than artistic, at least to my eye.

I also think the fairly severe side slope of many of the fairways (#2, #4 & #17 being the most obvious) detracts from the course. Not that it matters a whole lot, but I have heard this is one of the things Jack Nicklaus does not like about the course.

Several of the dogleg holes have fairways sloping against, rather than with, the dogleg. #4 doglegs left, but the fairway slopes to the right. #5 doglegs right, but the fairway slopes left. #9 also doglegs right, with the fairway sloping left. Unless one has the ability to shape their drives against the slope of the fairway, keeping your ball in the short grass off the tee can very a real challenge.

I have always thought Tom Doak's analysis of the Lake Course (and his comparison of it to San Francisco GC) in his Confidential Guide was pretty much spot on.         

I think the Lake Course can also be faulted for having the greens not being visible on 3 of the 4 par-3's. One of the joys of golf is watching a well struck tee shot on a par-3 hang in the air for a few seconds and then watching it land on the green.   

[Matt_Cohn]

I think it's the awkwardness/weirdness of so many of the holes. I mean...

1 is kind of awkward (slice, then strange bunkers and contours around the green)
2 is kind of awkward (reverse-slope, half-blind)
4 is very awkward (blind, reverse-slope fairway)
5 is kinda awkward (awkward fairway)
7 looks weird - a little patch of fairway on the side of a hill
10 is kinda weird (slice from tee)
12 from the tips is unsettling (narrow chute on a direct line...to left trees)
13 is kinda weird (overhanging tree, wind coming from that side)
16 is a bit awkard (undefined endless curve)
17 is quite awkward (reverse slope, looks different from rest of course)

So basically, more than half of the holes are somehow unsettling.

[Bill_McBride]

I agree with David Tepper about the par 3's.  Not only can you not see the green on three of them, they are all three very similar holes to the point of repetition.  All you see from the tee is a big vertical bunker face and a lonely flag.

But that is one bear of a golf course that requires length, accuracy, ability to shape the shots, and a deft short game to score, as no one is going to hit a high percentage of the greens in regulation.  It is a pleasure to watch good players work their way around the course - kudos to Mike Benham on a very strong round last time I was there.   

Olympic Lake is the kind of a golf course where if some one tells you he is a five there, and you are a five somewhere else, he will most likely kick your ass straight up. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

To be honest I think that the Lake course is overrated.  I haven't been there in a while but SFGC is so much better that if you were to play both on the same day you would wonder why it is ranked to high.  It probably deserves to be in the top 100 but not in the top 50.  People panned Laurel Valley because it is soft.  Well Olympic is very soft.  What it does have are great greens and the shot in to the greens are very demanding because they are generally pretty long shots.  The rough is too punishing because is is so lush and was pretty long when i have played it.  I did really like the par threes and some of the shorter par fours, which were very interesting.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think it is several things. First it is the most visable well thought of course in one of America and the worlds great cities. There are a lots of members on here too. Then it is unique in its personality with the strength of the course being the strong par 4's highlighted by the reverse canter fairways. The short par 4's are unforgetable. The 3's and 5's do not disticguish the course from other great ones to me ofther than 3 is pretty cool.

[Jeff Goldman]

"Olympic is very soft."

I thought Olympic started topdressing their fairways a few years ago, with very good results.  Has that ended (I thought once you start it's really a bad idea to stop), or did it not result in a firmer course?

[Matt_Cohn]

During the US Am it got firm, but not super hard. By the early afternoon the grass was shiny and clearly stressed.

Of course, a truly hard and fast Lake Course with USGA rough would have about 5 borderline unplayable holes: 2, 4 (already very borderline), 5, 9, and 17.

[Joel_Stewart]

It's tough for me to defend it since I am very critical of it and especially the super but some of these critism's are not true. 

It is not soft, the club has implemented a top dressing program over the last 6 years and it generally runs firm and fast.

I am not sure what one dimensional means but there are very few courses that offer the variety of shots that Olympic has.  Up hill, down hill, doglegs left and rights, short holes and long.  It has 3 par 5's, two of which are reachable.

The greens and bunkers are a mess but the club is addressing the greens problem which I believe will fail but it will look good when the Open arrives in 2012.   

[Mark_Rowlinson]

In fairness, my single visit was in late January five or six years ago, and there had been plenty of rain in that part of California, so it played very long. I had not previously played on a course with collars of longer grass surrounding the greens. On several occasions that feature saved me, for had my wayward approach shots hit shaven banks they could easily have bounced away into perdition. Yet the collars were not so deep that I could not chip from them. I was able to get up and down fairly simply each time. The course was not busy, so the members with whom I was playing often let me play several shots from the tee which was tremendously helpful in allowing me to get a fair chance to experience the dog legs and slopes properly. Like me, they walked and carried their clubs.

[Jim Sweeney]

Joel:

One dimensional in this case (IMO) means that the course demands you hit the shot required. There are, of course, different requirements on different holes, but there are not any alternatives on many holes.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

Joel:

One dimensional in this case (IMO) means that the course demands you hit the shot required. There are, of course, different requirements on different holes, but there are not any alternatives on many holes.

I don't think that's necessarily true.  These holes offer a PREFERRED shot shape, but there are other, albeit less desired, shots.  For example, on #5, the obvious tee ball is a fade, which follows the shape of the hole, and also helps the ball from running through to the rough; however, I've watched it a number of times by those who can pull off a high draw, a shot that traces, or even goes over, the tree line on the right and draws back into the fairway past the dogleg.  The same, although opposite, is true for #4... the shot calls for a draw off the tee, however if one's more comfortable with a fade it can certainly be accomplished. 

And, frankly I think that's part of the genius of these teeshots... it forces you out of your game.

[Kyle Henderson]

My chief complaint with the Lake course is that pretty much every recovery shot around the greens will either be a bunker shot or a pitch out of heavy rough (which I played pretty much like my bunker shots, as the ball was always buried in turf).

[Tim Leahy]

I feel that Olympic should always be a top 10 course. It has one of the best par 3's in the world, No. 3.  The trees at Olympic act as a hazard and control your play just as the dunes and cliffs at Cypress Pt.  or the waste areas at Pine Valley define the those courses.  The shots required at Olympic test your game to its fullest and to me that's what makes a great golf course.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

Why is the third at Olympic one of the best par-3's in the world?  I know it made Dan Jenkins' list 50 years ago, but he never really explained why it should be on there, either.

[Jed Peters]

Olympic is F-in HARD.

Almost to the point where for the mid-single digit handicapper it's not fun.

Actually, it's NOT fun. It's a grind. An amazingly awesome grind, but a grind nevertheless.

I can think of only 4 "fun" holes, and those were fun because I was hitting mid-short irons and not grinding my ass off.

I think i shot 84 or 85 there, and it seemed like every hole i had a putt for par, even when I had a birdie putt!

[Tim Leahy]

Tim:
Why is the third at Olympic one of the best par-3's in the world?  I know it made Dan Jenkins' list 50 years ago, but he never really explained why it should be on there, either.

Tom, you have put me on the spot. I am only 47 and I know I read about #3 on a greatest 18 holes list at least 20 years ago, so I will do some research and see if I can find some justification in writing for it. 

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I can say that the 3rd hole backed up the field nearly 45 minutes during the second round of the 1998 Open.  I am not certain that it is worthy of Dan Jenkins ranking, but it is a super tough long drop shot hole.  There are so many all world par 3's in NorCAl, so the ranking was a reach.  I do think that it is a better hole than SFGC's famous drop shot hole, but starting a little more than 45 minutes down the coast there are some better drop shot holes.  One great feature is that there is some opportunity for recovery on the third.  I witnessed 4 pars from off the green in
'98, and the group in front had some sand saves (this being the 1st year of softer less spinny USGA sand).

[TX Golf]

I had the chance to play Olympic Lake last weekend and share many of the same thoughts that have been previously mentioned throughout this thread. I am currently a 1-2 index and played from the back tees. These were my thoughts.

While playing the course I constantly thought about the fact that I wasn't amazed with the course, but I was amazed with its ability to test a good golfer. Every hole seems to ask/require a certain shot that most individuals are not able to play. Its spot in the Open rotation seems like a perfect fit. You need to be long, straight, and have a solid (but not creative) short game.

I also felt that 8, 13, and 15 (the par threes) were fairly similar in that the surface could never been seen, and that they were surrounded by flashed up bunkers. I also would have to disagree that the 3rd hole is one of the best par 3s around. I almost think it would be a more interesting and better hole from its original shorter distance. 241 from the back tees was rough, especially considering that the back of the green seems to slope away from the player.

Anyways, that same weekend I also had the chance to play Cal Club, and was much more impressed by it than I was by Olympic. While it presented just as stout of a test from the back, it also allows the player multiple options of the tee, from the fairway, and ESPECIALLY around the greens. It made me realize that while Olympic is a great test of golf, I am not quite sure if it is great golf. I personally believe those two things are not the same.

So back to Olympic... I am interested to see how the new greens turn out. While very simple and old school, they no doubt are part of the extreme challenge that the course presents. I am not so sure that I like the idea of extending the 7th green either, as I was 30 yards off the green after my drive and made a bogey. I don't think that hole needs anything else. My final conclusion... it is a great golf course but not one that I would want to play on a daily basis. There are now two courses (SFGC being the other) in SF that I prefer over O Lake.

[Mitch St. Peter]

I'm biased -- I'm an OC member.

Since the comparison is inevitable, I will say SFGC is more fun to play on a daily basis.  Tee-to-green the course has less elevation changes, but wider fairways which make it easier and more strategic.  It's greens are fantastic and quirky -- it is the design element that makes the course difficult and fun.  It's fairways are painted with airy, natural-looking Tillinghast bunkers.  Overall, the property is more open and more subtle in its movement and beauty.  It has a stately Tudor clubhouse which adds a patrician element to the property and the club.  The first playing experience there is more memorable -- no question.

The Olympic experience is quite unique.  It is not a super exclusive club.  It often feels crowded. Most of you on this site are not swayed by this though.

Olympic is a ball-striking course, SFGC is not.  As a result, "Olympians" are better ball-strikers than their friends at other area courses (probably worse putters too, see Johnny Miller for both).  Like Bethpage, it is a big, grand course.  Despite this, both have relatively tight fairways (except for #4 at Bethpage).  The good player is rewarded at the green.  To get to the green, however, is the big issue.

Olympic is a championship course.  If you don't hit the ball well, the common golfer will spend the whole day in the trees and in the wet grass.  No one told you that 6850 on the card is 6850 on the ground.   Play it up if its too difficult or don't try to be a hero.  You aren't suppossed to play well your first time at a really tough course (see Oakmont).

I agree with Wayne that the course encourages a preferred shot but doesn't demand it.  Even the awkward tee shot at #5 can receive a draw.  You can hit a fade the whole way down #16. Is it boring or unfair that a draw puts you in a better position? 

As for the variety, I hit nearly every club in my bag during a round at Olympic. The holes themselves are not that memorable the first time you play them. Give it another chance. Few features are flashy. Play it after dawn or before dusk -- few courses can match the shadows created by the sun and its Monterrey Pines.  Play it without being overly conscious of score.  You will play better and will come to appreciate the property more.

If you don't like the fact that you can't see your ball finish on 3 of the par 3's, come back next year.  The new #8 will offer you that view.  You must not like a lot of the par 3's at old courses.

The third hole is indicative of the Olympic experience. It requires a superior iron shot into a small, elongated green. The canted "fairway" between the tee and green often forces shots right through psychology -- it just doesn't look right.  That same area also makes for a tough, awkward downhill hike to the green.  There are few courses that are more difficult to walk.  Try playing the hole again.  Chances are you missed the green your first time playing it.  If you are lucky enough to have hit the green, there are few golf shots in this world as rewarding and as memorable -- that's why it's a great hole!

I hope the renovation will improve the course. For now, I'll worry about it until   
next summer.

Sorry for the long comment...

[David_Tepper]

Mitch -

As I read the diagrams of the new #8 on the Lake, it will still be an uphill shot with roughly the same amount of elevation change. I doubt the green surface and the bottom of the flagstick will be visible from the tee.

I cannot think of another course, old or new, where 3 of the 4 par-3's have semi-blind greens hidden by large fronting bunkers.

DT       

[Kyle Henderson]

I'm biased -- I'm an OC member.

Since the comparison is inevitable, I will say SFGC is more fun to play on a daily basis.  Tee-to-green the course has less elevation changes, but wider fairways which make it easier and more strategic.  It's greens are fantastic and quirky -- it is the design element that makes the course difficult and fun.  It's fairways are painted with airy, natural-looking Tillinghast bunkers.  Overall, the property is more open and more subtle in its movement and beauty.  It has a stately Tudor clubhouse which adds a patrician element to the property and the club.  The first playing experience there is more memorable -- no question.

The Olympic experience is quite unique.  It is not a super exclusive club.  It often feels crowded. Most of you on this site are not swayed by this though.

Olympic is a ball-striking course, SFGC is not.  As a result, "Olympians" are better ball-strikers than their friends at other area courses (probably worse putters too, see Johnny Miller for both).  Like Bethpage, it is a big, grand course.  Despite this, both have relatively tight fairways (except for #4 at Bethpage).  The good player is rewarded at the green.  To get to the green, however, is the big issue.

Olympic is a championship course.  If you don't hit the ball well, the common golfer will spend the whole day in the trees and in the wet grass.  No one told you that 6850 on the card is 6850 on the ground.   Play it up if its too difficult or don't try to be a hero.  You aren't suppossed to play well your first time at a really tough course (see Oakmont).

I agree with Wayne that the course encourages a preferred shot but doesn't demand it.  Even the awkward tee shot at #5 can receive a draw.  You can hit a fade the whole way down #16. Is it boring or unfair that a draw puts you in a better position? 

As for the variety, I hit nearly every club in my bag during a round at Olympic. The holes themselves are not that memorable the first time you play them. Give it another chance. Few features are flashy. Play it after dawn or before dusk -- few courses can match the shadows created by the sun and its Monterrey Pines.  Play it without being overly conscious of score.  You will play better and will come to appreciate the property more.

If you don't like the fact that you can't see your ball finish on 3 of the par 3's, come back next year.  The new #8 will offer you that view.  You must not like a lot of the par 3's at old courses.

The third hole is indicative of the Olympic experience. It requires a superior iron shot into a small, elongated green. The canted "fairway" between the tee and green often forces shots right through psychology -- it just doesn't look right.  That same area also makes for a tough, awkward downhill hike to the green.  There are few courses that are more difficult to walk.  Try playing the hole again.  Chances are you missed the green your first time playing it.  If you are lucky enough to have hit the green, there are few golf shots in this world as rewarding and as memorable -- that's why it's a great hole!

I hope the renovation will improve the course. For now, I'll worry about it until   
next summer.

Sorry for the long comment...

Mitch,
I agree with you in many respects. The Lake course is absolutely a great test of golf. It is also a unique course that fits well with and provides counterpoint to the other courses in the current U.S. Open rotation.

However, I think others echo my contention that, while playing the Lake on a regular basis would probably improve one's ballstriking, it would not provide enough variety between rounds, or even from hole to hole, to maintain joyful interest in the game of golf.

The Lake is, perhaps, best experienced as an occasional treat than a daily challenge.

Then again, with The Ocean course and one of the world's most scenic and engaging oceanside nine holers on property, The Lake is a perfect fit for The Olympic Club.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

to hear people say they wouldn't want to play the Lake as their everyday course are just nuts!!!   Yeah, it's tough.  Yeah, it can beat you up.  Yeah, I'd love to play SFGC everday too.  But, come on... it's a classic course, with unique features (i.e. reverse-canted dog-legs; blind par-3's) that aren't and probably will never be built again.

As a mid-single digit handicap, I can often pull off the requisite shots, yet I tend to completely miss them more often than not.  So, when I double-cross myself and hit a dead pull on #5 into the 12th fairway instead of the preferred soft fade, I know next time I stand on that tee I will relish the challenge to try it again.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()