[Matt_Ward]

During my last days in Northern California I had the fortune in playing the Kyle Phillips design called Morgan Creek in Roseville, CA.

When I came upon the property I wasn't actuall thrilled because the site is basically flat with little roll. What I didn't want to experience was the flat Florida design motif in Northern California.

As I soon experienced that was far from the case.

Morgan Creek starts out in a fairly ordinary manner. The first three holes follow the same general direction but you quickly sense a uniqueness with the course by the manner of the details in the bunker placement and the anging of the putting surfaces relative to the fairways. Too often flat sites can be utterly boring and the golfer can only wish for the quick conclusion of the round. That doesn't happen at Morgan Creek.

At the 3rd hole you see many of the qualities that Phillips has included. Here you have a par-5 of 540 yards but the architect has inserted a parallel ridge line that separates the right and left sides of the fairway. Bunekrs guard the right side and there is another bunker fitted so well within the aforementioned ridge line. The ideal shot is to land the tee shot between the right bunkers and where the ridge line starts. Of course -- golfers can play away but then you are left with a completely blind shot at the green if you go for it in two blows. What thrilled me is how a flat site can be turned into something of consequence without massive invasion to the sensibilities of the terrain.

The 4th through 6th holes follow the return direction -- although not in a completely straight line. At the 7th you play a solid par-3 of 178 yards with water guarding the entire green. The 8th is a well done par-4 of 448 yards that plays back into the prevailing wind and is protected 60 yards from the putting surface by a series of stately oak treees.

It's at the 9th that you encounter one of the more unique par-4's I have played on my westward trip. Here Phillisp presents a wide landing area on this slightly turning dog-leg left. When you stand on the tee you see the 150-yard barbershop poll and the key play is to swing a draw over the top of the poll and allow the bal to run out by carefully avoiding three bunkers on the right -- let me highlight that bunkers at Morgan Creek are not the garden variety cat traps -- and by steering clear of a massive water hazard that can be reached by the longer hitters.

Phillips goes further by inserting again an elevated ridge line that separates the first portion of fairway from the second. There is so much going on with the hole and the options raun the gamut.

Morgan Creek's back nine is a clear treat for those who relish design details. Only the 12th and 13th follow the same direction and minus the bland characteristics of the par-3 holes on that side the totality of what is present is done very well.

Philips makes you play the best you can offer from the tee. Plenty of thought has been applied to the range of holes and the sheer complexity of green designs is so welcomed given the dearth of quality golf in this part of California.

Let me mention just one example -- the closing hole at Morgan Creek is simply grand stuff. Here you stand on a slightly elevated tee and the entire hole lies before you. This slight dog-leg left features an array of bunkers in addition to H20 which hugs the left side -- it seems much of the water encountered at Morgan Creek is always on the left -- and again Philips brings into play an elevated ridge line that runs diagonally across the line of play.

You can bailout to the right and the length of your second shot increases accordingly. Or you can challenge the hole drectly and try to slot a tee shot in the space provided. To the architect's credit there is a final bunker placed right in the middle of the fairway to tackle the longest of tee shots.

That's only for starters. At the green you find a "Y" shaped target that is well done in a big time fashion. Phillips puts the pressure on the player from start to finish -- there are alternative ways to play the holes and you relish the challenge provided.

The only weaknesses at Morgan Creek? The routing on the front side is fairly one dimensional -- mostly back and forth type stuff -- although several of the individual holes are good to very good. The second weakness? The totality of the par-3's is not really sophisticated and presents roughly the same length of hole. It would have been really a plus had Phillips included a much shorter hole and another that was very long in the range of 240 or so yards.

When I see the work Phillips has done with Morgan Creek I can't wait to play Kingsbarnes in the near future. The sheer detailing you see with Morgan Creek speaks volumes on the talent he clearly possesses because on first impressions the site at Morgan Creek doesn't really provide any clues to the quality golf you will encounter there.

Course details are as follows ...

7,303 yards
Par-72
75.6 CR
143 Slope

I'd be interested in hearing what people think about Morgan Creek and nearby Winchester up in Auburn. I liked both courses but for reasons as different as the kinds of terrain you find both courses.

[THuckaby2]

Just FYI for the 99% of golfers who don't play the tips:  Morgan Creek does have sane tees also.  

6882 - 73.7 - 137
6564 - 72.4 - 133
6179 - 70.5 - 131

I haven't played the course, but I know quite a few people who have, and it has received a lot of buzz.  Reviews have been universally very positive.  Just do note not everyone plays the tips.  

Matt have you played Darkhorse, in Auburn?  That's another great one up there.  Winchester is indeed wonderful but also quite different from Darkhorse, as it seems to be from Morgan Creek.

Sadly though, these courses illustrate the conundrum that is NorCal golf:  we have great courses for sure, but it's a huge area and so many of the good ones seem to be so far from the big cities.  Morgan Creek is way out in Roseville as Matt says, about 30-45 minutes from Sacramento, at least 2 hours from SF or SJ. These others mentioned are pretty much the same.  Big sigh.

What do we get new close to home?  The Ranch.  Tears being shed.

Hope springs eternal though - the new course in Pleasanton called Callippe Preserve sounds pretty neat.  NCGA rating is in a few weeks, they say they'll open in November.

Sorry for the sidetrack from Morgan Creek but you did ask about other courses!  

[THuckaby2]

PS - Matt, Kingsbarns is fantastic.  Yes it has a big modern American-style clubhouse, and thus lacks the old-style charm of its neighbors, and yes it is too damn expensive, but the course itself is incredible.

And we love Kyle Phillips here - I'm just hoping his course out on the point in Alameda comes to fruition some day.  The SF views alone from there will be incredible - and knowing Kyle's skill, he'll fashion a fun course to match the views, without a doubt.

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

The interesting thing about Sacramento area golf is the range and diversity of the courses coming forward. Clearly, people using I-5 can get to and from the area and you also have the connection via I-80 that links the Reno / SF crowd.

Morgan Creek is certainly well worth your time to visit when you can -- at the tees you feel comfortable playing!

P.S. I had the pleasure in playing Plumas Lake a few years ago in Marysville and the greens I played were among the best public I had encountered. I wonder how good the course is today -- years ago Digest rated the layout among the best public in the USA -- I believe the article appeared in the March '84 issue.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:  Oh sure, it's all well and good if one lives in the greater Sacto area (and a LOT of people do!) - there are a BUNCH of great courses in and around there.

My point is this doesn't do a whole hell of a lot of good for the millions of us nearer to SF/SJ.  And it's frustrating.  And hell yes it's worth my time to visit - I just wish I had some available!  One could spend weeks up there and not tire of new and different courses.

As for the tees, just tweaking you a bit.  You do love the post the numbers from the tips, and I'm sure the last time you played anything but was when you were single digits in age.  Just do remember that you are unique in this... and as long as we're in a "let's help Matt improve his course descriptions mode" (as we seem to be lately, much to your chagrin I'm sure), well... it would help to give numbers from the tees the real world plays.

Re Plumas Lake - that's funny - I too made the long jaunt to Marysville to play it many years ago, not all that long after it got that great rating.  I remember fantastic greens also and not much else (besides a good price and thus great bang for the buck).  That too needs a repeat visit.  Dammit what I could do if I had no kids and/or no conscience...

 

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

I chuckle at the "let's help Matt" with his course reviews given the fact that I'm being critiqued by the couch-potato crowd -- save you that is !!!

Frankly, the only thing worse than being useless is being oblivious to what is happening in course design today. Kyle Phillips work at Morgan Creek is very good because he overcame the nature of a flat site and was able to add elements to it that didn't go forward in the Disney world mentality.

I had little confidence when I drove into the property because I've seen tons of sites like Morgan Creek and very, very few inspired me for a return visit. If I was back in Roseville -- I'd certainly want a return engagement with the layout.

P.S. I was told by the folks there that the 10th hole willbe tweaked a bit in the driving zone.

P.S. Plus -- One of the best par-4's on MC is the 11th -- a 474-yard slight dog-leg left with H20 down the left side. The drive demands are self evident but it's the green -- a rollarcoaster complex that rises up towards the middle than falls abruptly away at the rear.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

I'm more of a couch potato than some of your vociferous critics.  But I do appreciate the sentiment.

 

In any case, very cool re Morgan Creek.  Joel Stewart (among others) really liked it as well.  I'd say Kyle Phillips is a rising star without a doubt.

You know what makes me sad though?  You're likely to play Morgan Creek again before I play it once.  And yes you do live 3000 miles away.  Such is life.

 

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

The folks at Winged Foot can't wait for your eastern visit return. It seems they have a few comments for you / re: the West's 10th hole !!!!

Seriously, the growth of golf in the north / central area of Sacramento is booming. The housing surge can be seen by the many developments coming out of the ground and heading towards the more scenic environs like Auburn and the like.

Kyle Phillips is a very talented architect -- Morgan Creek will likely get lost in the sauce because it's zip code is not the first place many golfers think of quality courses. I envy the members there because when the layout really gets firm and fast the utter details that Phillips provided will only get better and better.

Like I said the only weak points -- the pedestrian routing plan for the front side and the collective sameness with the four par-3's. Other than that -- Morgan Creek is very solid.

[THuckaby2]

Just remember all I ever said about WFW's 10th hole is that it's not the best par three on the course.  Hell all of the short holes there are world-class.  I just don't get the big hubbub about that one.  #3 is a better golf hole and THAT one ought to be getting the praise!  But 10 is great in every respect as well.

And right on re Morgan Creek/Kyle Phillips/greater Sacto area.

 

[Robert Thompson]

Tom: Kingsbarns has a "big American-style clubhouse?" Not when I was there. The clubhouse was quite intimate and isn't going to be able to host any 144 man shotguns any time soon. I actually thought it was warm and comfortable and fit with the site quite nicely.
Kingsbarns is excellent, though. I agree with you there.

Gents: Isn't there another Kyle Phillips course in the Sacremento area? Isn't that how Phillips hooked up with Mark Parsinen?

[THuckaby2]

Robert:

I guess it's all relative.  No, it's not like any American CCFAD, but it is surely bigger and more modern-looking than any at the other classic courses most visitors see.  In any case, it's not my complaint - I thought the clubhouse was fine.  It just has been a common comment from others on here and elsewhere about the place.

In any case the point was about the golf course - and we agree there.

 

And yes, Phillips worked for Parsinen on Granite Bay, outside of Sacramento, another wonderful golf course.  Or at least I think I have that right.

TH

[Joel_Stewart]

Matt:  Interesting comments, glad you enjoyed it.  The drive in is disappointing as well as all the cheesy housing which has been built but its one hell of a golf course.  I'm afraid to say that they are having some financial issues and I just hope the course survives.   Having an English heathland course in Sacramento just hasn't been appreciated by people in Sacramento.  If that course is in Southhampton its probably a top 100 course.

I was wondering where the pin was on #11?   As far as I can tell, the only spot they can use is on the top of the hill.  Even Kyle thinks he took that green to the edge as you could putt all day on that green.

[Scott Seward]

Callippe is outstanding.

Great property and great routing - in a state of great mni courses, this one will rank near the top.

[Smokey_Pot_Bunker]

Matt,
Glad you enjoyed Morgan Creek.  A couple of things I noticed in playing the course are as follows.

1.  Wall to wall cart path from start to finish that is rarely seen while standing on the tees and fairways.

2.  The bunker shaping was the first of that kind I'd ever seen (not very well traveled here).  The cross bunker on #5,
the bunker left on #11, the fwy bunker left of the tee on #13, the greenside bunker on #14, and the lack of bunkers on the downhill par 4 seventeen.

3.  The green complexes that stood out to me were #'s 5,false front to the side of the green, 9 with the swale in front of the green, #11 for its saddle green, #12 because the day I played it was behind the bunker in a small bowl, #14's three tiered green from side to side, and #18 with it's bull nose sitting right in the front center of the green spliting the green into two lower shelves and the upper shelf behind the nose.

4. The general contouring of the fwys.  #10 has to be one of my favorites with the barranca spliting the first and second landing zone then the upper/lower fwy presented to the player on the second shot.  #11 because the it looks so difficult to hit from the tee. Also fwys that look like Kyle Phillips did not do anything on at least to me #15 and #17.

IMHO the par three's were strong although they might be similar in length the feel of each seemed vastly different in my eyes #4's plateau green,  #7 for the green right up against the lake with bunkers everywhere you want to bail out including the hidden bunkers behind the green, #12 for the grass bunkers short of the green left and the before mentioned green, and #16 for its length from the back tee over the water to a green with bunkers left,short right and long.  

Im headed out to Bandon in November and I'm flying into Sacramento so as to play Morgan Creek again as well as Darkhorse if possible before heading up to Oregon.  How was the condition of the course?

P.S. the pin for me on eleven the day I played was before the saddle on a little shelf that provided a pin placement.  Hopefully the homes haven't boxed it in totally for the last time I played houses were only going up on the back nine.

[THuckaby2]

Carmen - thanks for the further description of Morgan Creek.  It adds to my need to get there someday.

But man, you guys do love to drive... and you have interesting priorities... you do realize you could fly into Portland, connect to N. Bend, and be playing golf the same day at Bandon, right?

Now I don't know where you're coming from and how much time you have... but is ANY time that could be spent at Bandon worth the diversion to Sacramento, and that LONG drive that follows?

I've played Darkhorse and Winchester.  They are both wonderful.  But no way I give up time that could be spent at Bandon for either of those....

Of course we all have our own priorities.  And if time is not an issue, heck yes go slow and enjoy it.  That just struck me as very interesting.

TH

ps - Scott - you know I sure hope to see Callippe very soon.  

[Matt_Ward]

Joel:

I have no issue with the green at #11. Is it demanding? Sure. No doubt about that. But so is the 1st at Oakmont -- and that's a long par-4 too.

The key with #11 is getting your tee shot down the left side as far as you can. Of course -- the H20 on that side might scare plenty of people. The hole is a testament to what a talented architect can do for a flat site. If anything Kyle should be imported by all the Florida developers who are literally clueless in getting the same tired, predictable, pedestrian designs that dot the landscape of the Sunshine State.

The pin on #11 for me was all the way back left. I hit a solid long drive and had nothing more than a flip 9-iron to the position. I don't doubt that coming into the green with a mid-iron would be no easy deal. Nonetheless, the putting surface is fair provided you know where you want to finish with the approach. If the pin is back you need to hit all the way back there otherwise you are stuck with the elevated hump section in the middle of the target. You can reverse that strategy if the pin is in the front half.

Too many times long holes go with big flat discs as targets. I have no issue with what Kyle did there -- it's up to the player to make sure you finish your approach on the appropriate side of that green. Failing that you will likely see plenty of three and four putts.

Your other point is a good one -- I don't know if the folks from Sacramento will grasp what Kyle created. Clearly, if the course was in Suffolk County, NY it would be even more noted than where it is today. I don't mean that as a putdon but the reality of recognition comes faster and easier from the New York metro area than in Northern / Central California.

No matter. Anyone on GCA who takes pride in quality arcitecture will not be disappointed except for the two points I raised initially -- the routing on the first nine is rather predictable -- although a number of the holes are first rate. And the totality of the par-3's could have used a bit more spice -- why not a demanding short par-3 using the same configuration as the par-5 14th?

Carmen:

Morgan Creek was a tad soft for my tastes. It needs to frm up a little bit more. The greens were in top condition -- they rolled wonderfully.

You are 100000000% correct on the nature of the bunkers and how they appear / position themselves versus so many of the drab California layouts. Morgan Creek is at the 501 level for bunkering -- both in position, style and texture compared to the 101 level junkfood that masquerades as golf in so much of the courses in that part of the USA.

Of all the greensites I have to say the par-5 14th and the par-4 18th were the two most special targets of all. There are others too -- the par-4 11th is very neat and demanding -- the par-5 3rd is also compelling with its split halves.

Clearly, the level of detaling is there at Morgan Creek and it succeeds beautifully because of the so-so terrain you find -- especially on the front half.

I can only hope you are right on the housing issues but the proliferation of them is going fast and furious on the front side. You can see it clearly after you play the 1st hole. They practically line up like toy soliders on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th holes.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

In the little golf traveling I have done this summer, this course sticks out a bit.....as the worst course I have played in the past few years.  My golfing companions and I were glad the round was over, tired from hitting some many difficult silly shots.
1. The routing on the back nine goes in a counterclockwise direction with homes on the left on almost every hole.  Creative?
2. The par 3's don't stick out (I only remember one) because they are bad.  The obligatory par 3 over water is the only one I remember.  The bailout on this hole is hit it long.
3. I don't appreciate hitting a ball into a fairway and then having to hit my second shot around a tree to reach the green.  Creative tree planting?  I don't think so.
4. The rough was too high and penal.  Maybe, the reason the course is suffering, is high fees to shoot 10 over your handicap.  Hey, a great course to play on a Sunday afternoon with the family.
5. It is not flat because the shapers built more mounds there than Jack Nicklaus did chocolate drops in the 1980's.
6.  I don't like a course where it looks open on the tee only to find out when I arrive at the ball I rolled into a wetlands or am behind a tree, or worse I rolled off the fairway because of some mound.
When my friends and I finished and were in the local motel jacuzzi, we started up a conversation with some members of the San Francisco Symphony.  They said we would like Darkhorse the next day, it was one of their favorites.  They were right.  A Keith Foster design, it has 15 outstanding holes and is FUN to play.
If you like hard, and some around here seem to think that is important, then go back to Morgan Creek, they need the business.
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

[Matt_Ward]

Lynn:

Glad to hear you're sticking to your story.

I'm sticking to mine though too.

I wasn't there when you were so I can't comment on the height of the rough but since I was last there this past Tuesday I can say with some degree of confidence the rough is very fair and not overly penal. More than fair given the nature of a family club.

Second, I agree with you regarding the par-3's. The totality of what is there is not really outstanding -- the lone noted par-3 7th is the one over the pond that you stated.

Regarding the homes on the back nine -- there are no homes to the left of the 10th, or the 11th -- there are homes to the extreme left of #12 and #13 but they are so removed from the actual play to be meaningless. The homes to the left of #14 are also set back a good ways. Ditto the 15th, 16th and 17th holes. There are no homes to the left of the 18th unless they hope to plant them in the H20 that guards that side.

Frankly, what does the location of the homes have to do with the inherent merits of the design of the respective holes? To the credit of Phillips only the 12th and 13th follow the same routing direction.

I'd like to know what hole you refer to when you say you hit the fairway and hand to guide the next one around a tree. I can only think of the par-5 6th and par-4 8th as candidates and frankly in the former case the distance of the tree from the tee should not be an issue unless you totally missed your tee shot. At the 8th you would need to stay away from the right side in order for the shot to open up as fully as possible to the putting surface -- but if that's a negative than I know a ton of courses that would not fare well based on that thinking.

Can't agree with your comments on the shaping -- the monds that you mention are not obstrusive -- maybe you need to see more clearly what Nicklaus did with some of his earliest efforts at Loxahatchee (former), The Bear and others of that ilk. I didn't see the mounding being anywhere near the extreme. Given the lack of natural features -- especially on the front side -- I found them appropriate and in a number of ways a valued inclusion for shotmaking purposes.

Maybe you can tell me how the inclusion of the elevated ridge lines on a number of the holes was inappropriate for the design -- the 3rd and 9th holes, are two quick examples. Phillips added the feature as a dividing line between the optimum side of the hole and the bailout area. There are several examples of this usage and they work quite well.

You also omitted either by accident or design the unique and complex nature of the putting surfaces. Did you think they too were excessive? Candidly, I thought they were well done for the most part. The par-5 14th is superbly crafted into three unique sections -- I also liked the demanding green at the par-4 11th and others too such as the 18th.

Look forward to your detailed comments.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Good, we can agree to disagree.  Since it has been some time since I played it, June, I don't remember the greens at all.  However on that trip I played Haggin Oaks and Darkhorse and I can remember several greens on those courses.  This tells me the greens at Morgan Creek were forgettable.
Mounds-- they still bother me.  They were so artifical in appearance.
"lack of natural features on the front nine"  I suspect strongly you never saw the course before construction.  It is possible there may have been some great natural features.  I doubt in this project they ever had a chance of being used.  This course has the look of take some dirt here and use for housing pads, and receive some dirt from housing pads and create mounds, do something with it whether it fits into the surrounding landscape or not.  I think you like to appreciate what a designer can do taking some land, and dirt, and shaping it.  I prefer to see what a designer can do with the existing land.
I must have spent 20 minutes in the rough on the front nine looking for either my ball or my playing companions.  Not my idea of a good time when I get up in the morning and plan to play.
This course will NEVER succeed as a private club until it softens the design.

[Joel_Stewart]

I'll agree with Lynn that the rough was fairly penal when I played there.  

What I don't see in Lynns post is that this is one very unique golf course and not one that you can bomb away or that everything is straight in front of you, easy to read.  I believe this is a course you need to play a few times and really need some superb course management to play well.  I'll disagree with Lynn and say this course is light years ahead of Darkhorse in strategic design.

I can't give Kyle enough credit for getting the developers to build an english heathland course in flat dusty farmland in Sacramento.  I took a good look at the surrounding land and it's terrible, like a dustbowl.  You may also notice he didn't use the river in the middle of the property one bit (between the first and tenth holes) which I think any other architect would have done.

[Matt_Ward]

Lynn:

You laid out several issues in your initial post and I responded to each one with some sort of natural follow-up to come. I can't comment further until you can either back-up, modify or pull back the comments you made from the get-go. It's the specifics that count -- not the broad brush mechanics.

What Morgan Creek looked like before they started is not as important to me as what the finished product is today. You speak about the rough but I was just there (last Tuesday) and the rough is far from the depths you are repeating over and over again.

I don't deny we may ultimatelty disagree but putting a bit more flesh to the bone of your original contentions is the only way to move this discussion further.

Thanks ...

[Joel_Stewart]

 My golfing companions and I were glad the round was over, tired from hitting some many difficult silly shots.

If you like hard, and some around here seem to think that is important, then go back to Morgan Creek, they need the business.

Lynn:

I wonder if you had your A game and you understood what Morgan Creek was about if you would have enjoyed the course more.   A few times I have sleep walked onto a course only to discover that its one tough course and I wasn't prepared mentally or physically.   As a result I got beat up.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()