SoCal Guys Architecture Discussion -- Arthur Hill's Cross Creek...

[David Ober]

I have decided, that with some (small?) changes, it could be a fantastic golf course.

The more I play it, the more I love the challenge of its firm, and sloping greens. They need to eliminate several fairway bunkers, and cut the grass to fairway height around many more of the greens (like at Rustic Canyon), but if they did that, I would play there all the time.

The course just kicks your butt from the black tees, and at only 6850 and par 71, that's difficult to do nowadays. The course is rated 74.1, and I think it's under-rated by at least a full stroke.

Would gladly discuss the entire course hole-by-hole if anyone is interested...

[ed_getka]

David,
   Where is the course? I would be interested in hearing about the holes there. Do you like this course for your game, or do you think most golfers playing the appropriate tees would enjoy it?

[David Ober]

David,
   Where is the course? I would be interested in hearing about the holes there. Do you like this course for your game, or do you think most golfers playing the appropriate tees would enjoy it?

It's in Temecula/Murrieta. I like it because it's HARD. Most golfers get eaten alive by it. But I think if they added some well placed low-cut collection areas and removed some very poorly placed fairway bunkers, the place would be a fair test for 20 and below handicappers...

[ed_getka]

What are the aspects of the design that make it so hard?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

David,
Given the site, I think it is a complete failure of Golf Coruse Architecture.

Simply a magnificent site for a golf course which doesn't rely on the dramatics of an ocean, mountains, hills or old quarry walls to get the job done. What Art Hills built there is an abomination in terms of Golf Course Architecture given that site. (How could I chastise Rees for doing the same at Sandpines and not chastise Hills for doing the same at Cross Creek?)

The problems started out in the routing of the course and then carried over on to the construction. The design, well it's easy to see that there are indeed some challenging golf shots at Cross Creek, but as far as being good golf holes, well frankly it could have been just so much better. Housing was always the plan there, thus dictated where the golf ocurse would be routed. Last I heard they hadn't built much there, but that was sort of long ago. (The course has been open about 4 years, correct?)

As far as design, the 1st & 2nd holes--how they are almost the very same strategy and look exactly alike from the tee just shows how much Art walked the property to get the best holes from it. While I don't expect many to understand the difference of what your playing now to what was there before the course was there, this was a very special site for a golf course, not to mention a perfect place to play in the summer where it can get to be well 100 degrees F., at the site of Cross Creek it can be as much as 12 degrees cooler! (Thanks to the coastal winds blowing through those devastatingly beautiful canyons.) The terrain was even more special and when looking at the blown opportunity (not Art's fault) while you look just off of the left of #10 tee, seeing golf land that Dr. A. MacKenzie would have blushed over you can't help to think what vould have been.

The 12th is a perfect example of "ratty" construction and little pride in what one was doing out there. (As an architect, just as much Art's fault for allowing them to get away with it.) From memory, I think it's the 16th, well, it's a complete disaster of a golf hole on every level, from construction to planning to strategy. Hard yes! Absolutely! It has one screaming by rounds end, especially after having to deal with the 18th hole which is a lesson in futility.

Maintenance, well Cross Creek needs something to get them oput there and returning. The Superintendent is to be congratulated for a such a worthy effort. However, it is unfortutnate the project wasn't in the hands of someone that really wanted to design & build a golf course on such great property and take pride in doing it.

In closing, there are many here that will wax the poetic of Cross Creek and what great golf shots exist out there. But take a course, say like Rustic Canyon or Apache Stronghold or Hidden Creek, in your mind, put it on the same site and tell me that it wouldn't be better. IONS better.....

That's the sort of praise that the land in the rustling hillsides of West Temecula deserves and which Art Hills didn't provide.

[David Kelly]

What Tommy said.  

Much of the land looks ideal for a golf course but because of real estate considerations (I guess) the architect routed half the course away from the best land.

One of the things that boggled my mind when I went there was seeing so many holes where the cart path was routed in such a way that it crossed through the middle of the fairway from one side of the hole to the other.  The course's motto is "Golf like it was meant to be played" but I don't recall reading anywhere that golf was meant to be played with concrete strips bisecting the fairways.

I don't feel like downloading the pics and posting them but here are examples of what I'm talking about:

Hole #5 a short par 5 where the cart path crosses the fairway at approx. the 150yd mark
http://www.crosscreekgolfclub.com/page/255-10892.htm?course_id=217&hole=5

Hole #6
http://www.crosscreekgolfclub.com/page/255-10892.htm?hole=6&course_id=217

Hole #9 this cart path is just obnoxious
http://www.crosscreekgolfclub.com/page/255-10892.htm?hole=9&course_id=217

Hole #14 another short par 5 with the cart path bisecting the fairway almost halfway down hole.
http://www.crosscreekgolfclub.com/page/255-10892.htm?hole=14&course_id=217

Hole #15 WHY DO THEY KEEP DOING THIS!!!
http://www.crosscreekgolfclub.com/page/255-10892.htm?hole=15&course_id=217

Hole #16 This is the second worst hole on the course and cart path gets you in another way this time.  The hole tilts very hard from left to right so that any tee shot not hit down the extreme left side is kicked right so that it ends up  either on the far right side of the fairway dead behind the trees or rolls across the cart path into lost ball territory.
http://www.crosscreekgolfclub.com/page/255-10892.htm?hole=16&course_id=217

My least favorite hole on the course is #10.  In my 3 rounds at the course I have seen a number of people not reach the fairway from the tee.  It plays up hill and there is a long carry before you reach the fairway but only a short landing area before the ball finds a big bunker on the left.  Going in there gives the golfer a blind shot to the green.  You can't avoid it on the right because of another bunker and a cart path that once again encroachs on the hole.  Its hard to play short of the bunker because many people can't get a long iron or even a three wood to the fairway.

Another problem with the routing is in the corner by the 17th and 18th tee boxes.  The holes basically share a tee boxe with 17th being a par 3 over a creek going in one direction and the 18th being a par 4 going in the opposite direction.  However the golfer playing 17 has to walk (or most likely ride due to the routing) to the green and then come straight back towards the 17th tee box and then past it to play the 18th.

Overall a big missed opportunity.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

David Ober,
In no way am I trying to rip holes into your opinion, it certainly is respected. David Kelly pretty much adds a lot to the critique, as harsh as it may be.

When I was first taken out to that site by Yancey Beamer in or around 1997 or 1998, I was flabergasted how beautiful it was out there. Yancey knew one of the primary guys, and I'll never forget Yancey's words to me, "It's as if Dr. MacKenzie was looking down and saying well done!" (in regards to finding a somewhat pristine, if not perfect golf site. Mind you that the Great Golf Course Building Boom had yet to really even start at that point)

I was so enamored with the site, I had Yancey take me back there again on another trip, and then visited it a third time by myself on an incidental/non-golf related trip down to Temecula. On the second trip, Yancey had informed me that Art Hills was contacted after his friend, the primary partner had become ill during the pre-construction of the place, and his partners we're contaced by Art Hills and sold on the notion that the Hills name would sell lots.

What a mistake that was!

I can also tell you before they put the clubhouse in one of the more ridiculous spots, blocking a wonderful view looking Southwesterly into the site into what is now that beautiful meadow that has been destined for housing just left of the 10th tee, I was just completely underwhelmed by what they had done to this wonderful site.

Ultimately, you can disguise the architecture all you want with fancy green-keeping practices as well as doing a "Rees Jones" by using really tall, beautiful-looking meadow grasses that make for a long day of searching for lost golf balls while diguising the shitty shaping work and incessant mounding. But just remember, all of that manicuring is just temporary unless it's maintained as such--which adds to the cost of the already escalated green fee and the need to find members (shmucks) for some wacky and arcane semi-private membership plan that will go over like a helium-filled ballon.

If that is Golf as it was meant to be played, then I'll gladly quit while thanking Art Hills for ruining it all for me.

[Thomas_Brown]

I liked some of the holes, but sorry to pile on.

For a scratch handicap, I thought the rating was too high.
The par fives play so short, they all play shorter than Torrey Pines  #12 South course for instance.

This part of the Temecula area really is something as far as the site goes.

I thought the back nine was much weaker than the front.
And the bunkering and green presentation looked exactly like Art Hills courses I've played in Michigan.  It missed So. Cal. bunkering by a wide margin.

[David Ober]

Going to play Rustic. Will be back and TAKE YOU GUYS ON!!! :-)

Remember, I said the course could be excellent WITH SOME CHANGES.

I will outline what those changes could be and then maybe I'll put some money together and get out there and buy that darn course!!! :-)

[Smokey_Pot_Bunker]

Guys,

I had the pleasure of working on this construction of this course.  The site is as Tommy said one of the greatest sites I had ever seen rolling terrain nestled in a nice valley.  The unfortunate part of this course was in fact that it was completely based upon being surrounded by housing.  Those open fields to the left of number seven and the view from ten tee to the left would be houses today if they had enough dirt to make the lot plan work.

Speaking from first hand knowledge they lowered the fairways on some front nine holes nearly ten feet to get those engineered slopes to the right of six green and down the entire length of number seven they also did this on the right side of number eleven.

The two most engineered holes are 12 and 13.

This course is one I look back on and put it in the category of what if this was a golf only facility.

On a sidebar and a unfortunate one at that, in my years of travel building courses all over California this site had one of the largest oak trees I've ever seen in my life for it to only get leveled because it sat in the corner of the range.  I counted the tree rings at 250 years old.  

I could type for hours on this course but I'm sure if someone asked Art or his asst's what routing they would have taken if housing wasn't involved it would be gem of a course.

Only one more thing number 4 was one of my favorite holes at the start of construction only to have it turn out to be one of my least favorite holes at the end.

Sorry for the rambling.  I just get pissed when developers can't look past the $ signs in order to see that some places on this earth don't need to be changed into 2 to 1 engineered slopes with two story houses on them with a fence and a jungle jim in the backyard.

On a positive note we saved about 90 oak trees from death by boxing and selling them to a nursery which in turn sold them to the Barona Resort Course (I think).

[Tommy_Naccarato]

All great info Carmen. Thanks for sharing.

What was the situation with the 12th hole? Seemed like they were having lots of drainage problems on that hole, as well as it just didn't seem like a lot of time was spent on the hole itself as far as construction.

All in all, there are a lot of architects that would kill for a site like this. In fact, I'm going to go so far to say that of all the modern courses built in California, it maybe one of the better sites I've ever seen. The odd thing about it is that there is a ton, and I mean a ton more land to build more that might even be better. Especially the stuff right next to the Santa Rosa Plateau, not far up the hill from Bear Creek.

[ed_getka]

Carmen,
    Thanks for the inside info. Its a shame a nice opportunity was wasted by the greed of developers.

David and Tommy,
    Thanks for the feedback.

Given that the hole corridors were something of a given it sounds, how are the holes internally, in spite of the compromised routing? And cement cross hazards.

I simply don't get the cartpath thing. It seems like the path could have just cut across in front of or between the tees and then just have run down one side of the hole generally. Am I missing something?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Ed,
From what I remember, a lot of the problem was that the course projections wouldn't work without the housing. In fact, originally they were actually thinking of making it private, and then saw that wouldn't work for that particular market.

The hillsides surrounding the course were going to be wall to wall housing as were many of the beautiful meadows between some of the holes. The odd thing about all of it is that very little housing, if any has ever been built, so there went that idea!

Ed, I think if you saw some of the land back there you would instantly be screaming, "build a golf course!" It's really that great of property. I once had some images of the site before it was a golf course. I would have to go through a lot of floppy disks to see if I still had them.

[Smokey_Pot_Bunker]

Morning,

Number 12 essentially cut off the drainage outlet for the avocado groves to the right of the hole, and the green itself was created by pushing enough dirt from behind the green into the natural swale (drainage) to create the surface of the green so the drainage had to go around in front.

The most interesting part of this golf course IMHO was the natural green sites as they existed before the construction of the course.  

The thought ran through my head last night of what if this was a private golf club how different this setting could have been in terms of being able to route the course primarily in the open meadows with little trips into the trees and hills that frame the course so perfectly.

With regards to the cart paths I don't ever recall many conversations in terms of placement except number 17 where they wanted the cart path to cross the line of play over a bridge to the green on the far side of the stream.  So it was moved to its current location down the right side over the bridge and than back up the hill 18.  The original thought would have forced the group on the tee to wait until the group in front of them came back up the hill.  So we saved some time by changing that other than that everything was laid out in Art's plans and we followed them as closely as possible.

Tommy is right in that homes were to surround the course but from every meeting I sat in they would need to have dirt brought in from off site in order to make it work so those slopes on the right sides of 6,7,11 and the left side of 16 was purely a money grab.  

It's just unfortunate really its a site that now whispers What Could Have Been.

[rjsimper]

I'm probably going to get more into the hole-by-hole discussion here in a bit, but I have played Cross Creek quite a bit, and I agree whole-heartedly about a few things - (namely that it's NOT easy, that the conditioning is wonderful, and that the 16th hole is an absolute insult to golf course design) but aside from other small complaints here and there, I'd rather play CC than any of the other area courses (Redhawk, TCI, Temeku, SCGA Members, etc) and they make a mean Cheeseburger.

More on this later.

[ed_getka]

Carmen,
   Thanks again for the additional insights. It is certainly informative to hear this info from someone who was there.

Tommy,
   That is probably one of the saddest things in architecture when a great site is wasted. I would rather see a mediocre course on a terrible site, than to hear about something like Cross Creek. At least there's an excuse with the terrible site.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Ed,
As some have suggested, there are some interesting holes on the site. Some of them actually fun to play--it just could have been so much better. (When I type that about interesting holes, I instantly think of the holes #13, 14 & 15. The rest of it is just typical)

Maybe on a trip to Barona or something it will warrant a side-trip for a quick look.

[rjsimper]

Okay time to place my input on the record on a course that is near and dear to my heart, but not because of the layout necessarily.

I love Cross Creek as a destination - as the others have said, the land/setting is stunning - its in a secluded valley in the mountains that form the western boundary of Temecula (when all the other Temecula area courses are east of the 15 freeway in the hot windswept land).

There are no houses on the course.  

It's QUIET.

The staff is exceptionally friendly (and I typically could care less if someone kisses my ass or not...nor do I consider outstanding service a virtue of a top-notch facility, but these guys do a great job, and they don't patronize)

Why do I like it?  Because their rate is an unlimited play rate.  I love going down there early, sweeping the dew for a morning round, stopping for a burger, knocking some balls around on the range, putting a bit...playing a second round, and then closing it down with a few more holes until it's dark.  Nobody's ever yelled at me for being one of the last guys in, and it's truly a beautiful place to be hitting balls against a backdrop of the setting sun.

The layout -

I don't disagree with most of what has been said here.  My first impression of the course is not too different from what it is now, save for a few shots that are easier now that I know where the room is.

Tommy is right to note the similarities in the first two tee shots- both of which are forced carries and way too similar to allow either hole to stand out (and both of them are decent holes in their own right).

With the exception of the 8th, which I think is excellent, the par 3s are average and similar (3, 12, and 17)

4 is a good little par 4 with a difficult green that makes the PW you hit into it a bit shaky to hold on to.

5 is a great par 5 if you are going for it in 2, and a terrible par 5 if you play it as a three-shot hole.  David Kelly was right to mention the cart path here as borderline idiotic, ESPECIALLY when you consider that it is not the only cross-hazard (the creek at the 125 mark shares this crown)

6 I haven't yet figured out an opinion, and I've played the course probably 15-20 times.  I just don't know...and I suppose that can't be good.

7 I think is an excellent par 5.  Reachable, open, but doesn't give up birdies as easily as one would think....the mound/bunker complex short-right of the green prevents the slinging fairway wood from finding a cheap way onto the green in two.

8 is a strong par 3 - probably the best of the one-shotters on the course.

9 is a tough hole, and into the prevailing wind (I think...it's been into the wind probably 3 of every 4 times I've played)

When you drive in to the course, you see 6-7-8 most plainly, and the land is really what strikes you first at this point - it's a shame they couldnt put more holes on the near side of the clubhouse.  I agree with whomever noted that the front nine is the better of the two halves.

10 - David - unlike you, I don't mind this hole.  I admit, at first I thought it was pretty close to the dumbest hole I'd ever seen - the forced carry is rough, and the bunker is kinda eeeh.  Once I figured out, though, that anything moving left to right off the tee works out just fine because it works off the bunker (the last few feet before it are uphill) then the only other complaint I would have is that the second shot is blind from too many spots.  But I no longer think of the hole as a catastrophe.

11 - Odd hole.  Not bad - Not good...

12 - Nondescript par 3, though clearly controversial in its building (didnt know any of this background - just seems like just another hole)

13 - Their "signature hole" I like it quite a bit, but I have never parred it.  Never.  For all intents and purposes, a double forced carry with a green that's difficult to hit but easy once you're on it.

14 - Another one of those great two-shot par 5s but so-so three shotters.  Yes, with no wind every par 5 on this course is reachable, and that can be chalked up in the weakness column.

15 - excellent hole - maybe the best hole on the back nine

16 - an absolutely offensive hole.  Can't figure out what the hazard is doing - it's as if someone challenged Art to see how many "zig-zags" he could incorporate to the approach shot field of vision.  While it's not a functional problem for any decent player or long hitter, those high handicappers or women will be playing hopscotch for the last 150 yards of this hole.  It's truly dumb.

17 - Routing problem routing problem.  The 16th green, 17th tee, and 18th tee could be covered by a single large putting green.  The hole itself is fine, though...probably competes with 8 as best one-shotter on the course

18 - Tough finisher - unique in the vein of the 13th hole, and again, I think it works.  Just dont get yourself out of position.

Overall, I like the course.  Is it a missed opportunity?  You bet.  The land that the front nine is on is stunning.  

I'll continue to go back, though - its still a setting like few others, it beats the pants off of most of the courses that I can get on to without waking up at 2am the previous weekend in the LA area, and its unlimited golf.  It's great practice, it's humbling, but it doesnt give you the feel of say, Angeles National or PGA of So Cal, where you show up at the course knowing you dont have a chance in hell.  It beats you up and you sit on the 16th tee wondering what just happened.

Oh, and the greens are still young and they are WAY too firm.

Anyhow, I love it as a practice course...wouldnt want to recommend it for KP7 though.

David Ober - if you ever want to play 54 this summer at CC, PM me

[Thomas_Brown]

I can see how it would be a pleasant place to spend all day.
I've only played it once and played early without any wind, but my thoughts:

#7 - swing hard, not terribly interesting

#8 - exceptional green - I like this type of effect

#9 - didn't get the green or the hole
Just another swing hard long par 4
 
#10 - a little too severe on the fairway

#13 - no thank you on both tee shot and approach.
I think I played 4 iron, 9 iron?

#16 - tee shot is something isn't it

#17 is beautiful

[ed_getka]

Ryan,
   Thanks for the overview. Unlimited golf is ALWAYS a good thing in my book. It's worth a look just to practice on instead of just standing on a range hitting balls. Can you practice your short game there also, assuming one is getting ready to go on a trip where the courses are firm and fast? Generally I make a run down to Rustic before I go on a golf trip.

[rjsimper]

Ed -
I agree about the pre-golf trip virtues of such a facility - my recommendation to you would be as follows:  If possible, avoid Saturday - Sunday I have found to be fine for the crowded factor, but Saturday is pushing it.

I think it's excellent practice for F/F conditions - the fairways and collars are not firm and fast, but the greens certainly are.  There is no short game practice area, but they welcome chipping to their practice putting green which is a large mostly flat surface that runs just about as good as any I've seen.

I typically play until about an hour pre-sunset and then find a hole with an interesting green complex and use that as my chipping green.  They have the higher end GPS on the carts so they see me parked at one green for 60-90 minutes and nobody's ever said anything to me.  

Same goes for you - if you ever want to meet up down there for a marathon unlimited golf Sunday, shoot me a message!

The advantages CC has over Rustic course-wise are few if any (maybe a bit more demanding on your tee game, but not really....) but the advantages overall are definitely the unlimited golf/FAR superior practice facility (both range and green) and the fact that its not booked solid 7 days in advance.

Give me only 18 holes to play, though, and I'm not driving to Temecula

[David Ober]

The advantages CC has over Rustic course-wise are few if any (maybe a bit more demanding on your tee game, but not really....)

Cross Creek "...maybe a BIT more demanding on your tee game" than Rustic???

How about "monumentally more difficult on your tee game."

From the back tees, the tee shots on 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are all more difficult than any tee shot at Rustic, with the possible exception of number 16.

Everything else you said in your post, I agree with!!  

[David Ober]

Okay, since I was the one who started this thread, here's my take on Cross Creek, hole-by-hole:

First off, I agree that the setting is absolutely lovely. Just a wonderful place to pay golf. Regarding conditioning, I will say that the place is usually in good shape, but I've never played it when it was in great shape, with the exception of the greens, which are usually fantastic and tour quality in their firmness. The firmness of the greens is one of the reasons I love the place -- they really put a premium on accuracy on your approach shots.

I've decided that I will only point out the things I think need improvement. Anyway, here goes. All of my comments will be from the eyes of a tournament level player playing the back tees at 6850, par 71, 74.1/141 (yowza!).

1) The large oak that overhangs the left front of the fairway needs to be removed. It makes the tee shot for the first hole of the day too difficult by presenting a visual deterrent to aiming down the left side, which is really where this hole needs to be played from.

Green complex is excellent. Wouldn't change a thing.

2) Love this tee shot. Very visually intimidating since you are coming out of a "chute" of oaks and brush when you tee of from the blacks. Wouldn't change anything here.

The green, though, needs MAJOR work. It's simply too small for how severe the hogback is that runs basically the length of the green. If there was a nice low-cut area long and right, or if they expanded the green long and right, then the hole would be perfect, but as it is, it's simply too hard to hit a good shot into the green because of the hogback.

3) An excellent, and very difficut par 3 that plays into a prevailing wind, but that is up against a hill so the wind often affects your ball flight a bit less than you think. Solid hole. Only change I would make is to cut down the grass to fairway height behind the green for some interesting chipping/pitching opportunities.

4) Simple tee shot, BRUTAL approach -- even with a wedge in your hands. I wouldn't change much, except to make sure that the areas surrounding this green are cut to fairway height and well-maintained because missing this green and then having to chip to it out of crappy grass is NOT a fun experience -- especially if you suck one back off the front of the green into the "Valley of Damnation." I got no problem with that kind of severe false front, but dammit, at least make sure that the area from which I'll be hitting my chip/pitch/putt is well maintained!

5) Nice tee shot. No changes.

The problem I have on this hole is the lay-up area -- it's too small! The bunker that is smack dab in the middle of the lay-up area is okay, but then there's a "long grass" area that ties into the bunker that does NOT need to be there. Remove that and people have more options if they decid to lay up.

6) Stupid tee shot that is best played onto the hill side so that the ball rolls down the hill, through the scrub, and into the fairway to the left.

I got no problem with the largish fairway bunker smack dab in the middle of the fairway, but widen the fairway to the left and bring it back toward the tee box if you want long hitters to challenge the bunker. As it is, challenging the bunker is just stupid.

7) Great hole with a fantastic green complex for a reachable par 5. Really enjoy this hole.

8. One of the better par 3's in SoCal.

9) Excellent golf hole with one MAJOR exception: With water left on this hole on the approach, players are going to naturally bail out to the right. Problem is, the green slopes away to the right AND it slopes away into soggy, rough-length grass! Yuck! Cut the frickin' grass down and let me play something other than a chunk-it-out lob-wedge!

10) The small fairway bunker short-right is one of the most horribly misplaced bunkers I have ever seen. That should be fairway that allows for a bit of a miss on the hole, especially since the penalty for missing long into the main fairway bunker (or even for being to close to it so that you can't see the green at all) is so severe.

11) Nice tee shot here, but the grass needs to be cut to fairway height much, much farther up the hill. There is not reason that with a hole this difficult (the approach is severely uphill) that you should penalize the long hitter by stopping the mower at some artificial point.

Very tough green to knock it close on, but it's big, so I got no complaints with how difficult the approach is.

12) Nice par 3, though again, I think the hole would benefit greatly from fairway length grass that ties into the green instead of wet rough.

13) Used to hate this hole, but now I love it. It's an island fairway, but it's downhill and pretty darn big, so it's not stupid difficult. The hole would, though, be made even better by a large patch of fairway short and right of the green that could tempt really big hitters to bomb away with a blind tee shot over the right corner of the hill to get the ball really close.

Another very tough green to hit because it's elevated and the greens are usually so firm, but again, it's big, so a good player should be able to get it on and two putt without much difficulty.

14) This is a MUCH more difficult tee shot than it appears, but I have no major issues with the it. Like the 5th hole, though, the problem with this hole is on the lay-up. It's just too small of an area! Remove one of the bunkers in the lay-up area and everthing would be fine, because even if you lay up, you still have a VERY difficult pitch. There is not reason for that big bunker in the middle of the lay up area -- get it out of there!

Also, the area right of the green should be cut to fairway height.

15. Solid hole all the way around, but the green would also benefit from having the grass to the right of the green cut to fairway length.

16. An absolute joke off the tee, but if you widened the hole to the left up at the 150 yard marker just a bit and cut the grass to fairway height all the way up to the oak tree, then you would give the long long hitter some room to try to thread the needle along the left side.

Alternately, you could create a Nicklaus-esque split fairway and take all the area up and to the left of the current fairway and make that fairway also! Wow, that's a great idea!! 'Course they couldn't put any houses up there, but who cares?!

17. Great par 3. Nothing to change here...

18. I love this hole and was surprised to hear that others have complained about it. There's enough room to bail out to the left that it's completely fair IMHO. Of course the farther to the left you aim, the longer the shot becomes, but that's cool. I think I've made par or birdie on this hole the last 8 or 9 times I've played it.

So that's it, my take on Cross Creek. Now bring on the critiques of my critique!! :-)

[rjsimper]

David -
With regard to the tee-game issue, at first, I would agree with you that its monumentally more difficult than Rustic...but upon playing it more, here's what I find for MY eye and game (keep in mind, I hit it a long way, but can get the spray-game going pretty easily...)

VERY hard tee shots -
2

Difficult tee shots
1, 10, 16

Average tee shots
5, 6, 11, 13, 14, 15

Easy tee shots
4, 7, 9, 18

I'd classify as follows, again based on my game from the blacks (a very un-scientific scale to be sure)

VERY hard - 1 in 4 times in the fairway to be realistic
Difficult - 1 in 3
Average - 1 in 2
Easy - How on earth did you not hit that fairway

As such, I'd consider my over/under for fairways at CC at 8 or 9 out of 14.

Rustic is easier, yes, but surprisingly, for my eye, and if we use a tighter definition of "fairway" than just short grass (maybe short grass within a 25 yard centerline variance in either direction of where I had intended), then I consider it as follows:

VERY difficult
None

Difficult
2, 11, 14, 18

Average
3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 16

Easy
1, 7, 12

By the numbers I'll hit more statistical fairways at Rustic but as far as fairway acreage/fairways hit as a ratio, I bet CC would win - a lot, I'm sure, has to do with my eye and my game - holes like 1, 10, or 18 at Cross Creek really fit my "dependable" tee shot, and holes like 16 at Rustic, though easy for many, make me generally uncomfortable to line up at.

[Smokey_Pot_Bunker]

Some more construction insights for you guys,

#1 The hole was pretty natural in its shape and design with the mounding on the left side of fwy enhanced in order to keep people from going over the hill.  One greensite that needed very little work done.

#2 The hole plays straight away but was changed from the original everything is essentially the same except one would have to turn about 30 degrees to the left from the turn point in order to see the original location of number two greensite.
Like the green for its fall away on all sides aspect.

#3 Once again a hole that required very little work done. At the green site I mean the tees were sunk into ground to buffer from 2 green.

#4 Now we get into some changes from what they originally had.  When I walked onsite for the first time this fwy had 3 oaks in the center of it not big but good sized at about 100 yards from the green.  All were removed two by the project manager who didn't like trees in fwys and the last by Art who thought that after the first two were taken out that the third was utterly pointless so it was removed.  On a personal note I thought this was the best greensite on the course before construction with it nestled between the two oaks front right and long of the green.  It had a nice gentle slope from right to left that I thought they could have cored the same sized green right there and leave it at that. Instead they raised up the surface as it exists now.  I think its a good hole I just wonder how it could have turned out the other way.

#5  Pretty much follows the plans laid out by Art Hills.

#6  A strong par 4 that was hindered by the need for dirt for the housing slopes.  The fwy is hard to see from the tee and doesn't tell you the whole story.  It still demands two good shots though.

#7  One of the best views on the course standing at the tee.
This hole also lost ten feet of dirt off the fwy for the housing slopes but is still a solid hole.

#8 A very solid par three.

#9 Yet another hole where dirt was stolen from to make the housing slopes.  This was built the way they designed it after the dirt was removed.

#10  A hole to this day I still don't understand except for the reasons that a architect was hemmed in by a possible future road on one side (right) and homes on the left.  

#11  A solid uphill par 4 that pretty well existed right from the start I like this hole a good deal.

#12 A standard par 3 that was created by pushing enough dirt into the natural swale to make a green and two bunkers.

#13  If this is the Signature Hole based on the picture of the score card than we should abolish this two word name to any hole from this day forth.  There are better candidates than this one. Completely engineered fwy to a natural greensite.
I watched a D-10 for nearly a week clear and shave that hillside into a fwy that works but looks offensive IMHO to golf.
I like David's idea of bring fwy towards the tee from a straight line from the green to intice big hitters but the hole still doesn't fit the land.  These two holes 12, 13 scream for relocation as well as 16 but it is what it is.

#14 a solid par 5 that wraps around the hill on the left to a green that sits two thirds of the way up a hill.  Another interesting construction note the green should sit another 8ft lower +or- but was pure rock so it was left as it exists today.

# 15 a good solid par 4 with one of my favorite tee shots.

#16 Housing and the creek make this hole the award winner for hit it down the left side and hope award. David has the right idea by putting in the fwy at the top of the hill and I thought of that during construction but the housing lots killed any reality of it happening.  A great natural green site.

#17 a solid par three when you stop to take in the surroundings.  So Cal, Avcado trees on the hillsides, moss on the exposed rocks on the hill behind the green, the oak trees just a great setting in my mind.  Yes a routing problem but a good one to have.

#18 A solid uphill than downhill finishing hole.

I had a great time working on this site because it was my first chance to really work with and for a architect.  The site itself always made me glad to be there coming up and over the hill on the entrance road and living in Temecula was a nice place to live.  
 

[Tags:]

Tags: