OK...
First, I have to mention that The Ranch has one of the best in the business as their head pro and Director of Golf - Jeff Walser, most recently of Landmark Golf Club in Indio. He's been kind to me in the past and I had no idea I would run into him today. It was a nice suprise.
About that golf course...
The flyovers on the website make it look pretty severe. Well, the website is misleading. The course is much more severe in person. Four things the flyovers don't show: 1) The severe elevation changes on many holes. 2) The wind. 3) The narrowness of the playing corridors. 4) The severity of the greens and their surrounds.
It's the sort of course where one could lose their handicap in golf balls.
A few overall impressions:
On many holes my friend and I questioned, "Why would they ever design a hole this way?" Our answer was always, "Well, there must have been environmental restrictions." (Jon, this explains the island effect. Due to the terrain and environment, it really couldn't have been any other way.) That explains the skewed routing and even, possibly, the extreme narrowness of the playing corridors. (So narrow that I can remember at least two holes with cart paths less than 30 feet from today's pin position).
But it doesn't explain the severity of every other feature on the course. The greens were clearly designed to complicate rather than assist play. Given that the long shots are such a struggle, why make the greens impossible, too?! Because the site is so hilly, most greens had banks on one side or the other - but they were covered in rough or otherwise made unhelpful. I would love to see those banks mowed as fairway in spots where it would make holes more fun or forgiving. The bunkers are deep, and the rough, though moderate, is grown in narrower than I thought necessary on several holes. The pins were cut in difficult spots.
It just seemed like everything was designed to be hard. Every shot is "Do this, or else". It's so narrow that there's never a smart play to anywhere except the middle of the fairway. But again, it's up at the greens where I really didn't understand the architects' philosophy. The course would still be plenty hard, and much more fun, with friendlier greens. The effects of their playability would make holes better all the way back to the tee.
While I found a number of both long and short shots enjoyable to attempt, I did not find the golf course as a whole to be fun. It was too severe and too restricting, and there were few chances for recovery after inevitable mistakes.
As for those fake yardages - all four par 3's had yardages for tees that didn't exist and clearly never will. I think the yardages on the card for the par 3's are measured to the back of the greens. Clearly a case of just adding yardage for the sake of having it on the card, I think. This was on all of the par 3's. I didn't notice whether this was the case for the long holes as well.
The Architects are Casey O'Callaghan and Wade Cable. The course had a very Nicklaus look to it and I wondered if either of those guys had worked for Nicklaus design. The use and shape of the bunkers, the ridges and tiers in the greens, the look of everything....I really, really felt like I was playing a Nicklaus course. (Not saying Nicklaus would have designed these holes.) Anyone know about these gentlemen? Even more interesting, does anyone know what they have to say about the course?
More another time...I'll wait for others' comments to see what aspects of the course I might post more about.
On another note - I have an open spot in my foursome next Tuesday, 6/13, at Harding Park at 10:27. Message me if you're interested in joining.
~Matt