News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Matt_Cohn

  • Karma: +0/-0
So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« on: November 18, 2007, 02:06:36 PM »
One topic of discussion in the car last night was how Morgan Creek compares to the other big, modern-style courses within 100 miles or so of the Bay Area - for example, Roddy Ranch and San Juan Oaks.

Those three courses are all in that group of good, solid courses, maybe Doak 6's, that John Kirk posted about a few days ago.

I think Morgan Creek probably has more good holes than those other two  and is better-slash-more-sophisticated in its overall design. On the other hand, neither Roddy or SJO have any houses and feel very removed from the world, while Morgan Creek's houses are visually very noticeable. I'd bet that a lot of people's favorite stretch was 9-12 where the homes were least noticeable.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 02:07:35 PM by Matt_Cohn »

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2007, 06:10:21 PM »
Tee to green, Morgan Creek is very unique especially in Sacramento.  I don't think you can compare Roddy and San Juan Oaks to MC since they so generic and MC was designed as a private club.



To try and build a heathland golf course was genius and gutsy.  It hasn't worked out for them financially - yet and hopefully they can weather this economic downturn.

Kyle Henderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2007, 07:27:53 PM »
Matt,

I think Morgan Creek had by far the least attractive site to begin with, aside from the housing development. Phillips had to take virtually featureless land, especially on what is now the back nine, and create everything of interest. The only interesting freatures at the MC site before construction were the riparian corridor, which was pretty much off limits aside from its function as a parallel boundary, and the stately oak trees that he incorporated. SJO and RR have the oaks, the creeks, and a lot more going for them in terms of topography.

I like all three courses and would agree that they are comparable in quality, yet it is a testament to the Phillips team that they could start with less and bring MC up to the level of other courses built on more spectacular sites.

« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 04:22:33 PM by Kyle Henderson »
"I always knew terrorists hated us for our freedom. Now they love us for our bondage." -- Stephen T. Colbert discusses the popularity of '50 Shades of Grey' at Gitmo

Jed Peters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2007, 08:17:35 PM »
Matt:

Either you have a very high opinion of San Juan Oaks or Roddy, or a very low one of Morgan Creek!
 :D

I understand what you're saying about the housing, and yes, that is too bad. HOWEVER, I challenge you to pick out a hole, any hole, where housing comes into play lines, into sight, into any time of viewline to the hole. It just doesn't exist, perhaps for the reason Kyle Phillips mentioned?

As for land, yes, it was probably gross cowpasture prior to being a golf course--certainly not a good "site" for golf I wouldn't think....however, like Joel, I think what Kyle did out there was masterful.

I'd put that course up against pretty much anything in its class....again, ranking it FAIRLY with the course that it would stack up against....

Category I think that MC would fall into? Stevinson Ranch would be a good competitor. Not RR or SJO though.

Matt_Cohn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2007, 09:34:18 PM »
Jed,

I like Roddy Ranch a lot, but looking back on it now I think RR's greens would benefit from more movement. I thought SJO was good but I didn't love a lot of the holes.

I thought about Stevinson Ranch based on what I've read here - however, I haven't played it so I thought I'd leave it to others to make the comparison.  ;D

As far as the houses, only because you asked, I noticed them on 6 (not coincidentally, the most wide-open hole - no trees to block things off) and also 13-15 (same deal there). It's not a big issue but it is noticeable in comparison to RR and SJO, both of which have zero houses, a real rarity.

MC's big advantage over RR in particular is the movement in the greens, of which RR has very little. SJO has some, but I don't think the tee-to-green play there is as enjoyable as it is at MC.

I agree that Kyle did an excellent job and I think it's easy to forget that the course was, as you say, probably something like a cow pasture 10 years ago.

For example - I forget if I made this comment to you or someone else - I think that the ledges are a really effective way to accentuate the elevation changes and draw attention to the fact that things aren't completely flat.

Joel,

I don't think of either RR or SJO as "generic". How do you use that term? How do you think they were built differently as public courses than they would have been as privates?

Both,

Just in terms of golf course architecture quality, how are RR and SJO not appropriate comparisons with MC? (especially if another public course, Stevinson Ranch, is!)

Jed Peters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2007, 10:00:55 PM »
Matt:

RR suffers (to me) from too many "generic" type holes that are "cut and paste". It's a fun place to play and a great "deal" but I couldn't do every day there!

Also, it suffers from too many up the hill/down the hill type holes, yes, there are doglegs and interesting holes, but when I play there I get sick of constantly hitting "uphill" shots into greens.

And, there's a couple stupid holes there, whereas MC I think only has the 5th hole that's "dumb", and it's not really even that bad (although it is too hard/busy at 610 yards slightly uphill third).

As for the houses, you're right, you do notice them if you're playing the course, I guess what I'm trying to get at is fact that they don't interrupt play or come into play otherwise (course isn't ringed by OB fences where an errant drive is automatically a re-tee).

Regarding comparing it to Stevinson, I do that purely from an architecutral/accomplishment stance....the two courses aren't all that similar, but they're in the same league as to "quality" in my opinion (however, I think stevinson is more "fun" than Morgan Creek).

I guess when I think of RR or SJO, I think "ho hum" whereas MC is anything but.

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2007, 01:29:12 AM »
It was Matt Cohn who said that Morgan Creek is a big golf course, and as Jed Peters noted, even through it is within a housing development, it would be difficult to bounce one into someone’s swimming pool.

My first comment is that it does not play as long as one would expect for a 7,303 yard golf course.  There are no hidden distance gains like altitude or firm bouncy turf to make it shorter but there is yardage built in on the par-5s and par-3s.  Par-5s of 609 and 579 are 3-shotters for even the longest hitters but the shortest par-3 was a 5 iron for me.  Only 3 par-4s were over 450 yards and the shortest par-4 was 360.

I got tricked on the distances to the green a couple of times and I think the style (exposed grassy lips) and placement (some greenside bunker were 10-15 yards off the green) of the bunkers were the cause.

What I liked about Morgan Creek was the every hole had a line of charm for the tee ball but also had plenty of width for the not so accurate driver.  Those who were able to play the correct line, could gain extra distance off the moundings and shelves in the fairways and usually a better angle into the green.

The fairway bunkers were penal, if you got a lucky and the ball rolled to the bottom wide area, you might have a clear shot to the green.

For a flat piece of land, there is some elevation change and many of the greens felt higher then the surface of the fairway, slightly elevated.   I never got the feeling that you could run the ball up onto many of the greens if you wanted to.

The greens had plenty of slope, not in wild way but enough so that you could play your shot away from the hole location and allow the slope of the green to move the ball to the hole.

Morgan Creek is a very playable course and if you played it every day, you would be a better golfer for doing so.  Although my play is limited in the Sacramento area, it is at the top of my list.

Holes of note:

#2 –  The #1 handicap and longest par-4 at 474 yards required a solid drive and very demanding second shot into a humpbacked green that was guarded with a bunker left and right short of the green.  This bunker configuration left the opening to the green very narrow.  The green sat in a hollow of mounds and perhaps a punchbowl style of green might provide a more fun test of a hole of this length.  On the bright side, as the second hole, it is better to get your double bogey out of the way early in the round.

#9 – A wide fairway 432 yard slight dogleg left par-4.  Play down the left side, challenging the bunkers and water, and you are rewarded with a short iron into the tough green.  Play out to the right, and the length of your second shot lengthens considerably.  Before the flipping of the nines, this was the 18th and a tough finisher.

#11 – 451 yard par-4 that has a large Oak near the front left of the green.  The approach shot therefore calls for a draw and the green slopes right to left, gladly accepting that type of shot.


As with any course, Morgan Creek is not perfect, but listening to Kyle speak of the challenges that they faced in the design and construction process, you can see that a perfect concept at the beginning of the project is likely never going to be the final product.

"... and I liked the guy ..."

Tom Huckaby

Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2007, 09:42:28 AM »
I find it odd that anyone would call either Roddy Ranch (quirk to the max) or San Juan Oaks (several truly great holes and a few other weird ones) "ho hum."  I find neither course truly great, but also neither is even close to "ho hum."

And they are appopriate comparisons for Morgan Creek, which I too enjoyed when I ran through it last year.  I think Matt and Mike captured it all very well.  I'd put MC a little above SJO and clearly above RR, but they are in the same league for sure.  And I'd put Stevinson above any of them - I do really like that course, although they sure as hell could improve it by getting rid of the stupid high-rough lost ball grass bunkers.

TH
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 09:45:02 AM by Tom Huckaby »

Jed Peters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2007, 10:37:26 AM »
Tom:

My response is primarily to RR, as I haven't played SJO in almost a decade and it is faded from memory.

As for "ho hum" I mean, it is pretty much plug n play, at least for me.....and the course (roddy) gets kinda boring for me.

Would Stevinson be a "doak 7 or 8"?

Thoughts? (I love Stevinson as well)

Tom Huckaby

Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2007, 10:43:44 AM »
Jed:

Gotcha.  It's all good.  I just do find a lot to like - and dislike - at each of RR and SJO, so the term "ho hum" is the last I'd use for either!  Believe me I play a lot of ho hum courses and those aren't among them.   ;D

As for Stevinson.... well here are the Doak definitions as quoted to me way back when:

6:  A very good course, definitely worth a game, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see. It shouldn't disappoint you.

7:  An excellent course, worth checking out if within 50-100 miles. You can expect sound design; interesting hiles; good conditions and a pretty setting; if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.

8:  One of the very best in the region and worth a special trip to see. Could have some drawbacks, but will make up for them with something really special.


I'd call Stevinson the very definition of a Doak 7.  I can't say that it's worth a special trip just to see on it's own... maybe so... hard to say, depends on what one is into.  Hell we did a King's Putter event there and we sure convinced quite a few out of towners to come see it!  But that had to do with the camraderie as much or more than the course.  But if one is within 100 miles (and I think I live within that range), it's definitely worth seeking out.  Same goes for SJO by my reckoning... and Morgan Creek.  To me RR gets a Doak 6.

TH

Jed Peters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2007, 10:55:44 AM »
TH:

Wow, I'd categorize Stevinson as an 8 using that scale. I think that it is the best course in the Valley, personally....with MC #2 behind it. Really something special, what Harbottle did out there.

I'd be comfortable giving MC a 7 to 7.5, only because it fits outside the mold of what we'd think would be ordinary architecture.

From a design/GCA standpoint, I think that MC is quite an accomplishment/feat...again, considering location, soil, the fact that Kyle and Mark didn't have their own construction company....etc.

Tom Huckaby

Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #11 on: November 19, 2007, 11:08:13 AM »
Jed:

To each his own.  If we are evaluating "archtitecture", then yes, each of these might get higher points, because each was a heck of an architectural achievement, for the reasons you state (re MC - I'll take your word for it) and for other similar reasons (re SR - from what I hear).

I just don't think I am qualified to evaluate architecture.  I really don't know what went into the building of either course.

So my evaluations stick to how fun the courses are to play.

And to that end, I will stick with my 7s for each.  I couldn't with a good conscience tell my friends from Colorado (for example), "you have to come out and play ____" - re either course.  That to me is what a Doak 8 is.  Neither reaches that level, to me.

And it's no knock... jeez Doak 7 is VERY VERY good.

TH

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #12 on: November 19, 2007, 12:02:19 PM »
Going along the same lines here..

A Doak 8 which says "very best in region" and "special trip" does not neccessarily fit Stevinson Ranch.  

If you are in the extended area, no doubt its a no brainer to seek this course out early and often.  But I can't say it would be worth a special trip on its own merits.  And that to me fits the definition of a 7 a lot better.

I think the sanity check on this one is if one were planning a trip to the bay area.  While this course is only an hour or two from the bay area, you're probably not going to make a special trip to go see it, especially given the other courses in the area.  But if you are going to spend Thanksgiving with Aunt Bea in Modesto, by all means make sure to see it.

Tom Huckaby

Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #13 on: November 19, 2007, 12:17:05 PM »
Kalen:  one hundred percent agreement - very well explained, very well said.

TH

Kyle Henderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #14 on: November 19, 2007, 12:46:13 PM »







Holes of note:

#2 –  The #1 handicap and longest par-4 at 474 yards required a solid drive and very demanding second shot into a humpbacked green that was guarded with a bunker left and right short of the green.  This bunker configuration left the opening to the green very narrow.  



Just nit-picking... but there is also a bunker back left (which is NOT pictured in the yardage book by my recollection). With the rear portion of the green sloping towards that rear bunker and the front portion heavily pitched back-to-front (our pin was right at the summit) on one of the longer approaches offered by the course, back pins would be very tough to attack.

I
"I always knew terrorists hated us for our freedom. Now they love us for our bondage." -- Stephen T. Colbert discusses the popularity of '50 Shades of Grey' at Gitmo

Tim Leahy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2007, 12:47:42 PM »
I would give Stevinson a 6 on the Doak scale, played it once about 8 years ago and have not recommended it to anyone and have not had any reason to return. Considering what they had to work with it was a good job, but nothing worth going out of the way for.
Morgan Creek would be a 7. Definitely the toughest course in the Sacramento area and by far the most interesting greens within a 100 miles. Not as good a site as Granite Bay, or as much charm as Rancho Murieta North when compared to private courses nearby, but well done considering the limitations placed on the site by real estate and environmental restrictions.
I love golf, the fightin irish, and beautiful women depending on the season and availability.

Kyle Henderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2007, 12:56:17 PM »
http://www.morgancreekclub.com/holes.html

I would also note hole #12. A long, daring drive over the right fairway bunkers will get a turbo boost into mid-iron range from the ideal approach angle, whereas a safe tee shot down the middle with a fairway wood brings the riparian corridor on the left more into play and forces a lay up short and right of the green.

A back-left greenside bunker is deep, hidden (most players probably don't know it's even there), and a nasty surprise for an over aggressive approach that runs through the putting surface. A large tier separates the lower front portion of the green.
"I always knew terrorists hated us for our freedom. Now they love us for our bondage." -- Stephen T. Colbert discusses the popularity of '50 Shades of Grey' at Gitmo

Jed Peters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #17 on: November 19, 2007, 01:07:27 PM »

Just nit-picking... but there is also a bunker back left (which is NOT pictured in the yardage book by my recollection). With the rear portion of the green sloping towards that rear bunker and the front portion heavily pitched back-to-front (our pin was right at the summit) on one of the longer approaches offered by the course, back pins would be very tough to attack.

I


You never can "attack" a back pin on that hole, it's not meant to play like that....the play is to hit the TOP of the hump, and run the ball back to the back pin. Conversely, if the pin is up front, you hit it short, and either skip it in there or chip up.

The back bunker catches the over aggressive play over the left side where hitting the downhill of that mound middle left kicks the ball into it.

If you play up the right side, the ball feeds back in, but that's where the trouble is!

Jed Peters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #18 on: November 19, 2007, 01:11:02 PM »
http://www.morgancreekclub.com/holes.html

I would also note hole #12. A long, daring drive over the right fairway bunkers will get a turbo boost into mid-iron range from the ideal approach angle, whereas a safe tee shot down the middle with a fairway wood brings the riparian corridor on the left more into play and forces a lay up short and right of the green.

A back-left greenside bunker is deep, hidden (most players probably don't know it's even there), and a nasty surprise for an over aggressive approach that runs through the putting surface. A large tier separates the lower front portion of the green.

I think Matt and Mike both liked this hole. While I was the only one to make birdie, and I did it the traditional way (flip wedge in), Mike and Matt both went for it....

Mike bailing out right and Matt having to flip a flop from the left side when his approach came up short and left.

I think that is the beauty of the hole....you can make anything from eagle to par with good shots.

Oh, and Kyle, VERY few people can hit iron into that green, even if they're long--and only in the summer!

But yeah, I'm glad you liked the multiple options...hope someone in your group pointed out the split fairway!

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #19 on: November 19, 2007, 01:28:18 PM »

Holes of note:

#2 –  The #1 handicap and longest par-4 at 474 yards required a solid drive and very demanding second shot into a humpbacked green that was guarded with a bunker left and right short of the green.  This bunker configuration left the opening to the green very narrow.  



Just nit-picking... but there is also a bunker back left (which is NOT pictured in the yardage book by my recollection). With the rear portion of the green sloping towards that rear bunker and the front portion heavily pitched back-to-front (our pin was right at the summit) on one of the longer approaches offered by the course, back pins would be very tough to attack.

I



Yes, I was in that back bunker too  !!!
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 01:29:26 PM by Mike Benham »
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Kyle Henderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #20 on: November 19, 2007, 01:31:03 PM »
http://www.morgancreekclub.com/holes.html

I would also note hole #12. A long, daring drive over the right fairway bunkers will get a turbo boost into mid-iron range from the ideal approach angle, whereas a safe tee shot down the middle with a fairway wood brings the riparian corridor on the left more into play and forces a lay up short and right of the green.

A back-left greenside bunker is deep, hidden (most players probably don't know it's even there), and a nasty surprise for an over aggressive approach that runs through the putting surface. A large tier separates the lower front portion of the green.

I think Matt and Mike both liked this hole. While I was the only one to make birdie, and I did it the traditional way (flip wedge in), Mike and Matt both went for it....

Mike bailing out right and Matt having to flip a flop from the left side when his approach came up short and left.

I think that is the beauty of the hole....you can make anything from eagle to par with good shots.

Oh, and Kyle, VERY few people can hit iron into that green, even if they're long--and only in the summer!

But yeah, I'm glad you liked the multiple options...hope someone in your group pointed out the split fairway!

I had 174 in for my second shot, but that's because I was playing the blue tees and able to carry the right side fairway bunkers and hit the small right fairway where it splits. I actually called my shot as well, which is remarkable given that I suck at golf (which is why I blew my second shot and settled for par).

I vividly remembered the split fairway, even though I had not played the hole in 3 years.

I would never have tried that shot from ~30 yards farther back where your group teed off, but I'll bet Matt could have managed it.
"I always knew terrorists hated us for our freedom. Now they love us for our bondage." -- Stephen T. Colbert discusses the popularity of '50 Shades of Grey' at Gitmo

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #21 on: November 19, 2007, 01:34:56 PM »

I would also note hole #12. A long, daring drive over the right fairway bunkers will get a turbo boost into mid-iron range ...



Just how far do you hit the ball?  There was a fair amount of rough to carry before you got to the fairway along that line.  Your drive had to be past the bunker in the center of the fairway to get to "mid-iron range" ...
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Jed Peters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #22 on: November 19, 2007, 01:49:00 PM »
Mike:

It's WAY different from the Blue tees. Basically a 225 carry over the right bunkers puts you WAY down in the neck (again, you get that "forward kick" effect).

From 540, there's no way we can carry that (Matt cannot, even with his best drive) as it's 265 carry. MAYBE if it's 100 degrees out and downwind, but not on an "ordinary" day.

And Kyle, you had 174 to the front, which puts you at about the 194 to the middle sprinklerhead?




Kyle Henderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #23 on: November 19, 2007, 02:15:55 PM »
Mike:

It's WAY different from the Blue tees. Basically a 225 carry over the right bunkers puts you WAY down in the neck (again, you get that "forward kick" effect).

From 540, there's no way we can carry that (Matt cannot, even with his best drive) as it's 265 carry. MAYBE if it's 100 degrees out and downwind, but not on an "ordinary" day.

And Kyle, you had 174 to the front, which puts you at about the 194 to the middle sprinklerhead?





I'm pretty sure I had 174 to the MIDDLE, but I'll yield to your expertise. You know the course better than I.

I speak from my experience @ MC: 1 round in August 2004, one round in November 2007.

I love the hole, and the other par 5's as well. I consider the "3" shotters to be a real strength of the course.
"I always knew terrorists hated us for our freedom. Now they love us for our bondage." -- Stephen T. Colbert discusses the popularity of '50 Shades of Grey' at Gitmo

Jed Peters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:So, Morgan Creek - how's about it?
« Reply #24 on: November 19, 2007, 02:23:45 PM »
Kyle, if you had 174 to the middle, you'd be either on the upper tier in front of the bunker, or in front of the bunker on the right, past the fairway into the rough.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back