[R_Paulis]

Don't want to belabor the debate around Purisima but why not? Is not hole #15 one of the more difficult and strategic par 5's in SoCal? At least when the wind is blowing.

The tee shot requires some thinking for you can go too long off the tee and if you're lucky end up in rough or worse in chaparral.

The second shot requires placement on an unique angled fairway sloping from right to left. It is very tempting to aim towards the green over the chaparral "canyon". But the risk is too great for most since it is most improbable to reach the green in two particularly with the wind.

The approach from the sloped fairway makes it tough to get it close and that's exactly what is needed since the green has lots of movement towards the canyon.

I dislike when courses are made easier for the average golfer (eg Soule). However, I understood when #15's chaparral growth was reduced in so that tee shots and 2nd shots do not disappear in the undergrowth.

[ed_getka]

Jeff,
    I agree with some of the sentiments re: PGA West Stadium. I played it prior to the KP festivities the year you were out. I expected it to be brutally hard where every shot would feel impossible. In fact the course is quite playable IMO. Not every hole certainly, but on average it wasn't as hard as I thought it would be. The one nearly impossible hole was a par 3 in the middle of the round, that was 200yds or so from my tees. Water carry most of the way, water down the right, water short left. Enormous green, but from across the water it looks like you are trying to land on a VW bug.
    The thing I most disliked about the course, and the reason I won't play it again, was the unbelievable shaping of the ground. You can literally get seasick walking that course. I haven't played Kiawah Ocean, but I can't imagine PGA West can hold a candle to it as far as difficulty.
    Have a great trip.
    My brain was so baked from that long weekend I don't really remember many details from any of the courses. That was June, and you are going in AUGUST!!!! Make sure your medical insurance is up to date for when you need some IV fluids.   On the plus side you won't have to worry about urinating for days and days.

[rjsimper]

Okay I'm getting tired of this La Purisima discussion - we all know that you won't convince me that it's one of the three best public courses in So Cal, likewise I won't convince you that you think too highly of it.

But, if you want specifics, I will try where I can to remember my complaints.

I'm not trying to say it does or doesn't have bells or whistles, I don't even care about bells and whistles...and I don't even know what bells and whistles are in terms of golf course architecture.  If you want to accuse me of painting with a broad brush, then please explain to me what "bells and whistles" a top notch public so cal course would have, and specifically which ones you admit La Purisima lacks.

"when tested against tour qualifiers, the course holds up pretty well"

Since when is difficulty a judge of quality?  This isn't "resistance to scoring" - I've never said the course isn't difficult...I've played it 5 times and shot anywhere from 76 to 89...in that regard I think it's excellent because it does allow you to score well if you're playing quality golf, but punishes you if you go wayward or if it's windy.  There are plenty of difficult golf courses that stand up well to PGA-level pros, and that's not an indicator of quality.

The course record at Palos Verdes Golf Club is 58 and it's 6100 yards long...and it's a better golf course in my opinion. 

R_Paulis

You've identified the hole (#15) that I think is one of the worst par 5s in the state.  The tee shot requires NO thinking at all except for which club won't get you in trouble.  The same could be said of a par 5 that had a pond starting 240 yards off the tee and extending to 330 yards.  No chance to "go for it" and all you do is grab a 3 iron and hope you don't screw yourself from the get-go.

The second shot is again fairly mindless - keep it up the left and hit it as far as you want, and the third shot is a straight-forward "dont be short" proposition.  It's basically target golf masquerading as strategy, and enjoys the most beautiful view on the course.  It's a terrible hole and the one most often complained about.

If you want specific comments:

La Purisima makes far too much use of the "ending fairway" concept.  Whether through the use of an abrupt dogleg or an ending fairway entirely...

Holes 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13 (I think? Grove of trees left...) are all similar tee shots, and wouldn't you know it they are all right to left holes.  15 has the aforementioned ending fairway

The course (not including par 3s) is notably oriented from right to left - that previous list of holes (minus 10) and also toss in 4 and 18 are all right to left favored holes.  This is not a complaint of a fader, I hit the ball R to L just fine (or at least did when I played there).

Categorizing the tee shots at La Purisima, the ONLY one where a fade is the preferred shot is the hole early in the back nine that doglegs around the bunker - 11 maybe?  18 appears to be, but really isn't thanks to that dumb tree.

I think the greens and green complexes are mostly excellent.

I think the course is unnecessarily claustrophobic in a few spots, notably the 6th fairway and the just plain awful 13th or 14th hole (or whatever hole number that stupid par 4 doglegging around the grove of trees...maybe 375 total length - ive mentioned it before) as well as the button hook at the end of the long par 5 on the back....12?

The setting is top notch - you talk about the ocean playing into people's opinions of places like TP and Sandpiper as if La Purisima's idyllic wine-country esque locale is somehow now counted as a positive by many.  I believe that the people who play La Purisima and are coming either from out of town or from the city give almost as much positive juju to the rolling farmland of La Purisima.  It's beautiful there and if those were homes or just a whole bunch of pine trees everywhere, it wouldn't get the same press.

I think the par 3s are very good, with my only complaint being that there isnt a really long one with a big rolling green.  They had the space to do it and didnt.

Conditioning is typically excellent (even award-winning I think) and again, I think this colors opinions of the course as well.  You can take a divot the size of a bass - rare for LA. (AND it's not kikuyu).

Basically, why I think it's "overhyped" (hope I don't lose you here again...) is that people, and I don't necessarrily mean the two of you, Matt and R_P, tout La Purisima for many of the same reasons that they'd like a course like Trump National or Sandpiper (the latter of which I haven't played) and I object to that because it's the same thing anyone would do about those.


Setting - Ocean is analagous to wine country/rolling farmland - it's not an everyday setting and there are no homes or power lines.  Sure, the ocean is the superior coloring factor, but set La Purisima amongst just pine trees or homes and it's going to be just another golf course to most - see: Redhawk

Conditioning - The course is in great condition most of the time - people (including me) eat this up.   

Exclusivity - Location...EVERYONE doesn't play there, and there's no Kikuyu grass.  Lompoc  and La Purisma amongst the So Cal golfers is another world and people talk about playing there like it's Bandon Dunes. 

Value - If La Purisima was $150, would it be praised to the same level?  I don't think courses like Pelican Hill and Sandpiper get killed because they are truly that bad, but because they charge an arm and a leg to play there.   La Purisima tops out at $78 which is a steal in this market.  As a value proposition relative to local markets, I would put La Purisima in maybe the top 10 in the country.

Again, these last comments aren't directed at you two, but just my general notation of how many people "overhype" the place.  It's beautiful, its difficult, and the greens are nice, and hell, I put it in my top 10...but the one thing I know with conviction is that after playing it once or twice I was ready to crown it the king of all public golf, and after now playing it five or six times I don't have much desire to go back. 
 
If there's anything else that I can specifically elaborate on, please let me know.

[Jon Spaulding]

Simper; you've just set the table for the glorious thread/my home course  that was to happen on PV about a year ago......

It is certainly a better course than La P. Why that discussion even exists is a bit of a mystery. With a decent restoration, PV would be to SCA what Pasatiempo is to NCA.....with a couple of holes that would be considered among the best in the state.

[David Stamm]

Simper; you've just set the table for the glorious thread/my home course  that was to happen on PV about a year ago......

It is certainly a better course than La P. Why that discussion even exists is a bit of a mystery. With a decent restoration, PV would be to SCA what Pasatiempo is to NCA.....with a couple of holes that would be considered among the best in the state.

The thought of a restoration there is fun to think about. I have to agree with Spaulds, there would be some holes that would then be considered the best in the state. PV is pleasure to play and I loved it. I'll be playing LP in June so I'll form an opinion then.

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

The issue is not whether you convince me I'm wrong on La Purisima (which you won't) or whether I change your mind (likely doubtful). The real issue is that in your original posts you highlighted aspects in sweeping broad brush generalizations and I wanted you to flush out your comments further.

You've done a bit better with your most recent post but there are still plenty of holes. Allow me to further elaborate using your words ...

1). Bells and whistles are elements not tied specifically to the course itself. Too many people here on GCA (possibly not you) can often times get worked up on elements of how the course "looks" rather then how it "plays." You also have people who overdose on the conditioning front but often spend little time on whether the depth of the actual holes is varied and unique from one another.

La Purisima has one prime focus -- the golf. The design is from 1986 or roughly that time frame and when assessed in contemporary times still plays just as well even with all the technology ingredients thrown into the picture.

The holes are not dressed up in anyway as to stand apart from their native setting. Plenty of courses in the Palm Springs area and including more than a few in Orange and San Diego County are more about their appearance and have little real substance.

Ryan, you took my comment on "when tested against tour qualifiers, the course holds up pretty well" out of context. What I said was that a key strength of La Purisima is that it is the CAPACITY to challenge all types of players from the Joe Sixpack types to those who play at the tour level. Few courses have that ELASTICITY to do such a thing. La Purisima doesn't burden the average player with inordinate forced carries, or H20 intrusions that are simply overkill. Robert Muir Graves worked with the land and there's plenty of unique options that allow high and low handicap players to play the course. Few layouts, that I have played, work as well or better than La Purisima in this regard.

I've played Palos Verdes GC and agree it's a good course but if you think it's superior to La Purisima than you'll need to explain in far greater detail than you did on how you can possibly come to that conclusion.

One other thing -- I don't rate La Purisima highly because of its resistance to scoring. No doubt that element needs to be assessed -- it's the quality of the holes from start to near finish (I still see the 18th as the one glaring weakness).

When you suggest La Purisima is a one-way directional golf course (holes going left many of the times) I say so what. Augusta favors a draw and that doesn't hold it back as a design marvel for many people. Oak Hill / East in NY favors a fade on many of its holes.

Let's talk about settings -- frankly La Purisima doesn't get as many brownie points as Sandpiper or Torrey Pines. That was my main point. If you analyze those two courses and hold them up against La Purisima there's no contest in terms what layout has the better overall architecture. Place La Purisima near an ocean setting and people would be gushing even more about it. Unfortunately, settings have to be judged on a "what is" basis. No doubt Sandpiper and Torrey Pines do gain 






Categorizing the tee shots at La Purisima, the ONLY one where a fade is the preferred shot is the hole early in the back nine that doglegs around the bunker - 11 maybe?  18 appears to be, but really isn't thanks to that dumb tree.

I think the greens and green complexes are mostly excellent.

I think the course is unnecessarily claustrophobic in a few spots, notably the 6th fairway and the just plain awful 13th or 14th hole (or whatever hole number that stupid par 4 doglegging around the grove of trees...maybe 375 total length - ive mentioned it before) as well as the button hook at the end of the long par 5 on the back....12?



I think the par 3s are very good, with my only complaint being that there isnt a really long one with a big rolling green.  They had the space to do it and didnt.

Conditioning is typically excellent (even award-winning I think) and again, I think this colors opinions of the course as well.  You can take a divot the size of a bass - rare for LA. (AND it's not kikuyu).

Basically, why I think it's "overhyped" (hope I don't lose you here again...) is that people, and I don't necessarrily mean the two of you, Matt and R_P, tout La Purisima for many of the same reasons that they'd like a course like Trump National or Sandpiper (the latter of which I haven't played) and I object to that because it's the same thing anyone would do about those.


Setting - Ocean is analagous to wine country/rolling farmland - it's not an everyday setting and there are no homes or power lines.  Sure, the ocean is the superior coloring factor, but set La Purisima amongst just pine trees or homes and it's going to be just another golf course to most - see: Redhawk

Conditioning - The course is in great condition most of the time - people (including me) eat this up.   

Exclusivity - Location...EVERYONE doesn't play there, and there's no Kikuyu grass.  Lompoc  and La Purisma amongst the So Cal golfers is another world and people talk about playing there like it's Bandon Dunes. 

Value - If La Purisima was $150, would it be praised to the same level?  I don't think courses like Pelican Hill and Sandpiper get killed because they are truly that bad, but because they charge an arm and a leg to play there.   La Purisima tops out at $78 which is a steal in this market.  As a value proposition relative to local markets, I would put La Purisima in maybe the top 10 in the country.

Again, these last comments aren't directed at you two, but just my general notation of how many people "overhype" the place.  It's beautiful, its difficult, and the greens are nice, and hell, I put it in my top 10...but the one thing I know with conviction is that after playing it once or twice I was ready to crown it the king of all public golf, and after now playing it five or six times I don't have much desire to go back. 
 

[Matt_Ward]

My previous post was cut off -- here are my full remarks ...

Ryan:

The issue is not whether you convince me I'm wrong on La Purisima (which you won't) or whether I change your mind (likely doubtful). The real issue is that in your original posts you highlighted aspects in sweeping broad brush generalizations and I wanted you to flush out your comments further.

You've done a bit better with your most recent post but there are still plenty of holes. Allow me to further elaborate using your words ...

Bells and whistles are elements not tied specifically to the course itself. Too many people here on GCA (possibly not you) can often times get worked up on elements of how the course "looks" rather then how it "plays." You also have people who overdose on the conditioning front but often spend little time on whether the depth of the actual holes is varied and unique from one another.

La Purisima has one prime focus -- the golf. The design is from 1986 or roughly that time frame and when assessed in contemporary times still plays just as well even with all the technology ingredients thrown into the picture.

The holes are not dressed up in anyway as to stand apart from their native setting. Plenty of courses in the Palm Springs area and including more than a few in Orange and San Diego County are more about their appearance and have little real substance.

Ryan, you took my comment on "when tested against tour qualifiers, the course holds up pretty well" out of context. What I said was that a key strength of La Purisima is that it is the CAPACITY to challenge all types of players from the Joe Sixpack types to those who play at the tour level. Few courses have that ELASTICITY to do such a thing. La Purisima doesn't burden the average player with inordinate forced carries, or H20 intrusions that are simply overkill. Robert Muir Graves worked with the land and there's plenty of unique options that allow high and low handicap players to play the course. Few layouts, that I have played, work as well or better than La Purisima in this regard.

I've played Palos Verdes GC and agree it's a good course but if you think it's superior to La Purisima than you'll need to explain in far greater detail than you did on how you can possibly come to that conclusion.

One other thing -- I don't rate La Purisima highly because of its resistance to scoring. No doubt that element needs to be assessed -- it's the quality of the holes from start to near finish (I still see the 18th as the one glaring weakness).

When you suggest La Purisima is a one-way directional golf course (holes going left most of the times) I say so what. Augusta favors a draw and that doesn't hold it back as a design marvel for many people. Oak Hill / East in NY favors a fade on many of its holes.

Let's talk about settings -- frankly La Purisima doesn't get as many brownie points as Sandpiper or Torrey Pines. That was my main point. If you analyze those two courses and hold them up against La Purisima there's no contest in terms what layout has the better overall architecture. Place La Purisima near an ocean setting and people would be gushing even more about it. Unfortunately, settings have to be judged on a "what is" basis. No doubt Sandpiper and Torrey Pines do gain from this but design wise they depend on the "off course" site component that drives their overall standing for many people, in my mind. 

Ryan, you also highlighted the nature of the putting greens and I see them collectively as some of the best you can play (from a conditioning and strategic perspective). In order to score well at La Purisima you need to have an approach angle and skill at a very high level.

I do agree when you said, "La Purisma amongst the So Cal golfers is another world and people talk about playing there like it's Bandon Dunes." Truly fun place to play -- even when the wind does howl !

In the area of value you asked, "If La Purisima was $150, would it be praised to the same level?" Allow me to say this - Pelican Hill and Sandpiper charge more because they are closer to population centers than Lompoc. Simple as that. For you to say La Purisima to a be a "top ten" value layout in the USA -- I'd have to say it's certainly among the best bargains for what you generally find in California public golf. 

Ryan, you yourself still position La Purisima as a top ten public layout for SoCal. If what you think about the course is so limited then how do you justify such a lofty overall position? In your own words you would not go back now. If a course can get a top ten position -- again your own words -- then going back to play it would be something any golfer would want to do.

[Brian Laurent]

I will be in California the end of April-beginning of May.  We're flying into Burbank and driving up the coast to Monterey.  I was able to get a pass for one day of golf and was planning to go budget friendly at Pacific Grove...but with the rave reviews for Rustic Canyon and its affordability, I might just make a stop on my way up north.

Which would be a more enjoyable round of golf?

Thanks in advance!

[David Stamm]

Brian, they are both enjoyable. However, as a complete-test comparison, Rustic is the superior course. PG is more relaxing and stress free. PG would'n take that long to play, so if you are stretched for time, I would play Rustic and then when in Monterey, I would get up before dawn and play the back nine. It would take about 1-1/12 hours and you'd be done in no time. I've done this several times and I'm usually back at my hotel just as the family is waking up. Perfect! 

[Kalen Braley]

Brian, they are both enjoyable. However, as a complete-test comparison, Rustic is the superior course. PG is more relaxing and stress free. PG would'n take that long to play, so if you are stretched for time, I would play Rustic and then when in Monterey, I would get up before dawn and play the back nine. It would take about 1-1/12 hours and you'd be done in no time. I've done this several times and I'm usually back at my hotel just as the family is waking up. Perfect! 

I'll 2nd David Stamm on this one.  While the front at PG is decent, the back 9 is a real treat.

So you can still have your one day pass for Rustic....and a early morning, back by 8:30 AM at PG.

[rjsimper]

Matt,

I haven't the time for an exhaustive reply, but allow me to say that I would not go back because the courses ahead of it - Rustic Canyon, Palos Verdes, Barona Creek, would be chosen every single time ahead of La Purisima and I would not go back to La Purisima as a choice over any of those.

Not living in the area anymore, I envision myself flying to LA and then thinking of where to play for 2-3 rounds and La Purisima doesn't get the nod.  Plant me down in Santa Barbara or Goleta  for a day and tell me to play somewhere within 30 minutes, I probably go play at LaP.

[rjsimper]

I'll 2nd David Stamm on this one.  While the front at PG is decent, the back 9 is a real treat.

The front nine at PG is anything but decent.  It's been discussed one thousand times before but after having played it once, on my second go around I was just going through the motions while trying to make it to the back.  The front nine is a yawner and the back is spectacular.  If you can be fine with playing nine holes, the suggestion to do so as an early back nine is a good one.

Or you could stop at La Purisima on the way up 

[Tom Huckaby]

Ryan:  my friend you have gotten cynical since moving east.   

I would call the front nine at PG BETTER than "decent."  Yes, it pales compared to the obvious glory of the sand dunes on the back nine, but man there are a lot of fun shots to be faced on the front.  I have to say, this nine is a yawner only in the context of the very best courses in the world.  I'd put PG Muni's front up there with a lot of other courses in our area.

We need Adam Clayman.
 

In any case, I don't disagree with the advice being given though.  Rustic then early am back nine at PG Muni sounds like a plan to me.  I'd just say if he wanted to play all 18 at PG, he wouldn't hate it.

TH

[rjsimper]

Ryan:  my friend you have gotten cynical since moving east.   

I would call the front nine at PG BETTER than "decent."  Yes, it pales compared to the obvious glory of the sand dunes on the back nine, but man there are a lot of fun shots to be faced on the front.  I have to say, this nine is a yawner only in the context of the very best courses in the world.  I'd put PG Muni's front up there with a lot of other courses in our area.

We need Adam Clayman.
 

In any case, I don't disagree with the advice being given though.  Rustic then early am back nine at PG Muni sounds like a plan to me.  I'd just say if he wanted to play all 18 at PG, he wouldn't hate it.

TH

When I said it's been discussed a thousand times before, I was looking directly at you, Senor Huckaby.  I know where you guys stand, I just don't enjoy it one bit...the most fun I have there is a) knowing that I can miss the 5th fairway as far right as I want and still get the ball brought back to my side, and b)...well, there is no "b"

[David Stamm]

I must say, Simps, that the transplanting has given you quite an edge to your persona.

[Norbert P]

 Anybody play Summerly Links in Lake Elsinore, yet?     Any reports?

[Tom Huckaby]

I must say, Simps, that the transplanting has given you quite an edge to your persona.

I have to say I agree.  He's become a New Yorker, and he lives in North Carolina.

We'll chalk it up to the battle with Matt Ward here.

 

[David Stamm]

Slag, I know Jon Spaulding knows someone who just did last week. Let's just say that from what I've heard, So Cal'ers have just one more reason to lament.

[Jon Spaulding]

DS; can you rename this thread "sideways part 2".....storyline is ward & simper play La Purisma in the afternoon in an 80MPH wind, get drunk debating the merits of hole #2, and wake up at neverland valley ranch the next morning. If a stripper can win best screenplay then that might have a chance.

Purisma is a schizophrenic mix of holes in a beautiful setting, well conditioned, at a low cost with a great pace of play. if you move it to a more populated area it gets worse on all counts and we're left with a goofy mix of holes which is all too common in SCA. The concept of rating SCA publics, once you get past RC, Barona, a couple others....is a depressing thought.

Slag; my brother played Summerly on opening day (a couple weeks ago) and was less than impressed. As I told DS, I love him very much, but this is a guy that actually likes Coyote Hills....a rancid dog track also by Cal Olson. So we could say that Summerly is either really good; or really bad. I would guess the latter. I work close to the course and intend to play there in April. I will take a few photos but will not break my pledge to GCA of placing smut on the site. So we'll see.

[Matt_Ward]

Mr. Spaulding:

Allow me to clue you in on the so-called "Ward storyline." I've played La Purisima three (3) times. In those visits I played golf there the entire day -- 36 holes with golf starting in the morning time frame and finishing up in the afternoon.

I was expose to the course when little, if any, wind blew in the AM and when wind picked up in the afternoon.

To think -- shall I call it that -- my assessment of the course is based upon "an 80MPH wind" is completely off base on your part. Do yourself a huge favor and read my comments in their entirety -- not the cherry picking variety.

One other thing -- the idea La Purisima possesses "a schizophrenic mix of holes" is also off-base. Graves adroitly allows both the expert and novice player to share a course that can max out enjoyment without all the forced situations generally found on demanding terrain sites. The holes reward sound plan and proper execution -- although, as I said a number of time previously, the finale is really a lame closer.

There's no depressing thought on rating SoCal public courses because there are a number of them that are well worth playing. The idea that only RC and Barona are leaps and bounds beyond all the rest is really a sign of a lack of due diligence possibly on your part. Recent additions like Shadow Ridge and Desert Willow / Firecliff in Palm Desert, to name just two, indicate to me that it is possible to move beyond the surface level beauty layouts that often get the attention of Joe Sixpack types.

Let me point out for what it's worth -- I share your thoughts on Coyote Hill -a course shoe-horned into the site it occupies.

[Norbert P]

Slag; my brother played Summerly on opening day (a couple weeks ago) and was less than impressed. As I told DS, I love him very much, but this is a guy that actually likes Coyote Hills....a rancid dog track also by Cal Olson. So we could say that Summerly is either really good; or really bad. I would guess the latter. I work close to the course and intend to play there in April. I will take a few photos but will not break my pledge to GCA of placing smut on the site. So we'll see.

 Thanks Jon, at least you left some room in there for hope.  The picture that I posted from their website was not exactly inspiring but, anything new always interests me. It's been almost 3 years since I've been in So Cal - a very long drought since my sister lives in San Marcos - and I'm jonesin' for Barona Creek, Rustic, Balboa for 1st time, and, well, sunshine, warmth and bikini-clad babooshkas.

 BTW - anything new on El Toro in Irivine?  The closed down Marine Base on 4700 acres?   Last time I checked into it, it was being curtailed by the national housing recession. I believe Todd Eckinrode (Barona Creek) is the designer.

[Jon Spaulding]

There is always hope....but only a faint glimmer. I always enjoy anything new, time permitting. Someone posted an article on Summerly on our club's bulletin board (long story)...and it mentions that they moved 10,000,000 yards to do the job.

The only update I had on El Toro was "nothing going on at the moment", presumably due to the Lennar connection. Eckenrode is definitely the re-designer. Most locals are "more than interested" in the outcome....even though the current piece of property is uninspiring. We need some strategic golf here in the OC....real bad. Let's hope they allow him to provide something to that effect.

The sad part is that I too long for many of the same items that you do....and I live here .

[Matt_Ward]

Mr. Spaulding:

Given your familiarity of SoCal public courses I'd be very much interested on your personal take of your top ten available courses.

Many thanks for your kind assistance to this request.

[Jon Spaulding]

Matt; your screenplay might win the "razzie"....but I can revise mine to include the morning between you and RS. Where do I state that your basis of the course is on an 80mph wind.....other than in the fictional storyline?

I had already read your comments and find them somewhat preachy; in this case.....addressed to a congregation that already thinks highly of the course and shares many of the same opinions . I will go on record that I would put it in amongst the best in Southern CA. I just have never had an interest in compiling a list comparing pieces of art or poop or both.

Regarding schizophrenia.....it's not an indictment here.... it's like a relative that has the disease but you still like/love....so I feel this way about La P. I just find the good hole/bad hole to be too much of a theme here, which erodes sentiment to the point that I cannot consider it in the same class as the two great publics that we do have down south.

I fully agree that there are a number of courses worth playing. Be assured that there is no lack of due diligence on my part. What I find depressing is that in order to compile an acceptable list....one would be required to look at the body of work as a whole.....right? So perhaps the question should be.....how many times you or others that compile these "lists"  played our real gems such as Monarch Beach, Shorecliffs, San Juan Hills, Costa del Sol, El Toro, Tijeras, Mile Square, Oceanside Muni? If that's not enough to bring someone to tears than I don't know what would.

[Jon Spaulding]

Mr. Spaulding:

Given your familiarity of SoCal public courses I'd be very much interested on your personal take of your top ten available courses.

Many thanks for your kind assistance to this request.

Do I have to?  Here's a start:

1) Rustic
2) Barona

Beyond this, I will need a few days to compile and rate the balance. I don't invest a lot of time or energy into ratings....and my 2 year old is waiting right now for some attention!

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()