[Bill_McBride]

Peter Pittock, Kyle Henderson and his dad, Scott, and I had the pleasure of playing Peacock Gap in San Rafael, CA, as a prequel to the Kings Putter last week.

I remembered playing there in the '60's when the course was first built and remembered it as pretty bland - even though I didn't know what I was looking at in those days.

The new owners hired Forrest Richardson to remodel the course and add some zip to it.  I must say Forrest has certainly done that, and done it by using a time-tested formula: make it interesting while protecting par at the green site with some very dramatically contoured greens.

The old greens were flat and rather boring.  On a relatively short course - not much over 6500 yards all the way back - that made for a pretty boring round unless the wind was blowing hard and the greens at fast speeds.

The new greens range from challenging to daunting, with some real quirk in the mix.  I'm going to get photos from Peter Pittock and some of mine and will add photos to this post soon. 

In the meantime, some descriptions which will not do the course justice:

Things appropriately enough start off fairly calmly.  Then you get to #3, an uphill par 3 reminiscent to me of #13 at Muirfield, with a dastardly slope from front to back.  #6 is the second par 3, and has a steep slope the width of the green with a small tier left and a tiny tier right.

Then comes the double plateau at #7, with a very shallow green.  This set up works well as the hole is only 300 yards long.  The steep mound right hides a tee shot played to the safe right side.

#10!!  A small par 3 green with an 18" deep thumbprint rear center!  The rest of the green isn't sloped to allow putts around the thumbprint, you can just putt right through it.

(The hole couldn't be that tough, as Kyle's dad made a hole in one, bouncing his short iron off the bunker edge on the left side!)

#11, longish par 4 with a major ridge across the center of the green, very difficult putts from back to front or vice versa.

#13, another par 3 with a very steep green and a fall off to the left.  Fun stuff.

#14, another wild green with a deep, curving trench running right down the middle to complicate things on a short par 5.

So the theme all day was creating interest on what had been a bland course through creative green design.  It must have been great for Forrest to have a client who got excited about that concept.  It certainly worked in practice!

Photos to follow in the near future.  Perhaps others who have played this fun course can add their comments.

The only negative, high native grasses just off fairways and much attendant searching, will be corrected once those grasses are established and the irrigation can be turned off.  Thanks heavens.

[Wayne_Freedman]

We discussed this at great length last December. My take:


After a golf course undergoes restoration, redesign, or renovation, the final result poses fundamental questions:

1.) Does the course remain faithful to the original?

2.) Is it better than before?

In the case of Peacock Gap, the answers would be 'yes' to both, but with provisos.

The new facility has an expanded driving range and practice putting area, but to make room for them, architect Forrest Richardson rerouted the front nine.

He shortened the 305-385 yard, par-4, 5th.

He turned dogleg right, par-4, 6th, into a 113-176 yard par-3 which plays straight across a lake. He turned the par-3, 7th, into a 213-297 yard par-4.

What used to be the testing, par-4, 8th, has become a forgettable, 394-475 yard, par-5.

And, the once-memorable, risk/reward, par-5, 9th, has become a short par-4, at 295-352 yards.

The original par-71 parklands course, designed by William F. 'Billy' Bell in the late 1950's, played flat and dull by modern standards. Where the old Peacock Gap did not offer much in the way of design variety, shot values, conditioning, aesthetics, and lasting impressions, Richardson's new version improves in all categories. It generates more interest, but feels forced in some places. He used unorthodox, but classic design features in attempting to add character, humor, and idiosyncrasy to Peacock Gap.

Now, chocolate drops and pot bunkers appear, unnaturally, on otherwise flat fairways. Greens have mounds, dimples, ruffles, and ridges, like giant potato chips. If the rest of the fairways matched them for movement, we would have liked the package better, but Richardson explained that the water table precluded such changes. "We felt the land should remain in the flat nature it always has been."

Some of Peacock Gap's experienced members are befuddled by Richardson's changes, but in fairness, he had to do something. We consider some his best refinements to be the more subtle ones, such as widening fairways, and moving some greens closer to water.

The par-4, 248-329 yard, par-4, 17th, is particularly good. Richardson's redesign challenges long hitters by forcing a lay-up, or daring them to go for it.

As part of this redesign, Peacock Gap has expensive, semi-private aspirations. The fees, on weekends, approach $100.

But, if one's purpose in designing a golf course is to make it a memorable and discussable, then Forrest Richardson has succeeded. People who play the new Peacock Gap love to argue about it. Just be prepared that such discussions may include an occasional and hearty deleted expletive.

[Bill_McBride]

But, if one's purpose in designing a golf course is to make it a memorable and discussable, then Forrest Richardson has succeeded. People who play the new Peacock Gap love to argue about it. Just be prepared that such discussions may include an occasional and hearty deleted expletive.

Agreed 100%.  The changes to the holes didn't make much difference to me as I hadn't played the place since the '60s.  The new greens really add a lot of quirk and challenge.

[Wayne_Freedman]

Bill,

If you had never seen the course before, what would you think of it?

The new PG is kind of like your wife going in for a tummy-tuck, and coming home with breasts, a new butt,  and tattoos in strange, unusual places.

What did  you think of the size and contours of 18 green in relation to the distance required for that second shot? I think it's overcooked, and a more than certain bogey for most average players.

In a word, several green complexes and fairways could find  better balances.

But, I don't think one can blame Richardson for all the flaws. IMHO, ownership had much to say about the routing, and particularly the 18th.

Again, it is better than it used to be. Forrest asked me if I would want to play it again. Sure. But only to exact revenge on a couple of holes that used confusion as a defense.

[Tim Leahy]

Those green fees seem way too high for the area. Are they going private?

[Bill_McBride]

Those green fees seem way to high for the area. Are they going private?

I don't think so,  but they seem to have driven off most of their previous semi-private membership.  Too expensive for the older retired set.  I'm not sure where they are playing in that area that's less expensive. 

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

If you had never seen the course before, what would you think of it?

The new PG is kind of like your wife going in for a tummy-tuck, and coming home with breasts, a new butt,  and tattoos in strange, unusual places.

What did  you think of the size and contours of 18 green in relation to the distance required for that second shot? I think it's overcooked, and a more than certain bogey for most average players.

In a word, several green complexes and fairways could find  better balances.

But, I don't think one can blame Richardson for all the flaws. IMHO, ownership had much to say about the routing, and particularly the 18th.

Again, it is better than it used to be. Forrest asked me if I would want to play it again. Sure. But only to exact revenge on a couple of holes that used confusion as a defense.

I am one who thinks more than half the fun is around the greens, so I enjoyed it a lot.

Would I rather play the Meadow Club?  Sure, but otherwise a round at Peacock would be fine.  The natural surroundings are great.  It would be better if they cut the rough down to shoetop height and hired some border collies to chase away the geese!

I made a very routine bogey on 18 and yes, it is a long hole.  As an aging 13 handicap, that kind of hole is supposed to give me problems, and the home hole should be a challenge.  There are more square feet to that green than are apparent from out in front.

[Forrest Richardson]

Wayne — " [No. 18 is] ...overcooked, and a more than certain bogey for most average players..."  Maybe blackened, but certainly not overcooked.

When I discussed this hole with you (after your inagural round)  there seemed to be a thought on your part that every golfer deserves to reach a par-4 in two with no unusual problems — that a hole that might better be reached by a majority of players with a carefully placed lay-up and a delicate pitch — to make certain bogey or every-once-in-a-while par — would be a bad idea. However, that is what No. 18 is: A tough par-4 that most players will score higher than "par". However, my recommendation is that players think about NOT trying for the green with a long-ish iron or fairway wood, instead thinking about that well placed SHORT shot that might be a better strategy. I agree with you — it is not a "4.2" average scoring hole...that was not what I had in mind.

However, it is a really easy "5" average if you show restraint and careful placement of three rather simple shots.

Blackened, Wayne. Not overcooked.

Just one houskeeping matter; we did not re-route 5, 6 and 7 to make room for the practice area. We made these changes to get balls off neighboring property and to transform a series of awkward holes into something better and with more options for players. The old 5 might have been a difficult hole, but it was hardly a good hole. Whenever a hole dog-legs around backyards it probably has something missing. Old 6 was a forced lay-up defended by a pond, but the par-4 was traditionally reached...although blind and dangerous because players would take high shots up and over the No. 7 tees. Old 7 was a par-3 with the worst background noise of rooftops and an ugly swingset. New 7 is, in our view, a better risk-reward hole — and it is a hole I suspect will not soon be duplicated. You can, I suppose, take that a few ways.   

Peacock is offering memberships, but the course will always have a public opportunity to fill times and handle special events. This is a new model of private club — not too unlike certain "famous" clubs who have regular events and available tee times for the right price.

As for the green fees, there is no shortage of Bay Area golfers willing to shell out $100 or more for a good experience that is close by and allows them to not spend hours on the road in place of time with family. Also, I think the practice area is one of the few natural grass tee ranges in the SF area.

Bill — Thanks for your post. I enjoy discussing our designs, including the controversial bits.   

[Wayne_Freedman]

Forrest,

Nice to have you back, and I enjoy your taking the time to debate this with an amateur, so let's continue...

Thanks for your correction on the front 9 routing. We'll need to fix it.

So, with 18, you're advocating discretion over power. I understand, but how does that fit into the overall flow? It's a first on the course, and on the last hole.  Through 16 and 17, especially, you built in boldness and good decision making. Now, at 18, you want average players who cannot reach in regulation to consider an up-and-down for par? In a tough match?  I would prefer to try to make birdie to win.  And to ponder the possibility that a bogey might be enough? Where, else, had you made such a subtle request in the routing? I mean, this is 18, their LAST impression of the course, and you want to piss off them off with what most will perceive as an unfair hole?

18 was previously  a strong hole---perhaps the most stout on the golf course. It already had big bones and a difficult green. You improved it by widening the fairway,  and added interest with the pot bunker. I just think that even a slightly more  receptive green would have  left a more favorable final impression. And, people would still make plenty of bogeys.

To be fair, however, I will sneak out with a wedge some afternoon and spin some short chips.

And,  I believe you improved the place. No question. PG has become a local conversation piece.

In our discussion, you asked if the course made me want to play it again. Yeah, there are scores I must  settle on 11 and 18. In fact, I need to play it again.

So...maybe when finished, we will agree completely. I will try to see it through your eyes.
Where did you find those glasses?

w.

 

 




 

[Jed Peters]

Wayne — " [No. 18 is] ...overcooked, and a more than certain bogey for most average players..."  Maybe blackened, but certainly not overcooked.

When I discussed this hole with you (after your inagural round)  there seemed to be a thought on your part that every golfer deserves to reach a par-4 in two with no unusual problems — that a hole that might better be reached by a majority of players with a carefully placed lay-up and a delicate pitch — to make certain bogey or every-once-in-a-while par — would be a bad idea. However, that is what No. 18 is: A tough par-4 that most players will score higher than "par". However, my recommendation is that players think about NOT trying for the green with a long-ish iron or fairway wood, instead thinking about that well placed SHORT shot that might be a better strategy. I agree with you — it is not a "4.2" average scoring hole...that was not what I had in mind.

However, it is a really easy "5" average if you show restraint and careful placement of three rather simple shots.

Blackened, Wayne. Not overcooked.

Just one houskeeping matter; we did not re-route 5, 6 and 7 to make room for the practice area. We made these changes to get balls off neighboring property and to transform a series of awkward holes into something better and with more options for players. The old 5 might have been a difficult hole, but it was hardly a good hole. Whenever a hole dog-legs around backyards it probably has something missing. Old 6 was a forced lay-up defended by a pond, but the par-4 was traditionally reached...although blind and dangerous because players would take high shots up and over the No. 7 tees. Old 7 was a par-3 with the worst background noise of rooftops and an ugly swingset. New 7 is, in our view, a better risk-reward hole — and it is a hole I suspect will not soon be duplicated. You can, I suppose, take that a few ways.   

Peacock is offering memberships, but the course will always have a public opportunity to fill times and handle special events. This is a new model of private club — not too unlike certain "famous" clubs who have regular events and available tee times for the right price.

As for the green fees, there is no shortage of Bay Area golfers willing to shell out $100 or more for a good experience that is close by and allows them to not spend hours on the road in place of time with family. Also, I think the practice area is one of the few natural grass tee ranges in the SF area.

Bill — Thanks for your post. I enjoy discussing our designs, including the controversial bits.   

Forrest:

Do you enjoy discussing your designs?

You seem to be very sensitive in your responses, and a poster offering an opinion does not have the ability to fully "let loose".

I for one, am one such poster--

Just being honest.

Jed Peters

[Forrest Richardson]

Of course, Jed. That is why I have been a part of the GCA family for several years. And, with no "vacations".

We don't do everything perfect. But, we are very thoughtful and, therefore, I do enjoy defending my artwork and my creations. Maybe "defending" is not the best choice of words. I think "challenging conversation" is really what we do here. "Frank commentary...discussion...", that is what Ran had in mind.

Just because Wayne is wrong and I am right is no reason for anyone to think I am sensitive.   

[Mike Benham]

... As for the green fees, there is no shortage of Bay Area golfers willing to shell out $100 or more for a good experience ...

Perhaps when the project started this might have been the prevailing opinion but using Harding Park as an example, they have had to introduce a Northern California rate of less then $ 100 to try and keep their tee sheets full and they offer a discounted rate to SF residents, so I guess there average green fee is no more the $ 70.

[Forrest Richardson]

The difference at Peacock will be the membership — those players will consume 60-70% of the tee times. The residual times (35% maybe) are a much easier inventory to sell than Harding's 100%.

[Wayne_Freedman]

Jed,

Forrest designed a golf course.
We critique it.
He responds.
Such is the essence of this site.

He thinks I'm wrong. I think he's wrong. We discuss and debate, and it's all quite fun.

Bottom line, I don't think Forrest is more thick-skinned that either of us would be if defending our work. Probably less, in fact, because he used to work in television. By discussing in this forum, he's putting his living and professional reputation right out there for anyone to see.
I might not like elements of the golf hole or that course, but I do like him.

Sort of...

So...what did you really think?

[Jed Peters]

I think Forrest really was a pretty good guy, a wonderful host, and quite a character. It was truly a pleasure meeting him.

I didn't care for the golf course one bit, including the changes that he made.

I did like the fact that I halved cohn on the back with a 36. (even though he let me be two holes up on the 10 tee.)

[Wayne_Freedman]

Now THAT's an opinion.

I thought it is a fun course on which to score (save for 7, 11, and 18). I thought it is well-suited to less critical and perhaps less accomplished casual golfers with money.

We can all agree that the US Open will never be held at Peacock Gap. That is  a shortcoming we will have to look beyond.

Could Forrest have done more or  executed it differently? Maybe. We do not know all of his limitations. But,  as I said before, he had to do something, and he got the gig.

To a degree, Forrest brings some of this onto himself. He is opinionated and polarzes people, but  we need to look at that as part of his charm.

But tell me the truth, Forrrest. If given an opportunity to build 18 again, how would you change it?

[Kyle Henderson]

My impression was that it must have been very bland before Mr. Richardson got his paws on it. Given the limitations he described in previous threads, I thought the changes he made were sound. The bunkers are well-placed with respect to the type of golfers that would tend to play a course of that length, IMHO. Central hazards, such as the fairway bunker on #18 were used to great effect. That and other holes that would be very straight-forward, particularly the par 5s, now require a greater variety of shots and choices. There are a lot of memorable holes now and the conditioning is very good -- we'll see if that lasts.

I would subtact points for a few the following reasons:

-While I enjoy originality and boldness in golf design, some (about 1/3) of the putting surfaces go off the deep end while others are fairly tame. I would prefer a little more continuity over the course.

-#8 Is a snoozer.

-The walk from #9 green to #10 tee is much longer than what is found elsewhere on the course. While this does allow for the new practice area, switching the nines could eliminate this particular problem. Of course, that would change the flow of the course, with a short par 4 finisher etc... A regrettable compromise

-The native grasses, especially edging the bunkers, are too long and punitive, though I am told they will be cut back after they've had time to mature.

-The chocolate mounds on # 15 add some interesting strategy and variety but their shaping is too uniform, particularly where they meet the flat ground around them, and as such they seem more out of place than I would prefer.

-The green fees are a little steep for a short course.


As a fan of quirk, I enjoyed the course and I would play there repeatedly if it was closer and cheaper.

[Mike Benham]

The difference at Peacock will be the membership — those players will consume 60-70% of the tee times. The residual times (35% maybe) are a much easier inventory to sell than Harding's 100%.

That is true but at some point the course must continue to be fun to play, have available tee times for members, have good facilities and service or else the membership will decline and there will be no repeat public play.

Since I have not yet played the course and for those that have, could you play PG 3 or 4 times per week?

[Wayne_Freedman]

There are few places I could play 3-4 times a week, including my regular club.

When choosing golf courses, infidelity is not a sin.

[Pete_Pittock]

The third hole with the elevated green accepts a well hit shot but thin shots will run to the back of the green leaving a difficult downhill recovery. It is more elevated than this picture lets on.


The sixth hole with its expansive green tempts golfers to take the easy way out by overclubbing. A deft touch is needed to get to the other level/ Nice love handles/sideboards on the front portion can make creativity pay off.


The short seventh is driveable but the mae west mounding in front may look nice from afar but is difficult to handle up close.

The green is contoured, as this shot from the right front (4:30) attests. The play is directly from the left.

Scott "Ace" Henderson poses shortly after earning his nickname on the short 10th hole, just steps from the hotdog stand. The hole was previously famous from it's thumbprint

where another hotdog ace stands reading his putt. This feature is much more effective and fair than a mound of the same size.

the 11th to me was the hardest hole on the course with a hillside and trees on the left, countered by a creek on the right facing the player on the tee.
A courner bunker seems to lure the correct line to th left, but the hole is best approached from the right side.

This view of the green from the rear led this player to say "I'm f'ed" in the greatest of KP tradition. I tried to take a nice picture from the front but those danged bumkers kept me from getting a good view.


Ihad plenty of time to study the 14th green because my ball got lost in the bunker fringing. One of the most aggresively venturi effect green I have seen, the hole location sectors are very defined and penal. The key to putting down into the trough is to use the oppose banking.

I never saw the course before the remodel. As a first time player, who though he knew what he was getting into, the greens certainly define the course far more than I anticipated. They may keep some from returning, but overall they are magnetic.

[Matt_Cohn]

[This feature is much more effective and fair than a mound of the same size.

Why?

[Forrest Richardson]

Wayne — I would have removed more trees along the right. We still may do that. Also, I would have made the green larger. Green sizes were pretty much a matter of budget balanced with available space. At No. 18 we have the proximity of Nos. 14 and 1 tees. This illustrates what a puzzle routing is — especially when you are dealing with existing conditions that have some value to retain.

Jed — You may be the first person to ever go on record as saying you did not like one of my courses ONE BIT! As I would like to reserve this honor for someone else (in the future, perhaps AFTER I am dead), was there at least one thing you liked about the course?

[Jed Peters]

Jed — You may be the first person to ever go on record as saying you did not like one of my courses ONE BIT! As I would like to reserve this honor for someone else (in the future, perhaps AFTER I am dead), was there at least one thing you liked about the course?

I thought the par 3s were the most playable, "best" holes on the course.

[Wayne_Freedman]

Pete,
Nice pics. I should repost a few.

Jed,
The par-3's are more picturesque than difficult, assuming a player can control his distances. I actually like #10. It's much improved from before, if you can live with that dimple. 

Forrest,
A widening of 18 green would  help mitigate that slope for players approaching from longer distances.
Shorter players  contend  that the fairway bunker is penal. Someday, when older, I may join their protests.   
IMHO, of all the holes at the old PG, 18 already had the best bones. Better to win with a birdie on the last, than to settle for a bogey.

A little birdie tells me you met Susan Young. She is a very good teacher, and a major attraction for that facility.

[Forrest Richardson]

Jed — I am glad you enjoyed the par-3s. (I added the word "enjoyed")  My favorites are No. 13 and No. 6. I would not have routed No. 16 the way it was, but with housing, drainage and trees that were to be kept, it stayed put. No. 3 is a favorite of nearly everyone, but to me it just looks good.


Wayne — Yes, I met Susan. She thinks your wrong, too.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()