The Shore Course and Honest Opinons

[Lou_Duran]

Since Bob asked, two or three Sat. participants confided that while the Shore is outstanding and enjoyable, they had a difficult time remembering the individual holes.  I have this problem on many golf courses, but it is due to my memory more than the course.  Nevertheless, I too couldn't remember the holes beyond #3 without consulting my scorecard and aerial (thanks Kalen).

This is not a criticism of the course or the architect, but the holes within sight of the Pacific seem to run together, perhaps overwhelmed by the surroundings.  I didn't sense this at CPC, maybe because the assault on the senses (for a lack of a better term) comes more in bursts.

Beyond the obvious exceptions to #18 (which I didn't get to play this time), #11 is my least favorite hole.  As others have noted, there's just too much going on around the green.  Also, the elevated tee, jarring to my eye, might actually be improved by installing an escalator.

I didn't care for the creek/ditch crossing the tee shot on #12, the long par 5, though had I been playing the back tees, it probably wouldn't have been an issue.  I also didn't like the hidden (to me, at least) creek to the right of #17.

In terms of playability, for my taste, the natives are too well maintained- irrigated, maybe even fertilized- resulting in lost balls (e.g. left on #1 by two or three in my group, #5 left, #8 left).  Thinner, "whispier" natives would exact half stroke penalties, wouldn't discourage aggressive play, and facilitate faster play.  For example, the risk/reward ratio of the short par 4, #5, would be more favorable if going marginally left (like I did) did not result in a lost ball.

I also found the umaintained sandy areas, well, unmaintained, to the extent that some deep footprints result in umplayable lies just off the fairway (I pulled my second shot on #6 15'-20' with a 3 Metal and ended up in one of the many 3"+ footprints at the front edge of the unmaintained area, two or three feet from the fairway).  For a club of this caliber, I am surprised that the players didn't seem to bother with smoothing out their deep prints, even with their feet).

Having said all this, I think Shore is a great course.  I don't remember Dunes well enough to say if it is a superior course, but if they're close, this would be a problem most 36-hole clubs would love to have.  I do like Shore better than Pasatiempo, and if I didn't know better, I'd guess Shore, not Pasa, was designed by Dr. MacKenzie (easier to walk; more curvy, meandering, natural; better variety; par threes going in different directions; playable for more golfers).   

[Kalen Braley]

Lou,

Thats a good post with lots of information to digest.  I didn't have trouble remembering the holes, but then again, I seem to have a better than average memory for holes, even several years after the fact.

I can see why some may not prefer 11, but I think with the views and so many beautiful sights to behold, it works just fine.  If anything it creates a short pause in the round for one to take a look around and really take it all in as you can see a good portion from on top of that rock.  And then when you're all done, you have to re-focus and figure out how you want to play the shot.  I think Stranz also did a good job of "pause part 2" with the rock behind the 15th green with an even better view of the course IMO.

The native areas did seem to be a bit thick, but with the moistness of the monterey area, I'm guessing those areas grow quite thick on thier own without intervention.

As far as the course being a MacKenzie, I think one could make this claim except the greens are a dead give-away to me.  The greens were good and fit the landscape well, but they were no MacKenzie greens.

[Lou_Duran]

If I am not mistaken, you played CPC.  Are the greens at CPC more similar to Shore or Pasa?  I am usually a pretty fair putter though my 36 putts at Shore including four putts from 35' on #2 would suggest otherwise.  I think Shore greens are sophisticated like MacKenzie's though adapted for a flatter terrain and higher speeds.  I was surprised that the poa annua had taken over so completely is such a short time.  Poa when fast confuses and intimidates me.

BTW, I think that Pasa's perched, severly sloped greens were designed for considerably slower speeds.  I suspect that they were less difficult during MacKenzie's time.  I don't recall that his greens on flatter sites, e.g. Jockey Club, Meadow, were as difficult either.   

[Jed Peters]

There is no doubt the hole is tough. But there is a bailout to the left, very much like another hole down the road.

Thanks for the photo.

I hate that tee shot (me being a guy who hits a draw).

I was in the tree greenside on the left (shocking). I remember that if you weren't in that bunker, the area around the tree was punishing.

After looking for my ball for 4.5 minutes (and being pissed at my caddie for not automatically finding it straight away--haha) I found it, hacked out to the bunker, and got up and down for a 4.

To me, that hole was unplayable from those back tees as a "par" 3.

And don't give me the "par 3.5" argument, I consider that like the third at pasatiempo--where you still have a shot at par if you hit a good shot into the green.

I'm coming back June 1 in the afternoon (after a morning pasa round) so I'll be able to re-analyze.

Oh yeah, and it had nothing to do with the waste area/scrub in front of the tee shot, and shouldn't for a person playing those back tees--more the greensite and the inability for one to hold a shot into that green.

Or, maybe I just suck.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jed:

Maybe you do suck.  Maybe I do also.  See, that's my issue with 9 as well - it's just too much.  Really in any wind it's damn near impossible to stop a ball on that back shelf, and it's really impossible downwind.  For such a long shot too, it just complicates things such that any chance of success is just very very slim.  Maybe if the hole was 140 or less, I could see having such a wild green.  But at 200+?  I don't get it.

Bob and Mike make a good point about the blindness too - hacking out some brush would help also.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

If I am not mistaken, you played CPC.  Are the greens at CPC more similar to Shore or Pasa?  I am usually a pretty fair putter though my 36 putts at Shore including four putts from 35' on #2 would suggest otherwise.  I think Shore greens are sophisticated like MacKenzie's though adapted for a flatter terrain and higher speeds.  I was surprised that the poa annua had taken over so completely is such a short time.  Poa when fast confuses and intimidates me.

BTW, I think that Pasa's perched, severly sloped greens were designed for considerably slower speeds.  I suspect that they were less difficult during MacKenzie's time.  I don't recall that his greens on flatter sites, e.g. Jockey Club, Meadow, were as difficult either.   

Lou,

2 things tend to stick out the most in my mind when it comes to differentiating greens...and that is shape and contouring.

Firstly shape:  Other than 11 on the Shore course, every other green on the course is fairly conventional in its shape.  They were either circular or long ovals.  As I said before there is nothing wrong with this, and the greens fit in very well at the Shore course, but from this perspective, none of them pop out at you in this category except 11 as noted.

Then Contouring:  Other than 6 and 9, and maybe 18, I didn't really observe any unusual internal contouring to the greens.  They had their high spots and low spots and a couple of bowled greens but for the most part were gently sloped and subtle in nature.  Once again, I think the contouring worked because most of the course sits on a mostly flat, minimally sloped piece of property.  (With the obvious exceptions of 1-3, and 18)

At Pasatiempo, I can think of several greens that had fairly unconventional shapes like 5, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, and 18.  And when it comes to the internal countouring most of them were unusual and the norm was well...in the minority.

There is the obvious 16, but don't forget 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 17, and 18.  Hell I saw a 1 handicap putt it off one of these greens, (no names need be mentioned). 

So perhaps this is just personal preferences in terms of what I notice most and look for in greens, but to me the greens at Pasa vs. Shore is not even a competition.  Then again as you well know from ODM where my putter caught fire, putting is the best part of my game, and nothing turns my crank more on the course than a wickedly undulating green where I have to scratch my head and figure out how I'm going to 2 putt.  

[David Stamm]

There is no doubt the hole is tough. But there is a bailout to the left, very much like another hole down the road.

 
And don't give me the "par 3.5" argument,

Par 3.5, par 3.5, par 3.5, par 3.5.......

[Kalen Braley]

There is no doubt the hole is tough. But there is a bailout to the left, very much like another hole down the road.

 
And don't give me the "par 3.5" argument,

Par 3.5, par 3.5, par 3.5, par 3.5.......

ahhhh, it must be Friday...everyone is ready for the weekend.

I'm with you David, its a par 3.5 from those back tees but quite manageable from where we played it from at about 160 I think.

[Stan Dodd]

I watched 4 groups in the Cal Am and in heavy wind saw no one hit the green and saw 1 par.

[Tom Huckaby]

David:

That is a great thought, and normally I'd be with you.  I've belabored a point about Pasa #1 in just this manner - that people think it's harder (called a par 4) now that it's really easier (shorter, less trees).  The same should go for MPCC Shore #9; disregard par, think of it as a good three, routine 4, and it's no problem, right?

Well....

I don't think it works that way with holes that one can expect to reach in one shot.  It's just beyond ego expectations to intentionally play away from such greens.

But in all honesty, if one's life is on the line to make the lowest score, that would be the best way to play 9.

And of course the same can be said for the famous neighbor heroic long par 3 up the drive.

Difference there is hitting over ocean, v. hitting blind over scrub brush.

TH

[Jed Peters]

David:

And of course the same can be said for the famous neighbor heroic long par 3 up the drive.

Difference there is hitting over ocean, v. hitting blind over scrub brush.

TH

And, as I understand it from numerous people that have played CPC (I haven't) you can hold a shot into that green, be it any shape...just may not have an easy putt and you'd have to hit the ball the requisite distance. Thus, fair.

[Tom Huckaby]

David:

And of course the same can be said for the famous neighbor heroic long par 3 up the drive.

Difference there is hitting over ocean, v. hitting blind over scrub brush.

TH

And, as I understand it from numerous people that have played CPC (I haven't) you can hold a shot into that green, be it any shape...just may not have an easy putt and you'd have to hit the ball the requisite distance. Thus, fair.

Correct. One does not go an inch too far and end up in a god damn close cut swale, er, I mean, genius chipping area.  One inch long at CPC 16 means perhaps in the rough, perhaps in the bunker, but with little frustration as the green is HUGE and you just know you went too long.  At Shore 9, well... a ball nearly coming to rest and then getting screwed is just rather tough to take on such a long shot.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

David:

And of course the same can be said for the famous neighbor heroic long par 3 up the drive.

Difference there is hitting over ocean, v. hitting blind over scrub brush.

TH

And, as I understand it from numerous people that have played CPC (I haven't) you can hold a shot into that green, be it any shape...just may not have an easy putt and you'd have to hit the ball the requisite distance. Thus, fair.

Correct. One does not go an inch too far and end up in a god damn close cut swale, er, I mean, genius chipping area.  One inch long at CPC 16 means perhaps in the rough, perhaps in the bunker, but with little frustration as the green is HUGE and you just know you went too long.  At Shore 9, well... a ball nearly coming to rest and then getting screwed is just rather tough to take on such a long shot.

TH

But one inch short at CPC 16 means your in the drink and re-teeing.  Certainly being just over the green on Shore 9 is a better perdicament than being 3 on the tee?  No?   

[Tom Huckaby]

One inch short at either hole is screwed.  We're talking about a shot that is well-struck and still gets screwed.  To me this occurs at Shore, does not occur at CPC.

TH

[David Stamm]

David:

And of course the same can be said for the famous neighbor heroic long par 3 up the drive.

Difference there is hitting over ocean, v. hitting blind over scrub brush.

TH

And, as I understand it from numerous people that have played CPC (I haven't) you can hold a shot into that green, be it any shape...just may not have an easy putt and you'd have to hit the ball the requisite distance. Thus, fair.

Where does it say that it has to be fair? Is it fair that the middle and back tees both have to make the same shot up the road? Perhaps, perhaps not. There is an option to the left on that hole if one chooses to not want to make that carry over the ocean. Here, a player who is good enough to play from the tips should not have a problem getting to the green.  I don't hear anyone complain when they are short of the shelf on the Biarritz at Yale or the 6th at Rustic Canyon. If the card said 4 instead of 3 with no changes, would that make a difference? Par is not an entitlement, IMHO.  

[David Stamm]

David:

And of course the same can be said for the famous neighbor heroic long par 3 up the drive.

Difference there is hitting over ocean, v. hitting blind over scrub brush.

TH

And, as I understand it from numerous people that have played CPC (I haven't) you can hold a shot into that green, be it any shape...just may not have an easy putt and you'd have to hit the ball the requisite distance. Thus, fair.

Correct. One does not go an inch too far and end up in a god damn close cut swale, er, I mean, genius chipping area.  One inch long at CPC 16 means perhaps in the rough, perhaps in the bunker, but with little frustration as the green is HUGE and you just know you went too long.  At Shore 9, well... a ball nearly coming to rest and then getting screwed is just rather tough to take on such a long shot.

TH

But one inch short at CPC 16 means your in the drink and re-teeing.  Certainly being just over the green on Shore 9 is a better perdicament than being 3 on the tee?  No?   

Thank you, brother Kalen.

[Tom Huckaby]

David:

I assume that was addressed to Jed, as I too care neither about fairness nor par.

I do care about greens where otherwise well struck shots get unduly punished - particularly very long ones - and where the shot is blind when it really doesn't have to be, and where much of the green is never used due to the severity, particularly where it all occurs on one hole.  That describes #9 Shore to me.  Oh, it's not a bad hole at all - it sure as shit is one hell of a challenge - I just think of Bob's suggestion to make it a short par 4 and that seems to work better to me, more so than blowing up the green.  But either option to me would improve the existing golf hole.

I gather you didn't read my response to brother Kalen, who completely missed the point?

TH

[David Stamm]

I got the point, brother Huck.


Listen, in all seriousness, I know the hole is very difficult. And a decent or even good shot can be repelled away. But these same things can happen at TOC or countless other courses and one is left gnashing their teeth. Is it my ideal hole? Probably not. I just enjoyed the uniqueness and the challenge. I liked it.

[Tom Huckaby]

David:

We'll talk after you've played it to a back shelf pin, into the wind, and hit a stinging three wood that seemed to stay up, then at the last second disappeared, leaving you with an impossible chip.  If after that you remain this gracious and magnanimous, then I shall bow and call you a better man than I (and than Huntley, btw).

I look forward to that time.