[Kevin_Reilly]

Joel, I haven't seen the course, but a fellow I know said it had a Jeckyl/Hyde problem...one great set of holes and one not-so-good set.  Not in the same league as Moraga (not that it has a great set of holes, but the contrast between one nine and the other), but that was the sense I got from him.  My friend had no desire to play it again. 

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:  OK, so it won't make your personal top 100.  I doubt it makes mine either.  So what's the problem?  I never said it would.  I don't think Joel did either.  We both believe it's pretty darn good, but not to speak for Joel, but Top 100 anything is a very tall order... can't a course be great and not merit such inclusion?  Comparison to Pasatiempo?   Comical.  9-1 for Pasa, only because I like some variety.

I do believe it's a pretty strong, pretty fun, pretty spectacular golf course - but as I've said several times, it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea.  I am not at all surprised Kevin's friend doesn't want to return - I'd guess many will have that reaction.

TH

[Joel_Stewart]

I agree with Huck and stand by my earlier comments, its one hell of a golf course.

Kevin:  Its not surprising your guy didn't like like it.  Again for the 3rd time, it's not everybody cup of tee.  I will disagree that their is one great set and one not so good.    I enjoyed the front nine and 6 to 9 are very very good.   It's like saying 9 and 10 at Olympic are the weakest par 4's or the third hole at Pine Valley is the worst par 3 on the course.  There is not a weak hole on the course, its just very demanding. If you miss it at any time you'll pay a heavy price on your scorecard.

[Adam Clayman]

Would you guys mind commenting on it's comparison to past TPC's?
 From this vantage point, it looks like a complete shift in look and style and playabilities.

On another thread, there's a question about fighting some losing battle as it relates to what constitutes good gca. This TPC seems to prove the battle was won.

[Matt_Ward]

Joel:

When you venture forward with the "heell of a course" statement then I need, likely others too, some sort of particular placement on just what that means.

Joel, often times you have "new" courses get a quick bounce because of the newness but when things settle down -- say in about 3-4 years you get a real sense of what is really there versus the rush to judgement that often enters the picture with any new course.

That's why I don't feel any "new" course should automatically be included in such an overall national poll or for that matter even a state poll. A reasonable amount of time needs to have happened for all the dust to settle.

Joel, in your last post you seem to focus upon the sheer demands of the shotmaking. Is the "heell of a golf course" tied more to its difficulty (e.g. terrain, blind shots, etc, etc) than anything tied to clear design dimensions of note?

Mike C hit the nail squarley on the head -- the internal / external green contours at Bandon Dunes were for me quite pedestrian. No doubt the proximity to the Oregon coast plays a role because of the massive winds you will face daily and the need to allow players some room to maneuver shots.

Frankly, for me, the real qualities of Bandon Dunes are in GETTING to the greens -- I don't see the areas around the hole as being rather sophisticated at all.

Final point -- Mayacama and The Preserve had their 15 minutes of fame and are now where they should be in terms of overall standing.

The issue I have with a number of California courses I have played over the years is that so much of the awesome scenery can often obscure the lack of sheer details tied to the actual design.

Huck:

Help me out almighty one -- how does Joel's description of a "heell of a golf course" relate being sooooooo good if the difference between TPC / SF and Pasatiempo favors the Santa Cruz layout by a margin of 9-1, according to your own feelings. My God, only 10% of the time would you even consider playing there -- if a "heell of a golf course" is about 9-1 in favor of Pasatiempo what would a "bad" course rate -- just zero!

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck:

Help me out almighty one -- how does Joel's description of a "heell of a golf course" relate being sooooooo good if the difference between TPC / SF and Pasatiempo favors the Santa Cruz layout by a margin of 9-1, according to your own feelings. My God, only 10% of the time would you even consider playing there -- if a "heell of a golf course" is about 9-1 in favor of Pasatiempo what would a "bad" course rate -- just zero!

Glad you find me to be almighty.  I'll make sure and tell my wife.

But why is this so hard to understand?

Stonebrae is a very good golf course, very fun, but as we've said repeatedly, not everyone's cup of tea.

It is a hell of a golf course.

But yes, in a perfect world of neither expense nor traffic and unlimited free time, I would choose to play Pasa 9 times for every 1 at Stonebrae.  I prefer to walk and I believe Pasa really is among our nation's greatest courses.  Stonebrae requires a cart and it's not among our nation's greatest.  To answer your question, I doubt any course would fall to 10-0, only because I do like variety.  But a LOT of courses - make that damn near all outside the real greats in our area - would fall at 9-1 for me.  Pasa is that great.

And of course you know, awesome scenery counts, for us golfers anyway.  I leave it to you in the architectural profession to evaluate design, given you really know all that goes into creating a golf course - the obtacles to be faced given the site and client, etc.  So Matt, when did you hang up your shingle?  And where can I find that great Matt Ward design I've been so dying to play?

 

[Jim Briggs]

Matt...Could you have incorporated "heell of a course" into your post any more times?  

[Matt_Ward]

JBriggs:

I only included the comments from another person and wanted to see what context such a statement ultimately means. If someone spouts that a course is thaaaaaaaaaat good then I'd like them to further elaborate.

Got it.

Huck:

If the margin is thaaaaaaaaaaaat far apart / re: Pasatiempo versus TPC / SF then the latter really can't be a "hell of a golf course" (your own words).

Huck, what's the difference between "hell of a golf course" and "real greats." I want to get a handle on your thinking (shall I say that ), but it's getting more lawyer-like in your splitting of hairs.

One other thing -- I imagine you add points to those courses that provide a walking preferred or walking only designation versus those that mandate carts. Fair to say?

Final thing -- I never said I was an architect -- candidly you and the vast number of people who post / lurk on this site aren't either. I only opined as an avid lover of the game that scenery -- especially off-course scenery -- can be used as a substitute mechanism from the real design elements tied to the inherent design IMHO. California has a number of courses that I have played where this happens. Other states face a similar situation as well. Those with discerning eyes should be able to move beyond the eye-candy elements -- whether man created or those from Mother Nature.

[Mike Benham]

Would you guys mind commenting on it's comparison to past TPC's?
 From this vantage point, it looks like a complete shift in look and style and playabilities.

On another thread, there's a question about fighting some losing battle as it relates to what constitutes good gca. This TPC seems to prove the battle was won.

Adam -  Weren't the original TPC courses designed by the Tour with PGA Players?  I believe this course was intended to be a private course and for various reasons, has now become a TPC course.  This might only prove that TPC saw an opportunity to put their name on the course when said course needed a partner.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

I don't see myself as splitting hairs at all.  A course most definitely can be a hell of a golf course and still less great than one that is right there at the very top of all courses, like Pasa.  Why you find this so hard to understand remains a mystery to me, as does the reasoning why you want to argue about this.  It's really not that big of a deal.

As for scenery and how it plays out, if a golfer feels it or sees it, it counts.   And of course only those in the profession know what goes into the "real design elements", so if you choose to opine on those, that that tells me the happy news that you have finally gone into the profession.

So again I ask, when can I play my first Matt Ward design?

As for me, I'm just a golfer, never claimed to be anything else.  As such I believe I can evaluate how much fun I have playing a golf course.  But design elements?  Way over my head.  I have no clue what obstacles must be faced, nor what goes into making that happen.  I'd never be so arrogant to assume otherwise.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

Getting the reasons behind differences in opinion is not arrogance.

I simply asked for clarification behind the statements made by people on this thread.

End of story ...

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck:

Getting the reasons behind differences in opinion is not arrogance.

I simply asked for clarification behind the statements made by people on this thread.

End of story ...

Paraphrasing the words of a great man:

HARDY HAR HAR HAR!  You're killing me, pahd-nah!  Oh yeah, that was all you were after, for sure.

 

But I guess we've battled enough for today.

Until the next time....

TH

[Wayne_Freedman]

I am the guy who took those pictures (not the one of the driving range), who sent them to Joel, who wanted them for this page, and who strongly advised me to play this course asap.

It's very good. Its an almost mini-version of Bandon Dunes without the ocean, but with a few homes, that is also a much shorter drive.  The one, big drawback is those miles of cart paths and the fact that no normal human being can walk it.

As to comparisons or ratings---I would describe the course as being singular and memorable.  Some players will love it. Others will hate it.

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne F:

Simple question for a simple answer -- would you rate the course among the top 25 you have ever played ? If not at that level -- top 50 ? Top 100 ?
Your info is most appreciated.

Gents:

For those who are enamored with Bandon Dunes and have played TPC / SF do the greens at the latter make-up for the deficiencies I see at Bandon being far less in terms of sophistication.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:  do you really want me to answer that last question?  That is, even if I could figure out what the hell you meant?

I'll assume not.  You and I need some peace time.

 

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

When did your name become Wayne Freedman ?

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck:

When did your name become Wayne Freedman ?

Matt:

When did the word "Gents" refer solely to a singular man, and a question directed at "those who are enamored with Bandon Dunes and have played TPC / SF" become directed solely to Wayne Freedman?

TH

[Wayne_Freedman]

Why is everyone so enamored with numbers?

Sorry, Matt, but I do not feel comfortable answering that question until after playing all of the top-100. 

My rating...a qualitiative one.  As I said, TPC San Franicsco is singluar and memorable. From me, that's a significant compliment.

You should play it, yourself, and reach your own, unbiased conclusion.

[Tim Leahy]

I doubt it's as good as Cache Creek

[Wayne_Freedman]

For a 14.6 index, quite possibly.
Play 'em both.
Then decide.


 

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne Freedman:

With all due respect but you tapdanced around my question.

I don't expect you to play all of the current top 100 courses before venturing an opinion.

Clearly, you can assess TPC / SF when compared to the other top courses you have personally played. Is it in the top 5%, 10%, etc, etc.

Why does such things matter ?

Well, for starters, it provides some sort of context in terms of how the course is viewed.  When you say the course is "singular and memorable" I have to ask when held against what ?

The meaning of any course is best determined when held against the likes of other top courses. You are free to apply any criteria you wish to assess but it does give me some clearer idea on what courses you believe are truly blessed with a superior design.

[Wayne_Freedman]

Sorry, Matt, but I think top 5, top 10, whatever is bs because we all have our own experiences.
You're just curious about my golf resume for comparison.

It is not as good as Pacific or Bandon Dunes, but of the same ilk. Those are literal and figurative journeys.
It is not a Cypress Point. Nothing is Cypress Point.
It is not as grand as Pebble Beach.
I like it better than Wente Vinyards.
It is more interesting than Harding Park.
It is not as grand as the Plantation at Kapalua.
It is more fair and fun and manageable than The Prince.
It provides more angst than Talking Stick, and will be more difficult for average players than Troon Pinnacle or Monument.
It blows away TPC Scottsdale.
Given a choice, I would play either of the courses at We-Ko-Pa for the rest of my life, but wouldn't want to make such a choice. 
It is less weighty and wearing than Olympic Lake, but a good test, and will probably be easier with repeated plays.
It is equal to Circling Raven and  Osprey Meadows.

As I said...singular and memorable. And, by being on a list with any of those courses, comparable. Just  not numerically.

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne:

Thanks -- if you see Circling Raven as an equal then I don't see much value in scheduling a separate visit to TPC / SF.

In seeing the other comparisons you made it gave me a handle on where you see TPC / SF fitting in with the others.

Given the fact that Joel gives the course a 7 on the Doak scale I'd be curious to see what Doak number you would apply.

[Tim Leahy]

For a 14.6 index, quite possibly.
Play 'em both.
Then decide.

For a 5.5, I see quite a few 80's. I'll take 4 a side and play you anywhere you like, Cache Creek, TPCSF or even Richmond.

[Jed Peters]

For a 14.6 index, quite possibly.
Play 'em both.
Then decide.

For a 5.5, I see quite a few 80's. I'll take 4 a side and play you anywhere you like, Cache Creek, TPCSF or even Richmond.

I'm a 5.3. Care to take that bet at Morgan Creek?

We can play for whatever amount of $$$$ you want.

Tim, I shoot in the 80s quite often as well--in fact, my scoring average is 82.6 per the NCGA GHIN computer at MCGC. Am I not a 5.3 index?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()