Meadow Club #7 - The best golf hole in the Bay Area?

[Jon Spaulding]

I come with this as a question, not an answer.

This is a par 4, playing 466 yards from the rear tees. It contains a wide fairway with a central hazard forcing a decision off the tee, while allowing for a potential recovery should one encounter it.

The aggressive left side option leaves a shorter second shot, but potentially sight-impaired should the golfer not hit the ball solidly.

The front left greenside bunker is in play from this line, as is the hill on the left (off the tee).

The right side selection leaves a more visible and much longer second shot, yet allows for a bouncing approach with a long iron or fairway wood.

The greensite is perfectly situated within a natural valley; the green offers significant contours while the bunkering is in play, cut into the green in the rear or the fairway on the approach.

Disclaimers:

- Monterey courses are not part of the Bay Area.
- I have not seen the "new" Cal Club

I cannot think of a strategic/aesthetic/challenging equal in the area. There are certainly a few holes at Pasatiempo or SF Club, of which #3 at the latter was my previous favorite.

A huge thanks to Mackenzie, Mike DeVries, and the crew at Meadow Club for this wonderful creation.

Any comments or alternate proposals are appreciated.



Tee Shot


Overhead view of fairway


Hazard


Approach




Green

[Lou_Duran]

JS,

For us mere mortals it is a very difficult hole, but perhaps not all that strategic- aim right and hope to get an angle with a long second.  I could see you challenging the left and having a wedge in.

My back was killing me in my only play here so I was only able to hit half shots.  As I recall, I hit it dead left, lofted an eight over the trees (I think I was successful) and made a 5 or a 6.  The course looked great though Mike DeVries was still working on it.  The areas around the driving range were the only negatives that I saw.

Did you play the course recently?  How would you rate it (Doak scale) and in comparison to the other MacKenzies? 

[Jed Peters]

It's pretty up there.

But I'd say there are a couple at SFGC that are of that caliber, if not better (number 2 and 12 comes to mind as 4 pars).

I need to get out to Meadow Club to see is post-remodel. I haven't seen it for 7 years, and then it was really wet and didn't play as intended.

Is Santa Cruz in the bay area?

[Mark Bourgeois]

It's a fascinating hole.  The wee burn right in the middle must take ages to decipher.  The caveman golfer automatically thinks the play is to carry.

But is it?

Mark

[Ronald Montesano]

Good thing we have wide-screen...how about pixeling down those photos, Jon?

Here's where location comes into play.  We have the same hole in western New York, with the downhill tee shot, the dogleg
left, and then a rise to a three-club green with bunkering left and right.  The water feature is actually beyond the fairway on the right, at the turn of
the dogleg. 

The burn is actually a poorly-placed and unfair (read: unrecoverable) hazard, so I deduct a point from the Meadow Club's version.  However, the hills backdrop prettifies the hole to
a degree that the terrain surrounding the 2nd at The Links At Ivy Ridge (www.thelinksativyridge.com) cannot match.

[ed_getka]

Ronald,
   Have you ever been to Meadow Club? For an average golfer like me (hcp 10) that burn is perfectly placed. If I am striking the ball well I could challenge the hazard and have 3-4 less clubs coming in. I can aim right if I choose so one does not have to challenge the hazard if they don't want to. I would simply have a much longer approach shot. Given the back right to front left overall tilt of the green there is a good reason to have a shorter iron in, so that one has a better chance of hitting their approach where they want it.
   How is any hazard unfair when you don't have to go over it if you don't want to?

Jon,
   To answer your question I would say no. I think there is a little too much latitude off the tee, even though it does leave a much more daunting approach. I think #2 and #4 at Olympic Lake right off the top of my head are  better holes. There are less options, but you have to play some quality shots, whereas at MC #7 you could get away with some loose tee shots (I have some firsthand knowledge .
I do love the hole though, #7 at MC is my favorite hole on the course. I was great fun to watch Mike work on that hole and keep tweaking it until he was happy with it. It is significantly improved over what was there pre-restoration/renovation.

[Bill_McBride]

I agree with Ed.  After you've played #7 a few times, you understand that there are several strategies off the tee - left of the burn with a difficult angle to the green opening, short right of the burn with a long but unobstructed second shot, or over the burn with a shorter unobstructed second shot.  What makes it so interesting is the poor visibility of the landing area(s) due to the dogleg and terrain.  It is indeed a really good hole.

Best hole in the Bay Area?  I don't know about that!

[Joel_Stewart]

Its a very good hole although there are at least a dozen holes in the Bay Area that are as good.  My favorite are,

2nd and 3rd at SFGC.
4th and 5th at Olympic
7th and 9th at Cal Club
12th and 18th at Stonebrae
10th and 11th at Pasatiempo

Anyway its subjective, there is no right or wrong.

[Chip Gaskins]

This hole certainly looks like a top 10 in the Bay Area.

I agree with Joel and Jed...SFGC (#3, #13), Olympic (#2, #3), and Pasa have a few good ones that have to be considered.

I actually think #5 at Presidio is a pretty solid hole.

BUT, seriously, how could anyone think that a restored (sounds like Mike DeVries is working on it) Mackenize course in Marin Country is not total nirvana.  I would give anything to call that my home course. ANYTHING. 

[Jon Spaulding]

JS,

For us mere mortals it is a very difficult hole, but perhaps not all that strategic- aim right and hope to get an angle with a long second.  I could see you challenging the left and having a wedge in.

My back was killing me in my only play here so I was only able to hit half shots.  As I recall, I hit it dead left, lofted an eight over the trees (I think I was successful) and made a 5 or a 6.  The course looked great though Mike DeVries was still working on it.  The areas around the driving range were the only negatives that I saw.

Did you play the course recently?  How would you rate it (Doak scale) and in comparison to the other MacKenzies? 

Lou.....the hole was playing into the wind, at 466.....hit a low driver at the small pine with a draw. Had a 6 iron in. I don't see the wedge thing happening, but would try the left side next time, as it looks to be a 1-2 club decrease in distance....provided the score can stomach flirting with the hazard.

I played there a few weeks ago; would put the course in the Doak 7.5-8.0 range - very slightly below Pasatiempo and above Green Hills/Claremont.

Here are the Doak explanations just in case.

7. An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles. You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.

8. One of the very best courses in its region (although there are more 8s in some places, and none in others), and worth a special trip to see. Could have some drawbacks, but these will clearly be spelled out, and it will make up for them with something really special in addition to the generally excellent layout.

[Jon Spaulding]

It's pretty up there.

But I'd say there are a couple at SFGC that are of that caliber, if not better (number 2 and 12 comes to mind as 4 pars).

I need to get out to Meadow Club to see is post-remodel. I haven't seen it for 7 years, and then it was really wet and didn't play as intended.

Is Santa Cruz in the bay area?

Against its will, Santa Cruz would be part of the bay area.

[Jon Spaulding]

Good thing we have wide-screen...how about pixeling down those photos, Jon?

Here's where location comes into play.  We have the same hole in western New York, with the downhill tee shot, the dogleg
left, and then a rise to a three-club green with bunkering left and right.  The water feature is actually beyond the fairway on the right, at the turn of
the dogleg. 

The burn is actually a poorly-placed and unfair (read: unrecoverable) hazard, so I deduct a point from the Meadow Club's version.  However, the hills backdrop prettifies the hole to
a degree that the terrain surrounding the 2nd at The Links At Ivy Ridge (www.thelinksativyridge.com) cannot match.

I turned down the photo size a couple of notches; didn't realize they were going to be kept at the native size!

Disagree with your comment; the burn is placed ideally, and recovery shots are very possible if you find your way into it.

[Jon Spaulding]

Ronald,
   Have you ever been to Meadow Club? For an average golfer like me (hcp 10) that burn is perfectly placed. If I am striking the ball well I could challenge the hazard and have 3-4 less clubs coming in. I can aim right if I choose so one does not have to challenge the hazard if they don't want to. I would simply have a much longer approach shot. Given the back right to front left overall tilt of the green there is a good reason to have a shorter iron in, so that one has a better chance of hitting their approach where they want it.
   How is any hazard unfair when you don't have to go over it if you don't want to?

Jon,
   To answer your question I would say no. I think there is a little too much latitude off the tee, even though it does leave a much more daunting approach. I think #2 and #4 at Olympic Lake right off the top of my head are  better holes. There are less options, but you have to play some quality shots, whereas at MC #7 you could get away with some loose tee shots (I have some firsthand knowledge .
I do love the hole though, #7 at MC is my favorite hole on the course. I was great fun to watch Mike work on that hole and keep tweaking it until he was happy with it. It is significantly improved over what was there pre-restoration/renovation.

Thanks for answering the question, and the alternates; is the latitude reasonable on this hole, considering it's 466 yards, there is no width on #6, and we have #9 coming up? The decision to bail out/miss to the right is about a 1/2 shot penalty, which seems fair. To make a 4 here, one has to play 2 very good golf shots.

#4 Lake is a great hole; certainly tougher, but less strategy and slightly less visually pleasing to my eye. #2 I would consider a lesser hole on all counts (unless they have lengthened it a fair bit in the last 8 years).

[Jon Spaulding]

I agree with Ed.  After you've played #7 a few times, you understand that there are several strategies off the tee - left of the burn with a difficult angle to the green opening, short right of the burn with a long but unobstructed second shot, or over the burn with a shorter unobstructed second shot.  What makes it so interesting is the poor visibility of the landing area(s) due to the dogleg and terrain.  It is indeed a really good hole.

Best hole in the Bay Area?  I don't know about that!

Bill - well let's put forth some alternate proposals!

[ed_getka]

Ronald,
   Have you ever been to Meadow Club? For an average golfer like me (hcp 10) that burn is perfectly placed. If I am striking the ball well I could challenge the hazard and have 3-4 less clubs coming in. I can aim right if I choose so one does not have to challenge the hazard if they don't want to. I would simply have a much longer approach shot. Given the back right to front left overall tilt of the green there is a good reason to have a shorter iron in, so that one has a better chance of hitting their approach where they want it.
   How is any hazard unfair when you don't have to go over it if you don't want to?

Jon,
   To answer your question I would say no. I think there is a little too much latitude off the tee, even though it does leave a much more daunting approach. I think #2 and #4 at Olympic Lake right off the top of my head are  better holes. There are less options, but you have to play some quality shots, whereas at MC #7 you could get away with some loose tee shots (I have some firsthand knowledge .
I do love the hole though, #7 at MC is my favorite hole on the course. I was great fun to watch Mike work on that hole and keep tweaking it until he was happy with it. It is significantly improved over what was there pre-restoration/renovation.

Thanks for answering the question, and the alternates; is the latitude reasonable on this hole, considering it's 466 yards, there is no width on #6, and we have #9 coming up? The decision to bail out/miss to the right is about a 1/2 shot penalty, which seems fair. To make a 4 here, one has to play 2 very good golf shots.

Agreed on the 1/2 shot penalty, but given the approach angle doesn't really change and only becomes longer I don't think that is quite enough pressure on tee shot placement.

#2 Lake may not seem like much of a hole for you mister big hitter, but it is a good challenge for mortals like myself.

[JSPayne]

Great pics above......and I agree this is one of the more strategic holes I've played. It's not one of my favorite holes because it always kicks my arse.....

But I will make two comments: (1) believe it or not, I've actually seen quite a few long hitters bomb it OVER that creek on the fly, which does lead for nothing more than a wedge in and (2) you'd probably have to be a member (or employee like me back then) to play it enough to pull it off, but there is actually a walk-path connecting the left tee shot area to the approach (so you don't have to jump the creek or walk around) and if you throw a running hook in there well enough, you can run it right over that land bridge.......that's how short ball hitters like me have a wedge in 1 in 20 tries!

Anyhow, here's a few more pics, from the restortation as well:



Tee shot before


Tee shot after (work on dogleg not complete yet, and those oleanders to the right are gone now too)


Dogleg before (tee to the right, green to the left)


Dogleg after


Green before


Green after (notice the faint outline of the old green.....this was the largest restoration of a green, almost doubling in size)

[Jed Peters]

Awesome shots, Mr. Payne.

Thank you for sharing!

[Tyler Kearns]

Certainly a very good hole. In my sole trip around the course, I tried to play safer towards the lone pine in the distance, hit a slight pull and hoped I'd be able to carry the hazard, which I did, and the excitement & anticipation that provided is what makes diagonal hazards such good design features.

I would have liked to see the hazard run across the fairway, as the disappearing act it pulls in the middle of the fairway strikes me as odd in appearance, perhaps the transition from hazard to swale is too abrupt, however, from a playability stand-point, it provides the needed relief for everybody to play the hole as they desire.

Finally, I found the green had much more contour than my eye originally perceived, likely due to the severity of the topography immediately surrounding the green, which caused the green to appear much flatter in relation.

All in all, a very strong hole, but I do not have the experience of the Bay Area courses to answer the question of this post.

TK 

[Jon Spaulding]

Ronald,
   Have you ever been to Meadow Club? For an average golfer like me (hcp 10) that burn is perfectly placed. If I am striking the ball well I could challenge the hazard and have 3-4 less clubs coming in. I can aim right if I choose so one does not have to challenge the hazard if they don't want to. I would simply have a much longer approach shot. Given the back right to front left overall tilt of the green there is a good reason to have a shorter iron in, so that one has a better chance of hitting their approach where they want it.
   How is any hazard unfair when you don't have to go over it if you don't want to?

Jon,
   To answer your question I would say no. I think there is a little too much latitude off the tee, even though it does leave a much more daunting approach. I think #2 and #4 at Olympic Lake right off the top of my head are  better holes. There are less options, but you have to play some quality shots, whereas at MC #7 you could get away with some loose tee shots (I have some firsthand knowledge .
I do love the hole though, #7 at MC is my favorite hole on the course. I was great fun to watch Mike work on that hole and keep tweaking it until he was happy with it. It is significantly improved over what was there pre-restoration/renovation.

Thanks for answering the question, and the alternates; is the latitude reasonable on this hole, considering it's 466 yards, there is no width on #6, and we have #9 coming up? The decision to bail out/miss to the right is about a 1/2 shot penalty, which seems fair. To make a 4 here, one has to play 2 very good golf shots.

Agreed on the 1/2 shot penalty, but given the approach angle doesn't really change and only becomes longer I don't think that is quite enough pressure on tee shot placement.

#2 Lake may not seem like much of a hole for you mister big hitter, but it is a good challenge for mortals like myself.

Ed, as you are well aware, I am drawn to anything involving penalty strokes or high numbers like moth to flame.

JS Payne, thanks for the additional photos. The transformation of the green is impressive. Was that a single bunker that was in the middle of the FW before?

[JSPayne]

Yes John, it was just a single bunker as you see in the panoramic pic.....and it wasn't quite in the middle of the fairway, the rough line ran right along the left edge of it, so it served as the corner of the dogleg. The creek presents a much better hazard as fairway is mowed right to the edge, allowing shots running too long to sneak in but allowing a well struck shot to roll enough to have a shorter shot at the green off a nice lie instead of getting caught up in thick rough on the corner. The old bunker plus rough to the left of it bascially meant you had to clear the bunker on the fly to cut the corner or you were pretty much forced to play out right. Any shots attempting to cut off the corner to the left were grabbed instantly by either the bunker or the rough.

[Tom Huckaby]

These are fantastic photos and I am darn sorry I missed this thread when it was posted.

I have to say the more I look at this and the more I think about my few playings of Meadow Club, the more I am tending to agree with Jon that this may be the single best golf hole of the lot - ESPECIALLY how it is now, with the option available to cut it to the left.  Good lord this is a fantastic golf hole, as explained by Jon and others.

Joel listed a lot of contenders for the title, but I can't see any as being clearly better than this hole - even the ones at Pasa (and I'd add 14 there, btw).

To me, it's both very difficult and offers strategic choices, which is a tough trick to pull off.

Great call, Jon.

TH

[corey miller]

Was the hazard restored or added?  It looks like the original picture does not have a hazard in the fairway?

From 2500 miles away it looks like the Super is doing a great job with the mowing lines around the hazard and around the bunkers and green.