The 18th at MPCC shore

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Gil Hanse did significant modifications to the 18th at MPCC shore a while back. I have always held his work to be at the top of the profession. This is far and away the worse work I have ever seen from him and frankly as bad a work as I have seen from anyone of this type. the basic work on the primary fairway trap and landing area was good, in fact very good. However a large completely useless hard to maintain trap was put right off the tee. the only way it comes in play is for the 25 plus handicap player. It is insult to injury for the high handicap player and a total waste of money to build much less maintain otherwise. All the traps he put in completely are out of character with the other 17 holes Mike Stantz built a few years before. The green complex was again completely out of character with the rest of the course. Large mounding as opposed to gentle flowing contours. The green side bunkers in addition to the other comments provide for a high percentage of unplayable or near unplayable lies. The low risk approach to the hole is a blind shot so this is close to moronic from a strategy point of view. the high risk tee shot approach to the green is semi blind from most landing locations.  The groundswell of dislike is such it is already being rebuilt. The green as proposed is a significant improvement. yet the bunkering is far from correct. What makes something like this happen. Out of control ego by the architect? Following bad marching orders from Green Chairman or President of Club? Misinterpreting instructions from club? Most likely a combination of the above. By the by the cost here was off the charts but that is not the point of the discussion. Are there other places where this has happened. Also again, I consider Gil to be one of the best of the best.

[Mark McKeever]

Do you have any pictures?

Mark

[Bill_McBride]

John, when was the work done?  I guess the one round I played there was in May 2008, and the hole didn't seem as bad as you describe.

[J_ Crisham]

Tiger,  I played here last May and thought the same thing. 35 tremendous holes and 1 that just doesn't fit. Hopefully Bob H will weigh in and provide" the rest of the story."     
                                                            Jack

[Pete Lavallee]

Did Mike Strantz really build 18? I distinctly remember being told that Mike passed away before 18 could be completed and his associate Forest Fezler completed the work there. I will agree that the original incarnation was out of place. I find it very hard to believe that Gil Hanse could screw up anything he was involved with. Tiger, are you sure you have your facts straight?

[C. Squier]

Tiger, totally agree. The styling of the 18th hole is inconsistent with the rest of the golf course.

[jeffwarne]

Gil Hanse did significant modifications to the 18th at MPCC shore a while back. I have always held his work to be at the top of the profession. This is far and away the worse work I have ever seen from him and frankly as bad a work as I have seen from anyone of this type. the basic work on the primary fairway trap and landing area was good, in fact very good. However a large completely useless hard to maintain trap was put right off the tee. the only way it comes in play is for the 25 plus handicap player. It is insult to injury for the high handicap player and a total waste of money to build much less maintain otherwise. All the traps he put in completely are out of character with the other 17 holes Mike Stantz built a few years before. The green complex was again completely out of character with the rest of the course. Large mounding as opposed to gentle flowing contours. The green side bunkers in addition to the other comments provide for a high percentage of unplayable or near unplayable lies. The low risk approach to the hole is a blind shot so this is close to moronic from a strategy point of view. the high risk tee shot approach to the green is semi blind from most landing locations.  The groundswell of dislike is such it is already being rebuilt. The green as proposed is a significant improvement. yet the bunkering is far from correct. What makes something like this happen. Out of control ego by the architect? Following bad marching orders from Green Chairman or President of Club? Misinterpreting instructions from club? Most likely a combination of the above. By the by the cost here was off the charts but that is not the point of the discussion. Are there other places where this has happened. Also again, I consider Gil to be one of the best of the best.

Tiger,
You miss the point.
 17 holes left to redo....and it will all match

[Mike Benham]

How much is the failure of the original 18th and the newest version, due to the fact that it is a bad piece of land and was required to be used to meet the Club's requirement that the 18th hole finish as close to the clubhouse as possible?

[Anthony Fowler]

Tiger and Jack (no humor intended), I have a different take.  For me, holes 5-15 are just incredible, but the holes that go through the houses (from the clubhouse out to the shore and back) don't stand up in comparison.  1-4 and 16-17 aren't bad, but they're holes that might have been found on any decent local course in a real estate development.  They just don't match up to their neighbors on the shore.  I imagine that Gil was trying to give a little something extra to 18 to give it some uniqueness.  In my mind, he accomplished that.  18 is better and more memorable than 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, or 17.  Maybe he should give the same face lift to those holes.  I know Bob disagrees with me, but I'll defend Gil for following Tillinghast's advice:

"But... every hole must have individuality and must be sound. Often it is necessary to get from one section to another over ground that is not suited to easy construction, but that troublesome hole must be made to stand right up with the others. If it has not got anything about it that might make it respectable then it has got to have quality knocked into it until it can hold its head up in polite society."

[David_Tepper]

"How much is the failure of the original 18th and the newest version, due to the fact that it is a bad piece of land and was required to be used to meet the Club's requirement that the 18th hole finish as close to the clubhouse as possible?"

Mike Benham -

I agree with what you have said. That is not a very good corridor for a golf hole, as it is uphill, doglegs to the right and the fairway slopes to the left. Drainage on the area is poor as well.

Bill McBride -

The 18th hole was remodeled a year or so ago.

DT

[Bob_Huntley]

I was going to stay out of this fiasco but I must agree with everything John has written. Admittedly,the gound was not the best but  this was the 17th hole on the original Shore course and never came in for the vilification it now receives.

Something like $500,000.00 was spent on this project and a year later they are having the same architect correct his mistakes.

I kow that Gil Hanse has done superb work at LACC and Sleepy Hollow together with his original designs but this was way out of line with the rest of Strantz 's work  at MPCC.

Bob

[J_ Crisham]

Mike Benham,  Your points are the real answer to why the 18th is what it is. Not sure how it could be changed much given tthe uphill terrain to create a world class finisher- still one of the best tracks on the West Coast.
                                                   Jack

[Sean Leary]

Any before and after pics?

[Bob_Huntley]

Tiger and Jack (no humor intended), I have a different take.  For me, holes 5-15 are just incredible, but the holes that go through the houses (from the clubhouse out to the shore and back) don't stand up in comparison.  1-4 and 16-17 aren't bad, but they're holes that might have been found on any decent local course in a real estate development.  They just don't match up to their neighbors on the shore.  I imagine that Gil was trying to give a little something extra to 18 to give it some uniqueness.  In my mind, he accomplished that.  18 is better and more memorable than 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, or 17.  Maybe he should give the same face lift to those holes.  I know Bob disagrees with me, but I'll defend Gil for following Tillinghast's advice:

"But... every hole must have individuality and must be sound. Often it is necessary to get from one section to another over ground that is not suited to easy construction, but that troublesome hole must be made to stand right up with the others. If it has not got anything about it that might make it respectable then it has got to have quality knocked into it until it can hold its head up in polite society."

Anthony,

The only way for Strantz to get down to the water was by using the original routing through holes 1 to 4. His work on those four holes was extremely well done .

It is interesting to note that for the A.T.&T. Pro Am, the degree of difficulty of the holes played in the Tournament figuration, came out like this.

No. 1    5th*
No. 2    13th
No. 3    11th
No. 4    3rd*
No. 16  1st*
No  17  7th

The asterisks denote that these holes were in the Top Fifty hardest among all three courses played.

Bob



 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

David and Mike, the holes at Olympic Lake run against the grain of the land making them some of the more interesting par 4's in golf. They also give the course a personality none of the modifications and lack of architectural continuity can take away. Actually 18 is 400 yards from the club house as you guys know. I think the hole will never be the best hole on the course, but it can be a good finishing hole. A strong uphill dogleg right with a bit of reverse topography is a good thing. There is risk reward in the hole that makes for good match play golf. Yet, the traping, hole defenses, and green complex should be consistent with the rest of the course. The things gil did were not. Jeff, one can argue you are dead right. However, Mike did a great job and created a wonderful course. Also I find it hard to believe there was such a disconnect with the Club to give Gil any feedback to think that idea would fly. If you are correct then #1 is closer to right than any of Gil's fans, including me, on here would want to be the case.

[Pat Burke]

I was under the impression, though could be wrong, that the work Gil did,
as happens in many cases was presented to and approved by the membership?

Those in the know, is this true?

[Bill_McBride]

Tiger and Jack (no humor intended), I have a different take.  For me, holes 5-15 are just incredible, but the holes that go through the houses (from the clubhouse out to the shore and back) don't stand up in comparison.  1-4 and 16-17 aren't bad, but they're holes that might have been found on any decent local course in a real estate development.  They just don't match up to their neighbors on the shore.  I imagine that Gil was trying to give a little something extra to 18 to give it some uniqueness.  In my mind, he accomplished that.  18 is better and more memorable than 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, or 17.  Maybe he should give the same face lift to those holes.  I know Bob disagrees with me, but I'll defend Gil for following Tillinghast's advice:

"But... every hole must have individuality and must be sound. Often it is necessary to get from one section to another over ground that is not suited to easy construction, but that troublesome hole must be made to stand right up with the others. If it has not got anything about it that might make it respectable then it has got to have quality knocked into it until it can hold its head up in polite society."

Anthony,

The only way for Strantz to get down to the water was by using the original routing through holes 1 to 4. His work on those four holes was extremely well done .

It is interesting to note that for the A.T.&T. Pro Am, the degree of difficulty of the holes played in the Tournament figuration, came out like this.

No. 1    5th*
No. 2    13th
No. 3    11th
No. 4    3rd*
No. 16  1st*
No  17  7th

The asterisks denote that these holes were in the Top Fifty hardest among all three courses played.

Bob
 

Bob, did the pros play 16 as a par 4?  I don't recall it as a particularly tough par 5, in fact I think I birdied it!

[Bob_Huntley]

Bill,

Both No. 1 and 16 played as par fours.

The par 3 9th, which was the toughest hole on the course at the California State Amateur a couple of years ago was not played from the 224 yard back tees but from the Black tees at 181 yds. Those extra 43 yards make one helluva difference.

Bob

[Pat Burke]

I played the course after Mike's redo. 
Could someone explain what the hole was then vs now?    Maybe photos?

As I mentioned earlier, My belief is that the work done was presented to, and approved by the membership?

Been wrong before though!

[Bob_Huntley]

I played the course after Mike's redo. 
Could someone explain what the hole was then vs now?    Maybe photos?

As I mentioned earlier, My belief is that the work done was presented to, and approved by the membership?

Been wrong before though!

Pat,

As a member, I was never asked for approval of the work done by Hanse.


Bob

[Bill_McBride]

I played the course after Mike's redo. 
Could someone explain what the hole was then vs now?    Maybe photos?

As I mentioned earlier, My belief is that the work done was presented to, and approved by the membership?

Been wrong before though!

Pat,

As a member, I was never asked for approval of the work done by Hanse.


Bob

Probably approved at the green committee level and endorsed by the board of directors.

[Pat Burke]

Bob and Bill,
Thanks for the replies.  I am a fan of MPCC, and played the Shore before and after Mike's redesign.
I still liked the Dunes a lot, but never played it before Rees.

So in effect, while not the membership per se, pretty fair to say that Gil did what the representatives of the membership
asked then?
Likely the same type of process that Rees follow on his recent work, and the others before that?

Sometimes as an "outsider" in this world, who is an architecture fan, it seems too often the architects are
given a bad time for doing as they were requested.  I've had the same reaction at times before I catch myself!

[Joe Bausch]

bump

[Pat Burke]

This thread holds some special interests to me.  As a 3rd generation golf pro, I had the opportunity to work in
all areas of the golf course business.  I was even (technically) an assistant super, while working my way through college.
I say technically because I had the title, but was much more of a foreman.  I could be trusted to watch for disease in the morning rounds while setting pins and tees etc, and smart enough to know that I really didn't know anything, other than what looked like a problem!

I also had INPUT in to some redesign stuff, as well as design stuff.  I in NO way believe it makes me a designer.  I AM a wannabe, but really, more a fan of golf courses and architecture.  At this time, the fields of play interest me more than playing the game.

I've met, and spoken with quite a few architects, and have had universally good experiences with them.  I had a little bit of knowledge of some of the work at MPCC, which is a place I love.  My questions before, were largely based on my experiences listed above.  So many times I see architects and superintendents getting grief for doing what was asked of them.  I have worked in these situations, and played at some of them.  All too often, people making the approvals, make decisions and can sell them.  I just see a lot guys getting grief for giving what the customer wanted

[Mike Benham]

The tee shot is less daunting now as it seems to be a bit wider and flatter.  The bunkers just off the front of the tee box are eye candy and inconsistent with the previous 17 holes of Stranz' design.

Likewise, the deepness of the fairway and green side bunkers, and the shaginess of the bunkers collars are also inconsistent with the Stranz holes.


Late afternoon light, tough to see the contours.  No photos of the green or greenside bunkers as the authorities confiscated the photo as evidence of a crime ...


From the tee




From the leftside of the fairway, about 170 to the middle of the green but significantly uphill.




From the right side of the fairway, on the flat shelf, 125 yards to the middle of the green but significantly uphill.