Metropolitan Golf Links Discussion

[Ian_L]

Hi all,
Since there were at least 10 GCAers playing Metropolitan Golf Links in Oakland last Saturday, I thought it might be a good time to have a little discussion on the course.  I hope everyone had a great time.  I have played the course several dozen times and think it has some very interesting holes.  It also has some “almost” holes, where the architect’s intent is undermined by bailout areas he did not consider off the tee (right on #10, left on #17 to name two).  Certainly not a minimalist course (it would be very flat!), but fun nonetheless.  Here are a couple of holes I particularly enjoy:

Hole #2 – 374/350 – par 4
A centerline bunker on the second hole makes for interesting choices off the tee.  Shorter, accurate hitters may choose the left side, although a water hazard will doom a hooked ball.  Longer hitters may be able to carry the bunker, depending on the wind (in your face on this hole).
From the tee (sorry for the poor quality photos):


Hole #4 – 446/421 – par 4
This bunkerless hole plays downwind and slightly downhill.  A draw down the left side leaves a surprisingly short second shot. However, a back left pin (as seen on Saturday) is much easier to access from the right side. Missing the green left will leave a VERY difficult up-and-down.
The green (taken from www.playmetro.com):


Hole #10 – 538/511 – par 5
Almost a great hole. The diagonal carry off the tee doesn’t quite work because there is a bailout area to the right. I usually aim for this area if the wind is too strong to carry the bunkers.
Tee shot:


 The layup shot provides for many options that depend on the day’s pin placement.  If the pin is in the left depression (as it was on Saturday), a layup 120-140 yards away, just short of the hazard, gives you the best angle to the green.  If the pin is on the right side, you might hit a longer layup shot to the right of the hazard, taking it out of play for your third.  Yardage markers won’t help you here, you have to judge all the layup distances yourself. I’m always surprised by how many people hit woods down the right side, not realizing that they could be just as close to the hole with a well-placed 8-iron.
The green, with three distinct tiers:


The 5th and 6th holes are my least favorite.  The 5th is a 166/144-yard par 3 that often plays downwind, yet a slope at the front of the green prevents a run-up shot. The 6th hole is a par 5 with water hazards on both sides off the tee.  The green is actually one of my favorites on the course, but the tee shot is not fun at all (especially with those ugly ball-eating bushes on the left).
I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on the course from an architectural standpoint.

[JLahrman]

Ian,

I agree with you on #6.  To me it plays as the one hole that just had to be jammed in there.  It's easily my least favorite on the course, which is probably the reason I seem to make double every time I play it.

I've never liked #10 that much, although your analysis of the layup does make me want to rethink my position, and maybe I'll dislike it less.  To me it's always seemed like a hole where you could hit your tee shot anyplace, then hit a standard layup because there is no real reason to go for the green.  Neither the tee shot nor the second seem to be overly critical, as long as neither is overly horrific.  But there is merit to your analysis of the layup.

Holes I like:
#4, as you mention it is a good bunkerless hole that follows the lay of the land (speaking of unintended bailouts, I fanned my drive into #3 fairway last weekend, from where I was able to make a par).
#9 is a solid par 4
#11, another bunkerless par 4 which calls for a fade off the tee and then a good approach
#12 is in my opinion the best of the par 3s
#13 is another hole where you must contend with a middle-of-the-fairway bunker, depending on the wind and your length

Last year I also did a photo tour of Monarch Bay, which is Metro's neighbor another mile or so down the shore of the bay.  Monarch's holes do not feel quite as forced as Metro's but the greens do not have the same amount of undulation either.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45658.0.html

[Kalen Braley]

Having played it a couple of times, I think its an interesting course.  I remember the back 9 being more compelling than the front 9 in terms of playability and interest of shots.  The transition from 5 green to 6 tee and 6 green to 7 tee were pretty bad, and the aerial seems to confirm this.

It also certainly looks to be on a pretty small chunk of land.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.719117,-122.196679&spn=0.012781,0.029032&t=h&z=16

P.S.  If you look close between 6th and 7th green, you can see a small plane landing!! 

[Bill Ward]

I also like number 10 a lot.  Like you said--the layup can vary by as much as 100 yards depending on the pin.  Anything close to the hazard will do for the left side while a long shot opens up the right.  The bailout right is an option but there are some pretty nasty lies over there.  

Six drives me crazy mostly because of the awkwardness of the routing right there and that big bush behind the green.  I think that with it gone it would make distances far harder to judge while allowing for recovery for a long shot.  you just have to be too careful with that back pin, but getting it over that spine is really important if you want to two putt.  I've seen many an almost perfect shot just roll off the back and into that bush which seems a bit over the top.  

Thirteen may be my favorite par 4 out there.  The bunkers split that fairway into a right and left half--carry the left bunkers and you have and easy pitch, bail out to the right and you have a semi blind approach from a bad angle into the green over both the fairway bunkers and the right greenside one.  

Fourteen is the round wrecker.  You really have to take on those bunkers if you want to have a shot at that green.  There is a middle right pin that is really tough.  After two difficult shots you still have to hope that you've hit one of the three different sections of that green.  Two putting across or through any of them is never easy.  

For what it is, it really is a fun course.  

[JLahrman]

Fourteen is the round wrecker.  You really have to take on those bunkers if you want to have a shot at that green.  There is a middle right pin that is really tough.  After two difficult shots you still have to hope that you've hit one of the three different sections of that green.  Two putting across or through any of them is never easy.  

It's true.  I've explored numerous different ways to make a double bogey on #14.  Every time I think I've covered them all I come up with something new.

[Bill Ward]

I should probably be a little clearer about what I mean when I say "for what it is."  Basically it started out as a golf course, then it turned into a landfill, then the landfill was capped with soil from the bay.  I'm not sure what the time frame is here but it finally came full circle and they put another golf course on top of that.  So it's a golf course built on top of a dump. 

[Kalen Braley]

....  So it's a golf course built on top of a dump....

..built on top of a golf course.

I had a buddy who worked that site for years on one of those big graders.  It was good money while it lasted.

[Patrick Kiser]

Metro is a course I keep coming back to again and again.

For me it's a combination of 1) easy to walk, 2) decent price, and 3) not a bad layout.

There's nothing great out here per say.  Just a lot of solid holes.  I like several of the greens, but more often than not they just play a tad too slow for me.  Tee to green is not a strength.

I agree the 10th is one of my favorites ... if not the favorite.  The bailout right comes in handy with the wind that can kick up.  Others that I enjoy are the 3rd (approach), 4th (green), 9th, 14th, and 16th.

Not a huge fan of the approach on the 17th however.  It's not so much the water (although that is annoying).  The green just feels wrong.  It's shallow when it should be the opposite.

I'm also not a huge fan of the par 3s.  They just feel too similar.

But for $50 bones ... I'll keep going.

[JLahrman]

It doth appear that I am alone in not caring for the 10th.

[Patrick Kiser]

It doth appear that I am alone in not caring for the 10th.

Joel,

You don't think the approach is kind of cool if you made a good drive and decide to give it a go?  The green seems shaped to hold a long 2nd.  I've done it a few times, but only from a good drive.

I agree the tee shot is nothing to write home about ... it just seems more interesting for the approach.

[JLahrman]

Joel,

You don't think the approach is kind of cool if you made a good drive and decide to give it a go?  The green seems shaped to hold a long 2nd.  I've done it a few times, but only from a good drive.

I agree the tee shot is nothing to write home about ... it just seems more interesting for the approach.

a) When I finally hit a good drive on that hole I will let you know what I think of going for it in two.
b) John Moore bombed a good drive on #10 Saturday and still laid up.  If he's not going for it in two I'm not (I was feeling good about clearing the water at 17 with a 5-wood, until I saw him use an 8-iron for his second).

Maybe if the wind is different you can go for it in two, but with the proximity of the water and the back to front cant of the green, it doesn't seem like a real option to me.  Widen the neck of fairway that connects to the green, and then maybe I'll think about it.  The green doesn't seem shaped to hold a long approach to me, but maybe that's just because I haven't tried it.  You have to miss long with the water there, and depending on where the pin is that's going to leave a very downhill chip.  With my long and wrong game and brick hands around the greens, it's just not a good gamble for me.

[David_Tepper]

Without dwelling on specific holes, what I like most about the Metro is the routing. There are very few parallel holes and, other than #8 & #9, I cannot think of any 2 holes in a row that play in the same direction.

Patrick K. -

I would take issue with your assertion that the #17 green is shallow. Next time you are out there step it off from front to back. I think you will be surprised how deep it is. On the other hand, it does often play shallow, as the green is rather flat and the hole typically plays downwind except for 3 or 4 months over the winter.

I think Dong Yi, when he set the course record out there, hit driver, wedge into #17!

DT    

[astavrides]

although the drive at 6 is tight, if you manage to hit the fairway, you can probably get home in 2.  or if you dont want to take the risk/reward off the tee, you can play it 3 iron, 3 iron, wedge. 

[Patrick Kiser]

Next time you are out there step it off from front to back. I think you will be surprised how deep it is. On the other hand, it does often play shallow, as the green is rather flat and the hole typically plays downwind except for 3 or 4 months over the winter.

Ya, took a look from above and it certainly appears that way.  I guess it just feels that way to me.  It's rare that my ball doesn't run off the back.  Then again, I'm usually coming in with a mid iron at best.

[JLahrman]

although the drive at 6 is tight, if you manage to hit the fairway, you can probably get home in 2.  or if you dont want to take the risk/reward off the tee, you can play it 3 iron, 3 iron, wedge.  

Each time I play the course, I take one less club off the tee on this hole.  One of these days I will finally find the club that will get the ball into the fairway.

Vegas has the over-under at 5-iron.

It's not THAT tight of a shot, but that doesn't keep me from hitting the ball out of play.

Alex, I believe that was Ian Linford (who started this thread) that you ran into on the course Saturday.

[astavrides]

Alex, I believe that was Ian Linford (who started this thread) that you ran into on the course Saturday.

Gotch'a.  Nice to have met you, Ian, and thanks for this thread.  There is a guy here at work named Ian Latchford and I called him Ian Linford the other day by mistake.  Now I know why.

[Matt_Cohn]

If I hit a good drive on 10, I do the opposite of what you guys are talking about. I hit it as far as I can on my second shot, past the corner of the wetlands, and have a wedge or lob wedge in. It would be nice if the fairway were extended all the way to the hazard around the 150 mark though. Seems like that option should be available.

[Mike Benham]

And that is free advice from a champion ...

[Kalen Braley]

Ian,

I just re-read your initial post.  When you said there is a bailout area right on #10, did you mean the 18th fairway?  Because as memory recalls and seeing the aerial i'm not seeing anything else.

Assuming this is what you meant, is 10 any less of a hole because this option is presented to the user?  I'm guessing it wasn't the architects intent.

[Mike Benham]

I should probably be a little clearer about what I mean when I say "for what it is."  Basically it started out as a golf course, then it turned into a landfill, then the landfill was capped with soil from the bay.  I'm not sure what the time frame is here but it finally came full circle and they put another golf course on top of that.  So it's a golf course built on top of a dump. 

I don't think the site was ever landfill. 

I believe they originally closed NLE Lew Galbraith so that the Port of Oakland could deposit the dredgings from the Oakland estuary on the course.  After a period of time, top soil was brought in and the course was routed and shaped by Johnny Miller  . 

[Kalen Braley]

I should probably be a little clearer about what I mean when I say "for what it is."  Basically it started out as a golf course, then it turned into a landfill, then the landfill was capped with soil from the bay.  I'm not sure what the time frame is here but it finally came full circle and they put another golf course on top of that.  So it's a golf course built on top of a dump.  

I don't think the site was ever landfill.  

I believe they originally closed NLE Lew Galbraith so that the Port of Oakland could deposit the dredgings from the Oakland estuary on the course.  After a period of time, top soil was brought in and the course was routed and shaped by Johnny Miller   .  

Wikie is my friend today: 

"A landfill site (also known as dump or rubbish dump and historically as a midden), is a site for the disposal of waste materials by burial and is the oldest form of waste treatment. Historically, landfills have been the most common methods of organized waste disposal and remain so in many places around the world.

Landfills may include internal waste disposal sites (where a producer of waste carries out their own waste disposal at the place of production) as well as sites used by many producers. Many landfills are also used for other waste management purposes, such as the temporary storage, consolidation and transfer, or processing of waste material (sorting, treatment, or recycling).

A landfill also may refer to ground that has been filled in with soil and rocks instead of waste materials, so that it can be used for a specific purpose, such as for building houses. Unless they are stabilized, these areas may experience severe shaking or liquefaction of the ground in a large earthquake.

[JLahrman]

yourdictionary.com has two definitions for landfill:

1.the disposal of garbage, rubbish, etc. by burying it under soil or earth
2.a place used for this purpose
3.garbage, rubbish, etc. so disposed of

OR

1.A method of solid waste disposal in which refuse is buried between layers of dirt so as to fill in or reclaim low-lying ground.
2.A site used for or reclaimed by such disposal.

So you're both correct.

Perhaps we should alter the thread to discuss golf courses that we would recommend converting to landfill?  I've got a few ideas...

But back to Metro.  I do agree with David that the routing on this course makes it interesting.  As mentioned, I like Monarch Bay a bit over Metro, but the holes at Monarch run primarily parallel.  On courses subject to the wind as much as these two, it can get a bit monotonous.  At Metro the holes do go every which direction, so the player has to deal with all sorts of different wind direction.

Perhaps my problem with #10 is that I've been trying to play it as the card says instead of coming up with the options that some of you have devised...

[Jed Peters]

And that is free advice from a champion ...

Pffft. That cohn guy is a chop.

[Mike Benham]

For Kalen's benefit, I will modify my observation where Bill's timeline of events is incorrect

I should probably be a little clearer about what I mean when I say "for what it is."  Basically it started out as a golf course, then it turned into a landfill, then the landfill was capped with soil from the bay.  I'm not sure what the time frame is here but it finally came full circle and they put another golf course on top of that.  So it's a golf course built on top of a dump. 

1.  "a golf course" - True
2.  "turned into a landfill" - Depending on the definition, either or true or false, but we can all agree that it was not a golf course
3.  "the landfill was capped with soil from the bay" - False, the landfill, again depending on the definition, I ASSUME was not capped with soil from the bay, I ASSUME it was capped with non-bay topsoil suitable for growing turf.  Of course, Kalen should also run to Wikipedia or Websters to determine if "the bay" is synonymous for "estuary" ...

[Bill Ward]

you guys know a lot more about dumps than me.