Hi Matt:
Wondering if you agree with something I wrote in another thread, which is that the courses in our neck of the woods are really differentiating on cost relative to condition? For example, I played earlier this month a Metropolitan, and found the course conditions pretty poor. They're struggling to keep grass on the fairways. Anything that is in decent condition in the Bay Area is $100+ on the weekends to walk, or you have to play as a single at 2 p.m., which I hate. Last Sunday I got up a 0-dark-thirty to drive from San Jose to Stockton to play at Spanos Park, which I really enjoyed because it was in decent condition.
Jeff, I think we may have very different perspectives on things, but I am basically a match play zealot so conditions are significantly less important to me. The conditions at Metropolitan were imperfect. Ironically, the biggest criticisms I had were the soggy sections resulting from over-watering, probably in an attempt to account for the occasional bits of patchiness here and there. I tend to find firm-fast-but-patchy to be totally fine and playable, especially for a links-like course.
It was a 5+ hour round in 20+ mph non-prevailing winds (PCC +1), and I put up my highest score since Feb 2002, so yea, sub-optimal, but none of that stuff really bothers me much. I was just happy to be at a thoughtfully designed course with a good friend. I think #10 is one of the better holes in the Bay Area, and while I do have some criticisms of the back nine, on the whole it's thumbs up from me.
I only wish I'd won the match
Obviously, anyone in the Bay Area, reach out if you want to play a round together. I'm always happy to meet up with other golf architecture nerds.