San Diego Country Club - Hidden Gem (Front & Back Nine Posted)

[Patrick Kiser]

Hole No.7: Par 4 377/358/341/250/250 (original 317)

As previously mentioned, the fairway bunker work is more recent and to be frank ... one notices the departure here.  Not a single hole up to this point with this kind of fairway bunkering and it feels a little jarring to the eye from the tee.  I can only think these are a defense against the longer hitters that can take advantage of this downhill hole.  The green is once again a highlight.






















Hole No.8: Par 5 563/538/500/465/419 (original 468)

This long sweeping dogleg right concludes with what feels like an odd approach to an island like green protected left by bunkers and right by an artificial pond.  The green, surrounds, and lake are not original as hinted to previously.  The green is pretty good, but departs slightly from the other holes leading up to this point with the tiering.  From the '53 aerial, the previous green placement would have been towards the left gentle ridge that appears about 50-80 yards short of the green.




























Hole No.9: Par 4 427/386/378/327/327 (original 385)

We finish this front nine with an abrupt turn back to the clubhouse in a northerly uphill direction and the clubhouse is in the distance.  It's a straight forward tee shot.  The large fairway bunkers right and especially left guard the hole like on the 7th against the long hitters.  The left fairway bunker feels and looks different from the others.  In particular the shaping and the face to bottom transition is not consistent with what we've seen up to this point.  The green has bunkers left and right.  The entrance has a steep face as well.  So a run on shot here is not encouraged.  Good green yet again though.  There's some very subtle mounding shapes to the back of the green that don't feel all that natural, but I'm nitpicking here.  

























And that's the front nine...  More tomorrow.

[Sean_A]

Patrick

The scale of the property is much more evidenced in the old photos.  That 9th fairway looks as wide as an ocean.  The bunkers on the par 3 are enormous.  The more I look at the pix the more I think the trees do nothing to enhance the design.  The look strikes me as a bit stifled - like a course is bursting to get out from the trees. 

Look forward to the back nine.

Ciao   

[Anthony Fowler]

Great discussion Patrick.  I generally agree with the points about the trees.  However, two points are relevant to this discussion.  

First, the course plays a lot wider in person than it appears from these photos.  Would you agree Patrick?  A lot of better players actually criticize SDCC because you can spray the ball off the tee and still score well.  

Second, most of the trees that come into play are small and sparse.  For this reason, there is some penalty for missing the fairway but the player usually has an opportunity for recovery.  

As people have discussed, if the fairways were widened and the trees removed, there would still be a big premium in positioning yourself well off the tee in order to achieve the optimal angle for your approach.  Plus, I agree that this would enhance the visual appeal and the strategy of some of the holes.  

[Jim Eder]

Patrick,

Great pics and analysis!!! Thank you!!

To anyone,

Why is there so much focus on the ability to run the ball on?  Does the wind blow that much here? We had a slight ocean breeze when I played.  I guess I come from a low handicap viewpoint so I tend not to run the ball up unless there would be a wind issue. It did seem to me that there were openings, though precision may be needed to run it up.  But to get it close a precise shot would be needed.  The greens were nicely firm when I played but with a well struck shot they held.

Also, on the bunker shapes why the negativity? They seem very Royal Melbourne to me. Why don't they work here? I guess I am looking at this in isolation and not comparing it to the past.   They are deep, intimidating, and a challenge and I like looking at them.  And they played very consistently.

I guess I just look at this course from a black or white perspective. Could I play this the rest of my life and be happy? I can answer yes. I like it, it is challenging, it is interesting (especially because of the greens and the pin placements), it is beautiful, it is peaceful, it requires well struck shots to score, and it is in excellent condition. The greens are wonderful in character and conditioning. It isn't that difficult, it is a lot of fun but one has to play well to score. It is pretty easy to hit a lot of greens but to get it close and make the birdie it gets a bit more challenging. A missed shot will be penalized but not too severely, just a half shot or a shot.

I think Anthony got it exactly right in his most recent post.

And Patrick has it exactly right, the people from the GM to the Head Pro to the staff are wonderful.  Very classy.

[Terry Lavin]

I have to say that this place looks like a great members' course.  I'll definitely look it up the next time I visit La Jolla, which is one of my favorite places in America.

[Patrick Kiser]

Sean,

I would agree some tree management is needed.  But I will say the trees didn't encroach on my ability to play the course.  I just found the evenly spaced trees rather annoying and on a couple of holes the trees cover key original features which could be recovered for play.  I'm also not going to say the trees have a safety function because it's a private course.


Anthony,

I agree on the width.  As I mentioned on the "strength" side of things, not once did I feel cramped.  The holes are well spaced throughout.  The variety of trees feels like too much.  Some of the eucs and pines could/should be preserved, but those short bushy ones don't work for me.  They're always placed the same and evenly spaced out.  In my opinion, they don't fit in.  

With regard to the ability to spray the ball off the tee and still score well ... I will just say that wasn't always the case.  As you will see when we get to the 18th hole, the course had some centralized fairway bunkers.  These have been removed now.  I'm not sure why they were removed.


Jim,

For me the ability to hit a variety of shots and play a course differently means options.  I played OM recently with just a knockdown game and had a blast.  Another case is my shot of the year last year was a 3W on the 17th at the Cal Club and I hit it short to let it run and turn towards the pin.  It was a thrill to watch and a lot of fun to attempt.  I don't see myself trying this at SDCC.  I don't think it gets too windy here, if it's anything like Carlsbad, La Jolla, or Del Mar where I've lived at one time or another.  

I think the bunkers do work here and they do their function well.  I just feel the placement is repetitive and the shaping is somewhat repetitive as well.  They can feel cookie cutter at times.  Maybe you'll see what I mean when we reach 14th approach.  But I agree they have the merit of being rather consistent and do their job well.  They are not unattractive either.  I also feel the fairway bunkers aren't always consistent in feel to the greenside bunkers as I tried to point out on the 9th fairway bunker to the left.

I agree with all your other points and it's a big reason why I wanted to post this thread.  I loved playing the course and had a lot of good fun.  Plus there were some fantastic holes like the 6th.  I too could see myself playing this kind of course and being happy.  But I also like to understand if the course could be even better or was perhaps better before.  Call it "beard pulling"...

[Jim Eder]

Patrick,

Thanks, very fair.

The bunkers on 14 made me think as it is really a long par 4 for a low handicapper. As a par 5 it is pretty defensless, have to do something. How would you improve that hole?  Personally, I would probably make it a 4 and lessen the bunkers but it is me being a bit nitpicky.

I hear you on loving options but aren't options usually given when the conditions can become too severe? The wind gets up too much, the greens get "baked out" and there is no way to hold them even with a perfect shot, etc. I love to hit a bump and run 5 iron from a 100 yards as much as anyone but when there is no wind why would I hit anything but a wedge as I know my 56 is 105 yds?

I actually thought there were a lot of options out there.  Take it over a bunker, lay it short, play it left, or right, cut it around, play it off a slope on the green, etc. Sure trajectory might be limited but right to left, left to right, short, long etc. I was thinking about all that all day on pretty much every shot out there.

I hear you on "beard pulling", nothing wrong with that at all. I love it the way it is but of course I am sure it could be even better.

Thanks Patrick!!

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

A number of posts mentioned the similarity in look and feel to a Sandbelt-type course.  I haven't played or even seen either, but if one compares aerials (which obviously doesn't take into account ground movement) they'll see SDGC is on a parcel of land almost similar in size and shape with Kingston Heath.  The glaring differences are twofold: 1.) the bunkering; 2.) the width that seems to pervade KH. 

If the similarities are true, it just seems interesting to see how these courses are maintained so differently (i.e. tree management) with KH being the "model" to which to aspire.

With that said, a good friend, who's a member at a Top 10 course, has played SDGC a number of times and is a big fan of it.  And, his take was more of the same... remove about a 1,000 trees and you'll really have something special.

WW

[Patrick Kiser]

Onto the back nine...

Hole No.10: Par 4 438/434/418/412/412 (original 480)

We start off again from the clubhouse, but this time we're heading in a north to south direction with a tee shot to a slightly blind ridge in the distance.  At 480 in the original configuration, the whole could have played as a par 5.  The fairway tends to slightly turn left to right.  The approach gives a feeling the green is crowded by the trees in the back.  The opening to the green is pretty open on this one.  The green itself is one of the most challenging on the course.  Pin placement middle right can be brutal.  It's a very tough putt to get close on without going off the green.  If you land it left ... you're just about dead unless you have a deft touch.  The green will let your shot in to the left and turn to the right.  So a green with a lot of movement.
















Hole No.11: Par 3 158/145/137/123/118 (original 320)

This medium par 3 shows having originally been a par 4.  I really liked how it set up to the eye off the tree and the bunkers to install a sense of respect.  The green was plenty to handle as well.  The green is bisected by a diagonal ridge that runs from bottom right towards upper left.  From the '53 aerial, it looks like hole might have been shifted to the left as part of the expansion made to either accommodate the lengthened 8th with the pond or perhaps the range.  Either way, two greens side by side appear in the aerial...  So a mystery as to why things changed on this hole.  I do not have a date to the old photo here.




















Hole No.12: Par 4 390/385/369/309/309 (original 198)

It's not clear if the original played as a long par 3 or short par 4, but the hole is significantly longer.  We head back out west now and the hole runs as a dogleg left.  The hole gently rises upon reaching the apex and then plateaus nicely to a green protected ... left and right by bunkers.  I think we might have one of the best greens on the course here as well.
























Hole No.13: Par 3 202/181/162/144/114 (original 449)

We have another good par 3 in the 13th and its length is closer to that of the superb 6.  The direction is south to north with bunker protection left, right, and back left.  The ball will turn sharply from right to left upon entering the green and the opening to the green encourages a right to left draw off the tee.  The original was likely a par 4 at 449.  It's not clear if the routing changed on this back nine, but we see some significant differences in length to the holes from the original card to today.  Another good green.  Liked this one despite making a mess of it...














Hole No.14: Par 5 485/478/471/444/347 (original 382)

The medium length par 5 14th presents what I feel is one of the best tee shots I've been exposed to.  Just look at the movement off the tee!  Wonderful!  Bring your Vijay fade to this one because that's what is called for.  We head back out west to the very edge of the property.  As exciting as the tee shot is, I was disappointed with the approach.  The fronting bunkers feel very evenly positioned.  The shaping of the bunkers doesn't quite do it for me, but they are consistent in feel for a pot like bunker with the steep faces and flattish bottoms.  The green is massive, runs shallow for a long approach, and is quite good with some subtle movement.  The mounds in the back are also evenly positioned and in such a way as to appear placed in between the fronting bunkers...  I'll remember the tee shot on this one and the green.


























Hole No.15: Par 4 397/391/376/262/262 (original 525)

We make an about turn heading due east with this par 4.  It looks like originally at 525, it would have been a par 5.  The strategy to this hole as I mentioned earlier has been changed to reward avoiding the fairway bunker left.  There's a slight ridge / knoll to the left and short of the green.  In this area we would have had a pot like bunker previously and the current fairway bunker right was not in place.  The green is solid and as mentioned earlier blends in well without any propping up.




















Hole No.16: Par 5 603/526/507/474/402 (original 139)

Our last par 5 continues in the west to east direction back towards the clubhouse.  The 15th and 16th lie on some of the flattest portions of the property and lack the same interest for me as the rest of the course.  Given what we've seen until now in terms of a strategy based on avoidance and the orientation of this green, I simply don't understand the fairway bunker placement short and right of the green.  Shouldn't it be to the left?  Avoiding this bunker does not produce a reward.  If anything you'll have a tougher angle into the green.  So its placement is inconsistent in my mind.  Fortunately, the green makes up for this.  A fun green with plenty of challenge.






























Hole No.17: Par 4 367/361/329/296/296 (original 321)

We head north for the final stretch with this par 4.  From what I can tell, it appears from the '53 aerial that this hole contained a diagonal ridge to a possibly elevated plateau area that ran the length of the right side where the current row of trees lie.  It was much wider previously to the right and closer to the green was quite wide to the left.  The orientation of the hole appears about the same in the '53 aerial as now, but I wonder if it had been oriented more towards the ridge right to reward the natural challenge in clearing the ridge to gain a better angle into the green.  An earlier aerial would confirm this.  This is all suspicion on my part with a risk / reward strategy in mind from the old days.  As the hole plays now, one needs to head straight up the right side avoiding the trees or if going left needs to stay short of the fairway bunker left.  The angle in from the left seems more challenging, since the green is more oriented to the immediate fairway.  The green opens up, but don't land short as the front can deflect and the ball can run down the fairway from right to left.


















Hole No.18: Par 4 460/418/403/289/289 (original 425)

Our final hole ends at the footsteps of the clubhouse and is quite a fitting finish.  A strong finish and rather memorable.  As you can see from the old photo (courtesy of David Stamm from a previous thread of his), the approach and bunkers were quite different when the course initially opened.  Notice the central like fairway bunkers in play...  From the photo, it appears there was a string of central fairway bunkers that ran diagonally from bottom left of the photo to upper right before getting cut off by the edge of the photo.  The green orientation and green bunker placement seems to encourage a right to left entrance as well.  This to me makes sense in the context of the natural topography and early risk / reward strategy in mind.  If you risk clearing the hill to the right (which is tougher and failure to clear it will leave you not only short but likely blind), you're rewarded with more room to get the power boost and not run into one of the central fairway bunkers.  Take the low risk route left where there's less ridge to clear and the left side fairway bunker has a chance of coming into play + you'll be left with a much more challenging angle into the green and a longer shot too.  When we look at the 50s aerial I posted on hole no.9 that shows the 9th, clubhouse, and ... 18th, we see the orientation of the 18th in that photo still favored a right to left entrance.  Today the green is very different.  I wonder how much of those central fairway bunkers might have existed on the other holes as well when the course first opened.  Today, the bunkers only protect the green.  From the tee, the shot still calls for a right to left draw to the right to gain a power boost.  However today, I did not see much of an disadvantage in going either right or ... left.  There's little danger and punching out from under the trees to the left is not all that difficult.  The challenge is on the approach and on the green.  Without question, I liked the approach, but when one sees how it was initially ... you feel a little bittersweet somewhere.  At least I did.  It makes we want to hit a knockdown runner up the right side and watch it turn.  But all in all, still a damn good hole.  The second old photo dates from the 1950s.



























And that's the back nine...

An enjoyable course and one I could easily see myself playing everyday.

[Anthony Fowler]

Patrick,
Great tour.  I especially like the juxtaposition of the old and new photos.  Where do you think that old 11th green was located?

I'm really confused about your comments on the fairway bunker on the 16th.  That bunker on the right is exactly where you would want to place your second shot to have an open shot into the green.  If you're pitching in from the left, the green is very shallow and you have to go over a daunting bunker.  If you can get your second shot to the right side of the fairway you have more green to work with and a less intimidating pitch.  For that reason, I see that bunker location as perfectly strategic.  If you challenge it with your second, then you have the best approach, but if you play away from it, you have a much harder approach.  Did I misunderstand your argument?

I'm also confused about the criticism of 14.  I think it's great as a short par 5.  The green is very shallow, so even though you might have the distance to get there in 2, you probably won't be able to land it and stop it on the green.  For me, the best bet is to usually take my chances on running it between the bunkers, because I would rather be in a bunker than over the green.  Perhaps you don't like the geometric appearance of the bunkers, but from a playing perspective, I think it's a really fun hole.  I wouldn't favor Jim's proposal to make it a long par 4 because you would have to re-do the green to make that work and I really like the shallow, exciting green as it is.

I also wanted to comment on 13, a really tricky par 3.  Because the green slopes so much from right to left, it's really tempting to try to play to the right side and feed the ball down, but a tiny miss will put you in the right bunker where the green runs away from you and you probably won't be able to get up and down.  This reminds me of some of Ross' work like the 12th at Wannamoisett where your natural instincts can really lead you astray.

I also have to say that I don't mind the raised greens.  It does give the good ball-striker a big advantage, but it also creates a lot of fun short game opportunities.  We don't critique the raised greens at Pinehurst or other golden age courses for being unnatural do we?  I do like variety in green settings, and I think SDCC offers that.  There are several places where could reliable run the ball onto the green like 4 and 10 and other places where you need to carry it on.  Also, I like the situations like 16 where you could put yourself in a position to run it on if you hit it to the right, but otherwise you're forced to hit a great aerial shot.   

[Jim Eder]

Anthony,

You are right, the green on 14 would need to be changed to make it more reasonable if it was a 4.  I loved that green so changing it would not be a great option. I did not find it that hard to hold on the second shot so it could be kept if changed to a 4 but it would upset most players sadly. Anyway, whether one calls it a 4 or a 5 it is what is is and the player scores what they score and plays it the way they play it. A Siamese cat is a cat whether you call it a cat or a Siamese.

The green on 13 really has a lot of slope.  Wonderful. Glad I wasn't above the hole there!!

I am with you on the raised greens. They worked for me.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks Patrick,  Great job.  I've never played there but the review makes me wish I had.

[Patrick Kiser]

That bunker on the right is exactly where you would want to place your second shot to have an open shot into the green.  If you're pitching in from the left, the green is very shallow and you have to go over a daunting bunker.  If you can get your second shot to the right side of the fairway you have more green to work with and a less intimidating pitch.  For that reason, I see that bunker location as perfectly strategic.  If you challenge it with your second, then you have the best approach, but if you play away from it, you have a much harder approach.  Did I misunderstand your argument?

My point I guess, if I have one, is up until now we've had avoid this and avoid that.  Now all of a sudden we have a fairway bunker here that changes that strategy.  Here you have a risk/reward bunker (clear the bunker to the right and gain the angle in to the green) and that's a departure from what we've seen up until this point.  Avoiding it left does not help you.  So really laying up short of it is the only "avoid" here.  So inconsistent strategy is what I'm saying given what we've seen up until this point.

I'm also confused about the criticism of 14.  I think it's great as a short par 5.  The green is very shallow, so even though you might have the distance to get there in 2, you probably won't be able to land it and stop it on the green.  For me, the best bet is to usually take my chances on running it between the bunkers, because I would rather be in a bunker than over the green.  Perhaps you don't like the geometric appearance of the bunkers, but from a playing perspective, I think it's a really fun hole.  I wouldn't favor Jim's proposal to make it a long par 4 because you would have to re-do the green to make that work and I really like the shallow, exciting green as it is.

I guess I just feel the approach is unattractive and feels contrived.  Very shaped and not natural looking at all.  The evenly spaced bunkers and mounds to the back in particular show this.  Let me ask you this: does it look like the bunkers and mounds blend in naturally with the surrounds and what we've seen topography wise up until this point?  I would argue they do not.  So it's a preference thing really for me.  I still think the hole is a good one and is indeed fun, but I think something better could have been done.  Again, when you're defending an aerial assault on such a wide green ... kind of makes sense to see something drastic like this and I just take it at that.  BTW, the '53 aerial shows none of the bunkers fronting like this...  It's a direct response to the modern game.

I also wanted to comment on 13, a really tricky par 3.  Because the green slopes so much from right to left, it's really tempting to try to play to the right side and feed the ball down, but a tiny miss will put you in the right bunker where the green runs away from you and you probably won't be able to get up and down.  This reminds me of some of Ross' work like the 12th at Wannamoisett where your natural instincts can really lead you astray.

Good to know.

I also have to say that I don't mind the raised greens.  It does give the good ball-striker a big advantage, but it also creates a lot of fun short game opportunities.  We don't critique the raised greens at Pinehurst or other golden age courses for being unnatural do we?  I do like variety in green settings, and I think SDCC offers that.  There are several places where could reliable run the ball onto the green like 4 and 10 and other places where you need to carry it on.  Also, I like the situations like 16 where you could put yourself in a position to run it on if you hit it to the right, but otherwise you're forced to hit a great aerial shot.

Fortunately, not all greens are propped up and I agree with you there.  I will say the better greens and approaches were ... the non-raised ones.  I just found the raised greens to offer more difficulty in providing shot options into them.  I think the 2nd is the poster child of this for SDCC.  The '53 aerial shows the approach with a single bunker to the right of the green.  That must have been one hell of shot to the left with the undulations going on and leading into the green.  That option is gone now.  I just like more options and not be dictated to a single method of play.  Again, a preference thing for me.  So are the raised greens and approaches still good?  Of course they are.  All of them were for me.  It's just that they could be better is my feeling.

[Patrick Kiser]

Thanks Patrick,  Great job.  I've never played there but the review makes me wish I had.

I think you of all people need to see it.  It's quite good.

[Peter Ferlicca]

I have a question, for people that have played both Rancho Santa Fe and San Diego Country Club, which do you prefer.  I have played Rancho plenty of times and have always heard that is the best classic course in San Diego, but this tour looks pretty good and interested in hearing opinions. 

[David Stamm]

EPIC presentation, bud! Very well done. Sadly, I have not had the privilege of playing here, despite being a local for 25+ years. It looks just as good as I have heard from others that have told me about it through the years.

Peter, Robert Deruntz can give you a pretty darn good comparison of SDCC vs RSFGC. I have played RSFGC quite a few times, and while I love the place, SDCC looks like it could be the superior course. I would add that Pauma Valley is a very good course as well, and probably my favorite RTJ course I've played.

[Jud_T]

Patrick,

10 Rounds SDCC vs. Barona,  how do you split 'em up?

[Patrick Kiser]

David,

I probably went overboard, but I guess I was excited.  Since several will want to join as a result of this ... you'll no doubt receive an invite soon   .


Jud,

That's a tough one because I haven't played Barona in years.  If you had a gun to my head right now, I'd probably go half and half.

[David Kelly]

That's a tough one because I haven't played Barona in years.  If you had a gun to my head right now, I'd probably go half and half.

You should play Barona again.

[Anthony Fowler]

Peter, I have only played RSFGC a couple times and it's been a while, but I do prefer SDCC to RSF.  They're not too far apart, and I could understand if someone felt differently.  For me, the greens at San Diego are better are there is less artificiality.  I said I don't care for #8 at San Diego because the water is unnatural and doesn't fit with the rest of the course.  RSF has several holes that feel that way.  RSF is probably a little harder and requires you to drive it straighter than San Diego, but San Diego offers more options and a little more excitement.

As David said, Pauma Valley is good and belongs in the discussion of the region's best courses.  In my book, Torrey South, San Diego, RSFGC, and Pauma Valley are the top 4 in the county (in that order). 

I've played Barona twice and walked it a few other times.  It's fun but I wouldn't put it in the same category as the others.  I would probably split my rounds 9-1 in favor of San Diego over Barona.   

[Jud_T]

I've played Barona twice and walked it a few other times.  It's fun but I wouldn't put it in the same category as the others.  I would probably split my rounds 9-1 in favor of San Diego over Barona.    

WOW.  Either I'd better get my butt over to SDCC immediately or we disagree dramatically about Barona.  It's the only course I've played south of LA that I'd recommend unconditionally.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

With my parents living across from the 5th fairway, I have a bias for RSF.  However, it is a Max Behr masterpiece that still has 17 of is original holes.  It has had many bunkers filled in and several misplaced newer bunkers built.  Worse, a few years ago, the worst super in SoCal history changed professions and somehow got the job to create better drainage and rebuild the bunkers.  This incompetent joke of an insult to the community of golf architects created a bunch of Ted Robinson style mounds with dips requiring drainpipes, resort style bunkers, and a palm tree forrest on ghe right side of the 5th hole.  In spite of this, the course has superb ground movement, presents wonderful shotmaking challenges, and has many excellent green complexes.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

SDCC is a wonderful course.  Like RSF, the aerials do not give a very good sense of the routing.  The holes may look like there are quite a few back and forth holes.  Because of the wonderful ground movement, not one hole shares any similarity.  Holes are routed along ridges, in valleys, across ridges, and with subtle doglegs that appear straight from the sky.  Some people are not very keen about the bathtub bunkers, but they tie into the green complexes very well. I think 14 would be a weak par 5 without the front bunkers because there would be no strategic decision over going for the green or choosing a layup area for best approach. With a 24 yard deep green, going over is death and short bunkered requires a superb shot with a good putt on a very tricky green.  As for fairway bunkers, the Harbottle additions are placed mostly on outside of doglegs and do not match the greenside bunkers in style.  With a massive tree cutti g program it would receive more attention for its architectural merit.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

The other top San Diego courses--Pauma Valley and Barona Creek are worthy of being included in the conversation.  Pauma Valley is a top of the line RTJ that was formerly John Wayne's ranch.  Its only weakness is the driving zone on 17 which was washed out by a flood in the late 70's and was rebuilt by Ted Robinson.
Barona Creek is a darling among quite a few GCAers.  I am in that category and try to play there at least a few times every winter.  The past few years the course has not played rock firm, but it is still maintained very firm compared to most SoCal courses.  There are times when it used to play rock firm, and at those times the drive must be played to a side of the wide fairways for an angle of attack to the greens or the ball will end up in a 3 or 4 putt area or fail to hold the greens

There is a 5th course worthy of discussion--Tijuana CC.  This was once part of the great Caliente complex that was the Hollywood weekend escape during the roaring 20's.  This was once a Bell masterpiece that the club claims was routed by MacKenzie.  Its in a good area, but travelling across the border is a major pain these days.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

The other top San Diego courses--Pauma Valley and Barona Creek are worthy of being included in the conversation.  Pauma Valley is a top of the line RTJ that was formerly John Wayne's ranch.  Its only weakness is the driving zone on 17 which was washed out by a flood in the late 70's and was rebuilt by Ted Robinson.
Barona Creek is a darling among quite a few GCAers.  I am in that category and try to play there at least a few times every winter.  The past few years the course has not played rock firm, but it is still maintained very firm compared to most SoCal courses.  There are times when it used to play rock firm, and at those times the drive must be played to a side of the wide fairways for an angle of attack to the greens or the ball will end up in a 3 or 4 putt area or fail to hold the greens

There is a 5th course worthy of discussion--Tijuana CC.  This was once part of the great Caliente complex that was the Hollywood weekend escape during the roaring 20's.  This was once a Bell masterpiece that the club claims was routed by MacKenzie.  Its in a good area, but travelling across the border is a major pain these days.