Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Richard_Goodale on April 08, 2002, 02:19:32 PM
-
Cinnabar has been my USA "home" course for the 18 months I've been in Silicon Valley (i.e. my handicap is tabulated there). However, despite the fact that it is 5 miles from my house, I have only played there 10-15 times in that period, mostly because I haven't really played that much at all in this most recent incarnation of my time on this earth.
Nevertheless, it is a golf course which deserves to be played and seen.
I played CH last Monday with my wife, from the tips, and I found it to be a a course which reveals more and more to me the more I play it. I will go out on a limb and say that it is--EASILY--in the class of Pasatiempo, the two MPCC courses, Stanford and Stevinson Ranch, all of which I have played in 2002, and all of which are superb tests of golf.
It is a CCFAD, but one done with more than a bit of class. It is a John Harbottle design. The clubhouse has a library and collection of old photographs, from the Masters, the Crosby, etc. that are worth the visit itself. There are 3 nines, each very, very good. Conditioning is appropriate to the design. Even the Doyen would give it his Maintenance Meld Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. There are some awesomely subtle holes, e.g.:
The seemingly simple opening 5 on the Lake that leaves you a visually daunting, but actually very makeable chance to start off the round with a putt for an eagle. The redanish 2nd. The intriguing short-4 4th with the witches tit rock pinnacle to aim at. The blind driveable 6th. The amazingly tempting green on the 150 yard 8th. The long 4 3rd on the Mountain 9. The world class 4th on the same. Then the great short 5th. The 7th, with the 2 Carnoustie bunker right in the middle of the driving area, but with a narrow gap to the left to cut the dogleg. Just about ALL of the Canyon 9!
I'd love to hear form others on this course. I know that Tom H knows it well, and has a love-hate realtionship due to the fact that they did a bit of bait and switch in terms of the pricing a few years ago.
It's $55 with cart on Mon-Tues and up to $120 on the weekends. Much as I love Stevinson at $75 (and a 2 hour drive) and Stanford (for alums) at $100, and Pasa at $135, it's a good deal, at least for me. Other thoughts?
I give it a solid 1* on the Michelin scale--that's really, really good!
-
Rich,
I am amazed by your comment that it easily belongs in the class of Pasatiempo. I only played it once and came away with a vastly different opinion. Now I will grant that I might need to play it again to grasp some subtleties that I missed and I did find it to be a good CCFAD. I think it is a Doak 5 (Well worth playing if you are in the area but don't build a trip around it). That would place it in the best 500 or so new courses. I think Pasatiempo is a bulletproof 7 and any top 100 list without it is sorely lacking.
My biggest problems with Cinnabar were that I found the routing to be disjointed and there were cart paths everywhere I looked. Not only is this a cart ball course but also no effort was made to remove them from site and (In some instances) play. Contrast this to Barona; where there is an attempt to hide the cart paths or Victoria National, where they may as well be invisible. The lacks of continuity in the routing and definitive lack of creativity in cart path placement are major point deductions in my book. Not to overstate, I absolutely liked the course, but I cannot say I found it to be in Pasatiempo's league.
-
I'd love to hear form others on this course. I know that Tom H knows it well, and has a love-hate realtionship due to the fact that they did a bit of bait and switch in terms of the pricing a few years ago.
Well Rich, I knew this day would come. To say I have a love/hate relationship with this, MY BABY, is the understatement of the year. But it's not ME you want to hear from re Cinnabar I'm sure, as you and I have sure batted this back and forth MANY times.
For the edification of anyone else that might care about this course that I frequent at least once a week (for its practice facility) and have been doing so since it's opening, I will say that my complaints about the golf course are two-fold:
1. It is unwalkable. Oh, Rich will likely argue this point, but don't be fooled. At the very least, it is a LONG TOUGH walk. That doesn't really bother me too much - hell I ride all the time. But #2 really does... which is...
2. When this course opened, the MAXIMUM one could pay was $60 with cart. That's now $120. That pisses me off to no end. This is the "bait and switch" Rich mentions which colors my view of this course to a great extend, and for which I make no apologies. This is also why I was a charter "member" there, a status I gave up after one year in protest over the price hikes. I am proud now to keep my handicap at a non-pretentious, much more "bang for your buck" club a few miles away: Santa Teresa.
With that in mind, understand that I followed the development of Cinnabar closer than any other golf course in my life - given the proximity of it to me, and the excitement of what it became as it was designed, shaped and grew in... The land is indeed wonderful, and what Harbottle et al created there is indeed quite good. I call this "my baby" because I did follow it so closely and damn right I was there opening day and many times thereafter that first year...
But I rarely play it any more, due to the price. That is sad.
That being said, I actually do agree with Rich on a lot of this, with my only disagreements in the "is it worth the price" area. I'd pay $15 more for Pasa ANY time, that's for sure. Maybe familiarity does breed contempt. I'd also be very happy for them to dice all the artifacts and scale down the clubhouse if it means getting the prices back to where the were two years ago...
But ok, we're supposed to take price out of the equation. Doing so, Rich is right - there are a lot of great golf holes there. Let me amplify on his thoughts with:
"The seemingly simple opening 5 on the Lake that leaves you a visually daunting, but actually very makeable chance to start off the round with a putt for an eagle."
WHOA - slow down there fella! Reaching #1 on the Lake in two shots cannot be called very realistic except for the very longest of hitters, particularly from the back tee. It is indeed relatively short distance wise, but it is also VERY uphill. Darn good hole but let's not give people the wrong idea re how reachable it is...
The redanish 2nd.
#2 on the Lake, playing app. 175 yards, with prevailing wind across from left to right howling at you as you stand on top of a plateau and try to hit the hook required. Skyline green also. This is one GREAT golf hole.
The intriguing short-4 4th with the witches tit rock pinnacle to aim at.
#4 Lake - another wonderful golf hole, improved tremendously since inception as two large trees on the left were lost/cut down. I have a little secret I can share re the tee shot here after playing it 25 times... but it will cost you... ;)
The blind driveable 6th.
You mean #5 Lake - if you can drive 6 then Tiger bows to you. 5 is indeed driveable, but only in the right wind conditions. Remember it is 360 yards from the tips! Yes, the last part does go quite down hill. But hey, I've yet to drive this green and well, I'm not ready to say I'm that much of a shortknocker! So again, careful with the descriptions here.
The amazingly tempting green on the 150 yard 8th.
NOW you are talking. That is one bewitching, devilish green. It's about 35 yards wide and maybe 15 deep, max. It takes one great shot to hold that green no matter what.. and the internal contours are a wonder also.
The long 4 3rd on the Mountain 9.
Another great hole - 437 from the tips, playing downhill, dogleg right, with deep bunkers at the outside of the dogleg and severe rough on the inside. Angle is much better from the right, the tee shot is much safer hit left... risk/reward most definitely. Another great green with good contour. Generally plays into the wind. Tough, fun hole.
The world class 4th on the same.
GOOD MAN! I've said since inception that this is the best hole of the entire 27. Another slight dog leg right, with a tee shot requiring MANY choices... and a devilish oak tree right in the fairway to complicate things even further. Second is uphill and very hard to judge. Just too much to say about this hole to put briefly here!
Then the great short 5th.
Well described on the web site... Now this one IS driveable! But only at pretty great risk...
The 7th, with the 2 Carnoustie bunker right in the middle of the driving area, but with a narrow gap to the left to cut the dogleg.
Oh yes! Now THIS is a reachable par 5 - in fact short-knocker me has reached this with various different irons down to a wedge once (from the white tees on tee shot). The bunker in the middle is just classic and absolutely makes the tee shot. It might have been more fun when the hill on the left was less grown in - you could find a ball there whereas now it's gone - but it did need to be "toughened" I guess... Wonderful hole with another under-rated green.
Just about ALL of the Canyon 9!
Yep, every hole on Canyon has something good to say about it... But the best by my take are:
#3 - short par 4 just brimming with choices that I like better every time I play it. I've spent hours on just that hole, late in the day, a few times trying to figure out where best to leave the tee shot.. and no matter where you do, the 2nd is a challenge as that is a tough green to hit and hold even with the shortest wedge!
#6 - classic risk/reward par 5, just plain beautiful, actually improved since inception as an overly severe green was softened (it collapsed!).
#8 - now this is a redanish par 3, just needs a bit more contour to kick the ball left to be a real redan. Great hole, definite challenge at 220 from the tips!
As you can see, I can go on and on and on about this golf course. Ever love something and hate something so much at the same time? It just pains me to no end how this course was "taken away" from me... But as you can see, I do love it so. And in the end, Rich is right: if you take out the dollar side of it, Cinnabar does hold its head up quite well with any of the ones he mentioned. I just kinda wish it didn't!
Those who are interested in the course should go to their website - it is filled with quite a bit of useful info and a few good photos. That's at:
http://www.cinnabarhills.com/
And if any visitors want to sample this course and don't mind a lot of cursing, let me know. I am always happy once I'm on the course and have forgotten how much I paid and I do like to show it to visitors.
Funny, I'll be there in about 90 minutes. Need to do some practice putting in anticipation of a little game I have going on Wednesday.
Sorry for the long rant.
TH
-
David
I'll agree that Pasa is prettier than Cinnabar, in an Artsy/Craftsy sense, but I am not at all sure that it is a "better" golf course. I really liked Pasa when I played it (for the 6th or so time) recently, but I'm trying to be very objective, and it ain't that great, the more I think about it. Probably a very good effort for 60 or so years ago, but too formulaic for today's standards. Nowhere near as challenging and playable as Cinnabar. IMHO, of course.
Come play it again in the next 4 months, before my home courses revert to Aberdour/Dornoch.
Cheers
Rich
-
DW: further to my epic above, note that I too argue with Rich over it's classification with Pasa. This is a cart-ball course most definitely and you're right, they could care less. In fact for a long time, they actively discouraged walking and only allowed two walkers per group!
Cinnabar just has so many "takeways" (ie take away this and it's great... take away that and it's great) that to put it up there with Pasa (who's problem is absurd greens at their current speeds) is a stretch. Given the two courses are roughly the same price, $$$ can't factor much in if they are to be compared....
TH
ps - gotta go - looking forward to more on this tomorrow.
-
Probably a very good effort for 60 or so years ago, but too formulaic for today's standards. Nowhere near as challenging and playable as Cinnabar. IMHO, of course.
Ok, I love ya Rich and damn I do trust your judgment much of the time... and those who know me know how I love to rail on Pasa... but you are, to put it politely, off your rocker here.
Pasa is FORMULAIC? In what way? It defies all conventions... It's greens are whacky... It requires a lot of different shots...
And Pasa is nowhere near as challenging and playable as Cinnabar? Good God, you've gone daft!
I've played each course at least 25 times, by my recollection. It's likely more than that. I'd venture to say my average score is at least 5-6 shots more at Pasa than Cinnabar. As for "playable", well, that can be defined many ways so I'll punt on that one.
But you've got some "splain'in" to do here, Lucy....
And damn, I gotta go so I won't see it till tomorrow morning. But I look forward to the explanation!
TH
-
Tom
Great post. You know this track a LOT better than I do. As for the price, to each his own, but I think you need a brief session with Dr. Katz to come to grips with the assertion that you'd rather walk Pasa for $135 than ride CH for a max of $120. And, of course, I've walked all three 9's at CH, including the Canyon, and if a 55-year old technically obese guy like me can do that, why can't you?
I saw two bobcats in the rough last time I played CH and too many eagles and hawks to count soaring in the air. And there wasn't a house in sight--not even a good doctor's ramshackle bungalow/GCA historical monument lying just outside of an in course "out of bounds".........
-
Ok Rich, we never settled this off-line so who's gonna believe we can on-line? ;)
For $15 more I shall indeed walk Pasa. I CAN walk that one without killing myself... It's a little matter of greens being somewhat in the same vicinity of the next tee, and not having to walk down from a tee back up to the fairway 14 times. Yes, as I say, all three nines at Cinnabar CAN be walked. Of course, people CAN run marathons also. The course is just so geared AGAINST walking, I gave up trying to prove the point long ago. Being told you can't walk by the pro-shop has a dilatory effect on one's psyche also.
You're right in one respect though - holding of grudges is not healthy and I do indeed need the assistance of Doc Katz to get over this.
Doubling the price just is a tough thing to get over!
Of course, Pasa did this also.... thus my rants against the Mac "gem"!
All right, now I am late. Damn this could be fun....
TH
ps - I am with you re outside scenery - CH has it over Pasa there by far. VERY peaceful back in that valley - I commented on that last time I was there actually playing, a month or so ago.
-
Schedule the drug test, Rich. I guess you won't believe it, but I once shot a 73 from the tips playing Canyon-Mountain. There was no wind... and I putted like a claw-wielding god. In that round I believe I had something like 26 putts. Mike Golden (late of several sites, where is he these days) was with me that day...
Best ever at Pasa is 72 and if you think I putted well in the 73 at CH, this round I doubt I had more than 22 putts. It included two chip-ins.
The ratings are actually pretty similar. I just find Pasa a LOT tougher to score on that Cinnabar. For me there are just plain no birdie holes at Pasa, whereas at Cinnabar you do have some short par 4's and reachable par 5's (as you stated!) even from the tips.
TH
ps - so as not to toot my own horn, please realize these are indeed both very tough courses and my rounds over 80 greatly exceed my rounds under 80 at each. But Rich asked for best ever...
-
OK, Tom
I think we've got Eckenrode, Naccarato, Shackleford et. al. pissing in their Okie overalls by now. Save the stories as to how you can REALLY play, when it is all on the line, for apres Barona.
-
Hey guys,
I played CH a few weeks ago for the first time and thought it was a solid course for the $55 I paid. I don't like it as much as Stevinson Ranch (another Harbottle design). CH (I played Mountain/Canyon) is NOT even close to Pasatiempo as a test of golf. I would have to play CH 3 or 4 times to figure out the approach angles, but once that was done I could consistently score at least 5 strokes lower at CH. This is partly due to the borderline absurd green speeds at Pasa.
Tom and I went back and forth about some of the holes on the Canyon nine that I felt were flat out GOOFY and I've changed my opinion a bit, and look forward to playing there again to try out a few things.
The course is easily walkable (I would say Poppy Ridge in the summer is a difficult walk), the only unwalkable course I have seen is Princeville Prince (my legs were shaking by the 16th tee).
All four par 3's were good and required various clubs and shot requirements.
As far as scenery goes, I would rather see some houses at Pasatiempo, than the freeways/cartpaths at CH.
The Canyon nine is 9 holes too many at this 27 hole facility. I felt like Harbottle tried to squeeze some holes into some tough terrain. I don't like #3, (rethinking after talking to TH), #4 is a short narrow par 4 uphill with a tree in the left center of the fairway. #6 par 5 is a sort of double dogleg par 5 that has the toughest 2nd shot I have seen for a first round at a course. I is extremely difficult to do anything from going for the green to laying up with a short iron, due to the angle of the fairway and the narrowness of the landing area all the way to the green. #7 par 4 straight UP a hill with a blind second even for Tiger probably (even with a flag on a 12-15 foot flagstick) I couldn't see the flag even with a 9 iron approach).
Pace of play is slow 4 1/2 to 5 hours on a weekday. :(
-
I have to agree with Ed as well, although I usually play on the weekends when it is $120. I thought that the Canyon nine was pretty severe and built on land not very well suited for golf. The Lake/Mountain nines are pretty good, although not nearly as good as Pasa. Plus, at Pasa you can walk and not deal with those carts with the stupid distance finders.
-
Ed
You got it right about Pasa. It's the absurd contours/green speed combinations that makes it "hard." Plus the blind/semi-blind shots to the green. Those don't necessarily make it "good."
Mark my words--30 years from now Pasa will be Cinnabar's dowdy and homely neighbor.....
Dan G
Ed and I can and do walk CH. Why can't/don't you?
-
I need someplace to sit down during my 6 hour round.
-
Dan G.
Either learn Tai Chi, or play other times when you can get around in 4 1/2 hours, including some sherpa-like climbs! :)
-
Rich- While only having played it once (18) no mountain) I seem to recall the facility was fabulous. I do think the holes seemed a little less than natural and perhaps a bit manufactured. But like a good glass of wine or a good women she does get better each sampling. :-*
-
I know Tom doesn't mind #7 on Canyon, but if you like the hole, why do you like it? While you are at it, what makes #4 on Canyon a good hole, or bad?
I think on #4 you just knock it out around the tree with whatever club you like and then have a short iron in, but I couldn't discern any place in the fairway that would allow a view of the green, so placing the tee shot doesn't seem to provide any advantages. I've only played it once so it is very possible I missed something.
-
7. Talk about a skyline green! The only way you can see it is via Uranus (sic).
4. You gotta go around the tree to the left, either by a low Papazianic hook or a high Getkaen bomb banking off the slope to the right of the fairway. The high fading Huckster is dead on this hole unless he is highly skilled, as the Huckster surely is.
Cheers
-
Rich and Tom:
Now, you sound like a couple of my favourite kids of some years ago. Rich, you are right. Ch is much tougher than Pasatiempo. I played both within the past year, broke 80 at P and probably shot over 90 at CH. The latter seems awfully long compared to P.
Cart golf or not, CH is a severe test of ones abilities.
-
Bob,
Don't you think after you have played CH a few times and figured out the proper driving and lay up angles that you could lower your score by 4-5 strokes. Breaking 80 at Pasa is damn fine golf, I haven't broken 85 there.
Tom,
#7 on Mountain. When the pin is right behind the bunker and you are hitting, say an 8 iron, do you go at the pin or do you go just right of the bunker and let the slope feed your ball to the left down towards the pin?
-
Rich,
Two concepts from MacKenzie at work, IMHO:
1. "It is a remarkable thing about golf courses that nearly every man has an affection for the particular mud heap on which he plays."
2. Thrill. I've played CH many times, and I can't really think of
anything thrilling about it. Pasatiempo has thrills. Many.
So for me it's no contest which I'd rather be on. I'd choose Pasa, Stanford or San Juan Oaks any day.
-
John
I wasn't saying that Pasa and Stanford were not nice little mud heaps, too. They are (haven't played SJO). As for thrills, different stokes for diffeent folks. I personally think that CH is full of testing and exciting golf shots--that's what gets me off.
Cheers
Rich
-
VERY interesting provincial conversation here for us NorCals!
So OK, to answer a few questions and give a few more rebuttals:
1. Rich, please understand we are talking about my best rounds EVER at two courses that have consistently beaten me up (well, CH from the tips anyway). So no, our opponents need not be shaking in fear of me. They can take solace in my 86 at Eagle Ridge in NCGA 4-ball qualifier last week. The "Bad Tom" comes out far too often these days.
2. Re #7 Canyon: I'm with Rich, I absolutely dig that hole for it's skyline green AND for the precision required in the tee shot - the farther left you take it and tempt the big tree and the hellacious rough gains you exponentially in yardgage toward the hole, as shots to the center kick WAY right and backwards, rolling back toward the tee in many cases! So you can gain 60-70 yards for your 2nd by hitting a brave tee shot. Then the green speaks for itself... however, I can understand if you don't like skyline greens (ie damn near blind) you will have a hard time liking this hole. I tend to love them, so #7 is among my favorites in the whole 27.
3. #4 Canyon - Rich has it assessed spot on for Fading me - that is one DAMN hard tee shot and nope, I do NOT have the skills to produce the hook required more than one out of 10 tries. From the back tees I just punt and go way right and hope to God it kicks off the hill. From a set forward which I normally play, I can get it over the tree, but I have to hit 3wood and pray to the same Almighty I don't hit one of my low semi-skull screamers. That tee shot is bewitching and be-deviling for me, and thus I love it. Take out the tree and the hole is blah... although that is another damn good green also. But anyway Ed, you're not alone, lots of people hate that hole. It takes a certain masochistic mindset to like it, I guess! ;)
4. As for the relative difficulty of CH from the tips v. Pasa from same, well... it comes down to how one's game is, I guess. At CH, there are some damn long carries from those back tees and if the wind is blowing hard, forget it - I'll punt and say CH is tougher. But in "normal" wind at each course, Pasa plays a LOT tougher for me. See, again, I'm no Matt Ward/Tiger Woods but making carries isn't an issue for me either... and CH just plain allows a LOT more room to miss off the tee than Pasa, where one's most utilized club is the "chipping out of the trees iron." There's none of that at CH, except a couple holes on the Canyon nine. The rough is also generally MUCH tougher at Pasa... Yes, CH is indeed longer from those tips, but it also runs a LOT faster than Pasa, thus doesn't "play" that much longer... And finally, CH just plain has no "killer/hope to make a bogey and survive" holes like each of 1, 3, 10, 11 and 16 are for me at Pasa, and Pasa has no "lick my chops, think birdie" holes like each of #1 and 5 Lake, 1 and 7 Mountain, and 9 Canyon at CH. Again, maybe it's me... but I find Pasa a lot harder, for all these reasons.
5. Finally, hey I'm with Rich also - "thrilling" shots are what make me want to play the game. If one isn't thrilled by each of the following at Pasa, then one needs lower standards:
- tee shot on 1
- tee shot on 3
- approach shot into 9
- tee shot and approach shot on 10
- 2nd on 11
- tee shot and 2nd on 16
- tee shot on 18.
Yes, there are a LOT of thrilling shots at CH, several on each nine. But it's not like Pasa is "thrill-less". But of course, I guess in my best Clintonese I shall add the disclaimer that it depends on one's definition of "thrilling" - my inclusion of #1 tee shot at Pasa ought to speak volumes as to how I define it! For me, "thrilling" = "ass-puckering", in general. ;)
This is a fun comparison indeed. Hey, the way the ball is going, Rich might be right - Pasa might be anachronistic far sooner than 30 years from now... and CH does indeed have a lot of room to "grow." I sure as hell hope this doesn't happen... but he may be on to something here indeed. Odds are I'll still be here to find out, in any case!
TH
-
Hey, Tom, this ain't "provincial!"
We're actually talking about golf course architecture on the ground, not in terms of theories or pictures or words from some book. That should be of value even to those people unfamiliar with either course. A couple of points to follow up on:
1. CH is very much "in your face" whereas Pasa is subtle. On most holes at CH it is fairly clear what the risk/reward options are,on virtually every shot, including putts. At Pasa many of the options are hidden (or do not exist because of the narrow corridors on many holes).
2. I very much prefer "in your face" courses, which is why I like most links (except those which contian too many blind shots). To me being able to see what the challenges are in front of you (and there being multiple challenges) is prefereable to the "hit it there or your dead" school of architecture. Others have differnet preferences. So be it.
3. Overall I like the quality and variety of golf chots presented to you and required by you at CH. I think by this criterion, it is a "better" course than Pasa. Does that make it a "better" course overall. Not sure.
-
Fair enough, good sir. By "provincial" I just meant that so few people posting on this site are likely to have seen Cinnabar, that's all. Perhaps this discussion will spur a few to check it out, which is a good thing.
In response to your very valid further comments...
Hmmmm... this is thought-provoking indeed. I will wholly agree that the challenges at CH are in general right there for you to see, whereas Pasa is indeed more "subtle."
Now, which is "better"? Personal preference, yes indeed. At first glance, I have to say I do like to "figure out" golf holes - thus I prefer the subtle.
What's confusing me here is one statement you make:
"To me being able to see what the challenges are in front of you (and there being multiple challenges) is prefereable to the "hit it there or your dead" school of architecture. "
Wouldn't the "hit it there ore your dead" school exist MORE at CH than Pasa? I think I get what you're saying - multiple challenges are better than just one "don't hit it here or else" single place, but isn't this two totally different issues? Being able to see challenges clearly and obviously is not the same as having multiple challenges exist, correct?
Thus my preference is for multiple challenges, not all of which are apparent at first glance. I gather you dig multiple challenges, all of which can be seen and conquered.
Pasa has what I want in spades. CH does also - case in point being #3 Canyon - but not as much as Pasa. But yes, CH would seem to have more of what you want.
And thus I prefer Pasa, you CH. Vive l'difference!
Isn't this the rub, in the Shakespearean sense? IE, doesn't this come down to NGLA v. Shinnecock all over again?
TH
-
My sense of Pasa is that there is a "line of charm" on every hole and that if you stray much from there you are either in the trees or left with a need to play safe. At CH, I feel as if there are more, often creative, optionsfoir getting at hte pin offa missed tee shot, due to the green surrounds which allow for "bank shots" due to thier contours and the fact that they are firmer and faster than those at Pasa. I also feel like i have a shot to get up and down if I miss a par-3 at CH, although it is not easy. At Pasa I feel it is "get it on the green and take your chances from 15 feet."
If I said Iike CH better than Pasa, cancel that post! I think I might, but I'm still thinking on my feet on this one.......
-
Cinnabar would have to begin again from scratch to even be considered a golf course. It's a collection of holes, some very good holes, but still a collection of holes. Pasatiempo, Stanford and Stevinson Ranch are golf courses. Cinnabar, Poppy Ridge and San Juan Oaks are collections of golf holes.
I've only played Cinnabar four times, but I'm not in any great hurry to go back. It fails miserably the walk in the park criteria. If you were walking around the property, you would not take the route the course takes. The obsession with elevated tees is not one of my favorite new features in golf architecture. I can see Rich, and his dislike of blindness, loving the constant elevated tee shots, but it ain't for me. The only way to have almost all hole be downhill requires a lot of hiking up to tees.
Pasatiempo, Stanford and Stevinson Ranch I like better everytime I play them. Cinnabar and San Juan Oaks I like less. (And Poppy Ridge I've never gone back to since media day many years ago.)
"It is one of the chief merrits of golf thet nonsuccess at the game induces a certain amount of decent humilty, which keeps a man from pluming himself too much on any petty triumphs he may achieve in other walks of life."
--The Oldest Member (Heart of a Goof by P.G. Wodehouse)
-
So you reserve the right to change your mind, like any good female? ;)
That's cool. This is indeed thought-provoking indeed and I too can go back and forth re this.
I do indeed like what you say re the variety of shots - oh yes, the tree infestation (yes, I'll call it that) at Pasa has indeed robbed a few of the holes of their options and indeed removed the line of charm. One need only look at 6 and 7 to see how those have been ruined, as well as 1 and 9! There are however still very good examples of options in this vein on each of 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 among the non-par 3's! So yes, it ain't what it once was, and that's why all the MacKenzie photos, name of the grill, etc. pisses me off. But there's still a LOT to like there.
As for green surrounds, well... there is indeed a LITTLE of that at CH, but not enough for me to set that out as an advantage over Pasa as you have. And it's not like such DOESN'T exist at Pasa... one can use the contours on each of 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18 if one is creative enough. Pasa's greens are just surrounded by the typically wild, deep MacKenzie bunkers, where as there is more "grass area" in general in the green surrounds at CH - so the play at Pasa is off of the green/bunkerside contours, whereas at CH it is indeed off of humps and surrounds (where it occurs at all). I'm thinking a player with a really creative short game would have a harder time at Pasa, but might relish the challenge even more... once again, the ground options are there at Pasa, just harder to discover and thus come through experience and trial and error. Now we're back to in your face v. subtle/to be learned again, aren't we?
As for firm and fast, you got it - CH most definitely plays more so, and that is a shame through the green. Re the greens themselves, Pasa's just plain can't get any faster - infinite putting, remember? This is a weakness of Pasa most definitely - the creative, bold MacKenzie contours are emasculated by the speed, as I've harped on time and time again. You do not have this problem at CH, but then again, you also don't have the incredible greens.
This isn't as easy as I thought on first glance - so thanks for making me think this through, Rich!
TH
-
AHA! In terms of my discussion here with Rich, I was hoping Dan "I've never liked Cinnabar" King would weigh in!
All of Dan's points are valid indeed. Each can also be argued against. I do just want to point out that I do agree with Dan that it's the hikes down and then up again (as I alluded to above) that kill me in the walking area.
On the other hand, I will also disagree with Dan in that once I punted and just took a cart and tried to forget how much it all cost me, I've found that I've had the opposite experience in that I've come to like the course itself a lot more over time, as I discover more and more cool aspects of it.
Unfortunately, I gotta say, it is cart-ball, so thus not Dan's bag, so he'll never care to find out the things I have re this course. To each his own most definitely.
Of the courses mentioned though, let me make it clear that cost being taken out of the equation, my preferences would go:
Pasa
Stanford
Stevinson
San Juan Oaks / Cinnabar (tie - I go back and forth on this)
That's nothing against Cinnabar really - those other three are GREAT golf courses.
TH
-
Rich,
I am curious. You had to know that including Pasatiempo in the list of courses you feel Cinnabar was superior to was going to illicit quite a response. Do you really believe it or were you just baiting some of us? Dan and Tom more elegantly expressed what I got out of Cinnabar from my one visit: That it is a poorly routed, cart infested, collection of good to very good holes. Several of us have blasted Art Hills on other threads for designing this kind of course. Olde Stonewall in PA won their state with this form of design as well.
To me, this type of design is too easy. Lesser architects can find 18 perfect green sites. Elevate 18 tee boxes. Shape 18 fairways and then connect the dots at the end. The architects who deserve to be called great are the ones who can flow a golf course together. This may cost them several great green or tee sites but the finished product is a golf course. There is a mysticism about great golf courses. You can close your eyes and follow the flow of one hole to the next. Pasatiempo has that. Cinnabar does not and that type of course never will. This is not an old vs. new argument either. Pete Dye GC, The Golf Club, etc. have this same effect and they are modern courses. I am not at all ready to call Mayacama a great golf course yet, but it had that flow I'm referring to. I wonder if you agree with me.
-
Well said, DW. Just rest assured that Rich KNOWS how to bait me, and I don't think that was the case this time. I've come to know him well enough to see that there's a lot of Cinnabar that appeals to what he personally likes in a golf course. He's also quicker to overlook ills than most in here... as am I really. Thus the cartball aspect is meaningless, as just might be the "tie-together" side of things. Cinnabar does indeed provide opportunities for some damn thrilling/challenging shots, and that's what Rich likes most of all. It is indeed fun to play... and it sure as hell is a challenge from the tips.
I'm way oversimplifying things, but am I on the right track, Rich?
Now as for Mayacama, damn that has EVERYTHING, methinks. I'm guessing that's a course that all of us would love, Rich included. He needs to see it....
TH
-
David (and Tom H)
I went back on this thread and I don't think I ever said CH was better than Pasa. I said it was in the same class, a judgement I have yet to be dissuaded from.
In terms of "flow" I've been one of the main proponents of that concept on this site. In fact, if I remember correctly, I was the first one on the site to make the distinciton between a "course" and a "collection of golf holes," well over a year ago. You and Dan are right than CH doesn't flow as well as Stanford or Pasa, but neither of them flow as well as Muirfield or Merion or even Applebrook, IMO. In terms of elevated tees and hard walks, Stanford is not a lot better than CH--I've walked both of them in the past 6 months and I know! For a cart-oriented CCFAD, I think CH actually flows very well--in great part becuase of the openness of the terrain and the design. I also don't think that the design was a slam dunk just becuase of the space available. Harbottle found and created some really good golf holes on some fairly difficult terrain.
I wasn't trying to pull anybody's chain on this thread, just maybe slightly overstate the case for what was an interesting revelation to me, i.e. how good I am growing to think that CH is. It's not at all perfect, but neither are Pasa or Stanford, by any means, and there is a lot of interesting golf out in them thar (Cinnabar) hills.
-
God darnit Rich, you've effectively ended this very fun thread for me - I have NOTHING to disagree with in your entire last post.
That was quite reasonable, and well said.
TH
ps - I did actually find something to disagree with, but it's very quibbling: Stanford's a tough walk, but CH is a LOT tougher - I too have walked both in the last 6 months. Farther from green to tee, several more up then downs, greater hills over all. But what the hell, they're both hard walks.
-
Rich,
If you mentioned flow on a golf course a year ago, you were late to mention it by numerous years. I first brought up the idea of flow many years ago after reading Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's book of that title. I'm not claiming I'm the first to mention flow in relation to a golf course, but I know it was talked about many years ago.
This isn't about tough walk vs. easy walk. This is about the difference between a cart-ball track and a golf course. No matter how good the individual golf holes might be on a cart-ball track, they can never be compared to a golf course. A good golf course flows one hole to the next. There is a connection between the holes, they are linked together. The very nature of cart-ball is to ignore the flow of a course, looking instead for the best holes.
There are very few tougher hikes on a golf course than Cruden Bay's hike up to the ninth hole (okay, maybe Wente's hike to the 10th.) But these hikes have a reward at the end, usually a beautiful view. I don't want to be hiking up hills all day just to appease those that think all golf holes should go downhill. Golf courses should follow the terrain, going up and down hills, similar to when walking the property if there wasn't a course there. Cinnabar lacks flow, Stanford doesn't.
"While yearning to overthrow old beliefs, we also thirst for new certainties."
--Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
-
Dan:
I always thought that if I won the lottery I would donate a rope tow at Cruden Bay's 9th, a la MPCC's Dunes 18th. I think it is always better to have lost the 8th so as to have more time to catch your breath after the climb. An oxygen tank would be helpful.
-
Dan
Is that the same Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi who won the Bloodworthy Medal in 1991 for his work on pre-senile dementia in fruit bats and also used to date Cindy Crawford? Man, does that dude get around!
"Go with the flow" (attributed to Tom Bendelow and/or Abby Hoffman)
-
Jeez, this is well said too, Dan. No surprise that several of the guys from whom I've learned the most about golf have me bouncing back and forth like a spectator at a tennis match. I can't disagree with anything you say here either, Dan... Yep, Stanford and Pasa do indeed have a flow that CH lacks.
My one "stand" will be that our LONG-time battle over "cart-ball" isn't over. I know you believe cart-ball (as you call it) and golf are two different things, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna give in on that yet! If I ride a cart to get to the next shot, I am still playing golf. Oh yes, I do prefer to walk, but the essence of golf is never gonna be the walk for me, no matter what Shivas Irons says.
But we do NOT have to battle this one for the 25th time! Vive l'difference.
BTW, what about San Juan Oaks makes you like it less each time? I still like that course a lot, although I haven't been there in awhile.
You wanna get your blood boiling? Go play the new Los Lagos. Unwalkable due to idiotic routing requiring #9 to return to the clubhouse. Did you read the San Jose Merc article last week, or Gib's this week? Both right on, but both glossing over the huge "cart-ball" problem. Fun course, but cart-ball. Maybe you ought to just skip it...
TH
-
Bob, you MUST see Wente Vineyards if you haven't already. Dan's right - the climb from 9 to 10 there makes the one from 8 to 9 at Cruden Bay look like kid's stuff.
And Dan, you'd be proud of me - last time there the promised shuttle up to 10 never showed, so while my playing partners doddled I went ahead and made the climb!
Didn't recover until 13, but that's another story.... ;)
TH
-
A steep climb from 9th or 18th holes to clubhouses is by no means uncommon, even for great courses. How about Riviera or Olympic? Others off the top of my head of varying degrees of hikes include Huntingdon Valley, Shinnecock, Forest Creek (somewhat), and The Pinnacle (obscure state park 9-holer in Addison, NY).
Then there's the endless list of courses who have holes that climb steeply to reach to at least near the clubhouse level:
ANGC (9 and 18)
Pasatiempo (9)
Wake Forest (9)
Whippoorwill (9! and 18)
Tanglewood Park (9 and 18)
Southern Pines (18)
Huntingdon Valley C nine (27)
Hope Valley (9 and 18)
etc.
Lots of cart ball courses have what would normally be big hikes up hills to clubhouses if only they allowed walking.
It is common to have clubhouses at the highest elevation on the property.
-
That's all very true, Scott. But in the courses at hand in this discussion, it's not the hike to the clubhouse that is the problem.
Cinnabar - all 9's end just about level with the clubhouse (Lake's is a little lower, but not much).
Pasa - 9 green is right below the clubhouse. The longest hike on the course is indeed from 9 green to 10 tee, but 18 green is pretty level with the clubhouse.
I believe I get what you're saying - just allow for the hike back up the clubhouse, keep the holes themselves level - but that's not what's going on at Cinnabar or Pasa (or Wente) at all.
Nope - Cinnabar is cartball because just as Dan says, too many tees are raised and you hit across a valley to the other side, thus requiring a walker to go down down down and then up up up to get from the tee to the fairway. The location of the clubhouse and the home greens has nothing to do with it.
TH
-
Tom,
You are exactly right. Having to climb a couple of hills during the round while walking (Pasa & Cruden Bay) is different from having to do it on every hole. I don't mind being out of breath for a couple of tee shots or putts, but I don't want to have to struggle to get to my ball every time I tee off. At that point, the golf is more focused on the exercise than the golf.
-
You said it, DG and that is indeed the problem at Cinnabar.
But what the hell, that's why I just ride there when I deem to give them some more of my money!
Pasa I very very rarely ride, and only when my playing partners want to. I find that to be a very walkable course.
But as Dan K. says, hard walk v. easier walk isn't really the issue here anyway...
TH
-
I see what you're getting at. There are plenty of cartball courses with lots of long hikes between holes often with big climbs, it's just that most don't allow walking. Those that do, discourage it. Mike Strantz' Stonehouse has numerous: long walks between holes, very hilly, and hitting from tees across valleys to fairways. I was the starter's 5th person of knowledge to walk the course.
But your description is going to be more the case in mountainous terrain courses. I'm sure that's the description of a ton of courses in CO, AZ, CA, etc.
-
Yep, sure is Scott. And again, it comes down to one's preferences as to how much this bothers one, if at all. I'm of the mindset that although I prefer to walk, I don't want to miss good golf shots just because I have to take a cart to get from one to another. Dan King calls it an entirely different sport. Vive l'difference, as I say.
Loved today's pic, btw... keep up the great work with those!
TH
-
OK, now that Stanford has been brought up
more prominently, here's one major difference between
Stanford and CH: How many downhill tee shots do you
hit. Sure Stanford's back nine is a hike, but (as Steve Martin
once told John Candy) - there's a point to the story. The routing has a payoff for those walks.
Downhill tee shots: 1, 7, 11, 12, 15, 18
Slight Uphills: 10, 16
CH is designed to ride, and you still have
a heavy dose of uphill tee shots and approaches. Of course, the place is called "Hills"...
Overall, I'm really amazed at how good the Stanford routing is in this respect, I don't think it gets enough credit for that.
Two other off topic comments for this Huckster and Goodale playground thread:
Mayacama get together for NorCals! Let's do it! Is it private?
Now that Rich has gone Prufrock-ian in his footer, what was the meaning of the Latin? I tried translating it on the web, but didn't get anything...
johnk
One more - Rich, you really should visit San Juan Oaks...
-
JohnK: Mayacama is about as private as Cypress Point. Rather difficult to access unless you rate courses for a golf magazine or something and bring along a friend...
THANKS, DAVE WIGLER!
So it's gonna be pretty tough for us to do an outing there.
Rich's latin was really cool... but I forget the translation.
And good point re Stanford - the balance tips toward the downhill, hard to achieve given the site. The uphill walks are all pretty ingeniously grouped into a few holes, and you do get the payoff of the downhill shots, while not making EVERYTHING seem downhill - great routing indeed. I would say though that 14 is a very uphill par 3 also... I'd have to say that 17 plays gently uphill also.
TH
-
Just returned from my history mid-term. I feel like I aced it, but you never know with this teacher.
I don't believe I was ever as anti-cart as some make me sound. I've played a few rounds in my day via cart, and it does seem to get more often as I get older and my body gets more out of shape.
But I still see a difference when playing a golf course via a cart and playing a cart-ball track. Too many architects/developers now-a-days no longer worry about flow. Putt-out, jump in a cart and head for the next tee. Don't worry about how far away the tee is, just make sure the carts have plenty of juice. The convenience of carts has allowed architects to get lazy. Don't worry about what the land dictates, find the best 18 green sites, design around those and leave it to the cart to transport golfers between holes. Routing was something for the old guys to worry about.
I much prefer courses that are designed with the land. I'm more inclined to favor a course with good routing over one with good holes.
I'm probably inclined to dislike San Juan Oaks because of their smoking policy and the rudeness of the people that work there. But it has a few really goofy holes. I like the par-3s, but really dislike the par-5s. They are just too gimicky. The more you play it the more you realize there is really only one way to play the course. It trys to trick you into thinking there are alternates.
I'm not sure about the Bloodworth Medal, but Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi was Ms. Crawford's main squeeze for a few months back sometime during the Ford Administration. I remember teasing them with "Csikszentmihalyi and Crawford sittin' in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g." Then again, maybe I'm thinking Joan Crawford. I always get Cindy and Joan confused, but Joan seems much for flowish:
(http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Mptv/1153/0728_2169.jpg)
Emperor Joseph II: Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?
--Amadeus
-
The more I hear from those of little faith, the more I like Cinnabar. ;)
One of the doubting "K" twins, Dan, thinks that it has too many downhill tee shots. The other "K" twin, John, thinks that it has too many uphill tee shots! :o
Any course with that much diversity and ability to deceive great golfing minds can't be all bad!
Rich
"Where savage indignation can no longer lacerate my heart" is the epitaph of Jonathan Swift, who would just love the possbilities for satire that this site brings many of us day after day.........
-
Whether CH is better, worse or a different animal altogether when compared to Pasatiempo is really beside the point.
The fact that there are 48 responses of sensible debate on the subject between well traveled golfers is testimony to the outstanding quality of the golf course.
I'd have to both agree and disagree with Dan King that CH is a collection of holes lacking cohesion.
Taken as an entire entity, it does not flow together seamlessly like Pasatiempo. But perhaps that is because it is a 27 hole facility. Taken as three seperate entities, the individual nines flow together beautifully - in and of themselves.
Yes, you have to string two nines together to make a golf course, but each has a distinct personality and flavor. My favorite is easily the Canyon - but anyone who knows me could have guessed that.
Check out the placement and orientation of the chipping areas on #2 next time in relation to the water. There are so many clever features out there.
The 7th hole on the Canyon is my least favorite of the 27, but like #4 at Mid Ocean, it gets you from point to point for the purpose of a big payoff.
Huckster is correct, the 8th ought to have had a bit more tilt and perhaps a more diagonal geometry, but the right-to-left wind mitigates that somewhat.
How come nobody likes #9 on the Canyon as much as me? It dives off a cliff and wriggles twists down the hill inviting all sorts of strategies.
Goodale hates the mounds in front of the green, but they are unique, old fashion and effective.
#8 on the Lake is an interesting par-3, although the green will not accept a shot with any more than an 8-iron. I asked John about it one day and he said that the owner insisted on the back tee and he was trying to have it taken out of play.
All things considered, when compared to the other 27 hole public facility in the Bay Area . . . . . . well, that doesn't even warrant a discussion.
Can you imagine a thread that suggested any sort of equivalency between Pasatiempo and Poppy Ridge?
48 posts? Maybe two, before David the mysterious moderator deleted it for stupidity.
-
Gib
Just to show how amenable I am these days to sweetness and light and let's all live together, koombya, I hereby drop my criticism of the mounds by 9 Canyon green. They work OK for me now.
Rich
PS-you shoulda seen some of those pin positions out there last Monday. Back left on 8 Canyon was one of the easier ones.......
-
Interesting testimony as well that one of my favorites in the entire 27 is Gib's least favorite (#7 Canyon)!
Take away how they completely screwed ME PERSONALLY with the price hikes and I will sing hallelujah and praise the Cinnabar lord. Given the bait and switch, I do feel uneasy giving the place too much praise.
But Gib's point is a good one in any case - beyond the volume of discussion here, just the fact a man of allegedly sound mind like friend Goodale can put it up there with Pasa, and defend his position quite well, does speak volumes.
Hey Gib, I dig #9 Canyon - I just didn't want to say something about EVERY hole! Wind determines everything there, and every shot has something to it. Another evil green also... And good call re #2 Canyon. I've spent quite a bit of time around that green also... there are indeed a myriad of different shots to be played, and the chipping areas tie into the green brilliantly.
Want another unsung hole no one has mentioned yet? I call it a "birdie hole", but I've actually made way more 6's than 4's... #1 Mountain. Seems simple, right? Blast it off the tee, blast another one close to the green, pitch on. Well.... sure, one can make a 5 that way... but I've found in my many times playing that hole that the fairway bunker on the right about 60 yards short of the green is PERFECTLY placed... to have any sort of doable pitch that one can get close, you have to tempt that bunker and come in from the right. Shots from the left just plain don't hold that green... and if you are gonna try and get there in two, well there it is as a visual reminder of what happens if you don't hit your 2nd solidly. I'm not gonna say this is one of the best holes on the golf course, because there are so many good ones, but it packs a lot of interest into what seems simple at first glance...
Yeah, I could go on and on about this place. Damn you Goodale! ;)
Dan K - ok, I hear ya re San Juan Oaks. No smoking turns you off like the price hikes turn me off at CH. No harm, no foul. And re lack of options, oh man the split fairway hole speaks LOUDLY to that point! There is absolutely no reason to go right on that hole... might as well let that upper fairway go to seed. All in all though I haven't come to like that course less as I've played it, but then again, I haven't played it that much in the last two years.
TH
-
God knows why I've better-than-skimmed this WHOLE THREAD, considering I've never played Pasatiempo, Cinnabar Hills, Stanford, Stevinson Ranch, San Juan Oaks, or any of 'em!
Oh, I know why, too: This has been a very fine, entertaining conversation. Thank you, gentlemen. (Don't anyone say anything funny, though! The whole thread'll be gone before nightfall. You can take that from me, Dan Kelly [tm], reporting in from Greenland [tm].)
A few notes:
-- TO ALL: No Smoking at San Juan Oaks? What's the deal there? I could certainly understand a No-Littering-Your-Big-Ol'-Cigar-Butts (and a No-Flicking-Your-Big-Ol'-Stogie-Ashes-On-The-Greens) policy -- but no smoking? Is this an indoor golf course? Is this common in California? Is this the future in California? How can a Libertarian survive in California?
-- TO TOM HUCKABY: Vive la difference. Indeed. :-*
-- TO RICH GOODALE: Someone said you don't like blindness -- and unless I missed something (happens daily), I didn't hear you contradict him (whoever it was). Is that right? You don't like blindness? Why? Semi-blindness, too? Why? Seems to me your trademark here is to favor VARIETY and THRILLINGNESS in golf shots -- which blind and semi-blind shots would seem to offer in spades, at least to my ... eyes.
-- TO TOM HUCKABY: "Damn you Goodale! ;)" Indeed.
-- TO DAN KING: Thanks for the elegant and eloquent statement on the difference between a golf course and a cart-ball course -- and on the difference between Miss Crawford and Ms. Crawford. (Don't care for either of 'em, personally. Have you read "Mildred Pierce" -- possibly the worst-adapted screenplay, ever, and a great novel by any standard, by one of the least appreciated geniuses, ever, Mr. James M. Cain?)
One more question for you: Is it possible to have a "golf course" (flowing with the land) that is unwalkable (except, perhaps, by Tenzing Norgay)? If it's possible: Do you know of any?
-- TO JONATHAN SWIFT: Rest in peace, sir. Rest in peace.
-
Dan Kelly - something told me you might enjoy this thread, despite having any knowledge of the courses in question here. Well done! ;)
Re the no smoking policy at San Juan Oaks - hey, I'm not a smoker, never have been, never will be - but this is curious even to me. This course is no different than any other in the Bay Area - it surrounding landscape is trees, brush, etc. and yes, could be considered a "fire hazard" if one really stretches that definition... but there's something fishy here. I'm guessing this was a condition of their use permit, though I have absolutely no knowledge of this. It just seems silly and overbearing and hell yes it makes it tough for a cigar-aficionado Libertarian like my friend Dan King! I will say I don't think I've seen this rule anywhere other than San Juan Oaks. As a non-smoker I don't tend to check though, so I could be wrong.
TH
-
Re no smoking at Cinnabar Hills, they are probably emulating that very non-Californian course in New Jersey, namely Pine Valley. Last time I was there Ernie Ransome was so pissed at seeing a disgusting soggy cigar butt in a bunker he banned smoking on the course and promised a suspension of privileges of anyone contravening his diktat. It's one of the few places that I can think of where you can smoke indoors but not out.
-
AHA! Oh yes, our CA public courses have so much in common with that dog-track in New Jersey... ;)
TH
-
I was thinking about Dan K's statement about
SJO having only one way to play the holes, and I
think I see some of that, esp. the front nine par 5's, but I don't think it's true on the back...
As for Tom, on the split fairway hole (14 at SJO): let's suppose you've been letting the ball go right a bit off the tee. The big upper fairway has a great aiming bunker, which can be used to set up a draw. From up there, you have 1 or 2 clubs less than the distance, and can create a really nice high shot which stays on the green. There's a ton of room on the right by the green, so even when the pin is blue, you don't have to mess with the tree. I make par from there pretty regularly. If you went right on 14 tee, and successfully play the draw, you've also set yourself up nicely for the next tee shot on 15...
On the left side, you'll have a serious cut lie, and it's a great approach shot since the green is set up to receive that cut.
I think the hole has two great options...
I used to think the same as you about the right fairway, then I tried it. Swing away, blast it up there, have an 7, 8 or 9 iron in. Try it, you might like it...
-
Errata:
San Juan Oaks not Cinnabar Hills.
-
John K: I've played SJO MANY times. I have tried both sides. What makes going right patently stupid (no offense) might be gone now: there was a big tree at the right front of the green that blocked all shots from up there except to a left-front pin. If that tree is gone, then heck yeah, there are two viable options. If that tree is still there, you're gonna have to explain to me the value of purposefully putting a tree in my way for my 2nd shot!
TH
ps - I just went to the SJO web site and it sure looks like the tree is still there... any pin other than way up front just eliminates the right fairway as an option. Even with a front pin, why go up there? The shot is actually LONGER from up there - yes, it is downhill, but you're going out at an angle and uphill for the tee shot, so you'll be farther away than if you go on the left fairway, which is downhill and straight at the hole. Sorry, you're gonna have to prove this one to me! ;)
-
They have a no smoking policy at Wente Vinyards, as well. Although I think it is only enforced during the summer.
-
TH
Re 14 at SJO... going right is the only way to go IMHO I made birdie to a back right pin ;D
-
TH
Re 14 at SJO... going right is the only way to go IMHO I made birdie to a back right pin ;D
-
Well whitey, I've seen your game - trees in the way are no problem for you!
Seriously though, I went right my first time, just because a fade is my play and that left fairway looked really narrow... and I was shocked how blocked I was for my 2nd. The tree isn't in the way at all from the left... I've subsequently tried both ways and my feelings haven't changed.
Of course, I believe I have yet to birdie the hole, so I defer to you! ;)
TH
-
Tom,
Yes, the tree is there. It's why the right side is not
the obvious play. Still, the tree is not as formidable as it looks. Going over it with as low as 6 iron is pretty
easy since it sits way down in the creek. I agree, that for minimum risk, dealing with the tree is not ideal.
When the pin is blue, you don't have to hit the green to make a par. There's that big chipping area to the right side that leaves a straightforward chip, and eliminates the tree problem...
However, the left side has genuine hazards which can
lead easily to doubles. People either let it leak right or
pull it too high up the hill.
As for the right being longer, I rarely see people inside the 150, in the fairway on the left side. That's a cut 6 or 5 iron in most cases. On the right, a good drive usually leaves me with 140 - 170, and clubs from a 9 to a 6, due to the downhill aspect.
For me, the option has to do with how good I feel about hitting a controlled tee shot on the left vs hammering away out to the right.
On smoking, I'd venture that SJO is smart to ban it, and insurance probably requires it -- at least after April. Most golfers are not Dan King, and probably aren't too worried about flicking their cigs into the brush. I can almost hear the "FOOOMPH" and ensuing crackle as hundreds of acres get set ablaze...
-
JK: hmph. I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree re 14 at SJO. My experience has been that I've had a LOT longer shots in from going right, due to the uphill nature of the tee shot, and that the tree has been much more in the way for me than you state. My experience also is that the left fairway isn't as narrow as it looks, that balls do kick off the left hill just fine, and the banking and bunkers along the creek serve to keep the ball in play if you go to the right side of that fairway... I've also gotten it inside the 150 many times going left, NEVER going right. Maybe it's just me.. I do tend to fade the ball...
I must say though that certain bad rounds notwithstanding, I am a generally pretty straight driver of the ball, so the risk is not a big one for me going left. Given that I do find the 2nd shot blocked and longer, hopefully you can see the no-brainer aspect of this, at least to me. It's not that much of an easier drive and it leaves a MUCH harder 2nd.
I will grant this: if you see it as an option, and whitey made birdie from up there, than it's just in MY feeble mind that it isn't a play. This is enough to make it a good golf hole, no matter what I think.
TH
-
I've been giving Cinnabar some thought, and I think what bothers me most about it is its lost potential. This could have been a good course. The site is a good site. The routing they came up with is reasonably good. The only thing that keeps it from being a good course is the obsession with elevated tees. It wasn't needed and the land didn't dictate it. It was just they decided to elevate almost all of the tees. I can't help but being bothered by this everytime I go there.
San Juan Oaks crazed smoking policy they claim is due to fire danger. I'm sure it was some deal they struck with their insurance company. Haven't been there in a while, but they used to enforce it. I had a marshal demand I put out my cigar. He said it was a fire danger. I said it wasn't for me, since I was right down the middle of the fairway all day.
Dan Kelly writes:
Thanks for the elegant and eloquent statement on the difference between a golf course and a cart-ball course
I think the definition of cart-ball belongs to Mr. Tatum (first place I ever heard the term.)
and on the difference between Miss Crawford and Ms. Crawford. (Don't care for either of 'em, personally. Have you read "Mildred Pierce" -- possibly the worst-adapted screenplay, ever, and a great novel by any standard, by one of the least appreciated geniuses, ever, Mr. James M. Cain?)
I've never read Mildred Pierce or even seen the movie. Guess I'll add it tp my list of books to read. I only included Ms. Crawford because I had that way cool pic. I get her confused with plenty of other actresses from that era.
One more question for you: Is it possible to have a "golf course" (flowing with the land) that is unwalkable (except, perhaps, by Tenzing Norgay)? If it's possible: Do you know of any?
The closest course I can think that would fit that definition is Kapalua Plantation. I'd rank it as one of the best cart-ball tracks in the world. It flows well with the land, but ends up with a couple long, forced hikes. It was very difficult land to work with, but I'm a believer in not all land was intended to be covered in golf courses.
Rich Goodale writes:
One of the doubting "K" twins, Dan, thinks that it has too many downhill tee shots. The other "K" twin, John, thinks that it has too many uphill tee shots!
One possibility is that John is wrong and I am right. I didn't go back and look but I think I was upset about the elevated tees and John was talking about uphill holes. It is possible to have an elevated tee to a hole that goes uphill.
Gib_Papazin writes:
The fact that there are 48 responses of sensible debate on the subject between well traveled golfers is testimony to the outstanding quality of the golf course.
Wonder how many responses I'd get if I posted that Rancho del Pueblo is a better course than Cypress Point? My guess is I'd get a lot more than if I stated that Cyrpress Point is a better course than Rancho del Pueblo.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
--Winston Churchill
-
Dan Kelly, Thanks for using Tenzing and not Edmund. Nice esoteric touch.
Every course is flat. The uphill / downhill delemma is easily solved by measuring the distance from your eyes to the ground at the tee ground, recording it, measuring again those same points while on the green. They are always exactly (nominally) the same. Numbers don't lie.
-
> Rich Goodale writes:
> One of the doubting "K" twins, Dan, thinks that it has too > many downhill tee shots. The other "K" twin, John, thinks > that it has too many uphill tee shots!
Dan King:
> One possibility is that John is wrong and I am right. I didn't go back and look but I think I was upset about the elevated tees and John was talking about uphill holes. It is possible to have an elevated tee to a hole that goes uphill.
Dan is probably more right - #1 Mountain brings both of our criticisms nicely together... I agree Cinnabar has too many elevated tees, and was more worried about the many uphill aproaches. I also agree with Dan's sense of loss of the potential.
I think the reason this thread has so many posts is because Goodale and Huckster kept at it until it got traction :) Dan K is right on again in that all the commentary doesn't really elevate the mystery and value of Cinnabar Hills that much, in my mind.
In fact, the whole thread makes me want to play Pasa all the more...
-
Well, it is my "baby", after all. I couldn't possibly post LESS than 15 times about this course!
Anyone want to hear about the new Los Lagos muni? ;)
TH
-
Im keepin my eyes on youse guys! Both "K"s are wrong! They dont call strikeouts "K"s for nuttin!