Hillcrest CC in Los Angeles

[ed_getka]

David,
   One of the great things about this site is finding the guys who like what you do, and then you'll know who to ask for recommendations. I haven't played a course that was recommended here in the last five years that I didn't like. Every round I play is precious, and I hate wasting time on mediocre courses, especially ones that charge too much.

BTW, what is your handicap? What are 5 personal favorite courses?

[THuckaby2]

...OTOH, I'm like Tom Hucakaby in that I look at most any golf course in decent shape and not a totally boring pasture and think "Wow, this is pretty cool". On the gripping hand, I refuse to rate courses against each other anyway so what do I know?

Then you, Tom, and I should get along fine, because that's kind of how I look at golf courses. I simply enjoy playing golf so much, that as long as a course is fair, somewhat challenging, is in decent shape, and isn't repetitive, I'm probably going to enjoy it quite a bit.

I know Brent and I are two peas in this love of golf pod - so welcome aboard, David.  I do love that summary... my catch-phrase for this is "I could have fun playing golf on parking lot if the friends were good and the beer was cold" but I like your phrase a lot more.

I do love this game.

 

But speaking of Hillcrest, dammit I lived in LA half my life and that's one of the few I never got to play.  No junior or HS tourneys or matches there.  I have heard mixed reviews though... Doak 4 does sound harsh to me though.

I may get crucified for this also but I think Rustic is a Doak 8.  It is a course of distinction and people do travel great distances to play it.

Speaking of this, that Doak scale summary I posted before, re-posted on here, was fleshed out more for me.  The current best take on that that anyone's given me is this:


0: so contrived and unnatural, cannot recommend under any circumstances.

1: Very basic course; clear architectural malpractice and/or
poor maintenance. Avoid even if desperate for a game.

2: mediocre course with little architectural interest, but nothing really horrible. (Play it in a scramble and drink a lot of beer).

3: about the level of the avg. course in the world.

4: modestly interesting; with at least a couple of distinctive holes or some scenic interest. Also reserved for some very good courses which are much too short or narrow to  provide sufficient chalenge for low-handicappers.

5: Well above the avg. course, but the middle of this scale. A good course if in the vicinity, but not worth setting aside a day to visit.

6:  A very good course, definitely worth a game, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see. It shouldn't disappoint you.

7:  An excellent course, worth checking out if within 50-100 miles. You can expect sound design; interesting hiles; good conditions and a pretty setting; if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.

8:  One of the very best in the region and worth a special trip to see. Could have some drawbacks, but will make up for them with something really special.

9:  Outstanding course. One of the best in the world with no weaknesses. Should see in your lifetime.

10: Nearly perfect. If you skipped even one hole you would miss something worth seeing. MUST see these courses to appreciate how good golf architecture can get.


 

[Brian Marion]

Tom,

That scale now makes me rethink every course in my area and that I've played in my life.

Sadly, I need to get out more......

[THuckaby2]

As do we all, Brian.  Rest assured that although big names do get thrown around in here routinely (I am as guilty of that as anyone it seems), most if not all of us do have routine home golf, which makes up the bulk of our play.  Some of it is better than others, but no matter what, there is no place like home.

By that I mean, my home course Santa Teresa is somewhere between a Doak 2 or 3.  But even though I rip it constantly, in what it means to me it's a Doak 9 at least.  And that's how it should be.

[David Ober]

As do we all, Brian.  Rest assured that although big names do get thrown around in here routinely (I am as guilty of that as anyone it seems), most if not all of us do have routine home golf, which makes up the bulk of our play.  Some of it is better than others, but no matter what, there is no place like home.

By that I mean, my home course Santa Teresa is somewhere between a Doak 2 or 3.  But even though I rip it constantly, in what it means to me it's a Doak 9 at least.  And that's how it should be.

Boy, ain't that the truth. My home track (Canyon Crest CC in Riverside) is never in very good shape, and the greens are bumpy as hell, but I sure never get tired of playing there, and I daresay it has several damn good holes.

[David Druzisky]

A little recent history to add to the story.

When I worked for Keith Foster in the early 90's we did a master plan for the course.  It was approved but we only did a couple minor projects in the following years.  I guess things went awry since we did not continue.  I recall trying to re-instill some more of the old world charm to add interest.  That was a probably a bit to bold for them.  I do not remember if we had found any old original WW plans or stuff.

A re-do of the short 5 hole #8 was the only significant thing we actually got done.  I don't remember much about it.

DbD

[Jim Nugent]

...OTOH, I'm like Tom Hucakaby in that I look at most any golf course in decent shape and not a totally boring pasture and think "Wow, this is pretty cool". On the gripping hand, I refuse to rate courses against each other anyway so what do I know?

Then you, Tom, and I should get along fine, because that's kind of how I look at golf courses. I simply enjoy playing golf so much, that as long as a course is fair, somewhat challenging, is in decent shape, and isn't repetitive, I'm probably going to enjoy it quite a bit.

I know Brent and I are two peas in this love of golf pod - so welcome aboard, David.  I do love that summary... my catch-phrase for this is "I could have fun playing golf on parking lot if the friends were good and the beer was cold" but I like your phrase a lot more.

I do love this game.

 

But speaking of Hillcrest, dammit I lived in LA half my life and that's one of the few I never got to play.  No junior or HS tourneys or matches there.  I have heard mixed reviews though... Doak 4 does sound harsh to me though.

I may get crucified for this also but I think Rustic is a Doak 8.  It is a course of distinction and people do travel great distances to play it.

Speaking of this, that Doak scale summary I posted before, re-posted on here, was fleshed out more for me.  The current best take on that that anyone's given me is this:


0: so contrived and unnatural, cannot recommend under any circumstances.

1: Very basic course; clear architectural malpractice and/or
poor maintenance. Avoid even if desperate for a game.

2: mediocre course with little architectural interest, but nothing really horrible. (Play it in a scramble and drink a lot of beer).

3: about the level of the avg. course in the world.

4: modestly interesting; with at least a couple of distinctive holes or some scenic interest. Also reserved for some very good courses which are much too short or narrow to  provide sufficient chalenge for low-handicappers.

5: Well above the avg. course, but the middle of this scale. A good course if in the vicinity, but not worth setting aside a day to visit.

6:  A very good course, definitely worth a game, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see. It shouldn't disappoint you.

7:  An excellent course, worth checking out if within 50-100 miles. You can expect sound design; interesting hiles; good conditions and a pretty setting; if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.

8:  One of the very best in the region and worth a special trip to see. Could have some drawbacks, but will make up for them with something really special.

9:  Outstanding course. One of the best in the world with no weaknesses. Should see in your lifetime.

10: Nearly perfect. If you skipped even one hole you would miss something worth seeing. MUST see these courses to appreciate how good golf architecture can get.


 

Sorry to beat the horse.  Every time I see descriptions of the Doak scale, giving Pebble a 9 surprises me.  I keep hearing the course has 5 or 6 ordinary holes.  Given the rating system above, that would seem to disqualify it for a 9.  8 would be the best it could do.

Maybe you say PB is "one of the best in the world despite its weaknesses."  Or are these descriptions just general guidelines?  It does raise the question of whether a course can be among the world's best if one-third of it is ordinary.  

[THuckaby2]

Jim - try to look at PB this way:

1.  The great holes are SO great that they make up for any perceived inadequacies in the lesser holes in spades. That is, in a scale of 10 they get 12s, to make up for the 6s on the other holes.

2.  The lesser holes aren't as "lesser" as some like to say.  Go try and two putt on 13 and 15 with anything at stake.  Try to get an approach close on either of those holes, not to mention 11.  Heck even #1 and #2 have their positives.  #3 is a great hole and those who say otherwise just have their eyes closed.  I could go on and on.  In any case, the better point is really #1.

In any case, by the letter of Doak law, you're right, perhaps PB shouldn't be a 9.  But since he makes the law, and he calls it a 9, who are we to argue?

 

[David Ober]

I love number 3 at Pebble -- excellent hole IMHO.

The tee shot is what makes the hole excellent, since you have to be left enough to not be on the slope to the right. If you bail out away from the trees to the right and you hit the ball solidly, yoiu will be above the green to the right and in the rough.

On the second shot, you will have a downhill wedge to a green that slopes mostly right to left, and the ball is above your feet. That is NOT an easy golf shot, since it's so easy to get the ball going left from that lie. Get it going left, and the ball won't stay on the green.

As for number 1, I like the hole. It lulls you to sleep off the tee, but the green can be tough to hit -- especially with the butterflies still fluttering around inside!

[THuckaby2]

David - I concur completely - about both of these holes.  I find it very strange that some call #1 such a bad golf hole... hell yes, both hitting that green AND two-putting it are very difficult chores, especially given the setting.  Man if #1 is a bad golf hole I need to see more good ones.

 

As for #3, you have captured its greatness.  Just remember for us short-knockers its likely going to be more than a wedge, particularly if we don't succeed in the necessary right to left bend in the tee shot.  Which of course makes it even greater for us!

TH

[ed_getka]

Jim,
    There aren't really any weak holes at Pebble, it just has probably less great holes than some of the other great courses in its peer group. I personally don't think much of #7 and #15 at Pebble. And I have yet to play a 10 by Doak's scale. Every course has something IMHO that disqualifies it from being a 10. Even Sand Hills which is my favorite course in the world. I feel like #13 and #17 SH are basically the same hole, just different yardages. Of course, that is must my opinion, and I appear to be a minority of 1 on it since no one has ever agreed with me.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

In the 70's Hillcrest had the best greens in LA.  Wilshire was pretty good, but 2nd.  Everyone thought Hillcrest was great because of its bunkers having the whitest sand and the conditioning.  11 is a great, great hole.  There are couple of other super holes, but it is a what could be course.