I have never been a fan of Jacks designs but Mayacama is solid.  Very pure design with with little obvious artificial mounding.  Great tree placement on a number of holes, and real memerable par fives.

The holes also have a very sucluded feel to them.  Rarely can you see anouther hole from the one that you are playing.  That style blends in beautifully with the piece of property they had to work with.  

Most recent rankings did not seem to rate Mayacama all that high and I am scatching my head as to why.

I would even go so far as to say that Mayacama is a must play any comments?

I've played it twice and just don't see it as a "must play".  It's an above average golf course and may break into the top 20 for California?

I haven't seen the course, but I wonder if the "all-walking" setup is the main reason for such divergent views.

I think the lack of cart paths makes more difference in the finished product of a course than most people are aware.  Certainly, the ambience is nicer, but the lack of paths also lets the designer do cooler things with green-and-tee complexes, and put holes a little closer together which may allow him to use the same natural feature twice, instead of once.

I'm sure this factor has more to do with the critical success of Pacific Dunes than anyone thinks.  (Thank you, Mr. Keiser!)

Tom,

I really enjoyed Mayacama and the company was suberb as well.  Nicklaus is all over the map in my book.  The only course of his (His alone - Whispering Pines, Harbor Town and Muirfield Village do not count) that I felt was clearly superior to Mayacama was The Ocean Course at Cabo Del Sol.  Mayacama is deserving of a place in the middle of top 100 lists with Valhalla, Shoal Creek, Castle Pines and Southshore.

The rating for the course is absurd though.  It is nowhere near a 150 and it does the course a disservice as it implies a brutal round while the course presents nothing of the sort.

This also is an excercise in modern Nicklaus, where he requires shots to be shaped both ways and even rewards run-up on two of the par 3's and 2 of the par 5's.

TD

I couldn't agree with you more regarding the "freeing" of the designer, when cart parths are not a requirement.   Tie-ins become much more natural when the land is dictating shape.
I agree that the absence of cart paths, definitely gives a course a different "feel" and one that we are much more comfortable with.
I do wish we had more opportunities to design without them.

As I understood JWL was very involved (though he can speak for himself) and deserves credit for his work.

The lack of cart paths is surely helpful, but a design suited to wonderful setting still had to be executed and it was.

The experience is likely to sway people, but I do not understand the comments regarding the courses weaknesses?

I do not think the course is flawless, but I cannot see glaring faults? The par threes are very good set, three and five are similar, but three's green differs enough to avoid being too alike. 11 is strong and 14 is one of the better uphill par threes I have seen.

The par fours (all eight of them) are well-balanced, with two good short ones - seven and 16 (is the new tee on 16 in)?

Very good medium length par fours, with one, six and 13 standing out.

The course does perhaps lack a great long par four, but 12 is good, albeit not really long.

Par fives are fun and for a set of with similar yardages, they are each fairly unique.

29 seems a little high, but I cannot think of that many close behind it that are markedly better - with the exception of Ocean Forest maybe.

Why do you think the slope is so high, yet you perceived it lower?  In my experience, the weaker players generally have a harder time with the green complexes of Nicklaus courses than the skilled players, a compliment to the team, I suppose.

Huckaby is going to hate my answer but all of the slopes in California seem artificially high.  Some extremely so.  Huckster and I have had this conversation several times.  An index from California is going to travel very well.  I think it is because they are trying to be competative with slope ratings.

You anti-Californian? Noooooooooooooooooooo!  

Joel

I would welcome your comments of the specifc holes that "they had to work at and don't fit" at Mayacama.

Also, could you explain what you mean regarding "work at and don't fit."

BTW,  there was no attempt at minimalism and everything that was accomplished at Mayacama was done at Jack's direction, Also, there was no leash other than the long arm of the California environmentalists.

I look forward to your input, and I am sorry that you don't think much of the design at Mayacama.

Jonathan
I agree with your post.   Joel just offered to discuss specific holes, and in an effort to learn another's perspective, I wanted to take him up on his offer.
I would never question anyone on their opinion on any course anywhere.  Design is subjective to the core, and no opinion can be deemed incorrect.   Everyone that loves golf as we do, view golf course design from their own unique perspective.  That is why there can be much to learn about perspective on GCA.  That is why I check in every now and then.

BK - I must not be able to convey myself very well for my "poor Golfweek rater..." comment was meant as sarcasm.  It is obvious that I and many of your raters like Mayacama very much by virtue of its ranking.

JC

Jonathan, Scott:

I'm too uptight on a public forum like this to appreciate irony - apologies.

Scott, can I assume the dreaded 4-letter B-word is "bias?" I would be shocked if there were evidence for this in Tommy's latest post.

Brad:  I guess the poor architecture editor of Golfweek can’t read my original post.  I never said top 20 “modern”, I said top 20 in California.  This would be from Golf Digest which I use as a benchmark.  I noticed it is already rated #12 and in my mind about 4 or 5 spots to high.  Personally I would prefer to play Bel Air, Monterey Peninsula, Stanford, any day over Mayacama.  That would put it in my top 20.

California
1. Cypress Point C., Pebble B. [2]*
2. Pebble Beach G. Links [1]*«
3. The Olympic C. (Lake), S.F.[3]*
4. Riviera C.C., Pacific Pal. [5]*
5. Los Angeles C.C. (North) [6]*
6. San Francisco G.C. [4]*
7. Spyglass Hill G. Cse., Pebble Beach [7]*«
8. The Quarry at La Quinta [10]*
9. Pasatiempo G.C., S. Cruz [9]*«
10. The Valley C. of Montecito, Santa Barbara [8]*
11. Sherwood C.C., Th. Oaks [16]*
12. Mayacama G.C., Santa Rosa*
13. Tradition G.C., La Quinta [22]*
14. Porcupine Creek G.C., Rancho Mirage*
15. The Preserve G.C., Carmel [11]*
16. Torrey Pines G. Cse. (South), La Jolla [28]*«
17. Bel-Air C.C., Los Angeles [17]*
18. PGA West Resort G.C. (TPC Stadium), La Quinta [25]«
19. The Vintage C. (Mountain), Indian Wells [15]*
20. Rancho Santa Fe C.C. [14]*
21. Winchester C.C., Meadow Vista [13]*
22. Stanford G.C., Palo Alto [27]*
23. Monterey Peninsula C.C. (Dunes), Pebble Beach [12]*
24. Reserve G.C., Indian W. [29]*
25. CordeValle G.C., San Martin [19]*

Also from Golf Digest, the ranking for Best New for 2002.  Note Mayacama finished 5th.

Best New Private
* Walking anytime

1. The G.C. at Briar's Creek* Johns Island, S.C. 7,117 yards, par 72.
Rees Jones, designer. Initiation fee: $110,000. www.briarscreek.com

2. Shark's Tooth G.C.* Lake Powell, Fla. 7,204 yards, par 72.
Greg Norman. Fee: $36,000 (property owners) www.wildheron.com

3. The Club at Carlton Woods* The Woodlands, Tex. 7,385 yards, par 72.
Jack Nicklaus. Fee: $95,000.

4. Briggs Ranch G.C.* San Antonio. 7,206 yards, par 72.
Tom Fazio. Fee: $60,000.

5. Mayacama G.C.* Santa Rosa, Calif. 6,761 yards, par 72.
Jack Nicklaus. Fee: $250,000. www.mayacama.com

6. Calusa Pines G.C.* Naples, Fla.7,215 yards par 72.
Michael Hurdzan and Dana Fry. Fee: Not available.

7. Sage Valley G.C.* Graniteville, S.C. 7,331 yards, par 72.
Tom Fazio. Fee: Not available.

JWL:
Did I say I didn’t like Mayacama?  My original post said it was an above average golf course and my second post said it was a good effort.  Going back to the original post of this thread, is it a must play?  My answer is no, I wouldn’t fly across the country to play this course and I live fairly close to the course.
My other question which you have failed to address is Jack Nicklaus changing and trying to become a minimalist architect.  Is Jack pushing developers to develop walking courses, run up greens or incorporate any other classical features other than gimics like double greens.  My answer is probably no.  Mayacama is a complete aboration in Jacks portfolio mainly because of the vision of the developer at Mayacama.  If the developer wanted a course like Lake Las Vegas, Jupiter Ritz Carlton or the Northern California version of Jacks Best,  would Jack have built it, the answer is probably YES.