[Patrick_Mucci]

The Architecture Issue of "Links" highlighted Monterey Penisula CC, specifically, the recent project on the Shore Course.

Some golf clubs have the luxury of two or more 18 hole golf courses.  Some of them are great golf courses.

Winged Foot, Baltusrol, Olympic, Medinah and Baltimore come to mind.

Inevitably, the question is asked, out of 100 rounds, what's your playing preference ?
Hence I pose the question with respect to MPCC.

How do both courses compare to Spanish Bay ?

With 1,150 members, how did the club manage to complete the recent project with no assessment ?  And, was that the case with the Dunes course project ?

Lastly, what percentage of the membership is non-resident ?

I was also shocked to learn that the soil base was clay, not sand.   Is that typical of those coastal areas ?

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

There is one man and one man only to answer these questions, particularly regarding financing and membership.  Hell, just take his answers as gospel for all of this.

So couldn't you have done this via email?

 

Hence I shall answer only the first two questions.

How do they compare to each other?

My take is this:  the new Shore gets all the hype, and most visitor play.  It does have the greater number of scenic views.  But I'll take the Dunes as the better course overall, by the tiniest of margins.  And I do absolutely love the Shore.  Given 100 rounds and not factoring pace of play (the Shore takes far longer due to way more visitors playing it and pileups on the par threes), I'd say 51 Dunes - 49 Shore.  It is that close.  Factor in pace of play and I'd say 70 Dunes - 30 Shore.

How do both courses compare to Spanish Bay?

They both are far superior.  And remember per previous battles, I like Spanish Bay.

In any case, hopefully Mr. Huntley will see this.  

TH

[paul cowley]

Patrick....I had the pleasure of playing the Shore course last summer with Forrest Fezler [Stranz's partner and former PGA tour pro], and some others , in steady 30+ mile an hour winds....the next day I played Spyglass in similar but slightly lesser conditions.

Out of a 100 rounds between these two, for me it's a 90/10....90 being the Shore course.

[Tom Huckaby]

Paul -90/10 v. Spyglass?  That's a pretty tall statement.  Are you saying that just because of the strong winds, or would it be the same w/o such? I ask because while it does blow at each course, well 30mph is more than normal.

I'd call it 50/50 between those two.  That to me is a tall enough statement, given all of the accolades Spyglass has deservedly received.

[paul cowley]

Tom ....the winds were strong enough to move the ball on the some of the greens, so without the wind....maybe 70/30 .

Spyglass in the dunes is not as playable in the wind as is the Shore course in its entirety.

...one thing I also found interesting was that my first job at Spyglass in the early 70's was keeping the very prolific pampas grass under control.....it seems they have eradicated the species of late.

[Brent Hutto]

Playing the Shore course in a stiff breeze certainly helps one understand why all those trees on the holes near the ocean are leaning in the same direction. Also, when the eleventh hole is playing downwind whatever club you choose is too much club.

[Bob_Huntley]

The Architecture Issue of "Links" highlighted Monterey Penisula CC, specifically, the recent project on the Shore Course.

Some golf clubs have the luxury of two or more 18 hole golf courses.  Some of them are great golf courses.

Winged Foot, Baltusrol, Olympic, Medinah and Baltimore come to mind.

Inevitably, the question is asked, out of 100 rounds, what's your playing preference ?
Hence I pose the question with respect to MPCC.

How do both courses compare to Spanish Bay ?

With 1,150 members, how did the club manage to complete the recent project with no assessment ?  And, was that the case with the Dunes course project ?

Lastly, what percentage of the membership is non-resident ?

I was also shocked to learn that the soil base was clay, not sand.   Is that typical of those coastal areas ?

Patrick,

Links Magazine made a bit of a mistake in the Membership numbers. There are 749 Regular Members, that is persons owning one share of stock in the Club. The rest are Social Members who are there for dining, cards and social events.

In the past five or six years we renovated the Dunes Course under the aegis of Rees Jones, who, in my opinion did a fabulous job on time and for about $2.8 million.

In June of 2004, the Shore rebuild was completed by Mike Strantz for the pricely sum of about $12.00 to $13.00. million.

Currently the Club is undergoing an expansion of the Clubhouse, the Pro Shop. Mens and Ladies Locker Rooms, Underground Cart facility and a couple of thing I cannot now remember. I believe cost of this endeavour is in the same ballpark as the Shore expenditure.

All of this has been done without an assessment, indeed there has never been one in the Club's existence. The reason for this was that Sam Morse insisted that no matter what the initiation fee levied, the seller would only receive back 50% of the amount paid. In his wisdom he ensured in the Clubs bye-laws that that money could only go into the Capital Fund and not into the operating budget of the Club. Currently the tab runs at 200k ,so you can see that with an average of say thirty Memberships changing hand per annum , a tidy sum is on hand for improvements.

Fifty per cent of the Members show that their primary residence is more than fifty miles away from Pebble Beach.

Yes Pat, a great deal of the property was built on a clay base.

Discounting costs of playing, I might play Spanish Bay five time out of a hundred. As gorgeous as the Shore is, my heart belongs to the Dunes.

As wonderful as those courses mentioned are, I can think of no Club in the US that has almost a mile or more of ocean front property.

Bob

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob Huntley,

Evidently, Sam Morse was a man of vision.
More clubs should adopt that financial model.

Since both courses are relatively new, and now classsified as modern courses, how would they compare to Caves Valley, The Bear's Club or RTJ ?

Tom Huckaby,

Even at your preference of 50-50 versus Spyglass, that would effectively rank the Shore course at # 16 on the modern list, and with Paul Cowley's endorsement, that would place it even higher.

Will the 2006 rankings include the Shore course ?

[Evan Fleisher]

Patrick and Bob,

That is a very interesting model for incoming/outgoing membership dues.  My club here in Dubuque (which is about 107 years old now I think) does the exact same thing, albeit on a smaller monetary scale of course.  There has neve been an assessment to the membership, and a 50% return upon departure is what you end up with...seems to work very nicely.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Troon CC in Scottsdale has a similar plan.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

I don't do modern/classic separation.  Only complete wusses can't do an overall rating/ranking.

But IF I did emasculate myself such to make such distinctions, well, that #16 for Shore sounds about right to me.  

Just remember also I believe Dunes is the slightly superior course - so how does it fall in in this effeminate ranking system?  I really don't know.  I also have no idea if that course is considered modern or classic -yes Rees did change a lot of things in the 1990s re-do, but he left a lot the same also - basically none of the routing was changed at all.  I'd be very surprised if Dunes goes in a modern classification.  But it also doesn't feel right to be classic, given the changes.  

See the problem with this dorky separation?  Why can't we just compare golf courses to golf courses?

As for whether it will be in any 2006 rankings, I have no idea.

TH

[Brent Hutto]

If I didn't reject outright the whole concept of ranking golf courses relative to each other, I might offer the following suggestion...

Perhaps stratifying the raters makes more sense than stratifying the golf courses. Some raters probably look more favorably on a course because of its history, musty-smelling old clubhouse and how long its architect has been pushing up daisies. For other raters it's all about the shots, man. Oh, and beautiful surroundings preferably with an ocean within sight.

Let all the raters rank all of the courses on the same scale but present the conclusions of the "classic raters" separately from the "modern raters".

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent - hell of an idea.

Just one little problem:  where do I fit in?

I do look more favorably on a course because of its history, if such includes championships or other great events.  The clubhouse doesn't matter, but tradition and history does.  TO me it's silly not to include something that every golfer with any sense of soul feels.  Tell me you didn't feel any tradition and class at Cypress Point.  

I also absolutely believe beautiful surroundings matter, and an ocean nearby is usually a positive.  Again I refer you to Cypress Point.   Need I explain this again?  Remember who's listening here.  

But these things are both just very minor in the overall consideration.  In the end, it is not ALL about the shots - it's about 95% about the shots.

So where do you put me?

Classic Modernist?  Modern Classicist?

 

[Bob_Huntley]

Quite frankly, I do not believe that either of our courses belong in the top echelon of the rankings at present. They are both wonderful courses to play and have the Pacific Ocean as a fabulous scenic backdrop, but their degree of difficulty would not be high.

Bob

[Jay Flemma]

I also loved the shore course.  It was a bittersweet day for me, as I played it the day Mike passed away.

What I remembered most of all was how kind all the members were.  It was a really cool experience in terms of they were having a shotgun tournament there, but they let me jump from group to group, so I played a few holes with a father and 14 y/o son (the kid played linebacker on the high school football team, one of the starters, a handful of women.  I played the stretch from 9-15 by myself in a wonderful solitude and even got to hang out a few minutes at 11, the last hole Mike ever designed.

Guys, I am thrilled to hear you all like this course so much.

I wrote a short piece here:  http://jayflemma.blogspot.com/2005/06/monterey-peninsula-country-club-shore.html

What an idyllic place.

[Tom Huckaby]

Bob:

Interesting you would say that.

Degree of difficulty have never mattered all that much to me.  Yes, it is a criterion for Golf Digest ratings, so I do the evaluation when I do those, but if I were king, I'd put that as only a minor consideration, counting mainly on the extremes.  That is, a course that's too easy for one and all would get discounted; a course that's very tough for the scratch without being stupidly over-penal would count for something as well.

I don't see either the Dunes or the Shore as either of those things.  Neither course is easy - the ratings and slopes of each will tell you that.  Nor is either course silly-tough, obviously.

I just know both have patently kicked my butt and would continue to do so, especially in any sort of wind.  If those courses don't have the degree of difficulty to warrant "greatness" consideration, then there really is something wrong with the golf world.

Because yes, I suppose the top echelon pros could eat either up.  But hell, they can do that damn near everywhere.  The ones they can't are either tricked up due to conditions, or fall under the "silly-penal" category I discount.

Far be it from me to disagree with you about your home club, but methinks you are being modest or are depressed at the state of the game today.    

I believe both of your courses are truly great.  They are wonderful courses to play, they have one hell of a scenic backdrop, and they most certainly do give enough challenge, to those golfers that matter.

TH

ps to Jay - great piece - I read it before!  And you are right on re the MPCC members - very, very nice - and especially so when one is in the company of Mr. Huntley given he knows EVERYONE.  

[Joel_Stewart]

I was also shocked to learn that the soil base was clay, not sand.   Is that typical of those coastal areas ?

I don't think its typical but it true down there.  Spyglass has the first 5 holes in the sand and then the rest of the course is in clay.

As for top 100 status, its very close.  I like the Shore course better than Spyglass and Spanish Bay but it might not get enough votes to make top 100 status?

[Brent Hutto]

Degree of difficulty have never mattered all that much to me.  Yes, it is a criterion for Golf Digest ratings, so I do the evaluation when I do those, but if I were king, I'd put that as only a minor consideration, counting mainly on the extremes.  That is, a course that's too easy for one and all would get discounted; a course that's very tough for the scratch without being stupidly over-penal would count for something as well.

Well, this outs you as a Classic Rater. You refer to a golfer's soul and don't care overmuch about degree of difficulty. No way you're a Modern Rater.

Sorry to force you into a pigeonhole like this...even if it's the best pigeonhole.

[Tom Huckaby]

Damn.  Did I mention I think views do count?  I also don't give a rat's ass if a course is walkable.

 

[Jay Flemma]

Thanks Huck, glad you liked it:)

I have to say, the members impressed me so much...just as much as the course.

MPCC is on a short list of "the one place that I would love to be a member for the rest of my life..."

I need warm climes year round, so my choices are somewhat southern-centric...surprise, but Pradera is on the short list!  I could play that place every day and never get bored and the family style atmosphere was unbeatable.

That's a huge issue for me...I want my club to be a FAMILY place.  MPCC and Pradera definitely both qualify.

[Marty Bonnar]

I have to add that La Nancy and I had a most splendid day at the Shore too.
Of course, the company was top drawer. Messrs Huntley and Huckaby were perfect golfing companions.

My recollections are:
I didn't play at all well. (must have been overawed by the presence of H&H).
Boy, did it get cold later in the day.
Those oceanside holes play TOUGH back upwind!
Huckaby is sneaky long.
Huntley is just plain sneaky! "What a Pity"...
Damn friendly Clubhouse and Pro Shop. Great Beer and Grub too.
Very fine facilities - being developed and extended as we speak, I believe.

I purchased a very snazzy Cutter and Buck mock turtle in the Pro Shop which I wore in SF a few days later. A fellow in the Hotel Lift noticed it and was MOST impressed!

I especially liked how the Round 'builds' from the inland section to those ocean holes. I've waxed lyrical about the landscape detailing before and I'd happily do so again and again!

FBD.

[Tom Huckaby]

Martin - that was one hell of a great day.  None of us played particularly well - jeez I as a complete spaz the first 3 holes - but I truly believe we were plus handicaps on the fun scale.

I like being sneaky long, btw.  I guess every once in awhile I do get the gut into it.  

So.. how would you place the Shore as against the other greats you played whilst here?

Those were some strong courses, testament to the great area.

I'm thinking the Shore holds its head up proudly though, no?

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob Huntley,

I'd be curious as to where NGLA, Maidstone and Myopia stand in the difficulty in scoring category.

I don't know that difficulty in scoring is reflective of the quality of the architecture.

[Bob_Huntley]

Patrick,

On the other hand, is the quality of the architecture in the rankings,  paramount in their standings?

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob,

I think that may be a failing of the rankings.

I think scoring, or resistance to scoring has overshadowed the quality of the architecture in terms of course ratings.

I think this was a predetermined outcome since the early raters, and perhaps subsequent raters, were "players" as opposed to architecture "buffs", hence they saw things differently.

In addition, the rating criteria may have been more weighted toward scoring then architecture.

When I look at the juxtaposition of Newport, Aronomink and Piping Rock, at #'s 48, 51 & 52, I have to ask myself, what were the raters enamored with at each golf course ?  

Was it resistance to scoring ?
At Newport & Piping Rock ?  ?   ?

And, what weaknesses did they identify at each golf course ?

Failure to offer "resistance to scoring" ?
At Newport & Piping Rock ?

Now I know how difficult it is to establish a format for rating golf courses, and I know how difficult it can be to structure a competent panel, all on the same wavelength.

But, somewhere, a disconnect occured where architecture has been demoted or relegated to a factor well below resistance to scoring.

Now, I also know that resistance to scoring isn't on everyone's rating card, but, it's clearly in the hearts and minds of the raters.

My last question is:
Does MPCC suffer from its proximity to the other famous golf courses on the Monterey Penisula ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()