News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Morgan Creek 7 - 18
« on: January 01, 2008, 04:59:44 PM »
7) 181 Par 3: An intimidating, well-bunkered par 3 whose green might be a bit too tough for its own good. If the greens contours were toned down a bit, I would like the hole, but the tier on the back left is just too severe to provide legitimate pin positions. Also, the area back and left of the green should be flattened and cut to fairway height to allow a variety of recovery shots.

8) 405 Par 4: Great tee shot here with lots of movement in the fairway. Play the ball out to the right with a low draw, and watch the ball roll along the fairway’s contours down and to the left. Very nicely done.

Most expert players will have only a wedge into this hole, but the green is small and deceptively sloped. A bunker guards the back left, but the front is protected by a drop-off that collects shots left short.

One of my favorite holes on the course.

9) 413 Par 4: My least favorite hole on the course. Water (and bunkers) guard the left side of this slight dogleg left hole. There needs to be more fairway short and left for the weaker or cautious player to play safe (which would still leave a long approach of nearly 200 yards.

The green, though, is where this hole really goes wrong. The back tier is just too small without a large, fairway height collection area to the back. That area either needs to be enlarged, or the green needs more space in the back for the back pin position to be used (much like #7).

10) 374 Par 4: A benign hole that rewards aggressive play down the left side close to the bunkers. Play it out safe to the right, and you have a more difficult angle to the green. Get aggressive and go down the left, and not only do you reward yourself with a better angle, but you also get a bit of a turbo boost. Very nice hole.

11) 436 Par 4: Don’t much remember this one except for the oak trees guarding the entrance to the fairway.

12) 527 Par 5: Excellent shortish par 5. Ho-hum left-to-right tee shot becomes quite fun on the second shot. I played my approach out to the right in order to leave a 20 yard pitch to the green (which I butchered!). Excellent risk/reward value on the second shot for longish players.

13) 179 Par 3: I did not care for this hole. Too “manufactured” looking for me with sharp angles and large, pushed-up, terraced mount-thing front right of the green. Didn’t look natural to me at all.

14) 429 Par 4: Don’t remember much about this hole.

15) 518 Par 5: Excellent golf hole, though the right tee box from which we played needs enlarging and/or leveling. The second shot on this hole is where the options begin. Go for the green in two, and you will be rewarded if you shot carries the next of bunkers short left. Or, you can lay up to 100 yards, but be careful to carry the bunker that juts out into the left center of the fairway.

Finally, you can choose to run one up the right side, leaving yourself a 30 to 60 yard pitch, attacking the green from the side. The green is guarded by a steep slope, though, which makes the pitch very difficult indeed.

Definitely one of my favorite holes on the course.

16) 163 Par 3: Guarded by water on the left, and a small bunker short, this is a fairly easy tee shot to the front right pin position (which is where it was when I played). Back left, though, would be another matter, since one would have to carry the water or bring the ball in with a nice draw.

17) 426 Par 4: What I remember about this hole is that I was pin high left (to a back right pin), and only four or five paces left of green and I was left with a very difficult pitch shot, due to a manufactured ridge that guards the left side of the green. I don’t know why, but this one particularly stood out to me and became emblematic of what I think needs work: The course needs “softening.”

Not in terms of its difficulty, but in terms of its edges. I would like to see more flow to the terrain and fewer sharp edges. Give me some areas where I can putt the ball if I’m off the green – especially on a hole like this. The right side is well protected, so the left side should be the place to miss. If I miss there, give me a chance to recover without having to hit a very tough shot to an elevated green from funky rough.

18) 397 Par 4: Another hole where the pushed-up green kind of ruins it for me. It’s also protected by another manufactured ridge-thingy in front of the green. It just doesn’t belong there, in my opinion.

Does it make the hole harder? Definitely. Does it make the hole better? Personally, I don’t think so.

Morgan Creek is a beautiful golf course in immaculate shape, with near perfect greens. It’s a great “tournament course” due to its length and difficulty. It is, however, a course I feel like I have played before (Oak Valley in Beaumont, California (7.5), the SoCal PGA courses in Calimesa, California (6), and Stevinson Ranch in Stevinson, California (6) come to mind).

Too many of the holes have that “Oh yeah, this hole is just like number ___ at _____ course that I played last year” feeling for me to elevate it above a Doak 7, which is still a very high ranking, indeed.

Looking back over the holes, there really were only three that stood out to me as fantastic (3, 8, 12, and 15), which makes me think I should rate it only a six. The conditioning and greens were so good, though, that I am going to bump it to a seven. If the greens were just well-manicured and flawless, I would keep it at a six. They are, however, both immaculately maintained and fun to putt, and that’s very important to me, so I’m giving it an extra point for that.

I may very well want to re-visit this again in the coming months after I’ve had even more time to think about it.

Pasatiempo coming up next….

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Morgan Creek 7 - 18
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2008, 11:39:23 PM »
David,
  Interesting review. What was so great about #3 that you put in the handful of holes you really liked?
   I'll discuss this some more tomorrow.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2008, 11:42:04 PM by ed_getka »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Morgan Creek 7 - 18
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2008, 11:59:17 PM »
David -

How do you think MC would fare as a tournament course for Amateur Play?

I know that you are an accomplished SoCal amateur golfer so I won't ask you what you shot but I would be interested in which holes challenged your game.

Did you find the course long enough at the 7,000 yard distance?

Mike
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Jed Peters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Morgan Creek 7 - 18
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2008, 08:38:56 AM »
Mike:

David got a chance to play in our saturday game--there were some players there!

He should be able to answer this question satisfactorily, primarily because everyone else he was playing with (besides me) was a really accomplished amateur player as well. We were basically playing like a mini-tournament that day with all the bets out there!

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Morgan Creek 7 - 18
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2008, 10:00:33 AM »
David:

I've never seen the course, but I do wonder how you can redesign several holes based on a single visit.

Just taking your review of #17 -- you are imposing upon it your own biases of how you would like golf to be.  I'd guess if you had just played safely to the middle of the green, it would have been an easy two-putt.  But you chose to go aggressively toward the pin, and failed to execute.  So what's wrong with having a difficult recovery shot in that instance?

Jed Peters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Morgan Creek 7 - 18
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2008, 10:18:35 AM »
David:

I've never seen the course, but I do wonder how you can redesign several holes based on a single visit.

Just taking your review of #17 -- you are imposing upon it your own biases of how you would like golf to be.  I'd guess if you had just played safely to the middle of the green, it would have been an easy two-putt.  But you chose to go aggressively toward the pin, and failed to execute.  So what's wrong with having a difficult recovery shot in that instance?

Tom:

David's complaints with the course (primarily) was that if greens were missed, it was a very difficult up and down, usually out of rough, and usually (for the better player) with a lob wedge (because of being short sided/tight pins).

What I've NEVER heard from anyone other than David (that's interesting) is that there are a lot of "template" been there/done that holes at Morgan Creek. I thought that was interesting, and I've forwarded David's comments to Kyle Phillips for his thoughts/viewpoints.

And regarding #17: If David took a little off it, he would have had a 25' putt up the hill, relatively straight for birdie. As it goes, David was most upset about what he thought were good shots being punished.

I chalk that up to: 1) His unfamiliarity with the course 2) The nature of the golf course and how difficult it is to go after pins there.

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Morgan Creek 7 - 18
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2008, 11:07:55 AM »
Mike:

David got a chance to play in our saturday game--there were some players there!



Perhaps that explains many of the "I don't remember much about this hole" recaps.

Echoing Tom's comments with the added kicker of evaluating a course while playing for cash may also be difficult.  Was it a skins game?  Firing at the pins all day trying to make birdies vs. a bit more caution for pars might cloudy ones opinion of a course.

And I have seen far fewer courses in my life then many but I don't see validity of the template hole comment.  I think that the features around the green separate MC from the ordinary flat valley courses.
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Jed Peters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Morgan Creek 7 - 18
« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2008, 11:28:36 AM »
Mike:

David got a chance to play in our saturday game--there were some players there!



Perhaps that explains many of the "I don't remember much about this hole" recaps.

Echoing Tom's comments with the added kicker of evaluating a course while playing for cash may also be difficult.  Was it a skins game?  Firing at the pins all day trying to make birdies vs. a bit more caution for pars might cloudy ones opinion of a course.

And I have seen far fewer courses in my life then many but I don't see validity of the template hole comment.  I think that the features around the green separate MC from the ordinary flat valley courses.

Well, i think there were about $300 in bets out for the day, from individuals to team nassau games. I went 43/38 to lose like $14 or something?  I was also the only one who got strokes. I think David was middle of the pack about with a 78? I think there were only a couple people that day under par.

Our way of playing the course as a 5some from the tips in a relaxed atmosphere with a simple $5 nassau was the better way to rate/review/see the golf course, I think.

Kyle Henderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Morgan Creek 7 - 18
« Reply #8 on: January 02, 2008, 12:17:08 PM »
Yeah. I'm also going to go against the template hole comment. None of the holes at MC seem overly familiar or similar to those at other courses I've seen.

My only real complaints about MC (which I've played twice) are the overly sharpened features (due to outsourced shaping aaccording to the architect) and the par 3s (also echoed by other GCAers after the November outing which are a Doak 5 by my reckoning while the par 4s and 5s are more in the 6-7.5 range).

Everything else about the course is very good. I would love to be a member there if I could afford it and if it wasn't such a hefty drive. Hopefully I'll get to return there as a guest from time to time.  ;D
"I always knew terrorists hated us for our freedom. Now they love us for our bondage." -- Stephen T. Colbert discusses the popularity of '50 Shades of Grey' at Gitmo

Jed Peters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Morgan Creek 7 - 18
« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2008, 12:25:08 PM »
Hopefully I'll get to return there as a guest from time to time.  ;D

Just let me know when.... until I get a job I'll be playing a LOT of golf.

Best would be mid-week.

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Morgan Creek 7 - 18
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2008, 12:40:28 PM »
David,
  Interesting review. What was so great about #3 that you put in the handful of holes you really liked?
   I'll discuss this some more tomorrow.

I really liked the big (but gradual) slope up and to the left. I like the fact that if you hit it over there you have a very tough (but doable) recovery, which could potentially be played a variety of ways.

The tucked right pin position also gives this hole some nice variety to where it could play quite differently each day of a 3 or 4 day tournament.

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Morgan Creek 7 - 18
« Reply #11 on: January 02, 2008, 12:42:35 PM »
David -

How do you think MC would fare as a tournament course for Amateur Play?

I know that you are an accomplished SoCal amateur golfer so I won't ask you what you shot but I would be interested in which holes challenged your game.

Did you find the course long enough at the 7,000 yard distance?

Mike

I think it would fare wonderfully. In the winter, 7,000 yards is plenty to challenge just about any amateur field. In the summer/spring, the back tees (7,300?) would be perfect.

As for which holes challenged my game: All of them. The course is plenty difficult. Not knowing the course definitely added 2 or 3 strokes to my score (I shot 78).

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Morgan Creek 7 - 18
« Reply #12 on: January 02, 2008, 01:00:21 PM »
David:

I've never seen the course, but I do wonder how you can redesign several holes based on a single visit.

Just taking your review of #17 -- you are imposing upon it your own biases of how you would like golf to be.  I'd guess if you had just played safely to the middle of the green, it would have been an easy two-putt.  But you chose to go aggressively toward the pin, and failed to execute.  So what's wrong with having a difficult recovery shot in that instance?

Tom,

Maybe I wasn't clear about 17. The pin was tucked back right, so I purposely played to the middle of the green (as you advised) with a fade starting at the left side and working toward the center.  My ball landed on the left side of the green and rolled off and down into rough to the left.

But you're right, I am imposing my biases on the golf course. When you play a golf course, whose biases do you use? Someone other than your own? That would be a neat trick indeed. ;-)

And don't say you try to remain "unbiased" when reviewing. First of all, it's impossible to do. Secondly, what point does that serve? I like what I like, tolerate what I tolerate, and dislike what I dislike. I've played golf for a long time and come by all my preferences honestly.

I simply prefer more rolling, flowing mounds around greens because they allow for recovery options. MC had too many sharp edges for my taste.

Finally, MC is a fantastic golf course, and I would play a tournament there in a heartbeat and would join there immediately if I lived within 30 miles.

I was, however, asked to give my opinion of the golf course, and I did so, honestly. I was not asked to play the course ten times and then give an opinion.

I'm sure some of my views would change if that were the case, but it's not, so my review contains "first impressions."

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Morgan Creek 7 - 18
« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2008, 01:20:11 PM »
Mike:

David got a chance to play in our saturday game--there were some players there!



Perhaps that explains many of the "I don't remember much about this hole" recaps.

Echoing Tom's comments with the added kicker of evaluating a course while playing for cash may also be difficult.  Was it a skins game?  Firing at the pins all day trying to make birdies vs. a bit more caution for pars might cloudy ones opinion of a course.

And I have seen far fewer courses in my life then many but I don't see validity of the template hole comment.  I think that the features around the green separate MC from the ordinary flat valley courses.

Let me explain my comments about "template" holes. First of all, I don't think I ever used that word. And I didn't use it on purpose.

It's not that the holes are templates (they're not). It's that the course, as a whole, reminds me of all kinds of newer "tournament" courses I have played over the last ten years. They're so worried about being "hard," that something (and I'm not sure what yet) gets lost along the way.

To give you an example of where I'm coming from, I prefer courses like Pasatiempo and Lakeside.

A newer "tournament" course that I really liked was Barona Creek in San Diego. I've only played it once, but I distinctly remember there being much more open space around the greens that allowed for a more diverse range of recovery shots, and that's important to me.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back