The Preserve ...

[Matt_Ward]

I saw the article in Links on The Preserve and have to wonder how others view the course.

I've played it and while the isolation is to be admired -- no doubt the nearly 9-mile ride from the gatehouse has to be one of the longest on-property rides I have ever experienced -- I have to say the course is really just so-so at best. Many of the arguments made on TF courses can easily be linked to what you see there.

The place is flawless in terms of turf quality but if pressed to name one or more holes that was really striking from a design perspective I'd be hard pressed to do so.

Be curious to the thoughts of others who have played it.

p.s. I'd much rather play any of the two 18's at Pelican Hill as a case in point.

[Tom_Doak]

It should have been a really special course given the piece of property.  A wasted opportunity.

[Bob_Huntley]

I saw the article in Links on The Preserve and have to wonder how others view the course.

I've played it and while the isolation is to be admired -- no doubt the nearly 9-mile ride from the gatehouse has to be one of the longest on-property rides I have ever experienced -- I have to say the course is really just so-so at best. Many of the arguments made on TF courses can easily be linked to what you see there.

The place is flawless in terms of turf quality but if pressed to name one or more holes that was really striking from a design perspective I'd be hard pressed to do so.

Be curious to the thoughts of others who have played it.

p.s. I'd much rather play any of the two 18's at Pelican Hill as a case in point.

Matt,

The only hole that stands out in my mind is the long sweeping ninth. I was devastated that the eleventh, which I thought to be a solid test, was reduced by both Calcavechia and Couples to a pitch and putt. You must admit that the eighteenth from the back is a very tough hole.


Bob





The eleventh, which I thought to be a solid test

[Tim Leahy]

I have never been able to get past the gate to see it in person, but I did watch the Shell's Golf match they shot there. It looked very good, somewhat typical of several NoCal rolling foothill type courses with oak trees in play with the exception of no houses or roads in sight. Reminded me of Rancho Murieta North course. I think a big draw for the course is the exclusivity.

[David Kelly]

I thought the greens and greensites were really uninspired with many rising up towards the back as if to stop the ball from going over the green.

The land is spectacular and all told I think the club owns 15-20K acres, almost all of it unspoiled.

[Bob_Huntley]

I thought the greens and greensites were really uninspired with many rising up towards the back as if to stop the ball from going over the green.

The land is spectacular and all told I think the club owns 15-20K acres, almost all of it unspoiled.

David,

At the moment the course is owned by the Santa Lucia Preserve, the whole proprety, formerly known as the Rancho San Carlos, is on something like 22,000 acres. When the last of the residential lots are sold out, the club members will than acquire title to the golf course. I would hazard a guess there may be some gulps when the cost of running the place is divulged.

Bob

[Mark_Fine]

I was not overly enamored with the design.  I thought there were a lot of very average golf holes.  It is a spectacular site but I kept thinking that someone should have spent some more time on this property.  I like to look for distinctive features that help to make each hole standout and there were few to find.  Still it is a very relaxing and obviously very secluded place to play golf.  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tom a wasted opportunity is the often said observation about this course.

[cary lichtenstein]

I saw the article in Links on The Preserve and have to wonder how others view the course.

I've played it and while the isolation is to be admired -- no doubt the nearly 9-mile ride from the gatehouse has to be one of the longest on-property rides I have ever experienced -- I have to say the course is really just so-so at best. Many of the arguments made on TF courses can easily be linked to what you see there.

The place is flawless in terms of turf quality but if pressed to name one or more holes that was really striking from a design perspective I'd be hard pressed to do so.

Be curious to the thoughts of others who have played it.

p.s. I'd much rather play any of the two 18's at Pelican Hill as a case in point.

Once again, you are right on

Cary

[Ryan Farrow]

I was not overly enamored with the design.  I thought there were a lot of very average golf holes.  It is a spectacular site but I kept thinking that someone should have spent some more time on this property.  I like to look for distinctive features that help to make each hole standout and there were few to find.  Still it is a very relaxing and obviously very secluded place to play golf.   

Kind of makes you realize how special places like Oakmont are. If you can't produce standout holes on a great piece of property than what do you give people on an average or flat site?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Matt, I played the course the year it opened.  So that must have been around 2000.  I remember many of the holes though not their place on the course.  So I can only talk to the the lasting impression.  I thought the terrain was special but the routing did not take full advantage of it.  If I recall it properly, the course demands good driving more than most Fazio courses.  I thought there were some very good par threes and a couple of splendid par fives.  The greens had some good movement.  I enjoyed the round and went away feeling good that I had the chance to play it.  Did I think it was a great course.  No.  But I thought it was very good.

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy, et al:

Thanks for your comments.

I can't possibly imagine how a place with that kind of immense property could not come up with something that would be an ideal course -- a layout that could have made a major statement and possible be included among the very elite courses in California.

Like I said previously, the long ride from the gatehouse to the course really made me wonder what was at the end of the road. Truly a big time disappointment given the investment and site involved.

Preserve is a solid case study for the anti-TF slant many people on this site ascribe to. 

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt and others:

Now I too would not call The Preserve particularly great, and it certainly does not deserve any place in our state's top 10, or 20....

But while I would guess that it's not far off to call it a "big disappointment given the investment and site involved" - the assumption being that it's not hard to imagine that it could have been better - well... I still found the whole experience there to be pretty darn fun.  In fact just let me say "ditto" to Tommy's comments.  I would call it a very good golf course.  Matt, would you?

And if so, in the end, isn't that really all that we as golfers ought to care about?  That is, what is there, as opposed to what might have been?

If a guy like Tom Doak calls it a disappointment and wonders what might have been, well then those are powerful words because he's CREATED such things and thus his realistic appraisal holds quite a bit of value.

But us normal golfers?

How do we know what obstacles Fazio faced?  Were there environmental restrictions?  Client wishes?  Other things that may have prevented this mythical "ideal" course?

Thus I wonder about the value of wondering what might have been, when we don't know any of this.

So come to think of it, I believe I will even disagree with Tommy slightly.  I can't reasonably say the routing did not take advantage of the special terrain... having no knowledge of what limitations Fazio might have had.

So I go back to saying it's a pretty darn good golf course.  One negative I do recall was an overabundance of raised greens with false fronts - and I'd also say in the end I saw nothing hugely WOW-inducing to put it in the pantheon of our state's greatest... but I can't say it's a big disappointment given the investment and site involved.  I am not qualified to say that.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

There are many "good" courses in California. The issue for me is when you take such incredible land and waste it for such a so-so course I have to seriously question, as others have said here, did anyone really study the property to get the best possible results?

I don't have the precise answer to what I just asked but The Preserve is more about exclusivity that just so happens to have a golf course. I mean The Preserve would not crack my top 20 TF course listings of those I have personally played and that's truly sad IMHO.

Huck, for the average Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass the opportunity to play golf at The Preserve would be a wonderful moment. The issue is that Mr. Sixpack and Ms. Wineglass have not been as EXPOSED to what I have seen and played in my lifetime. When you take property of the vintage quality you see there in that special place in California I am expecting far more in terms of overall quality. If Fazio could deliver for Steve Wynn with Shadow Creek on a completely nothing site -- he could have done far more given the sheer qualities Mother Nature provided there.

You ask a number of question TF may have faced. That's fair but guess what? I'm interested in the final product. Plenty of architects encounter tremendous challenges and they should be noted but at the END OF THE DAY the final product is what commands center stage.

Huck, once again, you have done the artful tap dance -- agree with some of the complaints but then fall back meekly to say since you don't know the answers to a range of other items it's not your place to say anything with certainty. You've missed your calling my friend -- you need to go into politics because you say plenty but mean little -- with all due respect.

For the mega investment and time spent on such a grand scale of property the finished result is no better than a slightly better than average layout. Nothing more and clearly doesn't sniff anywhere near the top tier of layouts I have played in California. When you have such unique property in such a grand location I was hoping for real gold but found nothing more than the fool's variety.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

You predictably missed my point.  This has nothing to do any golfer's "baseline".  It also has nothing to do with this being a private club experience.   It has to do with assuming knowledge one doesn't have.

See, I am judging what's there - and only what's there.  It's you who is trying to assess what might have been.  And again I wonder, how do you know the obstacles faced?  How do you KNOW it could have been better?  Isn't it just as possible that Fazio did the best he could with the land available?

Heck, it's easy to arm-chair imagine.  My feeling is that it's quite different - and quite hard - to actually get greatness out of the dirt.  And so yes, I meekly assume the professionals know what they are doing - and more importantly, know what obstacles need be faced - a hell of a lot better than I do, playing the course one time and not having anything to do with this profession.

So as I say, Doak's post was powerful to me.  He's a master in this field.  So the whole thing is kinda moot, really.  But since you decided to fire back in your predictable style, well... You keep on thinking you know better than the professionals.  As you find me meek, I find this type of thinking arrogant.

With all due respect, PAHD-NAH!

TH

ps - what's funny here is I truly believe we agree on the bottom line - it's not a great course - although predictably in your argumentative style, you went overboard in this last post.  But that's why we love you!   In any case, if you say "it's not that great of a course" and leave it at that, you and i have no disagreements.  It's where you go from there that has me shaking my head.  How do you know it could have been better?

[Bob_Huntley]

Matt,

I think it well to remember that this was never Tom Fazio's routing. The first look at the property was, I believe, made by Sandy Tatum.  Michael Poelette was hired draw to up the routing plans and whether or not it was his work that became the template for TF, I have no idea. 

Bob

[Jerry Kluger]

I have not played the course but perhaps my perspective might add to the discussion.  Huck calls it a fun experience but should that really be the test when evaluating the course - my answer would be yes, it is a factor, but only a factor.  The impression I am getting is that perhaps TF was more concerned with how the course looked as opposed to how it played.  A course can be wonderfully conditioned and impressive to look at, but is it really as enjoyable and challenging to players of all levels as it could be?  I also get the impression that TF was given a pretty big budget to build the course so fairway movement, angles, green contours, etc., were not left out due to money constraints.  I think TF did a great job at Galloway, Trump Bedminster and Shadow Creek so from my humble perspective, he sures know how to build quality.  It's a shame when he doesn't. 

[Tom Huckaby]

Jerry - I'm just glad you see it as a factor - so few of the "purists" here do.

Just understand I am not saying it's the ONLY factor to be assessed.  My point, however, for years on here has been that to deny the overall experiential aspects as ANY factor in an assessment is to miss the boat of why we play the game.

TH

[Lou_Duran]

It has been several years since I spent a half day at the property, but my recollection is that there were three people largely responsible for the land plan and routing, one of the principals, and Mrssrs. Tatum and Poelette as Mr. Huntley noted.  Fazio, I think, was brought in after the unexpected death of this principal.  He was tasked with creating the major features within the established routing while staying true to the expansive, rustic nature of the property and disturbing as little of the land as possible.

I very much enjoyed the golf course.  It fits the rolling, rustic nature of the land well, has nice variety, and is very challenging in every facet of the game.  It is not an easy course to walk, but I don't think that this is a negative for its members (it probably gets pretty hot a good part of the year anyways).

The course would make the second half of my top hundred.  I particularly liked the scale of the property, the rolling fairways which provided a variety of lies, the perched positions of some greens, and the large, subtly contoured putting surfaces.  The aesthetics of the site and the abundant wildlife are also exceptional.  I don't know if it is an indictment of the architecture, but I have more pictures of a bobcat which trailed us for awhile than of anything else on the course.  But I am with Tom Huckaby with respect to the whole experience.  My time there was well spent; it was not a disapointment at all.         

[David Stamm]

It should have been a really special course given the piece of property.  A wasted opportunity.

IMHO, this is enough for me. I've seen the SWWOG match and the site looks absolutely beautiful and serene. But I trust TD's assesment. While there may have been some issues that we don't know about that contributed to the final outcome, isn't that when the truly great architect proves his mettle? Let's remember where we played on Sun and what AM was able to get out of a fairly difficult site.

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

A few responses to your last comments ...

1). I don't "assume" anything. I played the course and opined on it. Simple as that. I also don't care what the issues were prior to the finished product. What I assessed is the final product. Nothing more -- nothing less.

2). I simply said that for all the $$ the project certainly had and given the richness of the vast acres of quality land they had to work with the finished product is a big time disappointment. Do I believe, my opinion I might add, that a better layout could have been designed. Sure. Why do I say that? Simple. The one that's there now is nothing more than a paint by the numbers design style. There's hardly a hole I can remember in great detail. I'm not saying the course is a bad one -- it's just that it should have been a much better one than is there now. Got it.

3). In regards to what I know -- in comparison to the professionals. Here's what I said -- I don't see all the hype and fanfare tied to The Preserve. When I read the article in Links you'd think the course was in the same breath with Pasatiempo (also featured in Links this month) when the reality is far from true.

For the folks at The Preserve to spend all that $$ to get what they got I just believe they paid a lot and were under-delivered in a big time way.

When you say how do I know it could have been better? Simple. Because I can't see how they could have gone further down given what they have now.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

Our disagreement is in method.  You repeatedly state the course is not what it should have been / could have been; I question why you think it should be better, given you have no idea of any obstacles to be faced.  But if you truly do think that the course is so bad that there is nowhere to go but up, well.... your opinions are what they are as always, strong and forceful and damn all other possible means of thinking.  That's you, and that's great.  I just never thought you'd get to such an elitist state, being the New Jersey muni boy you have always claimed to be.

 

TH

[Lou_Duran]

Matt,

I don't get "Link".  Was there some mention of the course construction budget in it?  My recollection is that there was not that much money involved in actually building the course because unlike many of Fazio's courses (e.g. Dallas National), there was little dirt moved.  What are your references to $$?

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

The folks there didn't have just a few nickels and dimes.

The end result speaks for itself -- my God, you even believe it would make the back end of your top 100 listing of courses. Lou, I just think you need to play a few more if you truly believe that.

The site provided ample opportunity to for a much more interesting routing and array of holes. TF has done that -- you mentioned DN as one example and I quite agree. Glenwild in UT is miles beyond what you see with The Preserve -- I could name quite a few other TF layouts that have more to offer than The Preserve. 

Huck:

Hold the phone buckeroo.

I have never abandoned my muni roots.

When I first played The Preserve a few years back I was awed a facility would take the time and trouble to "preserve" so much land and have a solitary golf course on the property. I was hoping it would be of vintage quality given the type of people involved and the kind of $$ being brought to bear on the project.

My assessment is far from elitism -- it is simply pure observation from a golf design standpoint. Huck, I judge the final product -- all the elements that come before that are wonderful story lines for those who care about such things. I play golf on the finished product and simply opined from that.

Quality land is such a precious item and I was hoping the folks responsible for the course would have looked to other superior interior California courses as a way to really deliver on what they had the potential to do.

A really superior course could have been delivered there -- it's still a good layout but greatness beckoned.

Simple as that ...

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

It's not as simple as that, unless you give up the "it could have/should have been better" part... and you give up the previous sentiment that it's so bad they could only go up.

Give up those two thoughts, and this all can end.  Keep them and you remain elitist and telling professionals you know better than they do.  Perhaps you can live with those two qualities.  I for one don't profess to either.