[Patrick Kiser]

I'll go with LACC South course.  

Fail...  But nice try.  LACC_South is Fowler, but I mentioned this is a Billy Bell (Sr.) / possibly Willie Watson course.

Another hint: further south...

[Carl Nichols]

Patrick:
Has there been renovation work there recently?  Most of the pics on the club's website have different (and worse) looking greenside bunkers -- much more what I remember.

FWIW, GD doesn't have this course in its top 40 in California.

[Terry Lavin]

Trying to sleuth it out online, it looks like it could be Virginia Country Club or Hacienda Country club, neither of which I've ever heard of and each of which looks fairly enticing.

[Peter Ferlicca]

I am going to guess Hacienda Golf Club.  I have been trying to set up a day trip to play here for a while but it never came to fruition.  I have never seen any pictures of Hacienda and if this is it, it looks pretty nice and really makes me what to play there.   I have always heard great things about this club.  Isn’t there a little Max Behr in there also?  It has a little Rancho Santa Fe look to it. 

[Jim Eder]

The work at LACC is fantastic and they have a great piece on their website.  Here is the link.  https://www.thelacc.org/files/NorthCourse_Commemorative_Edition.pdf

Hacienda is also a terrific course and is highly recommended as well. Hacienda has a pretty good website with pics of the holes etc.  http://www.haciendagolfclub.com/GolfCourse/course_tour.cfm?CID=202

The bunkers have a little Royal Melbourne in them in my opinion if you see them up close.

[David Kelly]

A criticism I would have of this mystery course is that too many of the holes play dead straight so that it has a bit of a Firestone feel to it.  Also it could have used a tree trimming the last time I played it although the pics that Patrick put up make the holes look a little more open than I remember.

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,
I know nothing but would have staked my life on this course being Aussie, "...brown amongst the gum trees.".

Well obviously, from the info that has been leaked, it is not. Fairways as brown as this I have only seen in Oz and once as a small boy in the height of a blistering summer in Scotland.

Cheers Colin

[Jim Eder]

The grass is bermuda that has gone dormant because of the winter.

[Anthony Fowler]

Patrick,
I hope you tell everyone soon!  I suspect this thread is getting less and less interesting for those that don't know.

I agree with your feelings about #8.  It's probably the worst hole on the course, and the waterworks feel very out-of-place.  I also know what you mean about #15.  However, I'm amazed how often I used to try to drive it over the fairway bunker on 15 only to find that there is no strategic gain to doing so.  The correct line is the left side of the fairway, so the only purpose the fairway bunker is "avoidance."  I will still maintain, however, that the best play on 17 is favor the left side, so there is some strategic gain to challenging that fairway bunker.  I don't really know what you mean when you say that the original strategy lies under the trees on the right.  Even if there were no trees over there, that's not the place to be given the slope of the green.  I have seen some long hitters drive the green or come close on 17, but for me, a driver at the green would leave an awkward pitch.  For this reason, that left bunker is position A.

David,
I don't see the Firestone connection.  You're right that only a few holes turn significantly (4, 12, 8, and 14), but the straight holes have plenty of width and strategic interest.  I haven't played Firestone, but it looks a lot more claustrophobic and repetitive to me than this course.  Do you disagree with this assessment?

Carl,
There has not been any major renovation in the past 6-8 years, but I do believe the bunkers were renovated some time before that (I never played the course before that, so I'm not certain).  The photos on the website are up to date, but I think Patrick did a much better job capturing the character of the course.  Maybe he should be their website photographer.

[Patrick Kiser]

Carl,

There has been some work done, but to my knowledge not recently to the greenside bunkers.  More recently the fairway bunkers and back tees were worked in.  More later...

Also, GD can be wrong...  


Peter / Terry,

Not Hacienda, but you're warm given the possible Willie Watson connection.




 

[Jim Eder]

Anthony,

It seemed to me that it favoured a left to right shot a bit more than right to left shots. Maybe 2:1. Would you agree?

Because of the greens and depending on the pin placements there is a lot of strategy on the approach shots that require some shaping to get it close.

[David Kelly]

I don't see the Firestone connection.  You're right that only a few holes turn significantly (4, 12, 8, and 14), but the straight holes have plenty of width and strategic interest.  I haven't played Firestone, but it looks a lot more claustrophobic and repetitive to me than this course.  Do you disagree with this assessment?

Yes, Firestone South is more treed and feels tighter although like I said the last time I was at the course the trees felt like they were more encroaching than Patrick's pictures indicate.  But I'm not comparing it to Firestone, just using it to indicate how little variety I found in the routing.

[Patrick Kiser]

I also know what you mean about #15.  However, I'm amazed how often I used to try to drive it over the fairway bunker on 15 only to find that there is no strategic gain to doing so.  The correct line is the left side of the fairway, so the only purpose the fairway bunker is "avoidance."

That's because on the 15th ... there never was a bunker to the right.  That's right (no pun intended).  The old aerial from '53 shows a pot bunker left and short of the knoll from what I can tell and the green was oriented about the same.  So back then you needed to tickle the pot like bunker and risk something in order to gain a better angle into the green.  So back in the day, the safe route did not reward.  Now it does by going to the left...

I don't really know what you mean when you say that the original strategy lies under the trees on the right.  Even if there were no trees over there, that's not the place to be given the slope of the green.

I'm suggesting that perhaps the green was repositioned, but I have to look into this.  I have no proof of this being true or not.  So possibly what we have now is NOT the same as what was originally.

[Ian Andrew]

I would love to work there, it would be so easy, just take the grassing lines way outside the bunkers and let the ground rule.

[Patrick Kiser]

Patrick,
I hope you tell everyone soon!  I suspect this thread is getting less and less interesting for those that don't know.

Ok, ok, ok...

I present the San Diego Country Club...

In the San Diego area, you will hear Pauma Valley, Barona, Rancho Sante Fe, maybe Torrey Pines, and of course ... the San Diego Country Club as the better courses to the area.

I wish Pete L. would chime in with his two cents worth.

[Tim Leahy]

SDCC wan't that highly regarded in San Diego when I lived down there other than being the home of Billy Casper.  I never felt the need to go out of my way to play it in Chula Vista, looks nice though, wish I had,.

[Jim Eder]

I wish people on the site had the opportunity to understand the greens and the movement in them. Anthony is spot on, they are exciting.  People on this site would really like them I believe.

[Patrick Kiser]

... just using it to indicate how little variety I found in the routing.

David,

I agree the routing is a little blah on the front nine (just about all west and east holes except for the 9th being south to north), but it picks up on the back nine.  But the back nine's land and topography are perhaps not as strong as the front nine.  The 15th and 16th are kind of flat when compared to the rest of the course.

[Pete Lavallee]

Since I've been summoned I'll chime in. Although I've lived in SD for over 20 years I've only played here twice. The first time was in 1994, pre gca and having played many Billy Bell courses while living in LA the previous 10 years, was very dissapointed in my initial play here. I can tell you one thing, those greens were neither built nor designed by Billy Bell! Although I'm not certain, I would wager they were resdesigned in the 60's when big greens were all the rage. They putt great, as Patrick says they are of the highest quality. But they just don't fit the holes like they should. They tie into the surrounds poorly also. The course is very good, but lacks something; it's very hard to put your finger on just what that is though. I'm certain it would be more enjoyable to play if the original greens were still in play.

The people who should chime in are either Robert Ball or David Stamm; I believe they made a slide show presentation at SDCC a few years back.

[Anthony Fowler]

Jim,
I've thought about your comment regarding shot shape.  To me, I think proper position off the tee is more important than shaping the approach shots but those obviously go hand in hand.  If you fail to properly position your tee shot (which is a common problem for me) you will have to shape your approach to get it close.  There are certainly a few tee shots that favor a left-to-right ball flight (like 2, 4, and maybe 14) but others favor a left-to-right shot (like 10 and 12).  More important than shaping your approach shots is the ability to hit controlled approaches from side-hill lies.  For example, on 4 and 10 you will usually have a dramatic side-hill lie on your approach and you'd like to hit a straight approach into the green, so that's similar to shaping your shots I suppose.

I will happily defend the routing and variety of the course (with the exception of #8).  I think the front nine is just as strong as the back and 15 and 16 are good holes with excellent greens that fit well into the rest of the course.  I particularly like 16 because unlike most three-shot par 5's it really forces you to focus and think about your second shot.  

Patrick,
your observations about 15 are really interesting.  I agree that the hole would be more interesting with the old fairway bunkering.  

One drawback that people have alluded to is that SDCC is primarily an aerial course.  Despite the great movement in the ground and the f&f conditioning (so much so that it looks like it could be in suburban Melbourne), the greens are very well protected and don't incentivise the ground game.  One exception that I have already discussed is the 17th.  If you try to fly a high wedge to the front-right pin position, the ball will spin off the front of the green.  You need to play a low bouncer into that hole location if you want to get it close.      

[Patrick Kiser]

Pete,

Good to see you post.

RB and DS will hopefully crawl out from under their rocks.  Not to mention Robert Deruntz...

The club history states that in '62 ... Harry Rainville was engaged and redid several greens.  Quote:
"... hire golf course architect Harry Rainville to remodel a number of greens and tees, the first significant work on the course since 1920."

Then in 1988, the greens were quote "rebuilt and made larger", but it doesn't state by whom or which greens.  The work could have been done as part of a joint effort between Billy Casper (giving direction and supervising) with Cary Bickler doing the actual work.  But I don't have confirmation of this.  So it's still uncertain as to who did the work in '88.

However since the first historical produced in '59, the club states "... much has happened since that time, including the rebuilding of our greens, bunkers, and driving range, construction of a lake on the eighth hole...".  Also during the new clubhouse construction, play started on the 17th as opposed to the 1st.

With regards to the 8th hole, 7th fairway, and fairway bunkers, it appears John Harbottle would have been engaged to complete the work.  In addition, some back tee work would have been performed by JH as well.

[Patrick Kiser]

... and 15 and 16 are good holes with excellent greens that fit well into the rest of the course.

I would agree these are two greens that actually blend in well.  They are not propped up and work in with this flattish stretch.  We can say what we want about the 8th, but it too works into the surrounds and is not propped up.

... and don't incentivise the ground game.  One exception that I have already discussed is the 17th.  If you try to fly a high wedge to the front-right pin position, the ball will spin off the front of the green.  You need to play a low bouncer into that hole location if you want to get it close.      

Also agree here.  The propping up does not offer much of a green entrance opportunity for the run on or knock down ... which is a shame.  However, the course is rather consistent this way for the most part.  Good to know about that front pin position for the 17th.

[Carl Nichols]

Carl,

There has been some work done, but to my knowledge not recently to the greenside bunkers.  More recently the fairway bunkers and back tees were worked in.  More later...

Also, GD can be wrong...  

I didn't say I agreed with them.   

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I have been playing there regularly in the winter for many years.  It is a course desperately in need of a restoration.  Unfortunately, at the moment the club is not flush with cash. The majority of members are proud of the course difficulty.  Harbottle was brought in to add fairway bunkers and new back tees a few years ago.  In some ways, this was a response to Torrey Pines and Carlton Oaks having been lengthened.  There are probably 20 members who can average 300 yards driving, so the lengthening was for a decent size group of bombers.  In addition,  the greens are regularly kept at 11 and have played at 14 in tournaments.

[Patrick Kiser]

I will post the front nine first and give a chance to everyone to comment.  Tomorrow evening sometime I'll add the back nine.

But first a couple of thoughts from my round and visit...

The folks at the San Diego Country Club were nothing but kind to me.  From the GM to the Pro Shop, it was all class.  The newer clubhouse is quite nice and well appointed.  It keeps a Spanish eclectic feel with modern touches.  The course is located in between the 5 and 805 freeways in Chula Vista.  It's about a 10-15 minute drive to downtown San Diego on a normal day without any traffic.

As I mentioned earlier, the course dates to August 1921 and was built under Billy Bell (Sr.) with Willie Watson likely involved as well.  Over the years, the course has experienced some changes and I would say that today the course in general is an example of a classic course having been adjusted to accommodate the modern aerial game.  For the purists, the course as it stands now could disappoint with the changes.  But what I will say is overall the club has done a relatively good job in having a consistent look and feel for supporting the modern game.  The player is not confused about the holes and how they should play.  As mentioned in previous posts, it's very much about "avoiding" taking risk and stayng away from trouble as opposed to challenging it to gain a reward.

About the strengths...

Without question in my mind, first and foremost the land stands out.  Tremendous undulating land and this side of the original design still very much shines.  The conditions are ideal for having a fun and sporting course.  Second as mentioned by several are the greens.  They are REALLY good.  Some of the best poa greens I've ever had the experience of playing on.  Also, I feel the par 3s here are ALL good to very good.  Another thing I liked was the rather sporty nature to the course.  Green to tee, the rhythm is excellent and a good pace can be maintained.  Not once did I feel the course was tight.  The property could be called small at just over 150+ acres considering today's monsters, but the holes feel well spaced and not cramped at all.  And one more thing ... no lost balls as I was just about always able to recover.  Last but not least, superb conditioning and that's a testament to the superintendent and maintenance crew here.  I actually really like the dormant bermuda look with patches of green and of course ... those awesome greens.

Weakness wise, I would say tree management is lacking and is the single most obvious aspect of the course that could get some attention.  As you'll see, there are trees of all kinds all over the course and I would argue several holes have original strategies buried under them.  The purist will argue about the bunker shaping and their placement, but the design is setup for the aforementioned modern aerial game and the bunkers are rather consistent in look and feel.  The bunkers have a semi-Sandbelt feel with the rigid packed faces and flat bottoms.  Although I would say the routing is good, it's also not great.  All four points of the compass are hit, but most holes face west or east with only a few heading north or south.  Finally, some segments of the cart pathing didn't sit well with me.

All in all though, I really liked this course and can see how the members here enjoy playing it day in and day out.  They have a fine course to see and play every time they visit the club.

Onto the course...


Routing:

Two loops of nine with the front being largely a set of west and east holes finishing with a 9th hole heading south to north.  The back nine mixes it up a little more with different directions.




Tees are in order Black/Blue/White/Green/Gold


Hole No.1: Par 4 368/361/358/349/301 (original 360)

The LA Times article quoting the course as a Willie Watson effort has this hole at 360 yards, which place it on the blue tees.  The hole starts out west from the clubhouse in a downhill fashion and gently turns to a left green that is slightly elevated.  The run on shot will work here, but a direct one only.  The eye definitely tells me to hit a banking shot off the left ridge that turns into the green, but the bunker lurks there and it should probably not be attempted.  The green gives an indication of what to expect: nothing but excellent in quality and putts pure.




















Hole No.2: Par 5 513/498/466/452/349 (original 410)

It's likely the hole evolved from a par 4 to a par 5.  The tee shot is somewhat of a runaway affair, but one quickly sees the nature of the upcoming land and topography ahead.  One word: delicious...  The approach into the green commands an aerial shot.  There's just not much room in between the pinched in left and right green facing bunkers to run in a shot + the front is steep enough and defensive.  I'm not sure what's going on right with the "lone tree", but it feels out of place to me and distracts.

























Hole No.3: Par 3 236/217/194/92/92 (original 164)

The old photo here dates from 1925 and it's not clear if the photo presents the hole as originally designed or if some rework was performed.  I suspect there was rework because as you will eventually see, there's a photo previously presented on an old thread by David Stamm that reveals a rather different bunker look.  I guess it's possible, but I'd be surprised if the course had different kinds of bunker shapes from the onset.  As it plays now, the hole is a longish par guarded left and right by some significant bunkers.  My eye says to sling a cut shot into the left ridge and have the ball turn into the green, but that can't be done.  Even in 1925 it couldn't be done...  Another solid green though.


















Hole No.4: Par 4 461/435/400/400/400 (original 503)

I suspect the hole played as a par 5 and became a par 4.  The undulating fairway is quite fun and definitely makes a difference in positioning for the eventual approach.  It's a gradual left to right dogleg.  The run on approach is doable here as the opening feels wide enough.  As you can see from the approach photo, the fairway moves left to right into the green.  I was more impressed by the green on this hole and the tee shot.




















Hole No.5: Par 4 401/392/380/318/318 (original 388)

We have an opposite gradual right to left dogleg in this 5th and it rises slightly as well until it comes back down towards the green.  The fairway cants the whole time gently from left to right.  The "avoid" strategy is in play with the bunker at the dogleg.  The green opening is relatively wide and will take a run on.  Another very good green, but this is when I started to tire slightly from the bunkers being predictable with one left and one right by the greens.


















Hole No.6: Par 3 187/180/165/140/113 (original 186)

We've now come upon what I feel is probably if not the best then one of the best holes on the course.  This medium par 3 blew me away from the tee in how well it naturally sets up.  It just looks really cool, naturally defends itself, and plays pretty well too.  On the tee I suspected the back bunkers were not original because the shot screams a cut into the left ridge with a roll onto the green.  But the bunkers prevent this option.  Upon following up on the '53 aerial ... no bunkers.  I won't be forgetting this par 3 anytime soon.  Simply fantastic!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()