Mayacama - how does it rank?

[CJ72]

  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?

[THuckaby2]

CJ:

Just like everything else, Mayacama has been discussed in here before also.  Do a search on the word Mayacama and you'll find many comments.

My feeling has always been that it's a damn fine course, worthy of any rating it gets - and GolfWeek at least has it pretty damn high.  I'd agree that the style blends in perfectly with the property, the holes are not forced upon it, there is no prevailing left to right or anything else that Nicklaus courses seem to have, the routing is wonderful, it's damn tough but there is always an easier route if you wish, etc.  It's all been said before.

Curiousity there is that it has the highest slope from the back tees of any course in the NCGA - 150.  There are many reasons why, and we've discussed that before also.  It's an interesting study for course raters (of the rating/slope ilk) in that respect.

Bottom line is also that it's tough, but it's damn fun to play given there are also many chances for success and the ambiance with the caddies and the peaceful tranquility of the valley makes for a wonderful golf experience.

I'd play there any time.  Too bad memberships there are expensive even on CA terms!

TH

[Joel_Stewart]

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?

[Jonathan Cummings]

Joel - the poor Golfweek raters must have really missed the mark on Mayacama.  They voted it 29th best modern course in the country, which would put it second to only Spyglass on a Calif list of modern courses.  

I have played it once and agree more with Tom H - it is quite special.  Tactically, there are a wide variety of approach angles to be negotiated and JN was quite successful setting holes apart and making them each distinctly different.   Esthetically, the quiet pastorial unmolested setting is about as good as it gets.

I'm not a big Jack fan but this is truly one of his gems.

JC

[Tom_Doak]

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!)

[THuckaby2]

I believe Tom Doak makes a good point - the absence of cart paths is so PROMINENT at Mayacama (and at Pacific Dunes) that it's hard not to notice... One is just used to modern courses having cart paths so visible, or even if they are hidden, you notice that they are so... such that not having them at all, well... it is refreshing.

And it seems to me Tom must be right - not having to put them in must give the architect more freedom.

That certainly seems to me to be the case at Mayacama.  Obviously reasonable minds will differ on any course - Joel didn't find as much to like there as did Jonathan and I - but I know each of Wigler, Stettner and Papazian all raved about it also, so who knows?

I truly believe it's the best Nicklaus course I've ever played... and putting it in the Top 20 in our state seems to me to be correct (though I haven't listed it all out and thought this through completely).

"Special" just seems to describe it well to me.

TH

[David Wigler]

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.

[THuckaby2]

David:

Right on brother!  How soon I forget Cabo del Sol Ocean.  Yes, I'd rate that slightly above Mayacama also.  Good call there.

Re the slope, well, remember what that means, which is in essence how much MORE DIFFICULT for the bogey player it be than for the scratch.

Scratch course rating is 74.3 from the back tees (on par 72).  Given all the places to lose golf balls, the relatively severity of several greens, the presence of pretty penal bunkering, that seems fair, doesn't it?  74.3 is pretty damn tough, but not outrageously brutal.  Plenty of courses of approximately this length rate higher than that.

Then picture those same obtacles, only coming in from 175 yards (max approach distance for bogey to reach the green, in general)... Having looked at this a bit more - and damn Scott Seward can confirm or deny this - it's just kind of a mathematical anomaly that the distances work out that the bogey player time after time seems to have the exact distance where he can be expected to reach the green, but is hitting into a pretty severe target.  This is way oversimplifying it, but in essence you get a VERY high bogey rating, against a high but not outrageous course rating, and voila - extremely high slope.

None of this seems wrong to me.  The problem comes in the perception too many people are going to have - they're going to look at the 150 and think "this is the hardest course in all of NorCal."  It's not.  But that's not what that 150 means....

TH

[JWL]

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.

[Tim_Weiman]

JWL:

Did you have any personal involvement with Mayacama?

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

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.

[Evan_Green]

Golf Digest recently ranked Mayacama #12 in California, ahead of many fine courses in the state including Stanford, Torrey Pines South, Bel Air and Spanish Bay among others. I'd say thats pretty impressive.

I think part of what makes Mayacama so great is the atmosphere there - you really feel like you are removed from the rest of the world. Incredible condition of the greens as well I would add.

[David Wigler]

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.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I have to tell you that in the Golfweek list, I wish so much that we would give AT LEAST two years before a NEW course gets rated, no matter how good it is. Anything rated before that date should not be elgible. So much happens to a golf course in its first two years--make that five years, it incredible! Ifso, Mayacama would be elgible for the first time this year, and I suspect it would rate even better.

I look forward to someday getting to see Mayacama not only because of the wine but because its supposed to be a way different then anything Jack's guys have been able to do to date.

Jim, was it a loosening of the reigns to some extent? What made it so different then so many other courses you guys have designed?

If you could, email me some images so we can post them. I would love to see it through your eyes instead of some photographer who is taking promotional images for the place at angles that really don't show a lot of the great featrures you guys supposedly have gotten to use.

If Mayacama is what it has been preported to be, here! here! to Jack Nicklaus Design for doing it!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

You anti-Californian? Noooooooooooooooooooo!  

[Joel_Stewart]

I've said it before on this site, don't get caught up on this being Jacks new begining.  Its a good effort of Nicklaus attempt at minimilism but I don't think he deserves all the credit.  The developer probably kept him on a short leash and had to tone it down all through construction.  

(Somebody from the Nicklaus company used to defend Jack on this site, I wish he would tell us how much his associates worked on this course and what the developers input was).

There are some very good holes and a number of holes that they had to work at and they don't really fit.  17 and 18 are pretty basic yet 2 & 3 are pretty good as an example.

I'll comment on specific holes if anyone cares but this course is a 5.5 on the Doak scale.  

[JWL]

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 Cummings]

JWL - Joel has an opinion on Mayacama, which is as valid as anyones.  However his 5.5 for Mayacama is low when compared to the many GW panelists who have seen and rated Mayacama.  

I continue to say (my personal opinion) that Mayacama is a special piece of property on which a special golf courses was built.  

It is a course that is fun to play over and over, which is an important measure of a golf course's success.

JC

[JWL]

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.

[Brad Klein]

Am I missing something here - perhaps a good editor? Jonathan writes (above) that . . .
 
"Joel - the poor Golfweek raters must have really missed the mark on Mayacama.  They voted it 29th best modern course in the country, which would put it second to only Spyglass on a Calif list of modern courses."

He then proceeds to praise the course virtually w/o qualification. Is this supposed to mean that Golfweek raters really missed the mark by undervaluaing Mayacama and that it deserves a loftier ranking than 29th in the country? Or is this irony pointed at Joel, who doesn't share this view?
 
On another matter, JWL didn't answer, as I recall, the question of his involvement in Mayacama. He (Jim Lipe) was Nicklaus' lead designer on Mayacama and did a phenomenal job routing the holes through the softer, lower-lying ground, esp. on the front nine. Houses are kept way back, some high, but most simply out of view. So it's not just the cart-free environment, it's also the expansive land plan, the mature live oaks and the setting of holes on accessible terrain. The only tough, vertically-challenged ground is traversed by par-3s - an ideal use of such holes.

Tommy Naccarato suggests that courses ought to sit on the bench for two years before being rated on any top-100 lists. I don't recall this being your view on Pacific Dunes or Rustic Canyon. Perhaps you mean this to be the case only with big-name architects whose work you normally find questionable but who oocasionally turn in stellar compositions. in which case it takes time for the initial impression to reach its proper level. Am curious about this one.

[Jonathan Cummings]

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

[Scott_Burroughs]

Jonathan,

Your sarcasm certainly was not lost on me.


Brad,

Good question.  Do I sense the dreaded four letter B-word?  

[Brad Klein]

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.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Bias.

[Joel_Stewart]

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.