I'm curious why Matt would mention Corica North specifically, especially considering it's in the midst of a renovation that doesn't open until late next month.
(I have no agenda with this post, just wondering why. I played South a couple summers ago, partly on David Tepper's recommendation and my general understanding that South is/was the superior course.)
I think the unfinished Corica North is one of the courses that most meets the criterion laid out in the custodian list. Is it the "best" course in a ranking list... almost certainly not. Still, let's look at it:
A course that provides engaging puzzles to solve beats one which does not.
Corica North is pretty strategic throughout. The major complaint I've heard is that it's "boring" for basically letting you play it wherever you want, with the benefits typically relating to pin location on the approach. A highlight for me here is the 5th green, which has a swale reminiscent of North Berwick's "Gate" hole, where you need to be very careful to reach the correct tier, and it might be worth laying up on this par five to do that. The 2nd green and fairway actually rewards player from playing it away from the green if they're not going for the green in two (and a penal pot bunker threatens that option). It's not as obvious and textbook as the O'odham course, but it's a lot of the same ideas.
A course where the ball is encouraged to run beats one where it is not.
Here again, the fairways are wide as can be. Many of the ideal landing locations are places in lower areas where you can play it low and run it along the fairway to dip down into them. Most of the greens have run-on sections, but only from certain angles. The only heavy rough to worry about is heather-like stuff way outside the main play area.
There are seven bunkers total, none of which force a carry unless the player has chosen to attack the green directly.
A course where you can carry your bag at anytime beats one where you cannot.
Corica North, because it is unfinished, is walking only. The South course is a cart-fest most of the time.
A course where you can play quickly while walking, beats one where you cannot.
The site is flat as can be, and the routing is suited for walking with maybe one awkward transition 8-to-9. The South course has many more problematic routing issues 5-to-6, 7-to-8, 10-to-11, 13-to-14, 17-to-18, and the 15th tee is dangerously in play for the 17th green. None of these issues is a deal breaker, but since it was specifically brought up, I think it's relevant.
A course that you can enjoy at all ages beats one where you cannot.
Again, I think that the North course is much more gettable for all ages than the south. Most of the hazard is just wind and angles. Many low handicappers might complain that it's too short, but again that's not the criteria... which was age-related, not skill related.
A course with understated maintenance practices beats one with conspicuous green keeping.
Here is the only one where Ben will likely yell at me. The course suffers from "catch basin disease." I posted about this course a long time ago without naming it, and it's because the architect just put catch basins everywhere. I'm sure an architect or enthusiast would gag at this, but I don't think it's relevant to maintenance in the way that this is proposed.
There are seven bunkers total. Fairways are mostly one height with a vague-at-best second cut. It's a modest course with apparent modest maintenance... it's a muni for goodness sake.
Contrast this with the South course, which looks like it's probably got 10x the maintenance costs, with it's bunkers literally everywhere, it's dozen tee boxes on each hole, and it's multiple-cuts of rough.
A club that emphasizes the simple game of golf beats one which pursues the trappings of status.
I mean. It's a simple course. The advantage from angles is subtle. The greens are very deliberate to make different approaches have different value. The only green that I think doesn't achieve this well is the 9th, which is clearly the worst hole on the course, and which I think leaves a sour taste in people's memory.
A course you want to play again and again beats one you only wish to play annually.
I love playing here, especially when it's windy and the best play is a knock-down 6 iron on most approaches. I'd play a quick round there before work pretty regularly if I was an Alameda resident. Other people don't like it. I don't know how to come to consensus there. By my own admission, pretty much every
very sophisticated golfer I've taken has disliked it, and every single
barely carries a handicap player I've taken has loved it.
---
I'm talking about the unfinished Marc Logan design here. At the end of the day, if RTJII touches the front nine, who knows what I think of it. I have no idea what his work will mean for the course, and if they just make it a cart-forward place with routing issues (it looks like they will be extending some tees that will do this). I have no idea what his plan is for the back-nine. I know there will be consternation about ugly catch basins, but again, I don't really care. I'm just trying to play golf with my friends, not worship the mona lisa.
Ben doesn't love it, and we've talked about it before. I can definitely see his points. I just don't see things from the construction angle, because I literally know nothing when it comes to that stuff.