I wrote a few long overdue course reviews today. And I updated my personal top 25 to reflect some recent course plays.
New Additions to the Top 25
1. Pacific Dunes, Bandon, OR
3. Old Macdonald, Bandon, OR
4. Bandon Trails, Bandon, OR
5. Rustic Canyon, Moorpark, CA
16. Sevillano Links, Corning, CA
New course rankings
Full review can be seen at: http://affordablegolfdesign.blogspot.com/p/golf-course-ranking.html
Indian Valley Golf Course, Novato, CA: This course has some really cool holes, but some that really seem forced into the property....
Northwood, Monte Rio, CA: This course is said to have been designed by Alister MacKenzie; if that is the case it has likely fallen far....
Elizabeth Manor, Portsmouth, VA: This course seems to have been stuffed into a space that is slightly smaller than it needs to be....
Cypress Lakes, Travis AFB, CA: This course is built over very flat land and likely did not have the budget to do significant earth moving in order to make it more interesting....
Links at Bodega Harbour, Bodega Bay, CA: If ever a golf course has been blessed with such an exceptional site, I have not seen or heard of it. Yet this course comes in as so average as to be mind blowing....
Saturday
Pacific Dunes vs. Links at Bodega Harbour: A study in the good and bad of ocean front design
In the past week I have had the pleasure (and displeasure) of playing two oceanfront golf courses in back to back rounds. Last Sunday I played Pacific Dunes in Bandon, OR. Today I played the Links at Bodega Harbour. I should note from the start that Links at Bodega Harbour doesn't try to market themselves as being better than Pacific Dunes, however, given their website marketing saying they are "one of Northern California's most impressive golf courses" and "a true Scottish style links course" I feel that the comparisons are fair. I suppose the best way to start is a general comparison of the two courses:
Similarities
Both courses have three holes that play very close to the ocean
Both courses occupy exceptional sites with varied terrain, wind, and incredible views of the Pacific Ocean
Differences
At Pacific Dunes, Tom Doak uses the ocean and the views of it the same way a great chef uses a fine wine to accentuate the taste of an exceptional Filet. At Bodega Harbour the ocean is used much the same way as the backyard griller uses beer to mask out an otherwise tasteless and burnt hamburger.
Pacific is built on land that drains very well, allowing for the course to be playable almost all the time. Bodega, even though it is built on a mountain directly above the ocean, somehow retains massive amounts of water in the fairways, making walking difficult.
Pacific Dunes has no houses on the property, while Bodega has houses on several holes that are so close to the playing areas, and running side-by-side down the entire length of the hole on both sides, as to make the course nearly unplayable in high winds (which are certain to occur given the location)
At Pacific Dunes, you have three holes that play directly by the ocean, 4, 11 and 13; there are also a few greens that overlook the ocean, but those are the three holes that in my mind play directly on the ocean/cliffs. Links at Bodega Harbour plays on the ocean for holes 16, 17 and 18. That is where the similarity ends however. At Pacific Dunes, these ocean front holes merely amplify the interior holes before and after them. Indeed, in my opinion, the 4th at Pacific Dunes may be the weakest hole on the course, and I say that in a most praiseworthy way. At Bodega Harbour, it is as if some form of drama is built through out the round towards a "big finish" by having teaser views of the ocean on the first 15 holes, yet after walking off the 16th tee and into the fairway, the ocean is not at all visible in spite of being only 50 yards away due to a row of dunes (and given how 'perfect' the dune line is, I suspect these were man-made). The same is the case with the other ocean front holes, if 17 can really be considered an ocean front hole given that it plays away from the 16th green back inland a ways, but I am being slightly generous today, so I'll give them the benefit and say the course has three holes on the ocean. 18 is much the same given that the ocean is in view from the tee and on the second shot, but again, at the green the ocean is 50 yards away and yet nowhere to be seen. At Pacific Dunes, not only is the sound of the surf below you somewhat distracting, the view of the cliffs and the ocean below really give the player a lot to think about standing over the three tee shots. What it really comes down to is that when the ocean is used at Pacific Dunes as a hazard, it adds to the natural beauty and strategy of the course; at Bodega Harbour, when given the chance to excel and use the ocean as part of a dramatic finish, falls woefully short and winds up with no real views of the ocean and the ocean never coming into play.
In dealing with the site similarities, I am quite frankly inclined to say that Bodega Harbour has a better site than does Pacific Dunes. The site has more movement and elevation change, yet is not so extreme as to prevent a course from being built on it. However, it is in the execution where the similarities end.
As I stated before, Pacific Dunes uses the ocean somewhat sparingly in order to keep your attention on the other, more substantial and important features of the course. At Bodega, it is as if the ocean is intentionally placed within your view on every hole in order to take your mind and eyes off the actual hole and the golf course. Otherwise, people might understand how poor this course really is. In spite of my listing houses and the ocean as two separate differences, it is impossible to address the weaknesses of the course and the ocean views without addressing the housing problem. It is rare that I am distracted by houses on a golf course. However, at Bodega, the homes are so close to the fairways in some cases that I actually feel the golf course is unsafe, not for the golfers, but for the home owners. Played in high winds like today, it is nearly impossible not to, in fact, aim FOR houses on some holes, 1, 2, and 9 come to mind as the worst offenders. With a strong cross-wind it is basically impossible to keep your ball out of the houses to the right of the 9th fairway without aiming over the houses on the left. 1 and 2 are not quite as bad, but they are very tight and generally not appealing in any way. After arriving on the 5th tee, golfers are treated to what would be one of the most spectacular views in all of golf, however, it is quite encumbered by views of a few hundred roof's and then the hole that proceeds from there is quite frankly one of the worst holes I have ever seen.
I think in the end what I am trying to say here is that Pacific Dunes was blessed with a spectacular site and had an exceptional designer and owner come in with enough skill to not let it be destroyed. At Bodega Harbour, they were blessed with certainly the best site I have ever seen, and frankly the best I have ever heard of, better than what I have seen of Pebble Beach, Turnberry and the rest. Yet for whatever reason, the potential course was so devastated by a housing development and a likely substandard original designer (Robert Trent Jones, II is listed as the designer, I have to believe is the Renovation designer and not the original designer given other work I have seen from him, therefore I do not hold him responsible for the original routing and without changing the routing, there is only so much polish one can place on a pile of manure) that I can honestly say that Bodega is the biggest letdown of a golf course I have ever played. Given what could have/should have been here, I am actually incline to say it is the worst golf course I have ever played and is the first course I have ever said is a Zero on a scale of 1-10; I doubt there has ever been a golf course fall so far below its potential. (Pacific Dunes is a 10, by the way)
Similarities
Both courses have three holes that play very close to the ocean
Both courses occupy exceptional sites with varied terrain, wind, and incredible views of the Pacific Ocean
Differences
At Pacific Dunes, Tom Doak uses the ocean and the views of it the same way a great chef uses a fine wine to accentuate the taste of an exceptional Filet. At Bodega Harbour the ocean is used much the same way as the backyard griller uses beer to mask out an otherwise tasteless and burnt hamburger.
Pacific is built on land that drains very well, allowing for the course to be playable almost all the time. Bodega, even though it is built on a mountain directly above the ocean, somehow retains massive amounts of water in the fairways, making walking difficult.
Pacific Dunes has no houses on the property, while Bodega has houses on several holes that are so close to the playing areas, and running side-by-side down the entire length of the hole on both sides, as to make the course nearly unplayable in high winds (which are certain to occur given the location)
At Pacific Dunes, you have three holes that play directly by the ocean, 4, 11 and 13; there are also a few greens that overlook the ocean, but those are the three holes that in my mind play directly on the ocean/cliffs. Links at Bodega Harbour plays on the ocean for holes 16, 17 and 18. That is where the similarity ends however. At Pacific Dunes, these ocean front holes merely amplify the interior holes before and after them. Indeed, in my opinion, the 4th at Pacific Dunes may be the weakest hole on the course, and I say that in a most praiseworthy way. At Bodega Harbour, it is as if some form of drama is built through out the round towards a "big finish" by having teaser views of the ocean on the first 15 holes, yet after walking off the 16th tee and into the fairway, the ocean is not at all visible in spite of being only 50 yards away due to a row of dunes (and given how 'perfect' the dune line is, I suspect these were man-made). The same is the case with the other ocean front holes, if 17 can really be considered an ocean front hole given that it plays away from the 16th green back inland a ways, but I am being slightly generous today, so I'll give them the benefit and say the course has three holes on the ocean. 18 is much the same given that the ocean is in view from the tee and on the second shot, but again, at the green the ocean is 50 yards away and yet nowhere to be seen. At Pacific Dunes, not only is the sound of the surf below you somewhat distracting, the view of the cliffs and the ocean below really give the player a lot to think about standing over the three tee shots. What it really comes down to is that when the ocean is used at Pacific Dunes as a hazard, it adds to the natural beauty and strategy of the course; at Bodega Harbour, when given the chance to excel and use the ocean as part of a dramatic finish, falls woefully short and winds up with no real views of the ocean and the ocean never coming into play.
In dealing with the site similarities, I am quite frankly inclined to say that Bodega Harbour has a better site than does Pacific Dunes. The site has more movement and elevation change, yet is not so extreme as to prevent a course from being built on it. However, it is in the execution where the similarities end.
As I stated before, Pacific Dunes uses the ocean somewhat sparingly in order to keep your attention on the other, more substantial and important features of the course. At Bodega, it is as if the ocean is intentionally placed within your view on every hole in order to take your mind and eyes off the actual hole and the golf course. Otherwise, people might understand how poor this course really is. In spite of my listing houses and the ocean as two separate differences, it is impossible to address the weaknesses of the course and the ocean views without addressing the housing problem. It is rare that I am distracted by houses on a golf course. However, at Bodega, the homes are so close to the fairways in some cases that I actually feel the golf course is unsafe, not for the golfers, but for the home owners. Played in high winds like today, it is nearly impossible not to, in fact, aim FOR houses on some holes, 1, 2, and 9 come to mind as the worst offenders. With a strong cross-wind it is basically impossible to keep your ball out of the houses to the right of the 9th fairway without aiming over the houses on the left. 1 and 2 are not quite as bad, but they are very tight and generally not appealing in any way. After arriving on the 5th tee, golfers are treated to what would be one of the most spectacular views in all of golf, however, it is quite encumbered by views of a few hundred roof's and then the hole that proceeds from there is quite frankly one of the worst holes I have ever seen.
I think in the end what I am trying to say here is that Pacific Dunes was blessed with a spectacular site and had an exceptional designer and owner come in with enough skill to not let it be destroyed. At Bodega Harbour, they were blessed with certainly the best site I have ever seen, and frankly the best I have ever heard of, better than what I have seen of Pebble Beach, Turnberry and the rest. Yet for whatever reason, the potential course was so devastated by a housing development and a likely substandard original designer (Robert Trent Jones, II is listed as the designer, I have to believe is the Renovation designer and not the original designer given other work I have seen from him, therefore I do not hold him responsible for the original routing and without changing the routing, there is only so much polish one can place on a pile of manure) that I can honestly say that Bodega is the biggest letdown of a golf course I have ever played. Given what could have/should have been here, I am actually incline to say it is the worst golf course I have ever played and is the first course I have ever said is a Zero on a scale of 1-10; I doubt there has ever been a golf course fall so far below its potential. (Pacific Dunes is a 10, by the way)
Wednesday
Golf’s Final Frontier is in the Mind
Sorry for the long delay in posting here, I've had much going on. Here is a short essay written by a friend of mine, Melvyn Morrow, of Scotland. While I will admit Melvyn and I have had some disagreements in the past, I think in many cases he is simply misunderstood by many, including myself, from time to time. I think he and I are equally proud of our country's and our heritage, his just happens to be the ancient home of golf and mine the bus-stop of the modern game of golf. Sometimes that can lead to some interesting discussions. While I don't agree with all he says, I do hope his writing can lead to some thought among people and perhaps let them think about the golf course they are playing, and its natural beauty, and golf courses and their features are the prime subject in what I write about here. Enjoy,
Golf’s Final Frontier is in the Mind.
The Royal and Ancient Game of Golf, Scottish fashion is in my humble opinion the only real way to play golf. This also applies to Hickory Golf which is in itself the forefather of our modern game.
Before taken up the Game or even deciding to have a round we should first resolve within ourselves just what game it is that we are about to play.
(A) Are we going for a ride in the Park, utilising all the current aids available (carts, distance devices in all their formats through to the latest high tech golf clubs and balls). The intention of these aids are to save us from ourselves, to minimise any effort or commitment to any real contact with the game. I mean do we really want to break out in a sweat and get committed to this mad game that actually requires the player to walk on average some 6,500 yards. Yet if you do not walk you miss half of the real enjoyment and information gained by noticing and observing the course, its contours and not forgetting Nature herself in all her splendour. Let’s not forget that little extra understand one gets as one by walking to the approach of your next shot – alas by riding up to the ball you have more chance of missing the cleverness of the course design and designers. Add to that you pay even more to hire the cart which does not offer the same visual stimulation that walking manages. Well you can relax with the knowledge that your payment has helped in the courses upkeep, or have you really; my guess is that your money may be spent in maintenance to the cart path reflecting very little on the course itself. What a day, what a round, yet you can’t help coming away feeling like a loser for you have lost most of the pleasure of the game. But then I suppose each to their own.
(B) Or are we going to play the Royal and Ancient Game of Golf – Real Style ‘Walking while Thinking’. Preparation is advisable be it by agreeing to carry ones clubs or use a push pull trolley. If you decide upon a Caddie please make certain that any advice must be asked for not freely given (free from a caddie – that’s a first) as other members of your party may be none too happy. Golf has its own Etiquette, a great tool to control behaviour requiring a degree of courtesy to protect all on a golf course, as well as asking us to consider others.
(C) Golf’s Final Frontier is in the Mind, never more so than when you are about to Tee off on the 1st Hole of a course you have never before played. You have gone about your little pre shot routine. The Ball is on its Tee, you pre check your grip and note the position of the flag and any potential hazard, now you believe you are ready. But you are not, did you once look at the course ahead of you, did you notice the contours, the natural and manmade hazards between you and the flag, have you plotted your route or are you a golfer that believes that on a golf course a straight line is the optimal shot. If you do not consider the navigation you may find that before you get to the next Green you will be seeking help from the Caddie or wishing you had a cart and place to put down your clubs, wishing you had access to those distance aids. In other words your game has suddenly taken a turn for the worst all because of a simple omission in your preparation. You looked but did not see. You forgot to consider the Designer’s input that little bit of magic called design, that Golf Course architecture that has been crafted with Nature to offer all the pleasures and pains subject to the way you decide to navigate the course. The more natural the course the more it blends into the general landscape defusing the clear path and perhaps focusing on the wrong options. Build a course out of place or on land not fit for purpose, by that I mean break it away from its natural surrounding and the architecture of the new course is clear to see, the hidden trails are not so hidden after all. You may even notice that your eyes are attracted to more manmade items further exposing the designer’s intentions. Add the scarring of the cart paths and the overall cost to design and build a course on a poor location means that the golfer will in the end have to pay higher Green Fees. Golf is refreshing, it’s an outdoor game that allows gentle exercise by walking, distressing the mind and the body as you walk. By opening one eyes and mind to Nature wonders, tweaked in places by man, then the course is there waiting to see if you are a golfer or just a mere player.
Golf has always been a Walking and Thinking Game, it’s over the last 30-50 years that we have been slowly trying to make it easy for some of us. The fact of the matter is that No, Golf is not meant to be easy, it’s meant to be enjoyable. But that does not seem the modern intention, far from it, we are not making it actually easy we are watering down the game, changing the game, we are attracting players who are happy to ride, dislike thinking and let their distance toys do the work of club selection, just what is the point - where is the satisfaction. I am so annoyed and angry when I read of clubs that have NO Waking Courses, it must rate as the biggest betrayal there is in the History of the Game. To me it shouts of no commitment and certainly no love for the values and honour of the Game of Golf.
I was born a Links Golfer, my family comes from St Andrews and Prestwick, we have been playing golf from the 1700’s and have had a small influence upon the game in Scotland. Please come over and play our Links courses noticing how the wind plays a big part in our games. Please play our great courses like The Old Course, Prestwick Troon, Royal Dornoch, Cruden Bay and many, many more, but please do not forget the gems hidden away that are real honest courses hardly changed over the years. Courses like Machrie (http://www.machrie.com/machrie-golf-links.html ), Brora(http://www.broragolf.co.uk/ ), Moray (http://www.moraygolf.co.uk/ ), Elie (http://www.golfhouseclub.co.uk/index.php?page=ghc-index ) , Crail (http://www.crailgolfingsociety.co.uk/ ),
Leven (http://www.leven-links.com/ ), Askernish (http://www.askernishgolfclub.com/ ) and many, many more
We have the odd cart and you can use distance aids but why ruin a good day’s golf with toys when you need to keep your wits about you while playing on different courses. Don’t forget to leave behind your Cart and your Range Finder if you want to remember your enjoyable days you spent on the golf courses. Only you and that mind of yours will remember, so keep them in good order by Walking and Thinking.
Here’s to the Royal & Ancient Game of Golf, in the original Scottish style.
Melvyn
Melvyn Hunter Morrow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)