Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: David Ober on November 03, 2005, 06:41:05 PM
-
I would like an unbiased opinion of Hillcrest. I played there under circumstances that made it difficult for me to do anything but rave about the golf course.
What do you all think of it? Have any of you played it?
-
David,
Hillcrest is most definitely a course that has evovled the wrong way over a long period of time. It's a pretty good piece of property in the area I liked to call the "Grand Canal" of LA's great golf courses. That path of golf courses started at California CC which was located just below what is now Rancho Park/Ambassador GC. Next up was Hillcrest, crossing Pico to Max Behr's Westwood Pay-As-You-Play Golf Course. Just across the street to the North of that is THE LACC's South Course, crossing Wishire to THE LACC's much more famous North and then Bel Air CC.
As condensed as that area once was, it's equal probably in a close parallel to Westchester area near New York City.
Hillcrest started out at Willie Watson with eventual changes by one or both of the Bell's. It of course got worse from there, especially after the hiring of John Harbottle who did really nothing with the place.
Last time I played there, I just marveled how good the place really could be if someone hit the green committee as-a-whole, over the head with a bat and started shouting out proper directions. Certainly the 18th has enough really good features left in the ground that could make it a viable restoration candidate. (of some sort)
-
David,
I've played Hillcrest several times over the past 15 yrs and always find it enjoyable and in great condition. I'd probably give it a 4 on the Doak scale.
In '02 Harbottle rebuilt the greens to USGA spec, removed some trees (but also added some on the back nine ??? ) and added a few bunkers, some of which are out of place IMO. Like the big one on the elbow of the par 5 8th and the ones fronting 18. #5 used to be my favorite when it featured a blind approach, leveled by Harbottle at the request of the members. The bunkerless 11th is probably the only original design left on the course.
-Robert
-
Is Hillcrest the club where Bobby Jones filmed those Hollywood shorts in the thirties???
Is the 18th similar in appearance from the approach to the green to the 18th at Riviera?
-
Last time I played there, I just marveled how good the place really could be if someone hit the green committee as-a-whole, over the head with a bat...
What a line ;D
-
David,
I've played Hillcrest several times over the past 15 yrs and always find it enjoyable and in great condition. I'd probably give it a 4 on the Doak scale.
I've heard about this "Doak scale" now a couple times. Can somebody please enlighten me? Are there other scales than the Doak scale? Is this scale considered the scale by members here?
-
David, The Doak scale is from Tom Doaks book. It is his scale on ranking courses. I have not read the book but(it is hard to get and expensive if you can find it) many refer to it on this site. I do not understand it, but i have not read the book.
-
Nice summary of the Doak scale....
Here's the concise version of the Doak scale, as sent to me once by somebody here when I asked... the numbers get thrown around so much it is good to keep this on hand... especially when haging out with GW raters, for whom everything is a "solid" this or "bulletproof" that... ;)
0= poisonous
1= very basic
2= not offensive but offers very little.
3= average golf course.
4= above average but nothing to distinguish itself
5= well above average, likely to have several distinctive holes. But not worth a special trip.
6= very good course, would be one of the best courses in any area. Play if reasonably closeby.
7= excellent and no obvious weaknesses, eventhough it might not offer anything unique. Play within 100 miles.
8= a course of distinction, worth travelling substantial distances to.
9= a world great, may have one or two weaker holes, but a slew of world great holes too.
10= perfect, don't even miss one hole
-
Wow. If people think that Hillcrest is a 3 or 4 on the Doak scale, then I'm at the wrong place. I have played almost 150 golf courses in my life and Hillcrest was highly enjoyable. In fact, I enjoyed it every bit as much as Pinehurst #2 when I played it.
Now before you go railing on me for that comment, please understand that I played the course in its absolute best shape with the rough up 4 - 6 inches and the greens running at a true 11.5 and beyond pure. At the 2004 SCGA Amateur, only one player broke par for four rounds. I found the course fair, gorgeous, and in near-perfect shape.
I'm sure that many will think that the rough being 4 - 6 inches actually detracts from the course, I can assure you that at a course like Hillcrest, it ADDED to the course due to Hillcrest's short(ish) length.
In short, Hillcrest is anything but an "average" golf course in my mind. A few holes that stand out:
The par 3 second with its uphill tee shot to a kidney-shaped green that slopes gently away on the back half.
The diabolical short 3rd hole that requires a very precise tee shot and then a careful approach to a tough green.
The fantastic uphill par 5 4th that requires two EXCELLENT shots just to put yourself in shape for an uphill wedge shot that is very difficult to club properly.
The wonderful, short (316 yard) par 4 7th, with its tough tee shot and equally tough approach -- especially to a front left pin since there's a bit of a false front there to protect against any wedge shot with too much spin.
The beautiful par 3 16th, one of the toughest short par 3's I've ever played due to the swirling wind and the intimidation factor of a green surrounded by pristine white sand bunkers.
The short dogleg left par 4 17th, with its tricky, elevated tee shot to a fairway guarded by a bunker on the right, followed by a tough uphill wedge shot.
And finally, the beautiful 18th. I would prefer there to be some type of trouble on the tee shot, but the approach is tough enough as it is. The huge building looming in the background makes it difficult to judge the proper distance for the shot, and anything short will roll 30 to 50 yards downhill into a deep hollow that is short of the green.
Like I said, if this course is a 3 or 4 on most scales of members here, then I certainly will rate golf courses differently than most of you. How anyone could rate Hillcrest a 3 (average golf course), or even 4 (above average, but nothing to distinguish itself - emphasis mine) is beyond me. I play average golf courses all the time, and in my mind, Hillcrest is not one of them.
Will I love Rustic Canyon when I play it? I'm absolutely certain that I will. However, that won't take away from the fact that I think Hillcrest is easily a 6 on the Doak scale -- USGA greens and all. ;-)
-
Gene -
No, the Bobby Jones films were done at Max Behr's Lakeside. It was a course that both Mack and Jones thought was one of the best around at the time.
Bob
-
For what it's worth, a quick check reveals that Tom himself gave Hillcrest a 3 on the Doak scale..... :)
I caddied for a friend in a U.S. Women's Amateur qualifier there about 10 years ago (definitely pre-Harbottle) and found it vaguely pleasant but little more. In a different market it might stand up better but relative to nearby LACC, Bel-Air and Riviera (maybe even Wilshire), it fails to inspire. Of course, it's been substantially altered since Willie Watson's day -- and since Leo Diegel won the PGA there in 1929.
-
Bob:
I'm not sure how many exactly, but some of the Jones flicks were also shot at the long-deceased Flintridge CC, a place I would love to have seen....
-
Nice summary of the Doak scale....
Here's the concise version of the Doak scale, as sent to me once by somebody here when I asked... the numbers get thrown around so much it is good to keep this on hand... especially when haging out with GW raters, for whom everything is a "solid" this or "bulletproof" that... ;)
0= poisonous
1= very basic
2= not offensive but offers very little.
3= average golf course.
4= above average but nothing to distinguish itself
5= well above average, likely to have several distinctive holes. But not worth a special trip.
6= very good course, would be one of the best courses in any area. Play if reasonably closeby.
7= excellent and no obvious weaknesses, eventhough it might not offer anything unique. Play within 100 miles.
8= a course of distinction, worth travelling substantial distances to.
9= a world great, may have one or two weaker holes, but a slew of world great holes too.
10= perfect, don't even miss one hole
What rank does Tom give Pebble? While I've never played it, seems like consensus that PB has more than just one or two weaker holes. If so, wouldn't even 9 be a stretch?
-
David:
The reason I like the Doak Scale is that it is reverse to what happens with something like the Golf Digest places to play ratings. In those ratings the average is probably something like 3.5 out of five. Thus, there is little to distinguish between the courses people like.
By contrast, with the Doak scale 3 (of 10) is an average course and anything 4 or above is a good course. It allows one to recognize that a course is good, but make distinctions between courses that you like.
Stick to your guns on opinions. It is interesting to learn fresh perspectives on what makes for a good course. If someone makes a point that I don't understand, I try to press them for some detail in support of their positions. Many people have been here so long and hashed out these issues to the point that they don't repeat the reasoning, because it has been discussed before. I've found I have learned a lot from people that I disagree with, even if they are wrong. :)
There is no need for group think on these issues. We are not curing cancer.
-
Wow. If people think that Hillcrest is a 3 or 4 on the Doak scale, then I'm at the wrong place.
Hey, ya don't like it? Come up with an Oberscale. ;)
FWIW, I believe there aren't many courses that make it beyond 5 or 6 on the Doak scale.
-
The dominant point of view on this forum (I'm not saying it's correct, just dominant) seems to be that things like conditioning, difficulty, speed and trueness of greens and attractiveness of surroundings can only get a course to about a 3 or 4 on the Doak scale. The characteristics that seem to be most widely valued here are variety, strategic options to play, appeal to a wide range of players and to a lesser but still important extent spectacular terrain and exclusivity.
So the upshot is that a course can be suitable for hosting a PGA Tour event, raved about by the players and flawless in presentation and playability yet still be "nothing special" in GCA terms because the challenge is one-dimensional and matter-of-fact. It sounds like Hillcrest is shortish but presents a challenge to good players by narrow landing areas, penal rough and greens that are firm with large contours relative to their speed and firmness. If so, you couldn't pick a better "poster child" for a large differential between GCA Forum appeal (and Tom Doak rating) vs. appeal to elite players.
-
Dan -
I seem to recall hearing the same thing. Was Flintridge by Behr too?
It is remarkable how many times MacKenzie refers to Lakeside in his Spirit of St Andrews. He thought it ranked up there with Cypress as one of the best courses in the US. How much of Behr is still there?
Bob
-
Brent! Good to see you're here. :)
I think I'm going to like this place. It seems that while people have opinions, they also (generally) have well thought-out REASONS for their opinions. What a refreshing change... ;)
The dominant point of view on this forum (I'm not saying it's correct, just dominant) seems to be that things like conditioning, difficulty, speed and trueness of greens and attractiveness of surroundings can only get a course to about a 3 or 4 on the Doak scale. The characteristics that seem to be most widely valued here are variety, strategic options to play, appeal to a wide range of players and to a lesser but still important extent spectacular terrain and exclusivity.
So the upshot is that a course can be suitable for hosting a PGA Tour event, raved about by the players and flawless in presentation and playability yet still be "nothing special" in GCA terms because the challenge is one-dimensional and matter-of-fact. It sounds like Hillcrest is shortish but presents a challenge to good players by narrow landing areas, penal rough and greens that are firm with large contours relative to their speed and firmness. If so, you couldn't pick a better "poster child" for a large differential between GCA Forum appeal (and Tom Doak rating) vs. appeal to elite players.
-
Nice description of the Doak scale, and I, too, can see how it is helpful to really be able to distinguish between average courses and truly excellent golf courses. Doak's scale does seem to offer that opportunity...
David:
The reason I like the Doak Scale is that it is reverse to what happens with something like the Golf Digest places to play ratings. In those ratings the average is probably something like 3.5 out of five. Thus, there is little to distinguish between the courses people like.
By contrast, with the Doak scale 3 (of 10) is an average course and anything 4 or above is a good course. It allows one to recognize that a course is good, but make distinctions between courses that you like.
Stick to your guns on opinions. It is interesting to learn fresh perspectives on what makes for a good course. If someone makes a point that I don't understand, I try to press them for some detail in support of their positions. Many people have been here so long and hashed out these issues to the point that they don't repeat the reasoning, because it has been discussed before. I've found I have learned a lot from people that I disagree with, even if they are wrong. :)
There is no need for group think on these issues. We are not curing cancer.
-
Keep in mind that the Doak Scale originated in his "Confidential Guide" which was intended to be a sort of personal crib sheet for people who might ask Tom D about courses worth traveling across the country or an ocean to see. So he reserved the entire top half of the scale for subtle gradations of much-better-than-average courses.
In my opinion an awfully wide range gets swept into his 2's and 3's. OTOH, I'm like Tom Hucakaby in that I look at most any golf course in decent shape and not a totally boring pasture and think "Wow, this is pretty cool". On the gripping hand, I refuse to rate courses against each other anyway so what do I know?
-
...OTOH, I'm like Tom Hucakaby in that I look at most any golf course in decent shape and not a totally boring pasture and think "Wow, this is pretty cool". On the gripping hand, I refuse to rate courses against each other anyway so what do I know?
Then you, Tom, and I should get along fine, because that's kind of how I look at golf courses. I simply enjoy playing golf so much, that as long as a course is fair, somewhat challenging, is in decent shape, and isn't repetitive, I'm probably going to enjoy it quite a bit.
-
I'm literally out the door as I write this.
Hillcrest CC, Los Angeles, Willie Watson 1920
This is LA's most elite Jewish club, directly across the street from 20th Century Fox. What little I've seen of Watson's work is impressive, although subtle to the eye; but after a tour of LA's Great Triumverate, I don't see that kind of sophistication in Hillcrest. Could be I missed something, 3. [8/80]
Tom Doak "The Confidential Guide to Golf Courses"
Now given this was a rating, pre-Harbottle, I find my thoughts to be right in line with Tom's assessment as well as Daniel's. I've seen Harbottle's work since, and I can tell you that it is NOTHING like Watson's evolved work which of course was subtle to the eye and slowly green-committeed away, (aka Death By Green Committee) but was more in-the-ground appreciative. I hope I'm making some sense because I'm certainly typing this quickly!
Certainly, and with all respect to John H III, blinding white sand, perfectly curved, shaped and edged on bunkers that were never reminescent of the very deep natural pits that were common for W. Watson are not my idea of GREAT work. Yes, it rings the hearts of the people that work and play there, especially the ones that think if Harbottle was good enough for LA, then he's good enough for Hillcrest--I'll just say this--good luck with your new Harbottle course and call me when you really want to restore the course in six years. I'll point you in the right direction.
Out.
-
It's funny the effect that hanging out here has had on my preferences. This past year has really ignited my desire to see really, really good courses more often. I didn't even blink at paying the totally outrageous tariff to add Spyglass Hill onto my California trip at the last minute and I loved the course. I'm tempted to jump at every chance to see a fine older course like Palmetto GC in Aiken, SC or Holston Hills in Knoxville, although real life intervenes and I have to miss some of those chances.
But seeing great courses doesn't really detract from my enjoyment of courses that Doak would give barely a 2 at best. You'd think at some point eating ambrosia several times a year would make the canned fruit cocktail unappealing but so far it hasn't.
-
Jim Negent:
Doak gives Pebble a 9.
-
Jim Negent:
Doak gives Pebble a 9.
And well he should. I played Pebble for the first time this year and was blown away by its majesty (yes, I said "majesty"!) ;)
I've debated this ad nauseum with those who say Pebble has 6 or 7 "muni" holes. Well I just don't see 'em.
-
David,
One of the great things about this site is finding the guys who like what you do, and then you'll know who to ask for recommendations. I haven't played a course that was recommended here in the last five years that I didn't like. Every round I play is precious, and I hate wasting time on mediocre courses, especially ones that charge too much.
BTW, what is your handicap? What are 5 personal favorite courses?
-
...OTOH, I'm like Tom Hucakaby in that I look at most any golf course in decent shape and not a totally boring pasture and think "Wow, this is pretty cool". On the gripping hand, I refuse to rate courses against each other anyway so what do I know?
Then you, Tom, and I should get along fine, because that's kind of how I look at golf courses. I simply enjoy playing golf so much, that as long as a course is fair, somewhat challenging, is in decent shape, and isn't repetitive, I'm probably going to enjoy it quite a bit.
I know Brent and I are two peas in this love of golf pod - so welcome aboard, David. I do love that summary... my catch-phrase for this is "I could have fun playing golf on parking lot if the friends were good and the beer was cold" but I like your phrase a lot more.
I do love this game.
;D
But speaking of Hillcrest, dammit I lived in LA half my life and that's one of the few I never got to play. No junior or HS tourneys or matches there. I have heard mixed reviews though... Doak 4 does sound harsh to me though.
I may get crucified for this also but I think Rustic is a Doak 8. It is a course of distinction and people do travel great distances to play it.
Speaking of this, that Doak scale summary I posted before, re-posted on here, was fleshed out more for me. The current best take on that that anyone's given me is this:
0: so contrived and unnatural, cannot recommend under any circumstances.
1: Very basic course; clear architectural malpractice and/or
poor maintenance. Avoid even if desperate for a game.
2: mediocre course with little architectural interest, but nothing really horrible. (Play it in a scramble and drink a lot of beer).
3: about the level of the avg. course in the world.
4: modestly interesting; with at least a couple of distinctive holes or some scenic interest. Also reserved for some very good courses which are much too short or narrow to provide sufficient chalenge for low-handicappers.
5: Well above the avg. course, but the middle of this scale. A good course if in the vicinity, but not worth setting aside a day to visit.
6: A very good course, definitely worth a game, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see. It shouldn't disappoint you.
7: An excellent course, worth checking out if within 50-100 miles. You can expect sound design; interesting hiles; good conditions and a pretty setting; if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.
8: One of the very best in the region and worth a special trip to see. Could have some drawbacks, but will make up for them with something really special.
9: Outstanding course. One of the best in the world with no weaknesses. Should see in your lifetime.
10: Nearly perfect. If you skipped even one hole you would miss something worth seeing. MUST see these courses to appreciate how good golf architecture can get.
;D
-
Tom,
That scale now makes me rethink every course in my area and that I've played in my life.
Sadly, I need to get out more......
-
As do we all, Brian. Rest assured that although big names do get thrown around in here routinely (I am as guilty of that as anyone it seems), most if not all of us do have routine home golf, which makes up the bulk of our play. Some of it is better than others, but no matter what, there is no place like home.
By that I mean, my home course Santa Teresa is somewhere between a Doak 2 or 3. But even though I rip it constantly, in what it means to me it's a Doak 9 at least. And that's how it should be.
-
As do we all, Brian. Rest assured that although big names do get thrown around in here routinely (I am as guilty of that as anyone it seems), most if not all of us do have routine home golf, which makes up the bulk of our play. Some of it is better than others, but no matter what, there is no place like home.
By that I mean, my home course Santa Teresa is somewhere between a Doak 2 or 3. But even though I rip it constantly, in what it means to me it's a Doak 9 at least. And that's how it should be.
Boy, ain't that the truth. My home track (Canyon Crest CC in Riverside) is never in very good shape, and the greens are bumpy as hell, but I sure never get tired of playing there, and I daresay it has several damn good holes.
-
A little recent history to add to the story.
When I worked for Keith Foster in the early 90's we did a master plan for the course. It was approved but we only did a couple minor projects in the following years. I guess things went awry since we did not continue. I recall trying to re-instill some more of the old world charm to add interest. That was a probably a bit to bold for them. I do not remember if we had found any old original WW plans or stuff.
A re-do of the short 5 hole #8 was the only significant thing we actually got done. I don't remember much about it.
DbD
-
...OTOH, I'm like Tom Hucakaby in that I look at most any golf course in decent shape and not a totally boring pasture and think "Wow, this is pretty cool". On the gripping hand, I refuse to rate courses against each other anyway so what do I know?
Then you, Tom, and I should get along fine, because that's kind of how I look at golf courses. I simply enjoy playing golf so much, that as long as a course is fair, somewhat challenging, is in decent shape, and isn't repetitive, I'm probably going to enjoy it quite a bit.
I know Brent and I are two peas in this love of golf pod - so welcome aboard, David. I do love that summary... my catch-phrase for this is "I could have fun playing golf on parking lot if the friends were good and the beer was cold" but I like your phrase a lot more.
I do love this game.
;D
But speaking of Hillcrest, dammit I lived in LA half my life and that's one of the few I never got to play. No junior or HS tourneys or matches there. I have heard mixed reviews though... Doak 4 does sound harsh to me though.
I may get crucified for this also but I think Rustic is a Doak 8. It is a course of distinction and people do travel great distances to play it.
Speaking of this, that Doak scale summary I posted before, re-posted on here, was fleshed out more for me. The current best take on that that anyone's given me is this:
0: so contrived and unnatural, cannot recommend under any circumstances.
1: Very basic course; clear architectural malpractice and/or
poor maintenance. Avoid even if desperate for a game.
2: mediocre course with little architectural interest, but nothing really horrible. (Play it in a scramble and drink a lot of beer).
3: about the level of the avg. course in the world.
4: modestly interesting; with at least a couple of distinctive holes or some scenic interest. Also reserved for some very good courses which are much too short or narrow to provide sufficient chalenge for low-handicappers.
5: Well above the avg. course, but the middle of this scale. A good course if in the vicinity, but not worth setting aside a day to visit.
6: A very good course, definitely worth a game, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see. It shouldn't disappoint you.
7: An excellent course, worth checking out if within 50-100 miles. You can expect sound design; interesting hiles; good conditions and a pretty setting; if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.
8: One of the very best in the region and worth a special trip to see. Could have some drawbacks, but will make up for them with something really special.
9: Outstanding course. One of the best in the world with no weaknesses. Should see in your lifetime.
10: Nearly perfect. If you skipped even one hole you would miss something worth seeing. MUST see these courses to appreciate how good golf architecture can get.
;D
Sorry to beat the horse. Every time I see descriptions of the Doak scale, giving Pebble a 9 surprises me. I keep hearing the course has 5 or 6 ordinary holes. Given the rating system above, that would seem to disqualify it for a 9. 8 would be the best it could do.
Maybe you say PB is "one of the best in the world despite its weaknesses." Or are these descriptions just general guidelines? It does raise the question of whether a course can be among the world's best if one-third of it is ordinary.
-
Jim - try to look at PB this way:
1. The great holes are SO great that they make up for any perceived inadequacies in the lesser holes in spades. That is, in a scale of 10 they get 12s, to make up for the 6s on the other holes.
2. The lesser holes aren't as "lesser" as some like to say. Go try and two putt on 13 and 15 with anything at stake. Try to get an approach close on either of those holes, not to mention 11. Heck even #1 and #2 have their positives. #3 is a great hole and those who say otherwise just have their eyes closed. I could go on and on. In any case, the better point is really #1.
In any case, by the letter of Doak law, you're right, perhaps PB shouldn't be a 9. But since he makes the law, and he calls it a 9, who are we to argue?
;D
-
I love number 3 at Pebble -- excellent hole IMHO.
The tee shot is what makes the hole excellent, since you have to be left enough to not be on the slope to the right. If you bail out away from the trees to the right and you hit the ball solidly, yoiu will be above the green to the right and in the rough.
On the second shot, you will have a downhill wedge to a green that slopes mostly right to left, and the ball is above your feet. That is NOT an easy golf shot, since it's so easy to get the ball going left from that lie. Get it going left, and the ball won't stay on the green.
As for number 1, I like the hole. It lulls you to sleep off the tee, but the green can be tough to hit -- especially with the butterflies still fluttering around inside!
-
David - I concur completely - about both of these holes. I find it very strange that some call #1 such a bad golf hole... hell yes, both hitting that green AND two-putting it are very difficult chores, especially given the setting. Man if #1 is a bad golf hole I need to see more good ones.
;)
As for #3, you have captured its greatness. Just remember for us short-knockers its likely going to be more than a wedge, particularly if we don't succeed in the necessary right to left bend in the tee shot. Which of course makes it even greater for us!
TH
-
Jim,
There aren't really any weak holes at Pebble, it just has probably less great holes than some of the other great courses in its peer group. I personally don't think much of #7 and #15 at Pebble. And I have yet to play a 10 by Doak's scale. Every course has something IMHO that disqualifies it from being a 10. Even Sand Hills which is my favorite course in the world. I feel like #13 and #17 SH are basically the same hole, just different yardages. Of course, that is must my opinion, and I appear to be a minority of 1 on it since no one has ever agreed with me. :)
-
In the 70's Hillcrest had the best greens in LA. Wilshire was pretty good, but 2nd. Everyone thought Hillcrest was great because of its bunkers having the whitest sand and the conditioning. 11 is a great, great hole. There are couple of other super holes, but it is a what could be course.