[Richard_Goodale]

My sense of Pasa is that there is a "line of charm" on every hole and that if you stray much from there you are either in the trees or left with a need to play safe.  At CH, I feel as if there are more, often creative, optionsfoir getting at hte pin offa missed tee shot, due to the green surrounds which allow for "bank shots" due to thier contours and the fact that they are firmer and faster than those at Pasa.  I also feel like i have a shot to get up and down if I miss a par-3 at CH, although it is not easy. At Pasa I feel it is "get it on the green and take your chances from 15 feet."

If I said Iike CH better than Pasa, cancel that post!  I think I might, but I'm still thinking on my feet on this one.......

[Dan King]

Cinnabar would have to begin again from scratch to even be considered a golf course. It's a collection of holes, some very good holes, but still a collection of holes. Pasatiempo, Stanford and Stevinson Ranch are golf courses. Cinnabar, Poppy Ridge and San Juan Oaks are collections of golf holes.

I've only played Cinnabar four times, but I'm not in any great hurry to go back. It fails miserably the walk in the park criteria. If you were walking around the property, you would not take the route the course takes. The obsession with elevated tees is not one of my favorite new features in golf architecture. I can see Rich, and his dislike of blindness, loving the constant elevated tee shots, but it ain't for me. The only way to have almost all hole be downhill requires a lot of hiking up to tees.

Pasatiempo, Stanford and Stevinson Ranch I like better everytime I play them. Cinnabar and San Juan Oaks I like less. (And Poppy Ridge I've never gone back to since media day many years ago.)

"It is one of the chief merrits of golf thet nonsuccess at the game induces a certain amount of decent humilty, which keeps a man from pluming himself too much on any petty triumphs he may achieve in other walks of life."
 --The Oldest Member (Heart of a Goof by P.G. Wodehouse)

[THuckaby2]

So you reserve the right to change your mind, like any good female?  

That's cool.  This is indeed thought-provoking indeed and I too can go back and forth re this.

I do indeed like what you say re the variety of shots - oh yes, the tree infestation (yes, I'll call it that) at Pasa has indeed robbed a few of the holes of their options and indeed removed the line of charm.  One need only look at 6 and 7 to see how those have been ruined, as well as 1 and 9!  There are however still very good examples of options in this vein on each of 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 among the non-par 3's!  So yes, it ain't what it once was, and that's why all the MacKenzie photos, name of the grill, etc. pisses me off.  But there's still a LOT to like there.

As for green surrounds, well... there is indeed a LITTLE of that at CH, but not enough for me to set that out as an advantage over Pasa as you have.  And it's not like such DOESN'T exist at Pasa... one can use the contours on each of 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18 if one is creative enough.  Pasa's greens are just surrounded by the typically wild, deep MacKenzie bunkers, where as there is more "grass area" in general in the green surrounds at CH - so the play at Pasa is off of the green/bunkerside contours, whereas at CH it is indeed off of humps and surrounds (where it occurs at all).  I'm thinking a player with a really creative short game would have a harder time at Pasa, but might relish the challenge even more... once again, the ground options are there at Pasa, just harder to discover and thus come through experience and trial and error.  Now we're back to in your face v. subtle/to be learned again, aren't we?

As for firm and fast, you got it - CH most definitely plays more so, and that is a shame through the green.  Re the greens themselves, Pasa's just plain can't get any faster - infinite putting, remember?  This is a weakness of Pasa most definitely - the creative, bold MacKenzie contours are emasculated by the speed, as I've harped on time and time again.  You do not have this problem at CH, but then again, you also don't have the incredible greens.

This isn't as easy as I thought on first glance - so thanks for making me think this through, Rich!

TH

[THuckaby2]

AHA!  In terms of my discussion here with Rich, I was hoping Dan "I've never liked Cinnabar" King would weigh in!

All of Dan's points are valid indeed.  Each can also be argued against.  I do just want to point out that I do agree with Dan that it's the hikes down and then up again (as I alluded to above) that kill me in the walking area.  

On the other hand, I will also disagree with Dan in that once I punted and just took a cart and tried to forget how much it all cost me, I've found that I've had the opposite experience in that I've come to like the course itself a lot more over time, as I discover more and more cool aspects of it.

Unfortunately, I gotta say, it is cart-ball, so thus not Dan's bag, so he'll never care to find out the things I have re this course.  To each his own most definitely.

Of the courses mentioned though, let me make it clear that cost being taken out of the equation, my preferences would go:

Pasa
Stanford
Stevinson
San Juan Oaks / Cinnabar (tie - I go back and forth on this)

That's nothing against Cinnabar really - those other three are GREAT golf courses.  

TH

[David Wigler]

Rich,

I am curious.  You had to know that including Pasatiempo in the list of courses you feel Cinnabar was superior to was going to illicit quite a response.  Do you really believe it or were you just baiting some of us?  Dan and Tom more elegantly expressed what I got out of Cinnabar from my one visit: That it is a poorly routed, cart infested, collection of good to very good holes.  Several of us have blasted Art Hills on other threads for designing this kind of course.  Olde Stonewall in PA won their state with this form of design as well.  

To me, this type of design is too easy.  Lesser architects can find 18 perfect green sites.  Elevate 18 tee boxes.  Shape 18 fairways and then connect the dots at the end.  The architects who deserve to be called great are the ones who can flow a golf course together.  This may cost them several great green or tee sites but the finished product is a golf course.  There is a mysticism about great golf courses.  You can close your eyes and follow the flow of one hole to the next.  Pasatiempo has that.  Cinnabar does not and that type of course never will.  This is not an old vs. new argument either.  Pete Dye GC, The Golf Club, etc. have this same effect and they are modern courses.  I am not at all ready to call Mayacama a great golf course yet, but it had that flow I'm referring to.  I wonder if you agree with me.

[THuckaby2]

Well said, DW.  Just rest assured that Rich KNOWS how to bait me, and I don't think that was the case this time.  I've come to know him well enough to see that there's a lot of Cinnabar that appeals to what he personally likes in a golf course.  He's also quicker to overlook ills than most in here... as am I really.  Thus the cartball aspect is meaningless, as just might be the "tie-together" side of things.  Cinnabar does indeed provide opportunities for some damn thrilling/challenging shots, and that's what Rich likes most of all.  It is indeed fun to play... and it sure as hell is a challenge from the tips.

I'm way oversimplifying things, but am I on the right track, Rich?

Now as for Mayacama, damn that has EVERYTHING, methinks.  I'm guessing that's a course that all of us would love, Rich included.  He needs to see it....

TH

[Richard_Goodale]

David (and Tom H)

I went back on this thread and I don't think I ever said CH was better than Pasa.  I said it was in the same class, a judgement I have yet to be dissuaded from.

In terms of "flow" I've been one of the main proponents of that concept on this site.  In fact, if I remember correctly, I was the first one on the site to make the distinciton between a "course" and a "collection of golf holes," well over a year ago.  You and Dan are right than CH doesn't flow as well as Stanford or Pasa, but neither of them flow as well as Muirfield or Merion or even Applebrook, IMO.  In terms of elevated tees and hard walks, Stanford is not a lot better than CH--I've walked both of them in the past 6 months and I know!  For a cart-oriented CCFAD, I think CH actually flows very well--in great part becuase of the openness of the terrain and the design.  I also don't think that the design was a slam dunk just becuase of the space available.  Harbottle found and created some really good golf holes on some fairly difficult terrain.

I wasn't trying to pull anybody's chain on this thread, just maybe slightly overstate the case for what was an interesting revelation to me, i.e. how good I am growing to think that CH is.  It's not at all perfect, but neither are Pasa or Stanford, by any means, and there is a lot of interesting golf out in them thar (Cinnabar) hills.

[THuckaby2]

God darnit Rich, you've effectively ended this very fun thread for me - I have NOTHING to disagree with in your entire last post.

That was quite reasonable, and well said.

TH

ps - I did actually find something to disagree with, but it's very quibbling:  Stanford's a tough walk, but CH is a LOT tougher - I too have walked both in the last 6 months.  Farther from green to tee, several more up then downs, greater hills over all.  But what the hell, they're both hard walks.

[Dan King]

Rich,

If you mentioned flow on a golf course a year ago, you were late to mention it by numerous years. I first brought up the idea of flow many years ago after reading Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's book of that title.  I'm not claiming I'm the first to mention flow in relation to a golf course, but I know it was talked about many years ago.

This isn't about tough walk vs. easy walk. This is about the difference between a cart-ball track and a golf course. No matter how good the individual golf holes might be on a cart-ball track, they can never be compared to a golf course. A good golf course flows one hole to the next. There is a connection between the holes, they are linked together. The very nature of cart-ball is to ignore the flow of a course, looking instead for the best holes.

There are very few tougher hikes on a golf course than Cruden Bay's hike up to the ninth hole (okay, maybe Wente's hike to the 10th.)  But these hikes have a reward at the end, usually a beautiful view. I don't want to be hiking up hills all day just to appease those that think all golf holes should go downhill.  Golf courses should follow the terrain, going up and down hills, similar to when walking the property if there wasn't a course there. Cinnabar lacks flow, Stanford doesn't.

"While yearning to overthrow old beliefs, we also thirst for new certainties."
 --Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

[Bob_Huntley]

Dan:

I always thought that if I won the lottery I would donate a rope tow at Cruden Bay's 9th, a la MPCC's Dunes 18th. I think it is always better to have lost the 8th so as to have more time to catch your breath after the climb. An oxygen tank would be helpful.

[Richard_Goodale]

Dan

Is that the same Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi who won the Bloodworthy Medal in 1991 for his work on pre-senile dementia in fruit bats and also used to date Cindy Crawford?  Man, does that dude get around!

"Go with the flow" (attributed to Tom Bendelow and/or Abby Hoffman)

[THuckaby2]

Jeez, this is well said too, Dan.  No surprise that several of the guys from whom I've learned the most about golf have me bouncing back and forth like a spectator at a tennis match.  I can't disagree with anything you say here either, Dan... Yep, Stanford and Pasa do indeed have a flow that CH lacks.

My one "stand" will be that our LONG-time battle over "cart-ball" isn't over.  I know you believe cart-ball (as you call it) and golf are two different things, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna give in on that yet!  If I ride a cart to get to the next shot, I am still playing golf.  Oh yes, I do prefer to walk, but the essence of golf is never gonna be the walk for me, no matter what Shivas Irons says.

But we do NOT have to battle this one for the 25th time!  Vive l'difference.

BTW, what about San Juan Oaks makes you like it less each time?  I still like that course a lot, although I haven't been there in awhile.

You wanna get your blood boiling?  Go play the new Los Lagos.  Unwalkable due to idiotic routing requiring #9 to return to the clubhouse.  Did you read the San Jose Merc article last week, or Gib's this week?  Both right on, but both glossing over the huge "cart-ball" problem.  Fun course, but cart-ball.  Maybe you ought to just skip it...

TH

[THuckaby2]

Bob, you MUST see Wente Vineyards if you haven't already.  Dan's right - the climb from 9 to 10 there makes the one from 8 to 9 at Cruden Bay look like kid's stuff.

And Dan, you'd be proud of me - last time there the promised shuttle up to 10 never showed, so while my playing partners doddled I went ahead and made the climb!

Didn't recover until 13, but that's another story....

TH

[Scott_Burroughs]

A steep climb from 9th or 18th holes to clubhouses is by no means uncommon, even for great courses.  How about Riviera or Olympic?  Others off the top of my head of varying degrees of hikes include Huntingdon Valley, Shinnecock, Forest Creek (somewhat), and The Pinnacle (obscure state park 9-holer in Addison, NY).

Then there's the endless list of courses who have holes that climb steeply to reach to at least near the clubhouse level:
ANGC (9 and 18)
Pasatiempo (9)
Wake Forest (9)
Whippoorwill (9! and 18)
Tanglewood Park (9 and 18)
Southern Pines (18)
Huntingdon Valley C nine (27)
Hope Valley (9 and 18)
etc.

Lots of cart ball courses have what would normally be big hikes up hills to clubhouses if only they allowed walking.

It is common to have clubhouses at the highest elevation on the property.

[THuckaby2]

That's all very true, Scott.  But in the courses at hand in this discussion, it's not the hike to the clubhouse that is the problem.

Cinnabar - all 9's end just about level with the clubhouse (Lake's is a little lower, but not much).

Pasa - 9 green is right below the clubhouse.  The longest hike on the course is indeed from 9 green to 10 tee, but 18 green is pretty level with the clubhouse.

I believe I get what you're saying - just allow for the hike back up the clubhouse, keep the holes themselves level - but that's not what's going on at Cinnabar or Pasa (or Wente) at all.

Nope - Cinnabar is cartball because just as Dan says, too many tees are raised and you hit across a valley to the other side, thus requiring a walker to go down down down and then up up up to get from the tee to the fairway.  The location of the clubhouse and the home greens has nothing to do with it.

TH

[Dan Grossman]

Tom,

You are exactly right.  Having to climb a couple of hills during the round while walking (Pasa & Cruden Bay) is different from having to do it on every hole.  I don't mind being out of breath for a couple of tee shots or putts, but I don't want to have to struggle to get to my ball every time I tee off.  At that point, the golf is more focused on the exercise than the golf.  

[THuckaby2]

You said it, DG and that is indeed the problem at Cinnabar.

But what the hell, that's why I just ride there when I deem to give them some more of my money!

Pasa I very very rarely ride, and only when my playing partners want to.  I find that to be a very walkable course.

But as Dan K. says, hard walk v. easier walk isn't really the issue here anyway...

TH

[Scott_Burroughs]

I see what you're getting at.  There are plenty of cartball courses with lots of long hikes between holes often with big climbs, it's just that most don't allow walking.  Those that do, discourage it.  Mike Strantz' Stonehouse has numerous:  long walks between holes, very hilly, and hitting from tees across valleys to fairways.  I was the starter's 5th person of knowledge to walk the course.

But your description is going to be more the case in mountainous terrain courses.  I'm sure that's the description of a ton of courses in CO, AZ, CA, etc.

[THuckaby2]

Yep, sure is Scott.  And again, it comes down to one's preferences as to how much this bothers one, if at all.  I'm of the mindset that although I prefer to walk, I don't want to miss good golf shots just because I have to take a cart to get from one to another.  Dan King calls it an entirely different sport.  Vive l'difference, as I say.

Loved today's pic, btw... keep up the great work with those!

TH

[johnk]

OK, now that Stanford has been brought up
more prominently, here's one major difference between
Stanford and CH:  How many downhill tee shots do you
hit.  Sure Stanford's back nine is a hike, but (as Steve Martin
once told John Candy) - there's a point to the story.  The routing has a payoff for those walks.

Downhill tee shots: 1, 7, 11, 12, 15, 18
Slight Uphills: 10, 16

CH is designed to ride, and you still have
a heavy dose of uphill tee shots and approaches.  Of course, the place is called "Hills"...

Overall, I'm really amazed at how good the Stanford routing is in this respect, I don't think it gets enough credit for that.

Two other off topic comments for this Huckster and Goodale playground thread:

Mayacama get together for NorCals!  Let's do it!  Is it private?

Now that Rich has gone Prufrock-ian in his footer, what was the meaning of the Latin?  I tried translating it on the web, but didn't get anything...

johnk

One more - Rich, you really should visit San Juan Oaks...

[THuckaby2]

JohnK:  Mayacama is about as private as Cypress Point.  Rather difficult to access unless you rate courses for a golf magazine or something and bring along a friend...

THANKS, DAVE WIGLER!

So it's gonna be pretty tough for us to do an outing there.

Rich's latin was really cool... but I forget the translation.

And good point re Stanford - the balance tips toward the downhill, hard to achieve given the site.  The uphill walks are all pretty ingeniously grouped into a few holes, and you do get the payoff of the downhill shots, while not making EVERYTHING seem downhill - great routing indeed.  I would say though that 14 is a very uphill par 3 also... I'd have to say that 17 plays gently uphill also.

TH

[Dan King]

Just returned from my history mid-term.  I feel like I aced it, but you never know with this teacher.

I don't believe I was ever as anti-cart as some make me sound. I've played a few rounds in my day via cart, and it does seem to get more often as I get older and my body gets more out of shape.

But I still see a difference when playing a golf course via a cart and playing a cart-ball track. Too many architects/developers now-a-days no longer worry about flow. Putt-out, jump in a cart and head for the next tee. Don't worry about how far away the tee is, just make sure the carts have plenty of juice. The convenience of carts has allowed architects to get lazy. Don't worry about what the land dictates, find the best 18 green sites, design around those and leave it to the cart to transport golfers between holes. Routing was something for the old guys to worry about.

I much prefer courses that are designed with the land. I'm more inclined to favor a course with good routing over one with good holes.

I'm probably inclined to dislike San Juan Oaks because of their smoking policy and the rudeness of the people that work there. But it has a few really goofy holes. I like the par-3s, but really dislike the par-5s.  They are just too gimicky. The more you play it the more you realize there is really only one way to play the course. It trys to trick you into thinking there are alternates.

I'm not sure about the Bloodworth Medal, but Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi was Ms. Crawford's main squeeze for a few months back sometime during the Ford Administration.  I remember teasing them with "Csikszentmihalyi and Crawford sittin' in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g." Then again, maybe I'm thinking Joan Crawford. I always get Cindy and Joan confused, but Joan seems much for flowish:

Emperor Joseph II: Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?
 --Amadeus

[Richard_Goodale]

The more I hear from those of little faith, the more I like Cinnabar.

One of the doubting "K" twins, Dan, thinks that it has too many downhill tee shots.  The other "K" twin, John, thinks that it has too many uphill tee shots!

Any course with that much diversity and ability to deceive great golfing minds can't be all bad!

Rich

"Where savage indignation can no longer lacerate my heart"  is the epitaph of Jonathan Swift, who would just love the possbilities for satire that this site brings many of us day after day.........

[Gib_Papazian]

Whether CH is better, worse or a different animal altogether when compared to Pasatiempo is really beside the point.

The fact that there are 48 responses of sensible debate on the subject between well traveled golfers is testimony to the outstanding quality of the golf course.

I'd have to both agree and disagree with Dan King that CH is a collection of holes lacking cohesion.

Taken as an entire entity, it does not flow together seamlessly like Pasatiempo. But perhaps that is  because it is a 27 hole facility. Taken as three seperate entities, the individual nines flow together beautifully - in and of themselves.

Yes, you have to string two nines together to make a golf course, but each has a distinct personality and flavor. My favorite is easily the Canyon - but anyone who knows me could have guessed that.

Check out the placement and orientation of  the chipping areas on #2 next time in relation to the water. There are so many clever features out there.

The 7th hole on the Canyon is my least favorite of the 27, but like #4 at Mid Ocean, it gets you from point to  point for the purpose of a big payoff.

Huckster is correct, the 8th ought to have had a bit more tilt and perhaps a more diagonal geometry, but the right-to-left wind mitigates that somewhat.

How come nobody likes #9 on the Canyon as much as me? It dives off a cliff and wriggles twists down the hill inviting all sorts of strategies.

Goodale hates the mounds in front of the green, but they are unique, old fashion and effective.

#8 on the Lake is an interesting par-3, although the green will not accept a shot with any more than an 8-iron. I asked John about it one  day and he said that the owner insisted on the back tee and he  was trying to have it taken out of play.

All things considered, when compared to the  other 27 hole public facility in the Bay Area . . . . . . well, that doesn't even warrant a discussion.

Can you imagine a thread that suggested any sort of equivalency between Pasatiempo and Poppy Ridge?

48 posts? Maybe two, before David the mysterious moderator deleted it for stupidity.

      

[Richard_Goodale]

Gib

Just to show how amenable I am these days to sweetness and light and let's all live together, koombya, I hereby drop my criticism of the mounds by 9 Canyon green.  They work OK for me now.

Rich

PS-you shoulda seen some of those pin positions out there last Monday.  Back left on 8 Canyon was one of the easier ones.......

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()