[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

Why is seeing the same thing over and over again bad ?

You never took C. B. MacDonald to task for that trait, nor Seth Raynor, or Charlie Banks.  Yet repetition abounds in their work.

I had hoped to get to see the Bridge for myself.  To date, the only knock I have heard about the course concerns some of the walks from green to tee.  I have not heard negative comments about individual hole design.  What specifically have you heard ?

Geoff,

I too think Ken is taking the time necessary to try to make all the right decisions, and pay attention to all the details, and I think that will result in a better finished product at Friar's Head.

But, Ken is new to this, and I would suspect, if he initiated a second project, he would bring his knowledge and experience, gained from Friar's Head, enabling him to "get it right" in a shorter time frame, without compromising quality.  And, ditto on his third project, fourth, etc.,etc..

No one took Donald Ross to task for rapid design and construction.  Apparently his learning curve and vast experience enabled him to design and build quality products in a compressed time frame.

I also understand he tinkered with Pinehurst for twenty six (26) years, so perhaps one's work is never done.

I think there may be a point which is reached when a golf course is 95 % done, or good, and the rules of diminishing returns may apply to any further involvement, other than tinkering over the years.

I seem to recall an earlier thread where Tom Doak addressed this point regarding Pacific Dunes.

Depending on the site, architect, routing and other factors, the design outcome of some courses is not a function of time, on others it may be.

[TEPaul]

I think Geoff Shackelford's post up above is a very good and instructive one about taking the time to get things right--hell I might even say taking the time to notice things in the first place which some architects might not even do!

But I think GeoffShac is talking quite exclusively about the architecture of the golf course when he made that post.

Pat is talking about Ken Bakst taking the time himself to "get things right" and since Friar's Head is his first project maybe he could learn from his previous experience and speed things up next time. Pat, I'm sure that's probably true on many things about Friar's Head and doubtless Ken Bakst has many things to think about with that club other than the architecture of the golf course. And next time maybe he will speed those things up some.

But my sense with Ken Bakst is he has the innate sense to realize what he's got in both the site and particularly in the designers he's hired. He may speed things up from experience next time with things other than architecture but I don't think he would speed up Coore and Crenshaw the next time or any other time down the road if they didn't want to be speeded up.

That to me in the architectural part of Friar's Head (or anywhere else) is the beauty of really good design and that shouldn't really change the next time or any other time. That seems to be what Ken Bakst has understood and it's what Geoff Shackelford is talking about.

It's quite interesting too that their other current client, Roger Hansen, has come squarely to the same conclusion that Ken Bakst has! And Hidden Creek is not just Roger's next project but his next after that. Roger and his previous architects may have worked much faster with previous projects and in the beginning Roger even was wondering what was taking so long but he came to the conclusion (like Ken did) that what was taking so long was part of what Hidden Creek is all about and what it will be all about. And he's quite comfortable now to sit back and not speed them up!

My sense is that if somebody gets involved with Coore and Crenshaw and tried too hard to speed them up in the beginning they are likely to see their tail-lights and if the project is well down the road and they  aren't then likely to see their tail lights but they tried to speed them up anyway, they just aren't going to be able to, so the best policy is to just watch them work at their pace because that way you're going to get the best golf course from them. And again, that pace probably should not be speeded up next time nor is it likely to be!

[Tim_Weiman]

Geoff,

During my one hour site visit to Friar's Head I was introduced to Bill Coore and we spoke for a few minutes.

Immediately, my impression was that Bill wanted to get it right regardless of how long it took. The thought of that being "negative" NEVER entered my mind.

I was also fortunate to meet Bill Talmage who kindly outlined the long effort to bring this project to fruition.  After all that, surely you would want the boys to get the course right.  I have no doubt they will.

Dave Axeland gave me the quick tour and I think he used the word "maybe" when asked about opening the course next year.

I can't speak for Ken Bakst et al, but there doesn't seem to be much question about their desire/commitment to create something outstanding.

My response was to Dan Allen's inquiry about green fees and the opening date.  Perhaps I should have been more tactful pointing out that FH will be a private club, but the comment on the opening date was simply the best information I had coming directly from one of the project managers.

I hope that is more clear.

[Anthony_Nysse]

From the 4 months that I was at FH interning this summer, there really wasn't a time frame put on the opening of the course. Time is on Mr. Bakst and C&C's side. Mr. Coore commented to me that FH will be course that they may not get complety correct the first time and may need costant tweeking, but everyone would understand that after seeing the course. C&C take the time to do things right..can you image a C&C course that was done in 6 months..I don't think that they would put thier name to it. That wouldn't be their style. They only do 2 courses a year so that they can devoted their full attention to it. How many architects with Bill Coore resume actually stay at the course for 2+ months and are at the job everyday working on greens contours with a Smithco and a shovel...I think he's the only one. Time is why C&C contiune to put out great, fun and amazing courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You can't hurry "Mother Nature"

I wasn't referencing architecture or construction either.

But, you learn through experience, whether it's the use of metal versus plastic couplers, or some techniques for accomplishing what you want.  The first time you are confronted with a problem/situation, you gather as much info as you can, consult with the best people you can find, deliberate and make your decision.  

That process prepares you for the next time you confront the same or a similar problem, and usually reduces the time needed to revisit and solve the problem.

One can't sit back and constantly redesign a golf course, eventually, you have to pull the trigger and open it up.  Whether it's when you feel you've got it 95 % or 99 % is a subjective decision.  

As I said, tinkering, after the course is subject to play, is an ongoing, perhaps never ending process.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I'm hoping to weigh-in on some of you giving me the latitude to recant a statement that I have made.

I used the phrase, "one of the worst new experiences in golf." which isn't the way the Bridge has been described to me, therfore not true in my remarks.

The reviews I heard were in fact less then glowing, but not nearly as harsh as I have described them.

The reviews I have heard have been that the site is extremely beautiful, long walks between most of the tees and even one said the fairways were something not even seen before from Rees previous works. However, all remarked the bunkering had the same tone along with the same mounding that is seen predominately in all of Rees' works.

Pat, There is nothing wrong with reusing design features ala Raynor, etc. It's just if those features weren't "GREAT" to begin with is where I have my problem. When I write this, I'm thinking of long serpentine bunkers filled with crystaline crushed white marble, and framed with hideous mounds. Pictures I have seen of the Atlantic come immediately to mind.

It is MY guess, that The Bridge, just like the Atlantic will enjoy rave reviews from the masses and then slowly level off to the proper review and ranking it deserves. This eliminates all of the over-rating and hype that is both bought and sold.

Now, I would like to ask Matt to do the following in "Ran Play" (Match play) format:

The Bridge vs. Pacific Dunes

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy:

Thanks for taking my comments to heart.  Nothing wrong with clarify an earlier statement that may have gone too far.

I will interested to see how feedback on Friar's Head compares to The Bridge because they are fairly close (both Long Island) and because it sounds like they will turn out very different.

Lots happening on the Island in recent years.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy, et.al.,

I regret not scanning in the pictures of the Bridge and Easthampton.

As I said you can't judge a course by pictures, you can't understand its playability or feel the effect of wind on your shot, but the pictures might have been worth a few hundred words or more.

Unfortunately, the Magazine has been tossed, hopefully, I can retrieve another copy snd post the pictures.

But, it brings up a point Tommy touched on.

There is a neat picture of a long bunker at
Easthampton, with the type of surrounds that TEPaul and Tommy just salivate over.

My question is this:  If that same bunker had crisper, cleaner lines, what's the difference ?  Is it aesthetics ?
Does the change affect playability from the bunker one iota ?  Is this just a question of which style you prefer or accept ?

Dan Kelly and Robert Walker,

These questions may be to complex for you to address, so I'll understand it if you don't respond.  Let me know when you pass basic Maintainance 101.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

What's the difference if that bunker at Easthampton had crisper cleaner surrounds than the way it is?

Of course a lot of it's aesthetics. Many of the best of the architects simply were trying to mimic nature when they built bunkers like that--that was the idea--they were trying to blend in with nature--that's what they were striving for and you can see at Easthampton that the high fescue (mostly out of play hopefully) is very natural looking and those bunkers look like they  blend and tie in really well with that.

On that sort of golf course crisp clean bunkers would look incongruous and they didn't want things to look incongrous, they wanted to make it look as much like nature as they could.

I guess some of us really admire that effort and that talent too. It appears that there aren't that many architects that can do bunkering like that--they may not know how or even care. That's fine too I guess because it doesn't really seem that most golfers even notice or care. Coore and Crenshaw could do crisp clean bunkers and crisp clean courses too, but that's just not their style--frankly they could do crisp clean everything in probably about one tenth of the time if that's what turned them and their clients on--but it isn't.

So sure it's aesthetics--but obviously there's a degree of difference in the playbabilty too. Of course you know that it could be much harder to play out of the surrounds or what's around the surrounds of a Coore and Crenshaw course then the crisp clean surrounds of a crisp clean bunker with crisp clean grass all around on a crisp clean course.

Just a different attitude about golf, I guess, but it's a great big game and there's lots of room and different things in it for everyone.

Gil hit a ball about five feet to the left of the surrounds on the cross bunker on the first hole at Applebrook the other day and none of us could find it. Just another way of looking at the game, I guess.

[Matt_Ward]

TommyN:

You're asking for a match play comparison of The Bridge and Pac Dunes is something I will provide this weekend when time permits. I am probably one of the very few people who have played both and it will be really exciting. Just one note -- I usuaulyl don't like match play comparisons because often holes of differing pars are pushed against each other but I will do my best to be totally fair.

Tim:

My comments on elitism is simple -- there a quite a people on GCA who simply bad mouth most, if not all, of modern design. You, at least, give modern design an opportunity to show what it has to offer. If people prefer classic designs that's one thing -- I've seen plenty of comments and the thrust is usually the same drivel that all modern designs are just a big waste of time and money. These same people come off, in my mind as elitists.

Maybe people can say that for the small sampling of courses they have seen, but I usually see annually about 40-50 new courses for GD and this year alone there were some really wonderful additions to the golfing scene.

Among them, just a few:

Pacific Dunes
Carnegie Abbey
Wolf Creek (NV)
The Kingsley Club
Lost Canyons / Sky Course

What I try to do and I hope others would do as well -- keep an open mind and look at the course as it is -- not as some sort of statement of past designs by that respective architect.

Regards,

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, Sounds like a penalty for the risk of going a certain route. Isn't this supposed to be the purpose of bunkering? (I'm concuring with Tom Paul's view here)

Pat,
In this discussion group of diverse opinions there are some of us (Not pointing any fingers here) that feel that defending design features in relation to play are a nothing when compared to aesthetic issues.

Simply put, aesithetics ARE everything.

This means that anything that doesn't have a manicured-kept look is unappropriate and ill maintained as well as ill-organized; thus not very good.

Uneven, ragged-edged, scabby, fescue-infested, scrub-bearing, looks as if 100 deer or sheep lived in it, windblown bunkering to some of us is the way the game was intended to be played. It is for all intentional purposes--a "Hazard." It is something to be avoided at all cost otherwise it takes extra strokes to get the ball into the hole, which concurrently adds to the total score to the hole.

I'm constantly reminded of the scene of Mark McCumber, while playing in one of the early TPC Championships at Sawgrass, yelling for his ball to "Get into a bunker!!!"

On a par 5 hole he was actually playing for the greenside sand hazard. Why? Because the pin position and speed of the green surface. A fast back-spinning shot attainable from out of the perfectly manicured sand would have allowed him to get close to the hole, and took away the much more diffcult pitch or chip shot, given the speed of these greens and the location of the pin.

Here was someone that was relying on aesthetics to help him win the event, and it was a even better look at what the future would bare for us today--design by maintanence, and even worse playability.

Ultimately it is the hand of Man slapping the hand of Mother Nature.

I urge everyone to read George Thomas' Golf Architecture In America and Robert Hunter's The Links. Read these books cover to cover and then see if cleaned/manicured/neatly organized bunkering is what these men professed, who were professing the grandest motives of the Game.

If you have read them and still think differently, then read them again.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I don't know what happened, but I lot a couple of paragraphs there!

My point was that "look" of which many of us profess is important when it comes to playing this game. It all adds to the psychology of making a certain shot and the penalty for failing to do so.  

This is where the strategy of golf design exists.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
Your inclusion of Wolf Creek in your top 50 courses in the USA caught my attention -- I had never heard of it. I understand it has 11 story elevation changes, which would seem to indicate it is unwalkable. The scenery is spectacular, especially in the distance, but I must say the golf course looks alien to his surroundings. I did see the slope is 154, so I guess it is perfect for those who enjoy lovely vistas and a very difficult test.

http://www.golfcoursenews.com/may2001/Images/Wolf%20Creek%20%2312_05.jpg
Quite a contrast, paradise meets the badlands.

http://www.golfcoursenews.com/may2001/Images/Wolf%20Creek%20%233_05.jpg
A lovely backdrop.

Who designed this golf course?

[T_MacWood]

Matt
Your inclusion of Wolf Creek in your top 50 courses in the USA caught my attention -- I had never heard of it. I understand it has 11 story elevation changes, which would seem to indicate it is unwalkable. The scenery is spectacular, especially in the distance, but I must say the golf course looks alien to his surroundings. I did see the slope is 154, so I guess it is perfect for those who enjoy lovely vistas and a very difficult test.

Quite a contrast, paradise meets the badlands.

A lovely backdrop.

Who designed this golf course?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You know from an earlier post, after my visit to Innescrone and AppleBrook, and my talks with Rodney Hine and Gil Hanse, that I CONCEDED that their craftmanship with bunker design and meticulous construction, elevated the look, feel and play of the holes, and that I had gained a new appreciation for their diligence and attention to detail on bunker design and construction.

The EastHampton look of the bunkers WOULD NOT
fit in well at NGLA, which I think has a cleaner look and feel.

On a case by case basis, I could agree with you, but, I couldn't agree with you on a universal basis, and there is a vast distinction.

On some courses the wild look fits, on others it doesn't, and you can't take a course or architect to task, just because a given course or style doesn't fall into your preference fot the wild look of untouched nature.

I don't know that I'm an advocate of a ball just missing a greenside bunker, only to be lost or unplayable, that may be too severe and violate my perspective on risk/reward.

Tommy Naccarato,

I don't know if you recall, but in one of my earliest posts, I advocated raking bunkers
once a month.  I think bunkers have ceased being hazards for the better players, and as the example you cited reflects, prefered lies for the pros.  I think conditioning, not playability or aesthetics is the focal point of the McCumber incident.

I'm not sure that aesthetics is everything.  Playability ranks ahead of aesthetics in my mind, though the ideal combination for me would be the perfect blending of both.

I think playability is primary, aesthetics secondary.

Take Easthampton, plop it down in the desert as someone suggested (Kansas) on the Pebble Beach thread.  Would the look be artificial, even though, in EastHampton it's a perfect blend with nature ?  I think you would have to concede that.  Hence, wouldn't the course look better, with cleaner, crisper lines And, the important issue is, both bunkers would play the same despite their differences in look.  

My conclusion, which could be flawed is,
is the look merely a matter of style and preference, with playability being the feature of primary importance.  
Why is one bunker inferior to the other, when they are identical in terms of playability ?  Personal Preference

[Peter Galea]

Tom Mac Wood, shame on you. Please don't psot anymore obsene photos on this site.

[Peter Galea]

Sorry for the tyopsLreg-post.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

Wolf Creek at Paradise Canyon is a course that is bold in its presentation -- I guess traditionalists will balk at the course since it is adapted for the desert environment.

The course was designed by Dennis Rider -- a local developer in the greater Mesquite area. Dennis played a leading role in actually constructing the Arnold Palmer / Ed Seay Oasis Course several years ago.

Wolf Creek has some of the most spectacular vistas I have ever witnessed on a golf course. It literally mesmermizes you on a few holes -- particularly the 2nd, 8th, 14th and 17th, to name just four.

The course is fitted into a series of canyons throughout the property. I credit Dennis because the course offers a wide array of holes. Many people make mention of the 154 course rating but unless you are a complete idiot (or have a stellar game) you don't venture to their back tees (Challenger). The course does provide serious and fair demands from all other tee areas.

Wolf Creek does have artificial features that man has provided -- but no more so than Shadow Creek and other courses in the greater southwest.

The quality of the holes is also first rate. You have a wonderful combination of short and long holes. Rider didn't just create a course with long holes that favor the power hitter. There are numerous opportunities for the bold player and if the shots are pulled off the feeling of triumph is beyond words. Miss too far left or right and you've got your work got out for yourself.

I wouls personally rate the par-3 8th at 248 yards one of the most unique and awesome looking holes I've seen this year. Ditto the par-4 14th (445 yards) and the par-5 17th (565 yards. These three holes could make anyone's all-star listing of holes, in my opinion.

Wolf Creek does charge a high tariff during the high season rates can go as high as $250?) but I believe they are considering tiered rates during the offseason (summer).

I have played the course 4 times already and I understand the new clubhouse is now open.

Wolf Creek is bold ... different and never boring. They are still kicking the idea around to straighten out some holes -- particularly the long par-4 16th and a few others. If that should come to pass the reputation of Wolf Creek will only grow more intense.

I know some people scoff at desert golf and think it's all rather the same. Wolf Creek isn't and anyone who ventures in the Mesquite / St. George area on their way to and from Vegas should make the time and play.

I really enjoyed it and if not for the entry of Pacific Dunes in the same year I'd rate it the best upscale public course I played in 2001.

At Wolf Creek -- you won't be disappointed ... EVER! A REAL FUN COURSE THAT MAKES YOU WANT TO PLAY IT AGAIN AND AGAIN

Regards,

[Matt_Ward]

TommyN:

Here is my match play card of The Bridge versus Pacific Dunes when compared from the extreme tip tees. Please keep in mind, as I said previously, I am not the biggest fan of match play comparisons for a host of already stated resons, however nonetheless here goes ...

1st Hole -- Draw
Both courses give the player an excellent start. Pac Dunes is much shorter, but requires pinpoint position. The Bridge has a long downhill par-4 that is well protected in the approach area.

2nd Hole -- Pac Dunes +1
Superb short par-4 at PD compared to a solid but good par-3 at The Bridge.

3rd Hole -- Even
The Bridge wins because this long par-4 plays back into the prevailing wind and is well designed with a green that only accepts a well played approach. Pac Dunes has a good par-5 and I love the double bunkers that stand in the middle of the fairway. Tough call -- but The Bridge gets my nod.

4th Hole -- Pac Dunes +1
PD has an outstanding ocean setting hole and easily eclipes the interesting medium range par-4 at The Bridge.

5th Hole -- Pac Dunes +1
A draw on this hole -- both are par-3's and both are about even in terms of overall demands.

6th Hole -- Even
Pac Dunes features a dynamic short par-4 which mandates position off the tee and a deft touch with the short iron for the second. In most other matches I'd give the edge to Pac Dunes, however, the 6th at The Bridge is the strongest long par-4 on the course. Plays usually into the wind and requires two bold shots to be in a position to make par.

7th Hole -- Pac Dunes +1
Arguably, the best par-4 at Pac Dunes. Great tee shot demands and even better approach shot to a well thought out green. The 7th at The Bridge is an ordinary downhill par-5, the hole would be better served as a long par-4.

8th Hole -- Pac Dunes +1
Another draw. The 8th at Pac Dunes is a solid into the wind par-4 that is probably one of the more underrated holes on the course. However, the 8th at The Bridge is no less demanding. Plays uphill and requires two solid strokes to get near the green.

9th Hole -- Pac Dunes +1
Another draw. Good long uphill par-5 at The Bridge. Requires three well-played shots and is usuaully into the prevailing wind. The 9th at Pac Dunes is a solid hole and the two green option is a real plus.

10th Hole -- Even
The Bridge has a stellar risk and reward par-5 that can be reached in two blows, but into the wind and uphill makes for a premium play to succeed. The 10th at Pac Dunes is a good par-3, but the green is more than generous and the penalities for a poor approach are not that demanding.

11th Hole -- The Bridge +1
Good short par-3 that hugs the coastline at Pac Dunes, but The Bridge wins on a magnificient long par-4 that winds downhill before ending with a angled green approach.

12th Hole -- The Bridge +1
Both holes are letdowns in their respective designs and therefore are a tie.

13th Hole -- Even
Tremendous long par-4 at Pac Dunes easily outdistances a solid long par-4 at The Bridge that plays far easier because of the elevation change.

14th Hole -- Even
Good par-3's that tie each other.

15th Hole -- The Bridge +1
Good par-5 at Pac Dunes, but even better long par-4 at The Bridge and the second best long par-4 on the course. Requires solid fade tee shot to premium landing area.

16th Hole -- Even
Solid short par-4 at Pac Dunes and offers a wide array of options. The counterpart at The Bridge is a gorgeous long par-3 that is demanding but because of the elevation change is somewhat less demanding. I'm being generous in giving Pac the win on this hole.

17th Hole -- Pac Dunes +1
Wonderful downhill Redan style par-3 at Pac Dunes beats out an ordinary uphill medium length par-4 at The Bridge.

18th Hole -- Pac Dunes +2
When played from the tip tees (661 yards) the finisher at Pac Dunes is truly impressive. Don't know if I would award the hole to Pac if the tees were at the 591 mark -- it would probably be a draw. The Bridge's finishing hole is also good (567 yards), but the array of options and outcomes at Pac Dunes makes for a win.

Final score
Pac Dunes pulls out a clear win with victories on three of the last four holes.
SCORE ... Pac Dunes 2+1 over The Bridge

Let the comments begin ...

Regards,

P.S. I believe Pacific Dunes to be the best upscale public course I saw this year ... narrowly ekking out Wolf Creek at Paradise Canyon (NV). I would rate Pacific Dunes among the finest 30 courses I've played with The Bridge falling slightly behind that and in my personal top 50.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Thanks Matt, and I thought I was brave!

There is little doubt that, yes, I may be closed-minded in my views, but I have a ton of reasons and principles that I feel are valid to support them. That is why they are all mine! All mine!

[T_MacWood]

Matt
I'm glad to here it has fewer artificial features than Shadow Creek, is there any part of Shadow Creek that isn't man-made? Wolf Creek certainly does have beautiful vistas, but the golf course looks totally alien to its environment -- and completely unwalkable. Which I guess fits the definition of bold, and possibly audacious. I don't think it has anything to do with desert golf, that golf course looks as if it were designed elsewhere and airlifted to the site. Do you think the $250 fee might prevent many from playing the course over and over, as you suggest? You've played the course four times in relatively short period, that's a lot of money. But if it is indeed among the top 50 designs in the US maybe its worth it.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

The four rounds I played Wolf Creek consisted of my being there on two different occasions -- once in February and the other timein May of 2001.

To be totally honest, as a GD panelist the facility comped me the rounds. This is not unusual so before anyone says my opinion was swayed I will tell them now to think again.

Tom, you can walk Wolf Creek -- it's not impossible. There are some treks, but it's something the club is not advocating and from what I recall does not even permit. I think they could do so possibly later in the day for those hearty souls.

What makes Wolf Creek so special is that it is bold and I agree with you "audacious" is an apt way to describe it.

The course starts with a long par-5 that features a wide array of teeing locations. The 2nd is absolutely gorgeous as you sit high above the fairway and have to decide how to attack this intriquing dog-leg left par-4. The hole plays about 445 yards but if someone can hit the ball long you can cut the entire dog-leg if you DARE! If you miss in anyway the ball is deader than Elvis!

The 3rd is an uphill par-3 of 227 yards and it is so delicious because how many quality uphill par-3's do you see. Most architects have become so predictable and dull with the short 170-180 downhill hill with pond fronting the green, yada, yada, yada!

But what makes Wolf Creek so neat is that there are short par-4's that call for major decisions. The most special being the 304 yards par-4 7th. It's possible to drive the green from the tips and if players opt for a shorter tee the distance drops to 283 and 265 yards respectively. However, if you miss short your ball will meet Davey Jones locker! The contours of this hole and much of the course is anything but level. There are optimum places to position your ball throughout the course.

Tom -- the big thing at Wolf Creek is the constant psychological terror that awaits the steered long shot. You sense this on the first tee and it remains constant. If you're hitting the ball whtin your means you'll have no problem. Wolf Creek is very playable for people playing within the margins of error. Get too fancy or decide that gambling is the way to go and the high slope ratings will pounce on you so fast your head will spin.

When I played the course the greens probably stimped around 8-9. From what I was told there are plans to roll them and get them a bit faster. The greens are also protected by a vartiety of mounds --- some of which clearly are artificial but to be clear this is the desert and you make what you can. Not every site can be blessed like Sand Hills!

The major decision will be deciding upon what to do with the championship tee on #16. This par-4 plays 474 yards and the original back tee called for no less than a 280 yards carry to avoid a massive barranca an dusually into a stiff headwind! I hit the ball a good ways off the tee, but I can honestly tell you that my first ball was swallowed up like a guppy by Jaws.

The ownership is concerned that the quirks of one hole could very well impact the opinions of many people when compared to the quality holes you play and my guess is that they will move up the championship tee a bit so that the forced carry will not be as severe fro the back tees. I completely agree because left as is the hole is more of a bad joke than quality strategic hole. A slight change will make this marvelous hole even better.

The other weakness of th ecourse is the 18th -- it's a dull finisher of 315 yards with a man made waterfall next to the green. The ownership is also thinking about extending the tee so that the drive zone will be much more of a test. They are not likely going to extend the hole to 400 plus yards but more yardage for the closer seems to be in store and I think that would be a real plus.

Keep in mind that Mesuqite does feature a good bit of wind -- similar to Vegas. You can start in the morning and you won't feel a thing but by 11:00 AM things can get a bit testy!

As far as $$ to play that's up to any individual to decide and what the state of their wallet is. I'd advise calling the club and seeing if twilight rates will be instituted. I was told that was being considered. This will clearly lower the rates for golfers who don't want prime times to play. Offseason times to play should also lower rates ... especially in the hotter summer months.

Wolf Creek is clearly influenced by man's hand. If people hold that against the course then I think they have missed the point that makes playing there so special. Inspite of the desert environment and through the persistance of Dennis Ryder there is a course that should be on any player's agenda when visiting the greater Vegas and / or St. George area. The thrill in playing is like a never-ending roller coaster ride -- you are constantly on the edge of your seat and to the architect's credit there are only 1 or 2 holes that less in overall quality.

Dennis blended the spectacular canyons of Wolf Creek in a tour de force manner. At just over 7,000 yards from the tips the course plays in some ways a bit short given the thin hot dry desert air. But you must constantly position shots. To the credit of the club the course is not so narrowed as many Arizona courses are because of the 90-acre rule on course grooming.

People will obviously still talk about Shadow Creek but I'd head to Wolf Creek if I had to choose. Shadow seeks to be a course that refuses to say it is apart of its natural environment. Wolf Creek goes the other way and embraces its location and the golfer never forgets that throughout the round.

Unfortunately, for Wolf Creek this is the same year that Pacific Dunes also opened. I'm guessing that Pac Dunes will win GD's best upscale public this year and I can truly see that happening, and in my opinion I would vote that way. However, Wolf Creek is an absolute solid second place winner from the number of new courses I saw this year.

As I said previously, the 8th (long par-3 of 248 yards), the 14th (444 yards par-4) and the 17th (560 yards par-5) are just incredible holes that combine stunning vistas that few courses could ever match and strategic playing characteristics that match up with any I've seen this year.

I'm looking forward to the next course planned called, I believe, Falcon Ridge. That course will also be in the same type of environment. In some ways Falcon is akin to all the hoopla connected to Bandon when Pac Dunes was coming down the pike. I can't wait to see what Dennis does for an encore.

Regards,

[Scott_Burroughs]

Matt,
   Don't forget #5 at Wolf Creek in terms of the spectacular factor.  And now that it's a par 4 (or at least soon it will be), it's even better.  Similar in shape as #2, but definitely a great view.

I didn't play from the tips, but I also liked #3, the uphill par 3.  Did you notice all of the balls embedded into the hillside in front of the tees?

#8 is one of the scariest par 3's I've ever played.  Absolutely no room for error on such a long par 3.

[Matt_Ward]

Scott:

Glad to see that #5 has been changed to a long par-4. It plays better that way!

I just hope people don't view Wolf Creek as just another "over the top" Vegas type course. It's not by any means.Really fun to play and definitely challenging -- especially when the wind is up.

Regards,

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Is there any part of any desert course that isn't man-made ?  Why should Shadow Creek be unique ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()