The Shadow Creek Experience

[Matt_Ward]

Joe H:

It's tough typing when you're on a bus returning from a day at work in NYC.

At best you need to take a chill -- at best!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Gary Nelson:

The way to describe SC as a hotel is simple-- think of what the core of Vegas is -- it's all about the show -- the nonstop lights that blink onand off in an array of colors. Whats missing?

The depth!

SC is not a bad course -- it's good in spots. But, when people talk about elevating into say a top 100 or worse yet -- a top 50 -- then it's clear they are being influenced more by the veneer -- than what's inside the building's frame.

You've got to credit Steve Wynn for all the fanfare attached to the place. Wynn stirred the pot perfectly and for a time the spell he wove was intoxicating.

Shadow Creek is a great case study in seeing what people value -- ultimately, it gives me a clue on how they would see things with other courses of comparable ilk.

When Shadow Creek first opened it was like the new saucy dance club that attracted a big following. Once the intitl glow and buzz dropped off you can then assess what's there. Frankly, it's a fine layout but the benchmark for inclusion with the truly great courses is not there IMHO.

Like I said -- I'd like to ask TF if he really sees SC as being the best course he ever done. I would be shocked if he said it was.

Matt, Thats exactly what I was trying to say with my hotel analogy. You only said it better and in less words.

[Gary_Nelson]

I've given the hotel analogy some more thought.  They don't build hotels like the Ritz anymore.  Why?  Maybe people don't like small rooms and small elevators. Maybe people's tastes have changed.  

Could the same be said about golf courses?  Is Shadow Creek more representative of modern golfer's tastes than the classic courses? Given the modern client's (owners and golfers) preferences, would the classic golf architects build Shadow Creek or NGLA?

[Jim Franklin]

I am back from New York so I can reply to Tomomy as to my opinion of Shadow Creek. First, I have to say that I may have played my new favorite course, NGLA. Wow, what a fun course! And Tommy, when you said I should dream about some courses Friar's Head, Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Bandon Dunes et al, they happen to be at the top of my list as in top 10 so we do have a similar taste...almost. I loved Shadow Creek so I guess this is where we part. I have played there a half dozen times and found my notes on the course. I am not sure what you mean by no strategic options so maybe you can explain. This is a learning process for me and I have definitely learned a lot from the people on this board.

#1 Dog leg left, 400+ yards with a creek to the left. Prevailing wind into the golfer with an open green to give you a run up option.

#2 Dog leg left with the fairway sloping to the right. A large swale front and right of the green.

#3 Long par 4 450+ from an elevated tee. Uphill to the green.

#4 Risk/reward par5. Bite off as much as you can over the water down the left. Green opens from the right.

#5 Par 3, 200+ "Abyss Hole". Very cool. From tee to green all you see is the tops of the trees as they dug deep (60' or so) down and planted trees so you just see the tops and not the bottom.

#6 Long par 4 to the right. Uphill to a large green sloping back to front.

#7 Par 5, bunkers fronting the green, dog leg left.

#8 Par 3 160+, Tunnel from the 7th green to the 8th tee which was different. Bunker guarding right side of green.

#9 Par 4, 410 yards, Snake fairway, creek left, fairway looks tiny from the tee. Green angles right to left.

As I am typing this, it dawned on me that no matter what I say, you have your opinion and I will not change it so I will stop descibing the holes. The back nine is better than the front with #15 as my personal favorite.

To those that have not played there and have an open mind, you will not regret playing Shadow Creek. When Fazio and Wynn built the course, they used elevated tees to give a view of what you were going to play. This is a visual course, an oasis in the desert. I am not a big fan of a lot of trees, but the 21,000 trees thay planted increased the experience. You cannot see the desert anywhere from the course so you could imagine yourself being in the Carolinas and not Vegas. It may not be the most challenging course in the world, but that was not its intent. I had a blast playing it and can't wait to do it again.
 

[Matt_Ward]

Jim F:

If you think SC is a "blast" then you need to venture 70 miles down I-15 to Mesquite and play Wolf Creek. Talk about excitement -- even the cart rides are a thrill a minute.

The "strategic" elements you highlighted about Shadow Creek are there -- I never said the course was devoid of anything worth remembering. However, I'd like you to state how high in your own pecking order of superior courses you would place Shadow Creek?

Among your top 50 ... top 100, you get the point.

Jim -- I would have to know how many of the top TF designs you have played? I've played nearly all of the key ones and would put SC somewhere between the 10th to 15th best of the 55 total TF courses I have played. Much of the fanfare tied to SC is about its creation -- you even highlighted as much with your discussion on the trees and the isolation from the desert.

The issue is not about Shadow Creek being a unique or even a very good course -- I would not rate it among my personal top 100 because the strategic elements / shot values you find there are not nearly as comprehensive or elaborate. There are other courses in the USA that fly below the radar that IMHO exceed what SC provides from a design perspective.

The initial "buzz" Wynn created with SC has allowed its aura to go on to this day -- it's still being fostered now that MGM runs the joint. I don't dispute the hole accounts you provided, but I can certainly put forward a number of other TF designs that are much more comprehensive in their design. SC lures people to take in the brownie points tied to the prestige in simply "being there" and has more in common with Disneyland than architectural depth.

[Jim Franklin]

Matt -

I have played Wolf Creek and enjoyed it very much. You are right in that the cart ride is almost as exciting as the golf. As for my playing list of Fazio courses, I have played a large percentage. I have not played Glen Wilde in Utah that you speak highly, but have played Black Diamond, Estancia, The Quarry, Wade Hampton, Forest Creek, Victoria National, Dallas National, Galloway National, Caves Valley, World Woods(both), Primm Valley, Barton Creek to name a few. My #1 Fazio track is Victoria National. I loved that place. And my #2 is Shadow Creek.

As for overall rankings, I just got finished with NGLA, Pac Dunes, Bandon Dunes so I am in the process of reshuffling my pecking order. Suffice is to say that SC will be in my top 50.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jim,
Glad to hear of just another happy and fun-laden experience from the mystical parcel of land known as National Golf Links of America.

In Golf, I'm almost convinced that the National's only peer is a course called the Old Course.

In regards to Shadow Creek, There should be never any doubt that it does has its place, AS A PLACE, in the realm of interesting or controversial golf course architecture. However, for me if comparing it to the others listed, (i.e. Friar's Head, Pac Dunes, Sand Hills, etc.) I look at the design attributes of these courses and personally, I just don't see anything remotely even comparable in terms of greatness. Many will say, "Well it was created out of nothing!" and where as Sand Hills and Pacfic Dunes are created on the greatest of canvas', Friars Head, as equally as GREAT of a Canvas as the mentioned, has many holes that were equally as challenged as Shadow Creek when it was first started.  To me this is the most intriguing, if not solid point of the example:  Creating soemthing that wasn't there vs. creating with what IS there. Thats the HUGE difference between the two.  And while it maybe a matter of architectural taste--and this is where we get into the Tom Paul, "Big World of Golf Architecture" theory, from my view point of excitment when it comes to GREAT golf architecture, Friar's Head and its lower ground holes are much more worthy of note then all Shadow Creek's will ever be.

While I maintain that #5, 12, & 15 are the most architecturally interesting at Shadow Creek, the rest of the course is still just a simple wash of repetitive containment fairways and punch bowl green complexes that make many of the holes unmemorable. From the terms of strategic, my terms usually are relient on various routes to the hole that present a personal challenge to the golfer in the forms of bunkering, and or natural features that many of the Golden Age architects, and only about four or five modern age architects have spent a lifetime learning and understanding as far as their use for golf. A course like Shadow Creek, the strategy is based off of where they need the drainage to flow and they have no problem with moving mountains to do it--this is where they get many of their strategies from, and frankly its a tiring and useless rehash of ugliness to me. Nothing fits. Its all about getting the golfer a full view from the tee on EVERY HOLE; Making each hole a visual experience via framing, thus eliminating some of the more deceptive natures of the art of golf architecture. (Think of Cypress Point, only where every hole would be unto itself, and think about just how much of the stark visual you would be missing from the other holes and their features around it.)

You mention, When Fazio and Wynn built the course, they used elevated tees to give a view of what you were going to play. This is a visual course, an oasis in the desert.  Well, this is the difference between what my eye and what your eye sees. Our mutual love of the National Golf Links of America should further prove that blindness sometimes plays a big part in the variety of interesting golf course architecture. Does it need these same elevated tees on each and every hole to define the visual?  Of course not. Not at the expense of defining strategy compared to the Fazio formula of hilighting it.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim F:

We are in major disagreement if you believe SC is better than the ones you named. To wit ...

Galloway National
Black Diamond (Quarry)
Dallas National

Not by a country mile is SC better than the trio above.

You need to play Glen Wild in Park City, UT when the opportunity arises. Simply grand stuff by TF that is virtually ignored by all the posters here on GCA.

I would also have Victoria National (you placed it ahead as well).

Besides Glenwild the design at Oklahoma State called Kartsen Creek is one that should be played. Too many people who venture to OK simply hit Southern Hills and Oak Tree and go on there merry way. There ignorance shows.

Jim -- you didn't answer my question on the overall details of what makes SC great? The emphasis from your first answer was how the course is such a unique setting -- e.g. the trees and the isolation from the desert. There are a number of formulistic TF designed holes at SC -- just analyze the bunkerig style and its placement at the holes you mentioned and I think it will be clear.

It's very E-Z to be seduced by the setting -- the customer service -- and all the hoopla of simply "being there." I know you are more experienced person but you also played dodge ball with my other question -- where do you rate SC among all the courses in the States you have played and second part -- among modern designs (those opened since 1960) what courses do you place ahead of SC? I"m asking a specific set of questions because it helps me understand what other layouts you consider to be equal to or greater than SC.

Appreciate your answer ...

[Tommy_Naccarato]

You need to play Glen Wild in Park City, UT when the opportunity arises. Simply grand stuff by TF that is virtually ignored by all the posters here on GCA.

-Fazio Course
-Utah

Yes, I'm ready to jump on the first plane ASAP!

Matt, Jim Engh was just contracted to build a 36 hole complex just Southwest of Fallejah, Iraq called Bush Hills. (course names are going to be called Bushwood and the other Nobush.)  I would suspect this will be part of your travel intinerary soon, correct?

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy:

Now don't let our agreement on SC go to your head !!!

I've said this before -- there are way too many people here on GCA -- you're in the bunch too partner -- who have played a very small sampling of TF courses and ipso facto are able to weigh in and say conclusively the man has no talent.

I've also stated I've personally played roughly 50 of his designs sprinkled throughout the USA and taking in the length of his career in designing courses not just those from the beginning or of most recent vintage. I don't doubt the majority of his layouts are formulistic and geared towards the same methodology as Keebler cranking out cookies.

HOWEVER ...

There are a fair number of outstanding layouts he has done.

Glen Wild in Utah is one of them IMHO. The layout is rated by Digest as the #1 course in the Beehive State and minus my own comments no one else has ever mentioned the course on GCA that I am aware of. The combination of holes is well done and even with the elevation in altitude it's one of the few courses that still makes me want to go back there for a second play.

The detailing of the site far surpasses the likes of Shadow Creek, but because it's located in an area known more for skiing it simply is lost in the sauce. Fazio is quite capable in delivering the goods when the mass produced assembly line approach is NOT taken. That has happened with a few of his designs and it takes a little bit of legwork to unearth them.

Tommy -- you and I see clearly on Shadow Creek because the veneer is much more than whatever depth it has in spots. But, this nonstop megaphone bomblast that all of the Fazio portfolio is garbage and the second coming of the anti-Christ  is really unfortunate because it's not just so from the select ones I have played.

Let me reiterate that I am not a TF defender -- or any other architect for that matter -- but too often people paint with a very broad brush and fail to keep up with the portfolios involved in discussion here. As a result -- it's far too easy for people to weigh in with just a few courses played and the loudly pronounce that person "X" is the devil reborn or some such other linkage of dubious quality.

P.S. Regarding my trip plans -- if I hear a "buzz" about a certain course -- irrespective of who designs it -- you can be sure that Ward will make note of it and travel to it when the opportunity arises. For the moment -- I'll stay in the States and skip Iraq!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

P.S. Regarding my trip plans -- if I hear a "buzz" about a certain course -- irrespective of who designs it -- you can be sure that Ward will make note of it and travel to it when the opportunity arises. For the moment -- I'll stay in the States and skip Iraq!

Matt, Your writing about yourself in the 3rd person. Its a habit thats typical in arrogant, over-paid athletes like Ricky Henderson, Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, Terrill Owens and "The Jimmy" from Seinfeld.

("Jimmy's down with a broken leg and Jimmy is going to kick Kramer's ass!")

I have seen enough of Fazio's work to know what he does.  I can assure you I won't be setting any itinerary for Utah anytime soon.  In fact, I have avoided Utah like the plague for years. I would much rather confine my golf architecture classroom for more important universities like Long Island, Philadelphia/New Jersey, Oregon, and hopefully Nebraska and Michigan for the future.

Utah and Idaho to be taught by Jim Engh and Tom Fazio?

Well, I leave it to the true golf artists to teach me about golf architecture. Its far more interesting, more tasteful and just simply BETTER golf IMO. I'll leave it to guys like you to expound the virtues of these places I'll never visit, nor ever care to.

[Dan Kelly]

P.S. Regarding my trip plans -- if I hear a "buzz" about a certain course -- irrespective of who designs it -- you can be sure that Ward will make note of it and travel to it when the opportunity arises. For the moment -- I'll stay in the States and skip Iraq!

Matt, Your writing about yourself in the 3rd person. Its a habit thats typical in arrogant, over-paid athletes like Ricky Henderson, Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, Terrill Owens and "The Jimmy" from Seinfeld.

("Jimmy's down with a broken leg and Jimmy is going to kick Kramer's ass!")

I have seen enough of Fazio's work to know what he does.  I can assure you I won't be setting any itinerary for Utah anytime soon.  In fact, I have avoided Utah like the plague for years.

Tommy --

Note the mixture of voices there: "I" hear the buzz -- but "Ward" checks it out. This must be significant, somehow.

Add Herschel Walker to your list. I don't think the word "I" was in his vocabulary -- an odd thing, for an egomaniac.

As for avoiding Utah: I spent last week in Zion National Park -- and am here to counsel you not to avoid at least that part of Utah. No golf courses there, of course, but what the hell! Man does not live by golf alone -- does he?

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy:

God Bless ignorance -- that's OK -- you don't know what you're missing. But then again -- ignorance is bliss -- right?

By the way -- Tommy I know my backyard of courses (the NY / NJ / CT area) very well and frankly there are plenty of so-called "classic" designed layouts that are way too overrated and simply live off the rightful legacy of the elite few they happen to be near. Unfortunately, some people -- maybe you -- believe that if course "A' is circa 1930 and before it just has to be great.

Of course -- I knew our agreement on Shadow Creek was short lived, but it's regrettable you throw grenades at all of TF's work because like I said there are courses out there he has done where the details are solid and the layouts worthy of repeat visits. Glenwild is one of those IMHO and whether you make it to Utah or not is completely irrelevant. Raters with open minds should not be hesitant to acknowledge quality wherever it may be located and whoever is responsible for it.

Ditto other modern architects -- people like Jim Engh and others that don't get "most favored architect" status here on GCA.

But then -- what the hell do I know -- forgive me your majesty for even thinking that closed minds can be opened.

What a silly thought on my part.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dan, VERY GOOD POINT!

Just this week I was looking at pictures from Zion and Monument Valley and was aghast at the beauty of all of it. It might be so magnificient, I may not be ever able to make a recovery! (literally stuck in the inner-circle of fault)(stolen from Albert Brook's Defending Your Life.)

And NO, man doesn't live by golf alone and I'm learning that more and more each day!  In fact, I thought about what it would be like to go on a vacation somewhere, like a cruise or something where not one iota of golf would be involved. IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME!

If I did, it would be very tough as most of the places I would like to go, I would be thinking of who designed what, and near where.

Talk about a one-tract mind!

But then again, I think about what a big huge juicy New York cut of steak would taste like in the Sandhills of Nebraska, and it sort of provides sustenance to get through the day and save for a trip like that!  Now that would be a vacation! You know of any good golf courses near there?

[Matt_Ward]

Dan:

Yeah, no doubt using my name is automatically viewed as arrogance -- geeze -- whatever happened to the novel thought people should do some heavy lifting -- you know, the old fashioned idea of playing a range of courses in a person's portfolio means anything before commenting.

How silly and arrogant of me.

Dan -- you and my left coast pontificator on all that is evil with TF -- must seriously believe lobbing opinions from the deep left field seats is OK -- why do any heavy lifting? It's far better to knock those who do.

My comments were simple -- if I hear things about any course I always try to make a point to play it. I'm so sorry -- that must be arrogance on my part -- forgive me -- the very idea of having to get off one's duff and go out and physically play the course(s). What the hell would that prove? My opinion is only one person's comments. I do respect those folks who do take the time and energy to do the necessary field visits and I deeply appreciate any detailed info they can provide. Geeze, another novel thought -- getting information before commenting. Perish the thought.

Then when all fails I get this concept that man doesn't live by golf alone. I'm on the side of the desk now splitting my gut with laughter. Keep it coming ...

Great stuff ... the power of the open mind once again on full display here on GCA.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

God Bless ignorance -- that's OK -- you don't know what you're missing. But then again -- ignorance is bliss -- right?

No, wrong.

Matt, once again, my inability to afford to see 50 states isn't ignorant, its a matter of me choosing not to see certain paticular states. It isn't ignorance at all, in fact, if you weren't afforded your credentials, I doubt you would be going to see these same courses as much as you doubt my ability to judge their architecture. That's your opinionand your certainly welcome to it, but personally, I don't care what YOU think I can or cannot see.

By the way -- Tommy I know my backyard of courses (the NY / NJ / CT area) very well and frankly there are plenty of so-called "classic" designed layouts that are way too overrated and simply live off the rightful legacy of the elite few they happen to be near. Unfortunately, some people -- maybe you -- believe that if course "A' is circa 1930 and before it just has to be great.

Matt, You certainly KNOW  that you think you know your courses all so well; and that attitude is enough for me to say, you don't know as much as you think you do. In GREAT golf architecture both modern and classical, you will never be able to get enough. Thats what continues to make it GREAT.  Also, a course that is circa 1930 doesn't have to be GREAT to be appreciated and studied. It doesn't even have to be good! I can step out on to a Lu Lu Temple or Gulph Mills and see interesting work that I want to see again and again.  But I find interest in these courses because it seems so little is followed to day by architects like Jim Engh and others who think they know how to dictate golf better. That's my cup of tea. Who cares if it isn't yours?

Thats the beauty of diverse opinion whether you like it or not.

Of course -- I knew our agreement on Shadow Creek was short lived, but it's regrettable you throw grenades at all of TF's work because like I said there are courses out there he has done where the details are solid and the layouts worthy of repeat visits. Glenwild is one of those IMHO and whether you make it to Utah or not is completely irrelevant. Raters with open minds should not be hesitant to acknowledge quality wherever it may be located and whoever is responsible for it.

Matt, a very untrue statement by you, and you should admit that it is wrong because you know how I feel about Shady Canyon. Just because the Director of Golf has chosen to not let you out there should you discount my opinion on it and many other Fazio courses I have played that I don't care for. Shady Canyon I do in fact like and have said that many times, which makes it obvious your only reading what you want to read. But even it like all courses has its faults. Some of them work, some of them don't. As far as visiting modern courses here in SoCal, whenever someone is coming for a visit, rater or non-rater, you'll be good to know that Shady Canyon is always to get the finger. (pointing in a direction )

Also, I want you to get this right when you read this so read close.  I don't rate golf courses the same way as you do. I rate them to learn by and from them. Not how they support my own personal game and vanity.

Ditto other modern architects -- people like Jim Engh and others that don't get "most favored architect" status here on GCA.

Matt, I can assure you if they build a golf course worth talking, let alone wax the poetic about and where its all well deserved, they'll get it here on GCA.

In the same, if I chose not to go to Idaho to see it, feel free to keep on going without me. Meanwhile I play all of those shitty courses in NJ and NY and enjoy them when I can.  I also enjoy seeing a good course get built out here every once in a great while. So, I'll keep this area covered too!

But then -- what the hell do I know -- forgive me your majesty for even thinking that closed minds can be opened.

What a silly thought on my part.

Matt, to incite the words of the reverend from Caddyshack, "Bullshit! I'm just an ordinary man like you!" and the stuff about kingdoms and courts is of little interest to me. But if I did say, "you can kiss the King's ass" would you?

Oh, I hope not......  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt,
Dan's right, You are arrogant. Your also self-centered and pompus. That doesn't mean I don't like you.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Tommy my boy - I gotta disagree with you on your 'SC and it's initial glitz factor'.  If this were true then SC would rank high in the lists than continually recede with each new list that's come out.  Golfweek has had SC in the top 20 every year it has been on the list.  I don't know the exact number but it is based on a ton of raters who have seen it.  SC is a statement in modern golf and appears to be appreciated as such in the GW rater world.

JC

[Jim Franklin]

Tommy -

While I absolutely agree that some blind shots, a little deception certainly do add to my enjoyment of a golf course (you are right about TOC/NGLA), I do not have a problem with what Fazio did at SC. He was going for a deep visual experience. It may not be the most strategic course in the world, but I enjoyed it immensely. As for containment fairways, I did not feel that was the case. I felt more of isolation from the rest of the course. There are a couple of holes that TF tries some deception, where they look longer or shorter, but all in all, that is not its goal. While we will agree to disagree in regards to SC, we still share the same feelings for NGLA, TOC, Friar's Head, Pacific Dunes, and Sand Hills, all of which are in my top 10, 3 in my top 5.

Matt -

I am unsure what you are looking for. I enjoyed the visual aspect of the course. I agree it may not be the most strategic course in the world, but I also do not believe that was their goal. I do not think it was built to host a major championship. I may be wrong, but that is my feeling. Also, did you or didn't you like Victoria National?

[THuckaby2]

Jim:

Very well said, all of it.

I just don't get one part of this:  if one does love NGLA, The Old Course, Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes (3 out of the 4 of which are also in my personal world top-5), why CAN'T one also like Shadow Creek?  Are we truly forced to be that narrow?

You said it perfectly - sure it's not the most strategic course in the world, nor does it have much visual deception.  But it's beautiful and challenging and FUN.  Why must golf tastes be mutually exclusive?

This is obviously not directed at you, you seem to share this viewpoint.  The question goes to Tommy.

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom,
"Why can't?"

From an architectural perspective, in the realm of content, Shadow Creek is less then more.

From an Engineering perspective, it is a masterpiece of form and function. Ask anyone that doesn't know a thing about engineering and they'll tell you!

Artistically, it is a repetitive landscape over and over and over.

From the Experience perspective, it is quite obviously well accepted in its marketplace. There is nothing wrong with liking it, because thats what its meant to do--make you like it from an artificial perspective.

I'll say it once again--Shadow Creek is simply a golf course that over-rated by raters in regards to golf architecture. There are too many more Fazio designs out there that preportedly blow it away. I offer Shady Canyon as a perfect example. Where is it on the Golfweek scale? Matt's offering, Alderra Club; that course in the swamps of New Jersey; John K.'s Vic National; Jim Lewis and Forest Creek. These are all preportedly to be far more interesting examples of golf course architecture and where do they stand on the Golfweek scale? (They aren't as high as Shadow Creek! Could it be that some Golfweek raters may have been blinded in they're assumptions about the course? Yes, I think so. In fact if any of them ever want to debate it architecturally with other Fazio offerings I will be more then happy.)

 I look forward to them telling me there thoughts when they play Shadow Creek and see how it compares to their home courses. I'm sure they will wax the poetic about Shadow Creek, but you'll find everytime that they like they're Fazio courses better.

This is where you'll know that its the architecture, or lack of thereof that is missing from Shadow Creek--a course loaded with weapons to make you like it--even if you really don't.

[George Pazin]

You said it perfectly - sure it's not the most strategic course in the world, nor does it have much visual deception.  But it's beautiful and challenging and FUN.  Why must golf tastes be mutually exclusive?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this attitude. I just wouldn't expect many to agree, as the site's stated goal is to provide frank commentary of the world's finest courses.

Disagreement is what we do best here....

[Matt_Ward]

Jim F:

I asked you where you would rate Shadow Creek among all courses you have played the states -- top 10, top 25, top 100 and the second part of question was where the course stands among the modern designs you have played -- circa 1960 to today.

Thanks ...

Tommy:

You enjoy the platform of crtic, but frankly your sample size is way too small to make the assertions you draw concerning Tom Fazio or for that matter many other architects.

Speaking of pompous I love your arrogant statement that if Jim Engh does in fact build a superior course it will be noticed by those here on GCA. Well golly -- thank you almighty one for such a divine statement. I'll glue you in -- Jim Engh is a very talented designer and a few of his designs are certainly worth the attention of others. But I forgot -- Jim Engh is not in the same league as others who have been decreed "saints" here on GCA.

From such a tiny sample poll you then make broad assertions on the depth of what architects have done. My opinion comes from sampling a wide variety of courses and architects both past and present -- if you choose not to do the time and legwork of such an exericse that's your prerogative. However, you are completely out in la-la land (no pun intended) in bemoaning others like me who do. I learn by personal experience not in pretending to know so from just lobbing out opinions from one's home.

I also salute others who do the legwork because first hand experience -- not making assinine comments simply from photos -- is critical for me. I learn when others who have played the course(s) are able to then compare and contrast how that course(s) stack up against others.

Let me mention concerning my credentials -- I earned them by playing plenty of slop that calls itself golf. I have a deep passion for the game and will play anywhere I hear about quality golf. If you really knew me -- as you claim -- you would know my passion for the game takes a second place to no one -- whether I was in golf media or a rater or not.

When you denigrate someone like Jim Engh I'd like to know how many of his courses have your ever played? I ask you respectfully because it's totally unfair to trash someone if you have not played any of his courses or if your sample size is indeed insufficient to draw any serious conclusions.

Tommy -- you name Shady Canyon as a good exmaple of TF's work. Fine. What else of TF's work have you played outside SoCal? How bout understanding -- I believe you can -- realize what I said in its entirety about Tom Fazio. You see Tommy you only read what you want to read and decide with all your hell and brimstrone to trumpet more and more of the same slop that Fazio is the equivalent of the anit-Christ. Great comedy indeed.

Tommy -- another laughable sentence -- I rate courses from a broad range of players -- those who know me understand that -- clearly I don't have the same zest for knowing some arcane fact about if bunker "A" was high lipped or short lipped or had grass growing from the side or the top as you. I defer to you wisdom on such matters of importance.

Tommy -- when I go to a course I try to analyze the totality of what players face. If you bother to read the thread on the Lakota Canyon discussion you will see that. I care about core items as shot values, routing, the quality of the land, green dimensions / contours and so forth and so on. You're right again -- I have it all wrong. Forgive me your majesty

You are a very pleasant chap --  but you need to get out and play more before making such broad assertions on what is and what is not good quality golf. Credibility comes from doing the personal visits -- the homework in seeing and playing the courses being discussed. Likely, we will not agree, but if you want to know where this conversation went south  just remember you're the guy who throws forward a put down on the qualities of Glenwild which I offered in good faith as a winning example of TF's ability as an architect.

You're response was flippant and frankly predictable.

I stated -- you may have missed it -- that a large proportion of TF work is formulistsic from the 55 that I have played. However, there are roughly no less than 10 designs I have played would have serious claim to be among the top 100 modern as defined by GolfWeek.

Even the anti-Christ can hit design home runs!

[Jim Franklin]

Matt -

I have Shadow Creek in my top 25 of the courses I have played. Granted, I have not played the depth and variety of the courses you have played, but I have played my share of top courses. I have recently played two courses that jumped into my top 5, NGLA and Pacific Dunes. I loved both of them.

I also loved Victoria National which I have in my top 10 which will probably cause an uproar, but I thought it was a terrific layout. From your comments, I could not tell if you did or did not like VC. I kinda imagine you were not a fan, but I may be wrong. Anyway, this is a Shadow Creek discussion and I liked the course very much.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

A thousand pardons David. A thousand pardons.

Matt, See, I don't fancy myself as a critic. I'm fancy myself more of a student that has an open mind and is willing to learn. Enjoy critiquing these courses all you want, but as far as studying them, your views are based off of one infinite value--how you play them, and frankly, I couldn't care less.

Once again, Fazio's Shady Canyon is a very good golf course. Pity you haven't seen it so you could agree.

[Tags:]

Tags: