[cary lichtenstein]

Tom:

"Do Engh's courses fit the Ground?"

They do not fit the ground. You can see that alot of dirt has been moved. I would prefer that they fit the ground better, I would prefer that there was less containment.

You cannot compare your work with Engh's as your styles are very different.

Nonetheless, I can enjoy both of your courses despite whatever I or others preceive as faults.

I'm tired of defending my position, so I'll relent and just say that everyone should play Lakota once, and leave it at that. I don't want to argue with anyone anymore on this thread.
 
If anyone doesn't like Lakota, they should not go back.

[A_Clay_Man]

Whose to say what Jim Engh likes? but Jim Engh. He's in business to appease the will of the developer.
I do know that his favorite hole at Redlands, was my favorite hole. It wasn't an over-constructed, manufactured looking thing. It was a wonderful short two shotter with a blind fallaway green, through two natural cader-looking like features. 13th, I think??

[Tommy_Naccarato]

That'll be great Matt, You cover Engh and others, and I'll cover the Doak's & C&C's. (How many Top 10's do they have?)

It will also work best that way for you and your readers over at bunkershot.com.

[George Pazin]

Maybe this whole argument would have been avoided if Cary had simply said, it is in my personal top 10 courses I've played.

Then again, if we had avoided this whole argument, the rest of us who haven't been there wouldn't have learned a damn thing about why we should.

Let's face it - gca is a hopelessly subjective endeavor. As long as people are clear that their preferences are indeed theirs and not some sort of God given mandate, I think it'd be great if everyone were as passionate about any course as Cary is about Lakota.

[cary lichtenstein]

Geo:


For goodness sakes, do GCA minimialists like breast implants?

Do they have to fit the landscape?

What if they are a C cup and a B would have been better?

Which GCA guy doesn't stare at a nice body and only the wives say "Those implants are awful"

[Jim Franklin]

I like breast implants .

[George Pazin]

Ah, but Cary, you are not asking the regular GCAer to simply appreciate the woman with the implants, you are asking him to rate her among the top beauties of the world.

As I said - or at least implied - I think your bold statement was a good thing for eliciting comments about the course, and I wish everyone were as bold in outing themselves.

Me, I prefer no implants, but have seen some beauties with them.

[fred ruttenberg]

Matt:Mounding is the overall theme of the course
 1. I agree-no mounding
  2.Mounding right side
  3. mounding right side or over green
  4.mounding on right for 2nd shot
  5. Entire hole a funnel
  6.mounding both sides
  7. mounding around green. just hit lond and ball bounces back on green-similar to 15.
  8.mounding right
  9.hill on left side-aim anywhere on hill and ball bounces on green. Hit the green and ball barely stays on green (I watched 10 shots hit to the green).
 10.mounding both sides
  11.Hill on left funnels anything hit on it to the fairway. Like many holes it is preferable to aim for the hill than the fairway.
 12. Severe funneling
  13.mounding left
 14.mounding around green
 15.Over and left of the green are large hills. I again watched several balls hit on this hole. The preferable target was over the green or on the left hill depending on pin placement.
 16. The entire right side of the green is protected by a hill. The best way to play the second shot is just aim ofr the hill and let it bounce on the green.
17. My playing partner hit high on the hill to the right and the ball just rolled to the middle of the green. Same feeling as hole 3.
18. If going for the green in 2 the best action is to aim for the hill on the left from where it will either roll on the green or leave an easy chip. If playing safe on the 2nd shot,there is a large mound on the right which keeps the ball in play and opens the hole for an approach.

As I said, there is mounding or hills on almost every hole that keeps the ball in play and very often is the best (certainly the safest) target.

[Matt_Ward]

Fred:

Let's get real -- I can name plenty of places -- with a high degree of mounding / shaping. As I said before you can see plenty of what I just mentioned at The Rawls Course in Lubbock, TX -- a dead flat site that Tom Doak artfully transformed. No one complains in that regard.

Ah, but I forgot -- the key, for many on GCA, is who the actual architect is. That may not apply to you but it rings loud and clear to me and others. Let me also add that I thoroughly enjoyed The Rawls even though this feature is there at the site.

Let's go hole-by-hole at Lakota because in your exuberance you left out a few details.

The 2nd has a hillside that works all the way down that side. Frankly, there's no benefit in "trying" to play towards that position. Get stuck up or anywhere near that and the hole becomes a tad more demanding -- if not impossible.

You mention the 3rd -- help me understand something -- how does the mounding relate to the actual playing of the hole? You must have forgotten the quality contours and several different pin placements that Engh provides there. Trying -- that's right -- by the player to deliberately bounce off any one of those areas would be the most silliest of plays.

The back-to-back par-5's at the 4th and 5th are completely well done. At the 4th the mound you allude to has no bearing on the actual hole. On the 5th you say the "entire" hole is a funnel. Sorry -- don't buy it. The tee shot must avoid the debris on the left and if you should push it too far right you get blocked out or face a more demanding second shot. On the second shot you also face a non-mounded landing zone with a pond that tugs into the left side and even more debris on the right.

You are correct / re: 6th hole but you forgot that the green especially narrows towards the rear and you need to fly the approach to get back to that narrow area.

At the 7th there is mounding but you make it seem as the approach is as automatic as can be -- far from it.

The mounding on the right at #8 is so slight as to be completely irrelevant to the playing of the hole.

At the 9th the "bounce pad" provided by Engh is really a false gain for the player. You can try to play for the bounce but the ball often runs completely off the green. In many ways -- I found its inclusion to be a huge plus for the hole and something players need to avoid.

At the 10th you must deal with a center placed fairway bunker that guards the opening towards the green. The mounding there can be seen and I agree it can be a bit much.

At the 11th the falloff on the left and right is completely open and literally a danger for any ball that goes too far in either direction. Fred -- you are in error wrong on the notion that you can hit left and the ball feeds to the fairway. If you aim left the ball will go in that direction and simply go into the gunch.

I do agree with you on the 12th -- the green site does provide for what you mentioned. However, there is no 100% guarantee it will provide the most favorable of bounces.

#13 has the tiniest element of mounding on the left. C'mon Fred -- you are really trying to make a point from even the most out of the way situations.

#14 #15 do not have any mounding that would

Fred -- again at the 16th you make it sound sooooooo simple -- simply play to the right and the ball will always follow the player's command and nestle off the hill and come to rest by the hole. That's very nice to say but far from the actual truth. The hillside you mention does not provide 100% assurances that it will release the ball to a favorable position for the player all the time. It is simply an esthetic addition and works quite well IMHO.

#17 does have mounding for the "rear" portion of the green. A ball hit up on the hillside has no guarantees that it will automatically settle near the hole. Fred -- if the pin is cut towards the front the mounding may provide a benefit -- or it may simply hasten the speed / bounce of the ball to a far corner or even off the green. If the pin is all the way towards the back the approach has to guide itself all the way between the two mounds that protect that pin placement.

Fred -- hold the phone on #18 -- how do you figure the ball easily bounces off the hill to the green or easily provides a simple chip? Did you see the height of the grass on that slope? I've played the hole several times and watched countless groups play it. The mounding to the left of the green is extremely severe and the probability in recoverying is slight at best -- even for the best of players.

The mounding on the right if one takes the "safe" 2nd shot avenue doesn't make the hole easier in any manner. You also have a very narrow green when approaching from the 2nd shot landing area.

Let me also mention that Lakota is a public course -- it is not private so that the sheer demands of the topography can simply be "left as is."

Fred -- do me a huge favor -- can you identify the mounding at the following places ...

Cherry Hills
Castle Pines
Maroon Creek

In each case you find mounding that's been added -- in the case of Maroon Creek the issue is clearly front and center and it has been added especially to the bulk of the course on the other side of the road that divides the layout.

One last thing -- did you factor into your equation the nature of the site -- the adroit manner by which Engh routed the course -- the sheer diversity of the holes -- the manner by which the player must "work the ball" off the tee? Or was your eye simply on the mounding?

Thanks ...

Tommy:

You sound like the mullahs over in Iran & Iraq -- there are only the "true believers" -- everyone else are the infatels.

So much for tolerance -- closing one's eyes is a very short step to the closing of the mind.

Tommy -- enjoy the layouts you play -- you'll never know what you're missing.

[cary lichtenstein]

Fred:

1. What did you shoot?

2. The right side of 2 is a canyon wall, check out Webster for the definition of Canyon

3. The 5th which you call a funnel, is another canyon. It has canyon walls 200 to 500 feet high on both sides. Did you perhaps miss that?

4. You probably don't like implants either


Cary

[A_Clay_Man]

Matt- Comparing the landscape created in Lubbock, to the uniform periphrial shaping that haunts many a modern venue, is as preposterous as Whitten comparing it to Shadow Creek.

This gca.com bias you speak of, is not a result of any conspiracy. It's the result of respecting the way nature is formed, and, how artful a job the architect and crew has done in combining all the multi-faceted tasks at hand.

[DMoriarty]

David M:

I've answered all the pertinent questions you have asked. You have played one Jim Engh course and are clearly determined to state a particular case. So be it.

We agree to disagree. Let me know when you play other Engh designs and I'll be glad to continue the discussion with you.

Come on Matt, you havent answered any of the questions I have asked!  Why not answer them?  Of what are you afraid?

Let me summarize:

A few design elements of Black Rock:
--  Repeated trough-like fairways;
--  Hollywood Bowl Greens;
--  High convex land = Development, Low concave land = Golf Course
--  Virtually Unwalkable.
Where do each of these design elements fit into your evaluation of Black Rock, if at all?

Which of the above design elements are indicative of Jim Engh's architectural style?  

Tell me what is special, if anything, about the  "shot values" around the greens at Black Rock?  What is special, if anything, about the "shot values" of the recovery shots at Black Rock?  

Come on Matt, don't cop out now.  Conversationwise, this is where "the rubber hits the road."  Let's hear your answers.  

[David Kelly]

Cary,
And of course the obvious analogy between Engh's style and the style of Doak and C&C is that implants may look good but there is a big difference in how they feel compared to naturals.  

[Joe Hancock]

Cary,
And of course the obvious analogy between Engh's style and the style of Doak and C&C is that implants may look good but there is a big difference in how they feel compared to naturals.  

David,

Thatta boy...the only way that analogy would be obvious is through experience.....SoCal, gotta love it!

Joe

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tommy -- enjoy the layouts you play -- you'll never know what you're missing.

Yes, that's right Matt, go ahead and keep on telling yourself that.

Crazy Joe,
We'll deal with testing breast implants next week!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

And Cary, Oh those doglegs........

[fred ruttenberg]

Matt: Perhaps you misunderstood me. I think the architect did a fine job with the site. The problem was there was not enough diverisity on the site. There certainly was mounding present at Castle Pines. While there are many holes that have significant elevation changes at Castle Pines, there are many holes that do not. The diversity of the holes there make it significantly better than Lakota.

Certainly there is mounding at Maroon Creek. However, the effect of the mounding was to contain certain errant shots. It did not have the effect of bouncing the ball back to the fairway or on the green. This happened on 8 occasions in the round played by my friend and I.Again I am not suggesting that there were better alternatives on any of the holes. Just that the repetitive nature of this feature lessened the overall quality of the course-especially compared to the others I named.

Cary-1.I shot 81-my friend(who was your host at Maroon Creek)-72.
   2.I agree that on many places there were not mounds but canyon walls. Hitting these walls had the effect of funneling the ball back to the fairway.
3.I do like implants-just in proper proportion. Obviously they can be overdone-just like mounding.
4. You know my home courses-to pick one I don't think there is any contest between Hidden Creek and Lakota. Hidden Creek is far superior. I would not put it in the top 10 in the world. I could easily name 50 courses where I would say there is no question that they are superior than HIdden Creek.

There is a big difference between a good course (both Lakota and Hidden Creek) and a great course. For example Merion is a great course (I was there two weeks ago for its new course rating  with its new back tees on 10 holes). The  feeling that you have from playing such a course is just so different from playing another good course. A round at Lakota (no matter how the architect was able to maximize the site) is just not the same as playing Pebble Beach or Ballybunion.

Everyone has their own opinion as to what makes a great golf course. Part of it is the overall experience of the round,the scenic beauty, how you are treated,  conditioning,etc.  With this in mind, how can you even mention Lakota in the same breath with Fishers Island (not on your top 10 list)?I would run back there in a minute to  play. (I am using this as a reference as we played it together). While we differ on the relative merits of National vs. Shinnicock, there can be no doubt that they are both great courses and great experiences.

The purpose of this post, about which most seem to agree, is that Lakota, while a fine course, is not close to greatness.

[cary lichtenstein]

Fisher's Island is in my top 10, you just missed it when you read it.

[Matt_Ward]

Fred:

You need to understand the rugged nature of the site that is Lakota Canyon Ranch.

You either glossed over or did not fully account for the nature of how Engh was able to overcome the natural obstacles that Mother Nature has put forward. If you have played Sanctuary then you can truly see how Engh has modified the hard edges / mounds that the layout in Sedalia possesses versus what you see now at Lakota and Pradera.

Given these obstacles Engh was able to create a golf course that maximizes the fun element for different levels of players. Here is the rub -- if the guy had created no mounding -- zero, nada, nilch -- then he would get hammered by those who would whine that the course is too demanding and too one dimensional.

People need to get a reality check and understand that the style of the most favroed architects here on GCA (e.g. Doak, C&C, Gil Hanse, Mike DeVries, etc, etc) represent a particular philosophy on the nature of course design.

Unfortunately, the fanatics seem to operate under the rule of design law that says the same thing as the mullahs over in Iraq and Iran -- you are an infatel if you are not a true believer -- under THEIR terms and definitions.

Fred -- you say Lakota is not great -- but the sheer bulk of the people have not played the course. You get people like David M who weighs in on the design contributions of Jim Engh through the playing of only ONE COURSE. He then extrapolates that to make some sort of definitive conclusion. That is laughable and comical at the same time.

Let me also say I never said anything about Fisher's Island -- I love the course and believe it's one of the finest in the
land -- along the way with Camargo in OH. However, there are plenty of Raynor courses that are rated that get a free bounce because of his name and one dimensional design style (see Shoreacres as a good example).

Fred -- when did I reference Lakota against the likes of the following:

Merion
Ballybunion
Pebble Beach

You're the guy who is inserting those courses against Lakota. What I said is that Lakota would make my personal top 100 courses in the USA -- I disagred with my friend Cary when he said Lakota is among the ten best in the USA.

Let me say this compare Lakota with the top public courses that have opened in the last few years and the course holds up very well. It is not at the same level as Black Mesa and the Greg Norman Course at Red Sky Ranch but the dropoff is only by a small degree. The fun element is something that really impressed me at Lakota -- Engh calculated this into the mixture and the course provides it time after time.

One other thing -- the strategic calculations you downplayed or barely touched at all through your spotty analysis are alive and well at Lakota. There's plenty of risk'n reward type holes at the course and the finale trio of holes is simply delicious. I personally believe that the 18th at Lakota is one of the finest public par-5's in all the USA.

Fred -- let's be fair -- Hidden Creek gets a huge bounce from the names of the duo who designed the course. It is well done but given the limitations of the site (the pinelands of Jersey minus what you see at PV are really disappointing as a land form) you get a solid course but nothing close to the rave reviews and placement that a number of magazines and raters have argued. I can name no less than 10 courses in the Garden State that are superior to Hidden Creek but get far little fanfare and visibility because they don't have the cache of the names of the designers which has causes a major influence for the small fanatic club here on GCA.

Fred -- let me point also state that as a member of a club you have a clear conflict of interest in stating its standing. I have no connection to any club and simply call it as I see it. There's no contest in my mind that I would rather play Lakota over Hidden Creek for the host of reasons I have mentioned. As a member I can understand your pride in your club and salute you for it even when I disagree.

What's funny is that minus you as a clear exception if the designer of Lakota Canyon Ranch were one of the most favored names on GCA the course would likely get rave reviews from many of them.

[George Pazin]

Some of us feel that Hidden Creek gets a huge bounce from the talents of the two designers, not their names.

And drawing an analogy between the artifically created Rawls Course - because it was a dead flat field - and the mounding/containment found on many modern courses is just flat out wacky.

[fred ruttenberg]

Matt Ward
 My comments were directed to Cary's assertions that Lakota belongs in the top 10. I would agree that Lakota belongs among the top public courses-but not a top 10 in that  category either.

There also is a difference in making a critical evaluation about an architect's ability and how well he did with a specific site-and specific budget and an overall evaluation about the end product. Many less known architects may have the ability to produce outstanding products if given a great location etc (eg. Bandon Dunes). Perhaps, the mark of a great architect is what he does with a lesser location. You have much experience and are able to evaluate how well the architect has performed much better than I. My comments deal only with my evaluations of the end product and how it stacks up against others.

[DMoriarty]

Fred -- you say Lakota is not great -- but the sheer bulk of the people have not played the course. You get people like David M who weighs in on the design contributions of Jim Engh through the playing of only ONE COURSE. He then extrapolates that to make some sort of definitive conclusion. That is laughable and comical at the same time.

I did NOT make some sort of definitive conclusion about Engh's larger body of work.   To the contrary, I have gone out of my way to limit my conclusions to a single one of Engh's courses.  

What's up Matt?  Why won't you answer my questions?  I'd really like to know how you evaluate some of the features which are so obvious and prevalent at Black Rock - - -  The half-pipe fairways?  The amphitheatre greens?  The relegation of the better land to the houses and clubhouse?   What weight, if any, do you give these features in your evaluation?

Are these stylistic elements?  Are they indicative of Engh's style?

What is special about the shots values around the greens at Black Rock?  How about the recovery shots?

Matt, these are not unfair questions.   I am really starting to wonder why you wont answer them . . . you are usually not so coy about addressing such straight forward questions.  

Matt, you've time to take yet another pot shot at how I view golf course architecture.  So surely you have time to answer my simple questions.   How could I or anyone else view you as credible when you refuse to answer even the simplest and most straight-forward questions about one of your evaluations?

[cary lichtenstein]

Fred:

There is sooooooo much more to Lakota than your dwelling on the negative that I don't know if I really want to take the time and trouble to explain it to you.

Let me first say, that if I want to dwell on the negative at St. Andrews, I could say that 17 and 18 are awful holes. 17 you have to hit your drive over a building and then you got a sideways green with a road and wall behind that. Who would ever design that or call that a good hole.

18 is a terrible finishing hole, Tiger hit it with a 3 wood and everyone else with a driver. Its really a par 3.5 today.

So, does this make St. Adrews a bad golf course??? That  is exactly how you are trying to discredit Lakota!!!!!!!!

I was going to go thru all 18 holes, and explain all the stragety on all the shots, but I don't think its worth the effort.

Suffice it to say, while you are a really intelligent human being, it is impossible to argue rationally with you. You used to tell me your standard for rating courses was how memoriable each of the 18 holes are. Now that you are a member of Hidden Creek you have abandoned that critera.

[Matt_Ward]

Bill (now I call myself, "just your plain old everyday redanman"):

I have mentioned how Jack Nicklaus should be complimented on what he designed at Outlaw because of the manner in which the course was allowed to breathe and work in total harmony with the desert landscape.

Lyle Anderson saw fit as the principal not to have houses engulf the property -- you can also walk the property too. The vistas and mountains of the Valley of the Sun add immeasurably to the experience in playing the course and are not obscured by the McMansions that dot the rest of the courses at DM.

In addition, Jack has designed an array of greens that put pressure on the second shot / approaches throughout the round. The course is not overly penal or demanding as Geronimo and it's a bit more member oriented than the equally outstanding Chirichua course IMHO.

Jack has provided plenty of width when playing the course -- it's nearer to the green where you must deal with contours that sweep in a range of directions.

The only two lesser holes are the repetitive par-5's that climb the same hill -- one on the front (8th) and the other on the back (16th). They are good holes -- but one is sufficient. A bit more variety on that front would have been far preferred by me.

The other hole that is quite demanding is the par-4 9th -- it plays downhill but the green is quite narrow and players sometimes play towards the 10th fairway to get a better angle into the green. It's a tough hombre but I can see the points raised by some that the green is too severe. Maybe they need to play a few of Doak's before they say that.

Nonetheless, the bulk of the course provides a quality desert environment without the bombardment of "either or" golf from the tee. Granted, some people do not like desert golf at all but much of the criticism is tied to the "my way or highway" design process that way too many desert courses often follow. That's far from the case with Outlaw.

I see Outlaw in the same vein as Desert Forest -- a revolutionary design from a man who has clearly modified his points of emphasis -- strategic overlays are 100% present at Outlaw -- you don't get the idea that higher handicaps are persona non grata there. As much as people talk about Desert Highlands -- I see Outlaw as a clear advancement from a course that has way too many penal features. In many ways the creation of another relatively new desert course in the same area -- Whisper Rock by Gary Stephenson and Phil Mickelson is also well done and a top five course in the Grand Canyon State without any question IMHO.

George:

What's wacky is the inconsistency that's applied to the most favored architects versus those viewed as outsiders. Maybe you missed the point because the airplanes are flying above your head.

George -- you need to play the "other" Jersey courses that get lost in the sauce because the "true believers" of what constitutes quality golf architecture are only selling the products of a very select few. For Hidden Creek to make the top 100 in America is quite a stretch given the inability for others in the same state to get even a sniff of attention. But then again what the hell do I know -- I only live here 24/7.

The Rawls Course is pampered with plenty of mounding -- plenty of which I don't find the least bit disconcerting or annoying. However, when Fred points out the mounding at Lakota Canyon -- we go towards an overkill analysis. No doubt there are mounds on a number of holes there but the desire by the architect was handling the vast number of public players who will likely be playing the course without compromising the sheer qualities of the layout -- of which there are many IMHO. The mounds do not provide some sort of automatic "cushion" or intrusion that deflects from what the property or design was meant to be IMHO.

George -- you have not played Lakota -- do yourself a favor and avoid lumping it into the vast "modern courses" of "mounding / containment" you attribute. Jim Engh is a very talented fellow and that comes out in Lakota and Pradera IMHO.

David M:

You are a classy guy -- we see things vastly different -- nothing I say will change your mind or mine. End of story.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt and Cary:  Thanks for answering my questions.  From all of your answers, it seems that I would not find the artifice of Lakota Canyon that much different from the other Engh courses I've seen, and therefore I probably wouldn't like it very much, no matter how strategic some of the holes are.

I don't know how you can compare The Rawls Course to something in the mountains.  On flat ground, it is clear that you have to move some earth to make the course interesting.  I thought my crew did a fine job of making the shapes unpredictable and differentiated throughout the course, and not just a bunch of parallel movements down the sides of the holes [although we couldn't do much about the rectangular property boundary].  On hilly property, I think it's possible to make earthmoving seamless to the viewer, I just think Jim Engh doesn't bother.

Matt:  I like a whole lot of different styles from different architects.  I think my style is different than Bill Coore's or Mike DeVries's, even though we prefer not to move earth ... and our styles change a bit from course to course depending on what we're given.  Everyone might have thought that my style was the opposite of Mike Strantz's, but we had much more in common than people might think ... he moved earth boldly, but he did a great job making it look like it belonged there.  MacKenzie, Macdonald, Ross and Tom Fazio had radically different styles from each other, and I've appreciated certain courses by each of them.  

I'm not picking on an architect just because he likes to move earth, because sometimes that's what the property demands.  I just can't understand why someone would choose to grade every inch of every fairway and green and not try to blur any of the edges of disturbance.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()