Las Vegas Advice

[Jason Topp]

Matt:

I appreciate your extensive and thoughtful reply.  While you and I do not agree on the merits of the course, having the ability to discuss it in a frank, honest manner without resort to personal attacks is refreshing and one of the reasons I enjoy participating on this site.

Someone has put photos on the web that show a lot of detail of the course.  For some reason, I cannot post them, but this is the address:

http://daily.webshots.com/photo/44759706/44760276jkvhqQ


My comments on the holes you identify:

1.  A pretty straightforward par five that narrows as you get closer to the green.  I have no problems with it as an opening hole, but do not think it has particular merit.

2.  This hole demonstrates what I in particular do not like about Wolf Creek.  In the picture it looks like a good hole.  In real life, I did not like it.  The angle to take off the tee is a pure guess, particularly given how far it is downhill, the right to left angle of the fairway and the wind.  I would consider such a decision acceptable if it were possible to play a recovery shot if you guessed wrong, but you do not.  As I recall you are not even supposed to tread off of the green grass.  Accordingly, the hole (and the entire course) plays like it is lined with lakes on both sides of a fairway that drops around 100 feet from the tee and then rises a number of stories to the green.  The problem is compounded by the wind.  Our group took three different lines off the tee and all wound up in the rocks.  I hit a bad shot, but the others hit it where they wanted to.

I contrast this hole to holes in the UK that are similar, such as North Berwick #2 or Turnberry #9.  First, there is an opportunity for a recovery shot on those holes.  Second, there is a safe side to play off the tee if one chooses.  One person in our group tried a bunt shot to the corner but even that was a guess and he went through into the junk on the far side.

I can't remember #4 so I'm afraid I can't comment.

#7 is a fun hole.  I have to agree with you there.

I really dislike 8.  It essentially is a 248/217 yard island hole that must drop 80 feet with water on three sides (pictures 11-12 on thw website).  I would like the hole if there were a bail out area right or short, but there is not.  The space between the right edge of the green and the rocks is small.  I think it is silly to expect any level of player to enjoy that hole.

The website has fewer pictures of the back nine so I can't really comment too much on those holes.  I have faint memories of a few holes.  In addition, I was so exhausted by the back nine that any impressions I had of the course by that point would have probably been unfair anyway.

For me, this sort of golf is not enjoyable.  It is exhausing, lends itself to extremely slow play and is unplayable for about half the golfing population.  Furthermore, playing straight up and down continuous extreme slopes is fun as a change of pace on a course, but becomes old very fast.  Ultimately, I suppose the market will decide whether this type of course succeeds.







 

[Matt_Ward]

Paul Thomas:

If you are "scared" because of what people have said regarding the cart rides than you should simply skip Wolf Creek. However, if you do prefer a layout that is quite imaginative and fun to play -- although a few of the holes are somewhat pedictable and pedestrian -- than try Wolf Creek. It's close enough to Vegas and will cost you far less than the bigger ticket courses in Sin City.

Jason:

Partner -- you have to do better with your analysis.

Let's go over it shall we.

You say the 1st doesn't have "particular merit." Did you really see / understand the hole. Here you have a superb tee location that abuts the clubhouse and plunges you downward into the valley the hole occupies. Dennis Rider gives the longer player the option in going for the green in two blows but the area does narrow considerably and the small size of the green will repel any shots not well struck. The pond / stream to the right also comes into play for any shots pushed in that direction.

When you have an opening hole with that range of diversity I say it's a good bit beyond the no "particular merit" you opined.

Let's talk about #2.

When you say the word "guess" is involved and you don't appreciate it at Wolf Creek -- help me to understand how the word "guess" doesn't come into play for quality layouts across the pond with the likes of the Dell Hole at Lahinch and / or The Road Hole at TOC. Do you really believe there's no "guess" or "luck" involved with these two holes.

Let me try to explain the concept of the hole to you. Generally, the 2nd plays downwind and the player has to decide how much to cut on this dog-leg left. If you opt for the "safe" play to the right you still have to have distance control off the tee because shots can travel too far you can end up on the far side where the debris cuts back into play.

If you opt for the dramatic cut-off you have to stand and deliver. I have played the hole and with a downwind condition and from the extreme back tee have driven the ball into the right greenside bunker. It is a long shot but not one that is impossible if executed correctly.

Jason -- with all due respect -- you whine on about the wind but do you whine on about the wind when you play overseas? My point is that too many times people on GCA gush and fall over themselves with compliments on the natural / weathert conditions you face in Ireland and Scotland but then complain when it comes back to them here in the States. Wind -- and the wherewithal to handle it -- is part and parcel when playing in Mesquite.

Let me also mention this idea on having a guaranteed "safe" place to play. I don't know any situation in golf that is some sort of guaranteed safe place to play. The thing to keep in mind with #2 is that you do have options -- several of which the player faces. You have to execute but Rider doesn't expect miracles.

The reason why some people fail at Wolf Creek is that they fail to heed the words of Clint Eastwood, " A man's got to understand his limitations." I have seen people play the wrong tees there and consequently they routinely bitch and moan about how unfair the course is. Give me a break. If these same guys played the course a tee box or two in front of the championships marks it's likely the options / stragegic implications would have been more apparent. Let's not forget that Wolf Creek is a bonafide 150+ slope course from the tips.

You need to re-examine #4 if your memory comes back. It's a superb uphill dog-leg right short par-4 with plenty of options and a green site that is well done.

Appreciate your candor / re: #7.

Let's talk about #8.

Is the hole difficult. No doubt. Again -- the hole serves to intimidate you to the max and guess what -- there are players who are frozen to death before they pull the trigger on the hole. I credit that to the achitect for getting into the players' head. Keep this in mind -- players need to play the appropriate tee on the hole. I have hit as little as 5-iron from the tips and on other occasions a 3-metal because of the wind. You can lay-up short of the green but the bailout area should not be as big as Kansas to allow people to whimp out at will. The area around the green is strongly defended but there is more room -- not a helluva lot -- but enough room to hit right over the high hill that cuts in on that side.

The 8th is extremely demanding but it's not unfair. It makes players hit a long iron or wood to the target and given the lack of such holes in today's game I see it as fair game.

Jason -- you constantly harp on the exhaustion in playing the course. Let me say at the outset -- I don't like ANY courses that force players to keep carts off the fairway at all times. I would hope Wolf Creek would develop access points for carts to enter and leave. However, keep this in mind -- there are more than enough idiots who think a golf cart is a Hummer and can traverse any situation.

Wolf Creek is set in a unique and very compelling eye area. The red rock canyon walls glisten throughout the day as the sun rises and sets. You also have holes that have been fitted accordingly into the openings the land provided.

I have posted details on a number of holes at the course and the only person to post something in specifics is you. I salute you for it because you have attempted to move beyond the whining "I dont' like it" excuses that too many detractors seem to make.

Let me mention to you that Wolf Creek does very well financially and the tee sheet is quite full in most instances. I appreciate your comments but I do disagree with them. If you examine the pure shot-making challenges you encounter -- versus the cart ride up and down elements -- you will find that Wolf Creek does quite well. When I see all the fanfare attached to Shadow Creek, Cascata and Rio Seco I have to shake my head because the real design elements are located about 75 miles east of Vegas in Mesquite.

Adam:

Partner -- you need to provide specifics on the holes in question. You've simply applied the broad-brush tag of "putrid" to Wolf Creek. It's no different than a small child who shakes their head and proclaims they "don't like" such and such food. There can be no discussion when no details are provided.

I've tried to put out specifics on particular holes at Wolf Creek and to highlight the aspects of Shadow Creek that are lacking. I salute Wynn and Fazio for being so courageous in developing a facility from the ground floor at Shadow Creek. Just keep this in mind -- the overwhelming story on Shadow Creek is how it came into existence -- it trumps by far the end product there now. Wolf Creek was created from a very unique and special piece of property. The story there is twofold -- how it was build and the nature of the holes (a good many of them) you see there now.

[Jason Topp]

Matt:

I think I fully understand the holes I discussed and we have differences of opinion.  No problem there.  I do not view the quality of a course to be an objective standard but largely a subjective one.

I do want to address your allegation of a double standard regarding the impact of wind.  In general, I enjoy playing in the wind.  I prefer that courses be designed to accomodate it.  I think the wind is a particular problem on this course because of the additional factors of essentially having out of play conditions on each side of the hole and the guess factor associated with playing straight up and straight down steep terrain.  Combined, these factors require either a high level of skill or defensive play.  I don't have a high level of skill and I hate defensive play.

I contrast the experience at Wolf Creek with the experience at Sutton Bay.  Sutton Bay is on a windy site, but provides a very enjoyable test that is playable in severe conditions and provides for opportunities for recovery on the inevitable occassions that I hit it sideways.  It also provides plenty of opportunities where an agressive play is a reasonable play.

I think the same analysis can be made on most links courses.  There are opportunities to be aggressive and defensive throughout the round, and the penalty for screwing up is usually an interesting recovery challenge.  

In another vein, contrast the Dell hole with #8 at Wolf Creek.  On the Dell, you know you have a 160 yard shot over a dune that is (probably) slightly uphill.  First off, through experience, I have a pretty good idea of what is required to pull the shot off.  Second, if I fail to pull the shot off, I have an interesting recovery shot.  I see the 8th at Wolf Creek as esssentially the 17th at the TPC at Sawgrass, extended to 248 (or 217) yards with the tee raised 10 stories.  

I like your Clint Eastwood line, but my preference is for a course that, on most holes, allows for an interesting recovery shot if a person misjudges his limitations.  I know I am not good enough to do well on #8 real often.

Also, I prefer one that can be played in a reasonable amount of time.  Any idea what the average time to complete a round is at Wolf Creek at noon with a full tee sheet?  I would guess at least 5 hours.

[A_Clay_Man]

Matt, All I have are big brush strokes. The surgical disection of the parts, is largely tedium for me. And I never said putrid, what I did was call the art of the architecture, puke. Cal me a snob, I don't care, but don't try and convince people that this work is ground breaking or comes even close to inspiring. Mostly it's dis-jointed and the cart ride is the only thing consistent that connnects the routing. The golf course can be a fun one, I will give you that, and I did like several shot demands. However, when the sum of the whole is less than the sum of the parts, it should not be confused with great GCA, and it should never be associated with art. I also liked the intimacy that the routing provided, in spots. I just take exception with this notion that it belongs on the table of discussing the countries best golf courses architecture. It's somewhat similar to the Jim Engh motiff that runs through this discussion group, except Jim Engh actually has designed a few holes that are worthy of discussion at this table.
Matt, Is there one hole or aspect to a hole at WC, that is original? Something that you hadn't seen before?

Go to Holyoke if you want to see cutting edge great art.

[George Pazin]

There is actually a decent amount that is original at Wolf Creek. Whether it contributes to advancement of the art of gca is another question entirely.

I haven't seen holes like #2, #8, or #13(? the L shaped short par 4) anywhere. I'm not sure I'd want to see them anywhere else.

To me, WC is goofy golf on a large scale. Lahinch might have the Dell Hole, but it has a bunch of other solid/great holes as well. It doesn't have 15 Dell holes.

Go to WC if you want to see your tee shot fly a looooooooooong way. I hit a 5 iron there that went about a half mile.

Go to WC if you want to spend a leisurely 6 hour round.

Go to WC if you want to see back tees that are virtually never used.

Go to WC if you want to hear cart tires screech all day long.

Go to WC if you enjoy riding over speed bumps in carts.

Go to WC if you've always wondered what it would be like to play a course like the holes in that bizarro calendar of "Toughest golf holes you'll never play" - here you can play 'em.

Don't go if you like to play golf.

 

[Matt_Ward]

George --

Got to give you an A+ -- when you talk out of your butt you sure do go for the big time.

The average round time at Wolf Creek is roughly 5 hours. I contacted the course and they do monitor play quite closely. You may have played the one time you played the course in something close to the time frame you mentioned -- but that's more the exception than the constant rule that I have personally experienced and I have been there on no less than six (6) occasions. But then again what the hell does Ward know.

George --- c'mon and help me stop laughing. When in God's green earth do you give a rats ass about the back tees and who uses them. No doubt most people should be playing from tee boxes appropriate to their game. George -- allow me to clue you in -- give points to management for keeping the back tees closed when you have a 150+ slope rating and when most people can't hit Kansas from the Oklahoma state line. When jokers think they can handle the back tees atWolf Creek they must have had a good sixpack or two to dream they could handle such a challenge. Management at Wolf Creek doesn't put up with that sort of nonsense.

Yes, I did mention the aspect of the carts. Here it boils down to whether people believe carts should play a role in any routing. Clearly, given the nature of the site carts are needed for 98% of the people who don't have the requisite strength to walk such a layout. The key think to remember is that the distance between holes is only a major issue when you leave the 13th green and head up to the 14th tee. The rest are very near each other.

George -- let's be abit more honest and less of a stuffed shirt when you say that Wolf Creek is not golf. I'll say this again for the upteeeenth time because it's so easy to generalize instead of providing specifics to specific holes. I've done that with Jason -- all you and Adam do wing it with generalities and the broadbrush sweep. A real nice tough since you generally favor the details approach rather than the spray paint job you're giving the course.

Last point -- George, the Dell hole is quirk magnified to the nnnnnth degree. If the same exact hole were at Wolf Creek you folks would be bitching and moaning how it fails tobe consistent and is just a cheap architectural gimmick.

Oh, but when it's in Ireland -- the wax poetic style takes hold because of where it's located -- rather than the merits / lack thereof of the hole in question. I love Lahinch so I don't need people lectguring me on the merits of that famed layout. The Dell Hole for me is given artistic license by you and others here as some sort of unique and fun hole. Fair enough. Wolf Creek has comparable "fun" holes but because of location -- with no real specifics mentioned by its detractors -- the course is tossed as some sort equivalent of theme park golf.

Last item -- the 13th hole is a supreme short par-4 with plenty of options. The box canyon location for the green works very well and heaven help anyone who is too frisky with the approach and gets above the nicely contoured green.

[George Pazin]

Matt -

Re: pace of play -

The "time behind" thing on my cart read close to 2 hours by the end of play - and we were waiting on every shot. But maybe my experience was different from everyone else's.

Re: the 13th - It certainly was unique. I'd love to know the green was clear and just stand there pounding 3 irons blindly over the ridge to see if I could hit the green. That would be fun - but it's not really golf in my book.

Re: the back tees - I certainly don't care if they' re not used. But the single digit handicappers in my group were more than a little annoyed. I don't think it's like overseas, where they save them for championships. I think they just realized what they had to work with.

The course may be walkable, but when I was there that was not an option. And even if it was, you still have to listen to the screeching tires all day long.

As I said, the Dell is quirk to the nth degree. But it's one hole out of 18, not 15 out of 18. If there were as many Dell holes at Lahinch as there are bizarre holes at WC, none of us would have ever heard of Lahinch. Or we'd be mentioning in the same light as WC.

WC is what it is. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone in good conscience without pointing out its many faults - er, eccenticities.

I really like the par 3 3rd, the par 5 12th and the par 4 14th. They were interesting holes. The 13th was interesting, too, but in a totally different way. Ditto the 7th.

I would actually like to hear more from other people who've played WC other than "what spectacular scenery". You've been quite clear in your likes and dislikes for the course, few others have.

I think the Grand Canyon has spectacular scenery as well, but I wouldn't want to see a golf course there.

Thanks for the A+, btw.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

Just as you and I will never agree on the greatness of a certain part three at a certain historic golf club in Mamaroneck, or the greatness of a certain other entirely manufactured golf course in Las Vegas, you and George will never agree on Wolf Creek, and it's futile for either of you to try and convince the other at this point.  You're just coming from two so completely different viewpoints, it's really silly to even try.

George has made it very clear, many times, that he doesn't like desert golf in general (the man also wasn't too impressed with Black Mesa for god's sake):  strike one against Wolf Creek.

He's also made it clear many times he doesn't like cart-ball, in general:  strike two.

ANY course with those two clear-cut strikes against it is going to have a very difficult time getting a decent at-bat.

So isn't it best to just let it be?

Now understand me also - I have no dog in this fight, and I've never played Wolf Creek so all I know is from photos.  I will say this:  more people I've talked to who actually played it have liked it and/or called it great than have disliked it.  That's likely because I have a whole world of friends and contacts outside of this forum.    Interesting also that is scores so well in Golfweek's rankings (#68 modern?) given their normal predilection toward the traditional/minimalist.

In any case the bottom line is this:  George thinks the course sucks and has every right to do so - in his way of looking at courses, it does.  And he is absolutely not wrong in this opinion.

So just as I have punted and agreed to disagree with him about Black Mesa, understanding his viewpoint, well it might be best if you do so here.

And be prepared to take that tactic with a lot of other regulars here also about Wolf Creek.  This is a beef wellington crowd most definitely, and you're asking them to appreciate free-range chicken breast with apricot/chardonnay glaze and organic field greens and tofu pate on the side.

 

[George Pazin]

Nice try at mediation, Huck.

Actually, I don't think the course sucks, I just don't think it's golf.

And, to be clear, I was impressed with Black Mesa, just not for a high handicap golfer.

And WC is not just cartball, it's the NASCAR of cartball - the only thing missing are restrictor plates, which I'm sure they are trying to design so that they can get rid of the waiver.

And I'd actually prefer free range chicken to beef wellington, but I've always been kind of eccentric in my tastes.

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

Point understood but try to figure this one out. People gush and gush about quirk stuff across thepond and plenty of it is nothing more than the "gotcha" variety of design school stuff.

Then when these same folks come back to the States and enounter some of the same things here in the southwest it's looked upon as silly and contrived stuff.

Like I said you could beam the Dell Hole right to Wolf Creek and the same people who wax poetic about the hole in Ireland would crucify it if located in Mesquite.

Huck -- yes, George and I see it differently. But quirk is blessed with old world charm when the address is Ireland and Scotland. Places like Nevada need not apply.

George:

Here is a perfect example of a one time play versus someone else with multiple rounds. The pace of play you encountered is certainly different from the times I have been there.

Regarding the 13th hole -- George, my good man, you are sadly mistaken. The smart play is to leave yourself a range of 100-120 yard approach. Going for the green (at least from the back tees) can only be accomplished with a Herculean blow and the most renown instincts for carry and line angle.

It is a superb short par-4 blessed with a tough and demanding green. Locating the green in the box canyon works quite well. Let's just say you are set with your thoughts on this hole as I am. We will not change each other's minds on this one.

The back tees can be played with prior approval from management. Too many times they get the Miller crowd just intent on wasting their time and everyone else's because they are not in fact bonafide low handicap types -- no disrespect to the guys who were with you.

By all means -- I'd love to hear from others but I would want to see some clear details and something a good deal beyond the "putrid" tag applied by Adam.

[THuckaby2]

I am not giving up, as I believe I am a plus-three handicap mediator.

 

Matt - you need to give up this "old work quirk ok, new world quirk not accepted" mantra.  It's tired and frankly, it's not true.  None of WC's critics, including George, have ever mentioned that they find it too quirky - their criticisms are actually about everything BUT the quirkiness.  Perhaps you have found this criticism elsewhere, I don't know - it's just wrong to transport it to this conversation.  And in the end it doesn't matter... it also weakens your point.  Just stick to the course specifically - as you always want others to do - and leave the generalizations out.  You can and have made very strong points about the greatness of this course as it is, outside of this mantra.

George - your take is eminently reasonable - just do understand that for some people the golf shots matter FAR more than how one gets to them, and difficult golf shots are a good thing, especially in the extreme situation like exists at Wolf Creek.  A difficult site was made into a roller-coaster turbo-golf thrill ride.  That's not your cup of tea - OBVIOUSLY - but lot's of people do enjoy it and their position is every bit as reasonable as yours is.

So both of you think about what exists at Wolf Creek, and you have to realize that you two will NEVER see eye to eye on it.

Thus all of this is just grist for the mill.  Entertaining grist, but grist none the less.

 

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

You missed my point but as wide as the Grand Canyon is.

There is a different standard applied by some here on GCA to golf across the pond and how golf is viewed upon when in locales here in the States that are not generally thought of as golf oriented places.

Mesquite, Nevada just happens to be one of them.

I asked for specifics from Jason, George and Adam and the best they each come up with is a repetitive generalized theme on what is actually at Wolf Creek. In most cases -- unless they say differently -- each of them has only played the course once. I've had the fortune in playing it several times and in 3 instances with handicap types that range from 1 to 28.

Huck -- what's funny is that I HAVE STUCK TO THE DETAILS OF THE COURSE and the other side continues with the broad brush bromides about cart rides and the like.

Yes, let's talk about strategic holes because Wolf Creek does have it. I was quite candid in saying the course is more akin to a match play set-up than stroke play. I also fairly opined that certain holes are weak (e.g. the 10th and 11th) and that the obligatory waterfall at the 18th is just more Vegas show BS.

However, when George badly states the nature of the 13th hole I hold him accountable -- ditto the mis-representation by Jason of the 8th hole. No less than Tillinghast said that a long iron or approach to a tightly protected green is a sure sign of the qualities of the golfer. The 8th at Wolf Creek calls for that type of play. Is that shot demanding? Absolutely but it does provide for a bailout -- but not permitting some sort of cheap way out around the main challenge presented.

When people critique a course the idea of carts and the rides they provide are nothing more to me than an aside -- comparable to holding down a golf course if the quality of the range balls is anything other than Titleists. I have said in previous threads that I find no objection to carts provided the rides are not onerous throughout the layout. The only serious ride at Wolf Creek is from #13 green to #14 tee. The rest are in line with any other development of its type. Clearly, when people concentrate on cart rides and fail to discuss the golf then I know where their real focus / critique rests.

Huck -- the site at Wolf Creek is clearly unique and out of the norm for "classic" golf. I will say this again -- if you execute the shot(s) required at Wolf Creek the cardinal rule of golf design is followed -- you will be rewarded accordingly and penalized proportionally to the manner in which the shot is played. Frankly, when a course does that consistently I don't see it as being some sort of freak or oddball place.

However, you have people -- likely George is one of them -- who favors the style of Fox Chapel or Pittsburgh Field Club -- and heaven help any course that doesn't EXACTLY provide that style or blueprint. My tastes in golf courses is a bit more pragmatic and certainly more flexible.

When I see George downplay Black Mesa because it can't accomodate the 30+ handicap type then I know he's reaching for big time straws in his flawed analysis. The golf course at Black Mesa is very fair and can accomodate any type of player who understandsa their limitations. People who spray the ball three fairways over need to return to the range before going out on any course.

I never said Wolf Creek was a "must" play layout but it does offer a range of holes that provide for fun and interesting situations and to have the course on such a unique piece of property makes for some fun times for those with open minds. Unfortunately, the minds who pan Wolf Creek are quite closed to anything other than the narrow band of courses they see as being the essence of golf design. So be it.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

I still don't see where anyone complains about quirk at Wolf Creek and while accepting it at UK/Ireland courses.  Their complaints don't seem to be about quirk at all, but rather about the overly penal/severe nature of the course as they see it, and overpresence carts and paths and speedbumps.  Thus I still find your conclusion here to be flawed, as to me this isn't about quirk at all.  It's about severity.

But that's OK, because the rest of what you say makes perfect sense to me.

I just still can't understand why this seems to bother you... if a guy prefers a Fox Chapel or PFC, then why would you ever expect him to even tolerate a Wolf Creek?  It's not his cup of tea - like George says, it's not golf for him - so that really should be the end of the conversation.

You can't covert the world, nor win every battle, Matt.  Yes your approach does seem to be more flexible and pragmatic.  But that doesn't make it any more "right" than George's.

Because there is no right and wrong about any of this.  Oh I too think George's take on Black Mesa is, let's just say, unique... but it's not wrong and I for one have given up trying to show him the error of his ways, because really he is no more or less in error than I am about that course.

Just repeat after me:  "to each his own... to each his own... to each his own...."

 

[Mike_Golden]

I haven't been in Mesquite in about 10 years so haven't seen Wolf Creek but played Oasis there twice and absolutely, totally HATED it.  And this was before I knew anything about golf course architecture.  From memory, it seemed like almost every green was elevated on a shelf above the fairway and the ones that weren't were in a canyon where you took your life in your hands just trying to stay on the freaking cartpath.  When the cartpaths have switchbacks I'm going to find something better to do than be out there.   The only thing that made Oasis not rank lower on my Never Play Again list was that I had played BADlands the day before

[THuckaby2]

Mike G - I too have played Oasis several times... oh man if you hated that you'd go completely insane playing Wolf Creek.  I haven't actually played the latter either, but from everything I see, hear, read Wolf Creek makes Oasis look flat and normal.

 

All this being said, well I didn't mind Oasis at all and I got a kick out of the box-canyon holes... to me it was unique and you know I am far from averse to playing out of a cart.  That's why all this Wolf Creek talk has me as excited to see it as you are likely vowing to never do so!

[George Pazin]

Matt, I've offered details upon details for the 4 years since I've been to Wolf Creek. I am tired of rehashing the same thing because you can't see fit to remember the details, much like your COMPLETELY PATHETIC MISCHARACTERIZATION OF MY ANALYSIS OF BLACK MESA.

I'm glad to hear they're doing a better job of policing slow play. As for #13, how many options are there if it's simply a matter of "it's best approached from 100-120 yards out"? Doesn't sound like a great short par 4 to me, or even a particularly good one.

I find it telling that once again you've resorted to the "I've played it multiple times but you haven't so your opinion doesn't count." Funny how when Brian Sleeman used a similar approach regarding how Greywalls' 18th plays, you resorted to "you've played it too many times, you need a fresh eye," much as you did with the many people who jousted with you over Rustic Canyon. Nice consistency.

Please inform of the debating rules in advance next time so I can adjust my posts accordingly. On second thought, maybe I'll just ignore your posts.

Huck -

It's not just a matter of it being cartball and the shots being difficult. I have no problem with either of those - God knows I've played plenty of cartball tracks, and most courses are too hard for me. This course is just not one I'm particularly fond of, for a million different reasons. Repetitive shots, bizarro holes, a completely unnatural setting, the many issues tied into the cartball thing (tire screeching, speed bumps. waivers), slow play - I could go on. I could disect the course's holes as I have several times before, but I'm past that. Many others have agreed with me on the course, including people whose opinions I really respect.

As I said in my initial post on this thread, WC is the ultimate love-it-or-hate-it course. Matt loves it, for all the reasons he's stated, I hate it, for all the reasons I've stated. Intrestingly enough, many of those reasons are the similar, which further illustrates my point. In a subjective field like this, neither of us is necessarily wrong, I just like to share a counterpoint for people who are considering going there. Matt, as usual, just likes to tell everyone what their opinion should be.

[THuckaby2]

George:  OK, I can live with that, as when you say:

"In a subjective field like this, neither of us is necessarily wrong, I just like to share a counterpoint for people who are considering going there.

I am halfway to mediation success.

But then we take a step backward when you say:

Matt, as usual, just likes to tell everyone what their opinion should be.

That may be true, and he sure does come off that way at times, but we need to get past that.  

 

[Mike_Golden]

Hey, at least all of us agree on one universal fact, which is.....

BADLANDS is just horrible

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Wake up partner because you are certainly in coma land on this one.

The 13th at Wolf Creek is a superb short hole. The dog-leg right gives the player the option in deciding whether the gamble in going over the corner of the hillside is worth the risk. That's fair game in my book and a plus for the design of the hole.

Most players will need to consider option #2 which is more prudent -- hitting a solid fairway metal to the corner of the turn. The shot needs to be precisely placed to give you a clean look at the green which is neatly elevated deep within the box canyon.

The green is beautifully contoured from back to front and the player needs to gauge perfectly the amount of distance the approach needs to cover.

If you pull the tee shot left the angle becomes greater and there is the very real possibility you can go too far and block yourself out that way -- see the falloff behind the fairway that abuts the lower left portion of the 14th fairway.

George your "dissection" of the holes at Wolf Creek invariably goes back to the same tired and yawn oriented lame defense that the "average" golfer can't handle the challenge there so ipso facto the course fails. Please forgive me but it's gets so old when I hear this "man of the masses" argument without any attributable beef -- especially coming from a one time play. The simple facts are that any golfer who doesn't play the right tees at Wolf Creek has it coming to him -- and any golfer who thinks they want to play the tips (150+ slope) had better be a low handicap type with the complete wherewithal to control the ball. There are multiple ways to play nearly all the holes and if you stay within your comfort zone the opportunity to succeed is certainly bolstered.

George -- I defend my opinions in the greatest of details -- I don't cut and run with some sort of billboard posting of certain adjectives and leave it at that. ON GCA it's fair game to rigorously question people -- both ways I might add -- when they state in clear terms the ups and downs of any golf course. If people can't hack that no holds barred style (minus the personal invective) then that's just too dam bad. I take a very strong exception to your opinion -- so do you of mine -- but it becomes once again the tired "Ward is trying to impose his opinion" argument. I take exception to people who apply broad brush tags like Adam. Too often people assess courses on how they play them and therefore the tag of being a nongolf course or something from some imaginary calendar posting of fake holes is truly hilarious and misplaced in a big time way.

George -- the issue with Greywalls has different sides to it on the 18th hole. Clearly, someone who has played it multiple times has the edge on me from having played it just one time. I also fully disclosed the nature of the wind conditions when I played it and how it might have affected my analysis of the hole from just that one encounter. George -- do yourself a huge favor -- go back and RE-READ all the items I mentioned on the 18th at Greywalls before you conveniently chop out one or two senetences and try to pin me in some sort of Pazin word game corner.

If you want to opt out and not play in the lion's den with me when courses are discussed so be it. If you can dish out arguments be prepared to handle them in reverse.

George -- let's cut to the chase -- you have a very narrow and particular sense on what constitutes superior golf design. That's fine. I try to be a bit more flexible and pragmatic. We see it differently as Huck has described. Nuff said.

[A_Clay_Man]

I never said Wolf Creek was a "must" play layout but it does offer a range of holes that provide for fun and interesting situations and to have the course on such a unique piece of property makes for some fun times for those with open minds. Unfortunately, the minds who pan Wolf Creek are quite closed to anything other than the narrow band of courses they see as being the essence of golf design. So be it.

Matt Matt Matt, I dont mean to be impolite you ignorant slut   BUT, that is a pan. That is what every one has said and yet here we have pages of posts that volley back and forth, for what? Some slight deviation on a tangent of GCA, which is best described  as it gives the feeling of those posters with greens perched on the edge of an abyss.  

C'mon,  Man what's the real skinny? what's your angle? Another Hamilton client?

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

I have no connection whatsoever to Wolf Creek at Paradise Canyon. The simple reality is what I have posted time and time again.

You, with all due respect partner, have been the one who doesn't post any hole details but just lobs forward the broad as a brush generalized comments.

Adam -- stay with me on this please -- how would you like it if someone -- anyone -- lobbed such vague and general comments forward on Pinon Hills? I'm sure you would jump right in and ask the person(s) to further elaborate their contentions. Well, guess what partner, I'm doing that to you because for someone who should know better -- the devil is in the details provided and you have not come remotely close to any real details on the layout.

I'll say this again because you once again panned -- how consistent is that(?) -- what I did say on Wolf Creek. If you execute the shots properly and comnsistently you will be rewarded proportionally to the level of execution you provide as a player. Frankly, the silly and at times ignorant comments on Wolf Creek proves to me that some people are more interested in evaluating cart paths and cart rides than the actual courses themselves.

Maybe people can also critique whether the bag guy at any clubs visited actually says hello when you pull the car over with one's clubs.

[A_Clay_Man]

Adam:

I have no connection whatsoever to Wolf Creek at Paradise Canyon. The simple reality is what I have posted time and time again.

You, with all due respect partner, have been the one who doesn't post any hole details but just lobs forward the broad as a brush generalized comments.

Adam -- stay with me on this please -- how would you like it if someone -- anyone -- lobbed such vague and general comments forward on Pinon Hills? I'm sure you would jump right in and ask the person(s) to further elaborate their contentions. Well, guess what partner, I'm doing that to you because for someone who should know better -- the devil is in the details provided and you have not come remotely close to any real details on the layout.

I'll say this again because you once again panned -- how consistent is that(?) -- what I did say on Wolf Creek. If you execute the shots properly and comnsistently you will be rewarded proportionally to the level of execution you provide as a player. Frankly, the silly and at times ignorant comments on Wolf Creek proves to me that some people are more interested in evaluating cart paths and cart rides than the actual courses themselves.

Maybe people can also critique whether the bag guy at any clubs visited actually says hello when you pull the car over with one's clubs.

Matt, Have you ever felt the spirituality one feels when golfing a great venue,? no matter how many devilish details ,that spirituality is only felt at Wolf Creek while your golf ball is out of play, Standing on the tee box looking out over the vistas.
This is not great golf, it's great vista viewing. One of the aspects of Red Sky Norman I liked was that you could appreciate the vistas intra-hole, while your ball was in play, laterally, not soely on the teeing ground ala Wolf Creek

These macho shot values you put so much emphasis on, are, IMO, your issues. They are probably the biggest culprit that stops you from feeling and experiencing what to many, golf course design should be. The natural blending of physiical realities to create a compelling and intriguing challenge. In this regard, Wolf Creek and Mr. Rider made no attempt. The transition to the native, alone, is as stark as any I have ever seen.

And could you please name one golf course (and you may include miniature golf too)that doesn't do the following?

If you execute the shots properly and comnsistently you will be rewarded proportionally to the level of execution you provide as a player.

[David Druzisky]

Having been there a bunch over the past 5 years or so I think you run into the overal market influence leaning towards typical vegas - flashly with little depth - so you just dont get the type of inspirational golf you might hope for, especially for the greens fees they get there.

With that understood, there are still golf courses in the area worth trying.  Beyond personal bias of my Dragon Ridge, Primm, Reflection, and Paiute are all strong.  Shadow Creek I guess, but at that cost!?  Primm is probably the best value, even with the drive down I-15 to the CA border.  The drive to Wolf Creek is your choice at a little more than an hour.  Wild!  Worthy?   Lodging there is cheaper, same with Primm.

Watch out for overseeding schedule.

[George Pazin]

George -- let's cut to the chase -- you have a very narrow and particular sense on what constitutes superior golf design. That's fine. I try to be a bit more flexible and pragmatic. We see it differently as Huck has described. Nuff said.

Matt, the biggest difference between you and me - aside from the fact that I show respect for people whose opinions differ from my own, unlike yourself - is that I see the above statement as a positive. Yes, I have very distinct and clear ideas as to what I like. I'm always open to new ideas, but just because I don't like something that is different doesn't mean that I will automatically adjust my criteria to reflect some other person's idea of fair and balanced. My ideas are my own - I know no other approach than to apply them to my experiences. I am very clear about my likes and dislikes and don't try to tell anyone who disagrees that they should have my opinion or theirs doesn't count. I'm not the one who tries to be "The man of the people", you are. You're the one who constantly claims to rate for all levels of golfer - I only do so for myself. Someday you ought to actually think about what you harp on others for - most of it suits you to a T. And judging by my discussions with others, I'm not the only one who thinks so.

If you want to opt out and not play in the lion's den with me when courses are discussed so be it. If you can dish out arguments be prepared to handle them in reverse.

This is exactly the type of chicken shit response I expect from you. I've been sharing my opinion on WC for 4 years, but just because you don't take the time to read it and remember it, you accuse me of cutting and running. Totally pathetic.

I'll summarize one last time - if you want more meat, look in the archives:

I thought the course looked completely artificial. This might not matter to you, but it does to me.

I thought several of the holes were repetitive or mundane. 1,2, and 5 were too similar to me - slightly different tee shots, but basically just a climb to the same green after that. Hitting tee shots perched on a ledge like 2 & 5 (I relatively certain it was 5, but it was 4 years ago and I don't have my yardage guide handy) just doesn't do much for me. I hit the ball far enough on my own, I don't need elevation to feel better about myself.

I think the course is horrible for anyone with a fear of heights. I didn't realize how bad my own was until I played here. I felt queasy throughout the round, and one of my friends actually walked off after the 5th hole. This may not affect others, but I think it's fair to point out, in case someone else may have a problem with it. I've felt this way a few times since on different courses, and make sure I ask people if I can expect the same from any other course. It's not a feeling I relish, but there really isn't anything I can do about it - it's inside me and not leaving. I probably won't ever play Cape Kidnappers because of it, it's that strong.

I really liked the skyline green on the 3rd (I thought it both looked and played well), I thought the 7th was a good form of quirk, I thought the 12th was an interesting gently descending par 5 with an interesting green, and I thought the 14th (I think, the long curving par 4 over the valley and up the hill) was a pretty good hole. I might like 15 (I think) a little better if the tee shot weren't so penal.

So there were some holes that I liked, though certainly not the majority.

As I stated in my very first post on this thread, WC is a love it or hate it course. When you throw in all the negatives I mentioned before - slow, constant screeching tires, unnatural setting, some questionable holes - and couple it with my unfortunate fear of heights, well, I hated it.

Your opinion obviously differs, and that's fine. I just like to share my thoughts on a course that I've played - that is allowed, isn't it? Even if it's different from your opinion? This is a discussion site, no?

Now I'm done. If you care to infer that I'm ducking out, well, that is your problem.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Your "likes" and "dislikes" from my vantage point is a very narrow one and often titled to the exclusion of anything other than "classic" designed courses. Let me point out that any number of modern courses in the States are well done but suffer from a lack of visibility -- often times from people on this site who only play the same profile type course almost to exclusion.

Too many people here on GCA are more concerned with the navel of Tillinghast, Flynn and Mackenzie, to name just three (all supremely talented I might add before any yahooes bark), than realize how very much talented so many modern architects are today with the right site.

I saluted designer Dennis Rider for the imagination and risk he took with the site in Mesquite. The course is a match play panacea because of the various risk and reward options that are present throuhout the round. You commented about a few holes but there is scant detail and real analysis -- just the worn out record of the course being some sort of fantasy layout and not anywhere connected to "real" golf. I asked show me and others the beef -- then we get the flip argument of making Ward the issue simply because I disagree with your novel attenpt at course analysis.

George -- from where I come from -- that is the classic bait and switch tactic. When you can't answer the questions providwed you turn the subject around and make me the issue. Please. Can we deal with the task at-hand?

I even mentioned -- to be evenhanded -- how the 10th and 11th holes don't fit as well with the others and the waterfall besides the 18th is simply a Vegas addition that has nothing to do with the site or the architecture there.

Granted, your oveall take on modern courses may be influenced because you play far less of the modern courses out there than I annually do. I concur -- Wolf Creek is not going to be everyone's cup of tea -- but where I take strong issue with you is your base level analysis on several of the holes there. The 13th is just one example -- there are others.

Your focus was primarily in the cart rides / paths at the course. Geeze George -- should I and others also inquire on what balls are used ont he range or if the ranger greeted you when you came to the course?

I answered the situation on the carts on very clear terms -- there is only one ride of significant length -- from the 13th green to the 14th tee. There are numerous other courses that have been profiled here on GCA with far longer rides that are still assessed in very positive terms. I;ve also opined that in general I see carts as a situation that although regrettable is not going to disappear. So long as the rides are not the predominant aspect when playing a course through long rides and the likes I have no issue with them.

I also address this silly notion that Wolf Creek is goof ball type golf. The classic determination for any course is the wherewithal to consistently reward good shots and penalize poor shots proportionally to the manner by which they were executed. Wolf Creek does that no less than any other solid designed effort that I have played. People need to realize that golf in the southwest will offer some different wrinkles than the courses they play regularly in their neck of the woods. If you can't understand or accept that then don't play golf there.

A few of your other comments from your last post --

"I thought the course looked completely artificial ..."

Hello George -- guess where the course is located -- the community of Mesquite, NV is in the middle of some of the most remote and most driest terrain you can find. Were you expecting Fantasy Island and some sort of green "natural" oasis like Shadow Creek?

*1,2, and 5 were too similar to me ..."

Really. The first is a well done starter and a superb par-5 that tests all types of players. Plenty of width in the fairway and a gorgeous view of the terrain you will encounter as you step onto the tee box. The strategic implications are also clear -- if one uncorks a long tee shot the green can be hit in two provided the approach is air-tight. The hole also narrow in the landing area for the second shots of players who don't go for the green.

The 2nd is a dog-leg left and a mega risk and reward type hole. There are several angles of attack and the bailout area is not an automatic gain unless executed properly.

The 5th can be played as long par-4 or short par-5. Here the drive is slightly downhill and the bend in the fairway must be respected because of the desert that lies to that side. The green is much more elevated than the first two and calls upon the player to take the proper club to get anywhere near the putting surface. The green also tilts quite noticeably from back to front.

Each of the holes is rather different in terms of the drive zone requirements -- both for distance and direction. Let me mention your contention about elevated tee shots. Tell me how the elevated tee shots take away from the qualities of the hole themselves? I don't see it. Keep in mind the height of the elevations vary and the carry to the optimum locations also varies for each of the holes provided -- although the carry to #1 is far shorter than the other two holes.

*"I think the course is horrible for anyone with a fear of heights. I didn't realize how bad my own was until I played here. I felt queasy throughout the round, and one of my friends actually walked off after the 5th hole."

George -- I'll be sure to tell management to include airsick bags for customers.

Let me mention to you that the 15th hole is a short par-3 and is well done. The green is somewhat wider towards the front third of the landing area but becomes approiately narrow the further back the pin is located. For a hole of 137 yards having a tiny target subject to winds that can be quite strong really makes the player have to hit a superb approach. George -- if you have an issue with this hole don't ever go to Doonbeg and try to tackle the short par-3's there.

George -- for God's sake -- stop with the incessant whining on and on about whether GCA is a discussion site. Sure it is. And guess what partner -- people can and do have their opinions challenged on this site and from that back and forth dialogue maybe people can learn something from one another. Heaven forbid George you might see another perspective from someone like myself. Let me further add that I do appreciate your take on the holes you analyzed far more than Adam's will-of-the-wisp touchy feely approach to course assessments.

We agree to disagree on Wolf Creek -- on that point
George -- dare I say that -- we do agree.