Quick questions with Jim Engh

[Jay Flemma]

There are very few golf courses that don't charge just as much as they think they can get for a round of golf and keep the course reasonably busy -- such as those donated by philanthropists (Ken Kavanaugh's course in Wyoming, The Rawls Course) or courses funded by other outside forces (munis, Old Works which was Superfunded).  Those may deserve special praise, but they're a small subset.

So a really great course is a victim of its own success according to your system.  If it commands higher prices, it loses points.  .

Tom D:  I can think of a few examples outside that paradigm.  For example, atunyote at Turning stone.  The HIGHEST any public course within a couple hundred mile radius (COUPLE HUNDRED MILE RADIUS!!!) of that course charges is $60.  They charge $180 for 1 round, no reduced rates and they do it expressly because 1) and this is a direct quote "its a tom fazio signature course" and 2)  they IGNORE exactly how unsuccessful they really are since the golf is a loss leader for the casino and a boondagle. and 3)  the ONLY other public daily fee courses competing with it are Conklin, Greystone and Hiawatha...all from $50-60 a round.  

Yes, the pricing in the immediate region is a factor as well...but perhaps can that be analyzed less than or at the very least in conjunction with a more simple review of "do you get your money's worth in the design and to a lesser exetent the natural setting?"  

Sean, I read your post carefully and while I am a militant walker are you perhaps saying some terrain might be too severe for golf simply because the walk is too strenuous or long?

Now...militant walker issue aside...I still found it necessary to reward lakota canyon for three reasons...one the holes are super.  2) the natural setting is equally super, 3 the price is WELL worth $75.  God willing it stays there, I'll have an idyllic retreat to balance out my heavenly days at Pradera when my ship comes in and I retire to CAH-LOW-RAH-DO.

Yeah...I docked a couple points for the murderous...murderous walk...but the walk was more the course's not putting in walking paths, than Jim doing anything wrong. all his other courses except sanctuary have paths.

I hope lakota adds the walking paths because I'll go back in aheartbeat and try walking it again.  They also need to shave those unsightly collars around the greens.  Jim NEVER intended those thick collars to be there...they limit the chipping options he put around the greensides.

Now Sean tell me what's your take on the "Calculus Exam" example I set forth in another thread.  Professor whittlesley has Jim's math exam in his hand.  The answer to question 6 is 23.5, but Jim has 23...but Jim showed all his work...all his formulas and calculations...so the professor can see "ah..Jim, you forgot to carry the 2 over here...that's your only mistake...I can give you partial credit...you get a 93 instead of losing all the points for that question and getting say an 83.

In the paradigm, I feel affordability is much more important than walkability...get people to the golf course.  Let them see natures beauty and majesty...everybody, beggar and king.  Thats the nature of golf...EGALITARIAN.

That's what escapes trump. Thats what escapes Fireman.  That's what escapes the oneida indians.  If they wanna take a cart, let 'em...its them thats getting fat...at least they get to play.

I think you dock ponts for walkability, but you dont throw a course under a bus for it...

[Tom Huckaby]

Jay - great stuff.

I'm not sure "throwing under the bus" is the right way to look at this.  I'm talking about prioritizing praise.

I believe you also have to keep in mind the connection between the two issues.  Wouldn't you agree that in general cartball courses are more expensive to build, and thus have large effects on affordability?

Thus we take good note of BOTH.

And no, no course gets thrown under the bus.  It's just a different way to use the exact same data.  You do it as an overall point system, taking note of these issues and docking points if they are bad (and well done there - not many EVEN DO THAT), but then arrive at an overall score, more or less.  Or you at least give summations that are based on the overall assessment, no?

The only difference I suggest from that is that we don't do it as an overall, but that we separate out affordability and walkability, leading to a prioritization of praise.  That is, praise the design, the fun shots, the strategy, whatever as much as you wish - BUT just do so while putting them in the category of unwalkable, unaffordable and let the chips fall as they may.

Given the state of the game, given where the game is heading, I'm just reticent to praise too highly any course that is unwalkable and unaffordable.  

You might call this throwing courses under the bus... I call it being concerned for the good of the game.

I also find it strange anyone concerned with the good of the game would disagree with this.

But evangelists are rarely accepted right away.

 

TH

[Jay Flemma]

Sean, you make alot of sense on alot of issues.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean - at least you got the backhanded compliment.  I pour out my soul and get bupkis.  

Nevertheless I'll buy him a pint also if he ever gets to NorCal.  The same goes for you, btw.

TH

[Jay Flemma]

Sean!  No way!!!!! Thats not left handed at all!  I only wrote a two minute answer because I only had two minutes to write!!!!!

You really do make alot of sense on those issues!  Just because I forgot smilies doesnt mean I was being a wise guy!  I just have clients to tend too also;)

[Tim Pitner]

Tim P:

How do you in good conscious apply any tag ("goofy") to a course you have not played? I mean you are basing your assumptions simply through photography? Really. How much credibility do you suppose I lend to such an armchair quarterback position? Take a guess between zero and less than zero.

Tim -- do yourself a huge favor -- play a course before lobbing such a lazy man's analysis. Pictures don't provide near enough the experience that comes from hitting shots at the course.

How are the rocks at Fossil Trace contrived? Have you played the holes in question? The first par-5 on the back is well done IMHO and the element of skill is tested on such a hole. The likely asumption is that since Fossil Trace is not in Scotland and that Jim Engh is not the poster child clear favoritism as others here on GCA it then behooves people to make unfair assumptions from never having played the hole / course in question. How nice & convenient.

Alright Matt Ward, I finally played Fossil Trace and here's what I think:

#12 is a decent hole.  I wouldn't say I love the monolithic rocks, but they're mostly not in play and I don't mind them that much.  That said, if you replaced the rocks and put in another obstacle--say pine trees--I'd say most people would call it goofy (and I like the occasional hole with a tree in the middle of the fairway).  

I generally liked #15 but didn't care for the rockpiles at all.  To me, they're visually unappealing and totally superfluous.  I liked the green setting in the hollow, but how do the rocks add to the strategy of the hole?  If you took the rockpiles out, you'd take away the obvious aiming point and I think it'd be a better hole, both strategically and visually.  

As to the course overall, Engh did well to create a pretty good golf course on that property.  There are far too many greens set in artifical amphitheaters/bowls and too much containment lining the fairways as well.  My favorite holes--4 and 6--were the lowest profile ones.  I give Engh credit for originality and building some interesting greens, but it seems like he's in danger of falling back on the same formulas.  I don't care for the muscle bunkers or the extremely manufactured look of his courses, but that may just be a personal bias.  My bottom line on Fossil Trace--an interesting course, a fun change of pace, but not a course I would like to play often.  Doak 4.5.