[Matt_Ward]

Don:

Interesting points made.

Do you believe the shot values you could not achieve were because of the intensity of the shot value required and given your self-admitted handicap level were still capable in being played by a superior player?

If you could spell out the shot values in question I believe it would make for an interesting discussion.

Last item -- did you get much fun when playing the course?

Noel:

Kudos for having played the course that many times. I appreciate your insights and suffice to say we see the course differently.

Adam:

Wolf Creek can be played by different handicap types provided they do so from the appropriate tee boxes. I said this before -- those ENAMORED with classis design and all that comes with it -- should avoid Wolf Creek. Clearly people in the classic camp prefer walkable courses and Wolf Creek will clearly disappoint from that narrow perspective. I believe the course can accomodate different handicap types when people understand the limitations of their game and what the course provides.

If people simply prefer golf courses to be meat and potatos than Wolf Creek won't be appreciated. It's like Thai or Mexican food -- those with a varied palet will likely enjoy what's there -- and provide a bit more balance in their overall assessment.

The course has been rated at different times by Golf Digest, Golf Magazine and Golfweek. I guess all of them are wrong.

[Andy Troeger]

FWIW...reading this thread (both the good and the bad) makes me want to add Wolf Creek to my list of courses I'd like to play. It certainly looks like fun if nothing else

[A_Clay_Man]

Noel:

 I appreciate your insights and suffice to say we see the course differently.

Matt, You see a course? I see a collection of holes. No cohesion, no breathers just pure fantasy golf holes.Yet, it was you who chose adjectives that decried the opposite. Your logic does not follow.

Adam:

Wolf Creek can be played by different handicap types provided they do so from the appropriate tee boxes. What about that third hole? I actually liked it. A volcano type par 3 with a touch of blindness and a hint of a skyline green. A 2 or 20 if ever there was one. Yet, it needs to be changed and management agrees   I said this before please don't say it again -- those ENAMORED with classis design and all that comes with it -- should avoid Wolf Creek. I have no prediliction for a particular era, just thoughtful [design, which this is pure chuckie cheeseClearly people in the classic camp prefer walkable courses and Wolf Creek will clearly disappoint from that narrow perspective. I believe the course can accomodate different handicap types when people understand the limitations of their game and what the course provides.

If people simply prefer golf courses to be meat and potatos than Wolf Creek won't be appreciated. It's like Thai or Mexican food -- those with a varied palet will likely enjoy what's there -- and provide a bit more balance in their overall assessment.

The course has been rated at different times by Golf Digest, Golf Magazine and Golfweek. I guess all of them are wrong. And Shadow ranks very highly, but according to your words, this effort blows it away. Is that a double wrong, or do you only use examples in your arguement only to suit your case?

[Jesse Jones]

Wolf Creek is an experience in excess..
It's Big..
It's Fun..
It's Unusual..
It's Visually Spectacular..
But..
It isn't really traditional golf..
That's O.K..
Beacuse excess is what Vegas/Mesquite is (are) all about.


Jesse

[Jason Topp]

I know where this is headed but what the heck, its a discussion group.  This post is part one.  Part two will follow:

Matt – in a general sense I believe that your viewpoint and mine differs with respect to playabilty.  I believe a course should be enjoyable for everyone, regardless of skill level, unless it is designed solely for good players, which Wolf Creek decidedly is not.  I think many modern courses have ignored this viewpoint and it is refreshing to see some new courses that are returning to that approach.  One of the best examples of a course that is playable in severe terrain is Stone Eagle, which you have described in another recent thread.

Here are my responses to your points:

Jason T:

I agree with you in terms of people being unable to handle the demands of the course. Would you like me to add a bunch of other courses where the same thing applies. Have you heard of such courses as Pebble Beach, Whistling Straits (Straits Course), to name just two where the total time frame for playing can easily reach six (6) hours.

I've never played Whistling Straits so I cannot comment on that.

With regard to Pebble Beach, I strongly disagree that the reason play is slow has to do with a course that cannot be handled by the average player.  I think 8 and 18 are the only forced carries on the course and even on those holes, the carry is only forced if you want to be aggressive with the shot.

Play is slow there because people have spent a mint to get on the course, they are at one of the most beautiful spots on the planet and they tend to take a lot of pictures and enjoy the setting.

Jason, if you fancy Shadow Creek -- please tell me what specific holes or routing elements or totality of shot values -- and the challenges you face are in the same league as Wolf Creek? If you fancy Shadow Creek because of the customer service dimension or because the grass provides a better overall presentation value then I can understand what you are saying.

Matt –  I must admit I do not recall much that was particularly noteworthy about the holes at Shadow Creek other than being a classic straightforward test of golf in a pleasant setting.  I thought the 18th hole was quite good and cannot recall anything at Wolf Creek that matched it.  But I must admit that primarily, I think I liked the shade, the cool breeze and the smell of pines.  I enjoyed those aspects so much that I did not really pay much attention to the quality of the design.  The key to me is that it was an enjoyable experience, which is the opposite of Wolf Creek.

Let me also point out the handling high winds is considered a talent if the course is in Ireland or Scotland but since we are talking about a modern course in Mesquite, NV then it's considered some sort of "three dimensional Florida course?" Hello.

C'mon -- that's silly. The simply fact is that most people who play Wolf Creek -- you may be in this grouping -- grouse about what they find because they play the course from the wrong set of tee boxes and then piss and moan that they didn't get what they expected.

Handling wind is part and parcel of any course and there's no doubt Wolf Creek elevates this aspect as much as any course discussed here on GCA.

Let me also point out that 18+ handicaps are advised by course personnel -- OVER AND OVER AGAIN I MIGHT ADD -- to play within your own limitations. Unfortunately, too many guys believe in the macho BS that what they get away with over and over again at their regular club will suffice at Wolf Creek -- that is serious delusional thinking.

The management at the facility will permit players to handle the extreme back tees provided they have the skill level to handle it. Jason -- we are talking about a 75+ CR and 154 slope -- one of the highest in the country. Do you suppose it makes sense for the course to have such markers when some huckleberries believe they can play from the tips with pop-gun ability levels?

My drift from your comments is that you expect some version wall-to-wall green carpet and that such a venue as Wolf Creek is a complete puzzle to you. Try to re-read what I said at the outset that those ENAMORED with classic golf would be better served in playing some where else.

I agree that controlling the ball in the wind is a critical skill that distinguishes good players from bad.  One of my favorite experiences was watching Mark Amundson hit low shot after low shot at Sutton Bay to handle fierce winds with ease at the GCA outing last year.

What I do not like is guessing at a tee shot that drops 10 stories to a fairway that runs up an incline at a 45 degree angle with little margin for error.  Such challenges either force defensive play, which is no fun or a big number with occasional bursts of glory.

I enjoy Arizona desert courses unlike many on this site, but in my mind those courses are more enjoyable because the wind is relatively light most of the time there.  I’ve played them in high winds and they can become a bear pretty quickly.

Here are some examples of courses I loved in high winds:

Lahinch
Ballybunion
Sutton Bay
Barnbougle
Windsong Farm
The Old Course


Courses I have not played in high winds but think would be enjoyable include:

Rustic Canyon
Sand Hills
Wild Horse

Let me also point out that 18+ handicaps are advised by course personnel -- OVER AND OVER AGAIN I MIGHT ADD -- to play within your own limitations. Unfortunately, too many guys believe in the macho BS that what they get away with over and over again at their regular club will suffice at Wolf Creek -- that is serious delusional thinking.

I believe that the macho BS is what makes the game fun.  To me, enjoyable golf is aggressive golf and the best courses encourage it.  To me, an ideal tee shot is to the tight side of a wide fairway shortening the distance to the green and opening a more favorable angle to the green.  Royal Melbourne and Sand Hills are the best examples I have seen of setting up such challenges.  


 

[Jason Topp]

The management at the facility will permit players to handle the extreme back tees provided they have the skill level to handle it. Jason -- we are talking about a 75+ CR and 154 slope -- one of the highest in the country. Do you suppose it makes sense for the course to have such markers when some huckleberries believe they can play from the tips with pop-gun ability levels?

My drift from your comments is that you expect some version wall-to-wall green carpet and that such a venue as Wolf Creek is a complete puzzle to you. Try to re-read what I said at the outset that those ENAMORED with classic golf would be better served in playing some where else.

Matt – I have no doubt that the back tees would not be enjoyable for me.  

I do not consider myself enamored with classic golf courses, especially on a trip to Las Vegas.  I enjoy many desert courses, such as Troon North, AZ National, Desert Highlands, Ventana Canyon, Gallery, etc., etc.  I would play every one of those courses many times before Wolf Creek.

My commentary on the holes you mentioned in your post

1st,

I would agree that it is a solid opening hole, but I would not consider it particularly noteworthy compared to par fives on any decent golf course.

2nd –

An example of a hole at Wolf Creek that is a good concept gone bad is your beloved 2nd.    It is a beautiful setting and  an incredible vantage point from the tee.  I know I hit the ball about 250 yards in the Midwest off the tee, probably carrying it 220 or so.  With a tee shot dropping 10 stories (or what ever it is) and a fairway that seemed angled at around 45 degrees off the tee up an incline, the critical decision is to determine the appropriate line off the tee.  The penalty for screwing that up is to re-tee.  Standing there, I did not have a clue as to what that line was.  I would have no problem with that dilemma if a mis-hit resulted in a recovery opportunity, from a bunker, from the desert or from rough.  

Contrast that hole to the 18th at TPC at Sawgrass.  I think that water is about 22 degrees off the tee and you know you want to be near the water to shorten the hole and improve the angle into the green.  If you bail out right, you at worst have a chip out and at best have a chance at some sort of shot through the trees.  

Holes at many courses present similar challenges.  I just think the good ones give both a clue as to what to do and a chance at recovery if you err on one side.  
 
 5th

Looking at the website, I cannot remember this hole at all.  I recall one hole that was was a slight dogleg right straight up a hill.   It just seemed like a hill climb to me.  


6th

I do think this is probably a good hole.  I played it poorly and wide left so I am not sure I got a reasonable view of it.

7th

Definitely a good hole.  I agree with you there.

8th

I thought this was a missed opportunity.  It appears from the tee that there is some bail out area to the right, but there isn’t.  Essentially it is a 220 yard, 90 foot drop shot to a green with water on 3 sides and junk on the right.  (incidentally I hit the green and made 3).

To compare this hole with the Dell at Lahinch is silly.  At the Dell, you have a wonderful array of recovery shots you can hit from the dunes surrounding the green and if on the wrong part of the green.  I actually hit a double banker from the back left of the green to get to a pin on the back right.  Such shots are much more enjoyable than a penalty drop, even if they may result in a higher score.

[Thomas_Brown]

"On the par 4 2nd, I climbed the 116 stairs to heaven and decided to play the tiger tees.   I launched a Ruthian blast over the outstretched hand of the desert's rock formation and silenced the beast with a near 360 yard blast.  Leaving nothing but a can of corn 60 yard lob wedge, I took my birdie and surveyed the landscape, master of all my domain"

This has to be the best laugh I've had in a while.
It had to be the can of corn remark.

I agree w/ Jason Topp's comments - I think #2 is a crapshoot from up there - I played it from the tips for the first and only time - easy double bogey for me from there without any idea where to aim.

I'll show my modern bias here - C&C, Hanse, Doak, etc. courses have some width and playability.  Wolf Creek is fun, but a little too modern for me off of the tee.

[Thomas_Brown]

I would guess the avg. 18 handicap male aged 20-50 would lose 12-15 balls at Wolf Creek.

Most desert courses, I would guess they would lose about 5-6 balls.

[Matt_Ward]

Guys, please stop with all the elitist BS about what is "good for golf." It's so transparent that only the CLASSIC OF GOLF will suffice with this blue-blood nose-up-in-the-air crowd.

Wolf Creek is not meant for walking. Get it.

If you don't like cart rides that can be excessive do the following:

DON'T GO THERE !!!!!!!

Let me point out AGAIN FOR THE UPTEEEENTH TIME -- THAT COURSE PERSONNEL DO MAKE IT A POINT TO INSTRUCT PEOPLE TO PLAY THE COURSE WITHIN THEIR CAPABILITIES.

For those decrying the 8th hole -- please realize that when played from the 150-yard mark it is very reasonable and still challenging without being overly so. When people move back on the tee boxes the challenge goes up noticeably.

Hint, hint -- that's why the course slopes out to 154 !!!

They didn't get that number just for marketing purposes. It is a very real number that clearly itemizes what is in store for those (foolhardy types I might add) who opt to go in that direction.

What pisses me off royally -- is when people with little or no game opt to go those tee boxes and shoot a gazillion and then post and piss / moan on what took place. Talk about self interest analysis.

Adam:

The 3rd is a silly hole. I admit what Kevin said and even management would say the same. It is poorly conceived and while uphill par-3's are certainly needed -- the climb and the resulting slow play that the 3rd causes is proof positive that some sort of future change there would be a worthy addition.\

One last thing -- Shadow Creek got rated because of a desire to influence people on the Digest panel. It is testament to man's ability to create something from nothing but you never see any of its proponents give more than fleeting disucssion to the overall hole quality. Often times it's about the trees -- the overall appearance and other non-course specific items. You mentioned previously about "subtle" additions to the course -- I'm still waiting for some details from you on that count.

Jason:

Be more than happy to analyze Wolf Creek to the other desert courses you listed. By the way rounds at Pebble drag not simply because people love the view but because novices have invaded the layout and it takes time to hole out when you are on your fourth or fifth ball along the ocean holes.

The Dell is a goofy hole but because it's in Ireland and at a superlative course like Lahinch (which I adore) it gets a free pass. I don't see golf as a game of billiards and then ipso facto you get the gotcha outcomes it pften provides. Jason --the location of a golf course is often testament to the perceived bias people bring to the table. In Ireland -- such quirk is revered and celebrated -- transport it to Nevada and people decry it as being Vegas over-the-top type stuff.

One last thing -- your memory of Wolf Creek is a bit light on the details. I read your post -- I would advise you read mine again for some of the details you either forgot or ignored.

Tom Brown:

There is no crapshoot on #2. Given your length you can attempt to cut the full corner if you opt to do it. Rider created an alternate route but he didn't provide the altermate route as some sort of automatic out. I like that sort of reasoning. The idea that people can opt away from the intense line of attack and get an automatic pass as often is the case doesn't make such situations / holes better in my book.

If people opt to take the conservative route at #2 you can do that but the shot still needs proper distance control and when the wind is blowing hard -- as it often is at Wolf Creek -- that puts appropriate pressure on all players no matter what line of attack they favor.

[Kevin Edwards]

Matt Ward

Sir, would you agree with this statement..??

"From the tips, the eighth plays 248 yards. Although the descent to the green is over a hundred feet in total, this tee shot has a definite "all or nothing" element. Thankfully, the regular ("Masters") tee reduces the requirement to short iron distance, yet the green remains an elusive target. Chalk it up to distraction. A sandstone pocket canyon serves as a backdrop to the green, which is encircled by a idyllically flowing brook. The eighth is one of those holes that, if you missed the mark the first time, you are gripped by an overpowering urge to return to the tee box, if merely to burn the imagery into your brain for eternity"

This is from Las Vegas Golf.com.. That is why I was wondering whether you wrote it considering how much you love the course.  I'm sorry but I don't know many idyllically flowing brooks in the middle of the Great Basin or Northern Mohave Deserts..  But you continue to harp on the greatness of the 8th.  From the back tees the shot it calls for is immense but from the 150 yard tees it removes all the teeth and greatness to which you subscribe. It become a 7 or 8 iron for the mid handicapper to a water surrounded green with no bailout room.  It is an easier shot to hit, no doubt but I thought the jolly you got out of it was the difficulty it required.. The hole is wholly un-natural and still provides no bail out to miss it.  But I think many mid handicappers can still hit a high shot that will hold the green and won't bat an eyelash..  Frankly, I find your argument vexing.. Can you please inform me on what I am missing kind sir?

[Jason Topp]

Jason:

The Dell is a goofy hole but because it's in Ireland and at a superlative course like Lahinch (which I adore) it gets a free pass. I don't see golf as a game of billiards and then ipso facto you get the gotcha outcomes it pften provides. Jason --the location of a golf course is often testament to the perceived bias people bring to the table. In Ireland -- such quirk is revered and celebrated -- transport it to Nevada and people decry it as being Vegas over-the-top type stuff.

Matt - You are no doubt correct that internal biases play a significant role in one's perception of a golf course.  I try to be objective, but most certainly am not.  I just call them like I see them.

You also make an valid point about quirk – although I would amend it a bit to say quirk is accepted on old courses, but not as much on new ones.  I certainly know a lot of local pros got irritated with Jeff Brauer’s greens at the Wilderness at Fortune Bay during an event held there last year.  (Of course I do not think I have ever been to a tournament where contestants are not grousing about something.)  I think those greens are wonderful and suspect they might have just gotten the green speeds too high.  Imagine the greens at Stone Eagle running at 11 or 12 on the stimpmeter.

I do think my objective distinction between the Dell Hole and 8 at Wolf Creek is a valid distinction.  While there certainly is confusion off the tee, there is usually the opportunity to hit a recovery shot.  If you are going to have an island green, I believe it should be on a very short hole such as 17 at TPC Sawgrass or 3 on Ventana Mountain.  Such holes offer hope to all, even if the punishment is severe for failure.

Guys, please stop with

For those decrying the 8th hole -- please realize that when played from the 150-yard mark it is very reasonable and still challenging without being overly so. When people move back on the tee boxes the challenge goes up noticeably.

If one plays from that tee consistently around the course, it is a 5800 yard course.  One assumes that a 5800 yard modern course is designed for the player who drives it 200 yards.  One way to fix it would be to move the blue tee marker up to the 150 yard post on that hole.

One last thing -- your memory of Wolf Creek is a bit light on the details. I read your post -- I would advise you read mine again for some of the details you either forgot or ignored.

Matt – You are correct that my memory is light on details.  I played there once a year ago and the course’s web site does not provide hole by hole pictures and descriptions to refresh my memory.  

When you start a thread gushing about a course , I think it is important for people on this board to express contrary viewpoints if they have them, even if the details get a bit hazy over time.  I hope you do the same when I praise a course you do not like.    

[Matt_Ward]

Jason:

You are a smart guy and certainly one I respect because you and Kevin and a few others do the heavy lifting and actually play the courses in question unlike a few people on this site who decry any other architects except for the favored few and just pontificate what others don't know but still remain glued to their computer screens and couchs at home.

Let's go over the 8th again shall we.

The hole should be played for nearly 90% of the golf crowd at the 150 yard mark. At that tee box the hole drops very quickly to the green which is quite large to handle the short iron many will play. The intimidation factor is still present but given the reduced length the overall demands are not that pressing -- and as well they should be.

However, there are people who then bitch and moan about the hole from the extreme tip tees and then say the hole is totally unfair. That's baloney -- provided they have game to handle the demands presented. When you factor the descend from the tee the hole can be hit with a long iron for players of skill. Is there water around the hole? Sure. It's there but the green is as big as Kansas. It looks tiny when compared to the canyon it sits and with the serpentine water hazard that envelopes it.

If you want to moan (correctly) about a par-3 with little room for error and little redeeming characteristics I would nominate the old 7th hole at Stone Harbor in Cape May, NJ. Designed by the late Desmond Muirhead that hole was truly a whopper in stretching the limits of the golf maxim that the good shot should be rewarded and the bad shot penalized.

Jason -- I didn't say one should play the 5,800 marks around the course. Please don't stretch what I said for one hole and apply it for the entire layout. That's not what I said or remotely meant. Just keep in mind the extreme back tee is certainly fair for those who can play such a shot. The other thing to keep in mind is that Wolf Creel is still under 7,000 yards even with today's high tech game.

The devils is in the details. I've provided it and only Kevin (to date) has offered at leasr somewhat of a compelling counterpoint. Too much of the negative spin on Wolf Creek stems from the fact that it's not suited to the classic golf school of design and that walkability is not likely a possible consideration. I don't doubt that many people form an opinion on those two items but I much prefer going into great details about the specific holes in question.

[Jason Topp]

Matt - 90% of golfers play a course from between 6200 and 6700 yards.  How realistic is it for someone who has never played a course to play from one set of tees throughout a round, but realize that they should move up a tee to improve a particular hole?  

If they want people playing from the blue tees to play the hole from 150, they should move the tee up.

[David Kelly]

I agree w/ Jason Topp's comments - I think #2 is a crapshoot from up there - I played it from the tips for the first and only time - easy double bogey for me from there without any idea where to aim.

I had the same experience.

The first time I played the course I walked up to the top tee on #2 - caught my breath - and then looked out at the hole.  I had absolutely no idea where to aim since it is extremely hard to judge the distance from so high off of the ground.  So I aimed at a midway point in the fairway and hit my tee ball.  It flew the fairway and my ball diappeared into an abyss never to be found.  It would not have occured to me to aim way left, directly at where the green supposedly was, and fire the ball over the top of a hill with no idea how far it was to the fairway.  

It was like that all day and it gets wearying after a while.

[George Pazin]

Guess that shows how different my tastes are - #3 was one of the few holes I really liked. #1 couldn't have been more pedestrian. Down the hill, up the hill par 5. We have one at my local muni. At least my muni one is part of a wonderful walk, other than that it's not an especially great hole, imho. #2 has a pretty cool tee shot - if you're not afraid of heights, as I found out I am. That tee shot made me flinch backwards, and nauseous to boot. One guy from our contingent left the course after 5 holes because he couldn't stand the vertigo inducing holes. I sympathized.

My take - which is admittedly coming from the sort of preference that Matt derides - is that Wolf Creek is a really cool goofy golf course. A few windmills would really push it up to the 10 level.

 

I will say, in all honesty, I don't get the "visually spectacular" comments. The land sure is, but the course sticks out like a sore thumb and really looks like one of those silly "toughest golf holes you'll never play" calendars. UG-LEE.

But that's just me.

If you don't mind the ride (and the accompanying screeching), are looking for some truly unique, albeit disconnected, holes, don't care about the bizarre contrast of wall to wall lush green against canyon walls, have wondered what it would be like to really play one of those holes from that aforementioned calendar, then WC is definitely a must play. At the very least, it's a great bargain in the vast overpriced land of Vegas golf.

Horses for courses, imho.

[Matt_Ward]

Kevin:

There are plenty of holes in golf that may not appear to be in complete harmony with their total surroundings. Let's be clear that TOC has The Road Hole and people simply gush about that because of the tradition and all the other spin people apply to the hole because of where it's located. I mean a freakin road is next to the green -- how natural is that?

You are making far too much of the idea that water cannot play a role in a desert situation. Frankly, I see the holes where water comes into play at Wolf Creek -- 1st, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 12th, 17th to be totally appropriate. I concur with you and others who mentioned the out-of-place waterfall is on the 18th.

Kevin allow me to break the news to you when you say the course is "wholly unnatural." No shit sherlock -- it's located in Mesquite, NV and given its location and the specific site in question anything that is golf related will be a bit "wholly unnatural." The bigger question is how the golf works within the site and what Rider did to provide some sort of balance between the harshness on what is there and to the manner by which golf is capable in being played there. On that front --I think he did a fantastic job.

You asked me to inform you on what you are missing. It's called hole flexibility. The 8th at Wolf Creek allows for maximum flexibility and if people follow the limits of their game instead of pissing and moaning about what takes place when they go beyond their limits then the hole does what is meant to do.

I've played with top players on the hole and the routine club of choice can be anywhere from 5-iron to a long iron or 5-metal or similar. If the wind is howling in one's face then matters changes but the same can be said for any long par-3 where such a situation arises.

If you have thaaaat much of a dropshot to a green and cannot hit a long iron to a green the size of Kansas then you need to sharpen your skill -- with all due respect. What makes me chuckle is how self-proclaimed top players often quickly leap to the conclusion of unfairness of a given shot or hole but rarely ever ascribe the possibility that they need to sharpen their play to get the desired result they seek.  

One last point -- I've made it a point to highlight a number of weak situations at Wolf Creek. Please read my comments on such holes as the 3rd, 10th and 11th, to name three that come to mind right away.

[David Kelly]

George,

I thought #3 was like trying to hit a 4-iron on to the top of a 5-story building.

[George Pazin]

George,

I thought #3 was like trying to hit a 4-iron on to the top of a 5-story building.

And that isn't cool?

 

Like I said, it seemed like grand scale goofy golf to me.

I like your comments about #2 tee, and agree with the sentiment completely.

[Matt_Ward]

Jason:

Very simple partner -- how bout you look at what the challenge is and then go from there? You make it sound like I'm suggesting some major leap in the thinking level of golfers.

Ask yourself this -- how realistic is it for mid-to-high handicap golfers to play holes they don't have a prayer's chance in succeeding? Many do and then bitch and moan when they come back to the clubhouse. The championship tee is not a gathering place for those golfers who are 50/50 at best in getting their tee in the ground.

I always make it a point to talk with course personnel on any course I decide to play to get their viewpoints. At Wolf Creek the course personnel is very helpful and they do make it a point -- for the gazillion time I have said this -- to play within your limitations.

One other thing -- there are plenty of golfers who vary the tee boxes they play for a whole host of reasons. I can name plenty of holes from across the pond where when the tip tees are used the "fairness" factor is stretched to a great level but these same holes are held out as being superb -- The Road Hole at TOC is a great example in that regard, to name just one.

One final thing -- there are plenty of holes where the tee boxes are routinely placed upfront for daily play while still keeping the back boxes for those whose skill level merit their usage.

George:

You had me crying because of the guy who left Wolf Creek. Oh my God -- I am soooooo sorry to hear about his plight. Maybe you should have went with him.

P.S. If you truly believe #3 is a superb hole than you are clearly seeing some unique things I missed.

David K:

I don't know what club you hit at #2 but if you meant to lay-up then using a driver would be a poor choice given your game level. The thing to keep in mind about laying up or the conservative approach at #2 is that it's not automatically given to the player. You still have to display distance control with the shot. If you took the time to study the hole you could also opt for the more daring play but the drive has to have adequate distance and the proper ball movement (right-to-left) in order for that to work properly.

[David Kelly]

David K:

I don't know what club you hit at #2 but if you meant to lay-up then using a driver would be a poor choice given your game level. The thing to keep in mind about laying up or the conservative approach at #2 is that it's not automatically given to the player. You still have to display distance control with the shot. If you took the time to study the hole you could also opt for the more daring play but the drive has to have adequate distance and the proper ball movement (right-to-left) in order for that to work properly.

Thats just it.  I wasn't laying up. I thought I was hitting driver to the middle of the fairway.

BTW, its hard to analyze a hole from a tee box 200 feet in the air.  I was still tipping the sherpas who helped me get up there.

[Sean Leary]

 

BTW, its hard to analyze a hole from a tee box 200 feet in the air.  I was still tipping the sherpas who helped me get up there.

LOL. I just spit out my drink

[George Pazin]

George:

You had me crying because of the guy who left Wolf Creek. Oh my God -- I am soooooo sorry to hear about his plight. Maybe you should have went with him.

P.S. If you truly believe #3 is a superb hole than you are clearly seeing some unique things I missed.

The height thing is not a laughing matter, and it's not something you can just overlook. Making fun of it is like making fun of someone for having a handicap - weak at best, imho. High perched tee shots bother me, and they apparently bothered him more. It doesn't happen to most, but it is worth noting, in case someone else has a similar affliction.

As for #3, I didn't say it was superb, I said it was one of the few holes I liked. I like quirk, and it was definitely quirky, in a good way (not quirky like #7, 8, or 13 (?), which I call quirky in a bad way).

I don't think the high perched tee shot is anything more than experience, as far as the game testing aspect of the shot. The rest is just ego boosting.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

You sound like a character from Seinfeld. Did anyone throw you some ropes to get down -- I guess the sherpas weren't on duty at that time as when David was there.

You didn't like #7 -- and think it's quirky. Surely you jest. The hole has maximum options and the green is one of the best at the course. Maybe it was the leftover hangover from the heights of the tee boxes.

Ditto my comments on #13 -- a superb short par-4 that requires a variety of options to be assessed by the individual player.

David K:

If you opted for a lay-up then you simply pulled the driver on gut reflex. If you played the hole again -- sherbas or no sherbas   -- I think you would see what I have said is apparent.

[George Pazin]

You didn't like #7 -- and think it's quirky. Surely you jest. The hole has maximum options and the green is one of the best at the course. Maybe it was the leftover hangover from the heights of the tee boxes.

#7 - Mid to short iron layup, or a 280ish carry to a perched green? Those are options?

#13 - If I knew the green was clear, and they put up some sort of directional indicator, it might be fun to fire shots over the ridge. Didn't seem like there were many options other than to layup to the wide layup zone. I sure didn't see anyone do anything else. I will say that I liked the green.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Try the upfront markers -- then you can experience the options I mentioned. The 7th is one of the best short par-4's I have played among modern day courses because the range of clubs and scoring options is so varied.

The carry is not that onerous given the hot desert air and the knowledge Rider had concerning prevailing wind patterns.

The 13th is equally a solid hole. People can hit the green over the ridge but with any high reward situation the risk is no less demanding -- as it properly should be.

Keep in mind the lay-up is not automatic given the landing zone you need to reach for the optimum angle into the green which is quite vexing given it's back-to-front slope and overall depth.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()