[rjsimper]

I thought Apache was in some more severe land than most of the other Doak courses - maybe I am mistaken.  Maybe I had just heard playable desert layout and I often think of desert and mountainous golf in the same vein as George seems to as well.

Who said I haven't been to Pacific Dunes?  

Hitting into the green on the 15th (?? the par 5 with the desert crossing the fairway at 360 yards off the tee) I thought to myself with the front left pin that it reminded me of trying to get at the front left pin on 18 at Pacific.

But I think the lack of these same high-handicapper issues at PD is, just as you say, the result of the site.

HOWEVER,

I think there is a flipside here that should be mentioned (and I think it goes at least in part toward why Tom Doak took offense to the course being called an accomplishment or an achievement based on the land)

We are ignoring the ADVANTAGES of taming a site like this.  The simple answer to solve the problem you are pointing out for the high-capper is to add more turf around the greens - expand, make larger - build up, create shallow bunkers, collection areas, and basically increase acreage.

If given this site, do we really want to create "Doak Golf Course Number 2" on this land?  I mean hey, it's desert golf.  Let's embrace it and talk about what makes it great - the intimidation, the fact that you can ping-pong a ball either into our out of the desert.  I've played a lot of desert golf for my years - whether in CA, AZ, or NV, and a lot of mountain golf in New England, Hawaii, and CA, and this golf course is, hands down, the best of the lot.  

There are many things about the site that from a golfer's perspective are pretty cool and unique (thus my "not every day" decree) and I wouldn't want them to trade this away in favor of a flatter site and a run at a top 5 in CA ranking).  You can never have too many good golf courses, but you can definitely have too few for a genre, and right now we have far too few good desert or mountain golf courses, and none from the golden age, so maybe more than anything else, I'm thankful for Stone Eagle.

The first analogy I can think of is a bad one, but it fits and works in my mind.  There are two 5-star level resorts on Kauai - The Grand Hyatt Poipu and the Princeville Resort.  By normal accounts and metrics, the Princeville should be the better resort.  It's cleaner, whiter, has prettier views, more posh, more luxurious, nicer linens, better service, and nicer cars in the parking lot...but you know what?  It doesn't feel like Hawaii.  It feels like your normal 5-star hotel from Anycity, USA planted on a site that screams out for tree-huts, bungalows, and stone paths through the jungle (something that would never fly in suburban Denver, Los Angeles, New York, or Boston)

The Grand Hyatt gets the nod from many because it embraces, rather than denies its surrounds.  Sure, there are plenty who prefer Princeville, but they're all wrong

What's my point?  I'm not sure - I guess on one hand I can see how (and this is presumptive of me) Tom Doak would like us to judge the golf course aside from the accomplishment of doing what he did on such a crazy site, but on the other hand, we all know that the site is too hard to separate from the course, both for better or worse.  Talking Stick North is a great course, but made better by the knowledge that it was borne out of land where the highest elevation on the property was the top of a tumbleweed.  Likewise, people will debate from now until eternity whether Pebble Beach or Old Head are what they are to some because of the ocean.

I'd say this - if I had to choose 10 courses to play for the rest of my life, Stone Eagle would probably be one of them - does this mean it's one of the top 10 in the world? No...but I can only play so many tree-lined or ocean golf courses

[David Kelly]

I'm another one who doesn't understand this talk of severity at Stone Eagle.

I think it is as playable off of the tee as any course I can think of and I think the severity of the greensites is overstated as well.  There are places you cannot miss around the greens but for the most part there is at least one side that you can favor if you have a difficult approach shot.  

That said, I three-putted to a fair-thee-well in both my rounds there this weekend to the point that I almost felt like crying at one point. For me the bermuda poking through the greens made them much harder to figure out than the last time I was there in the winter.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Huck, Thanks and I will pass that on to her. I thought you were great and it was equally so to play again together as well.

[Tom Huckaby]

JB - cheers, brother!



Ryan:

Now we're talking.

See, I'm not sure that the world does need all that many more golf courses.  Palm Desert sure doesn't.  This might seem like blasphemy, but I'd sure rather Doak's talents get used on a site that makes for fun golf for all rather than one on which he does the best he can, but can NEVER allow for such.  And that's how I see Stone Eagle.  It's just not meant to be a golf course, and god love him Tom tried, and did better than anyone could... but golf course land that ain't.

I too have played LOTS of desert golf and mountain golf and hey, I'm older than you.    So let's call our experience level equal at least.

And I'm here to say that well... outside of the fact that if invited and if my wife allows it I will play golf anywhere... and if GCA folks are involved hell I'll play on a parking lot in Oakland... well... if choice is involved, I wouldn't rush back to Stone Eagle.  One of the 10 courses on which to spend the rest of my life?  Only if I got a LOT better at the game.  And even then, well... I like to walk when I play and like to have fun more than suffering.

IF I were a scratch golfer in fantastic physical shape, I might put it in that top 10.  I get what you're saying - it sure as hell is unique for desert/mountain golf, which of course is also in and of itself pretty unique.  Doak did give it one hell of a try.

But it remains too hilly, too severe, too hot.  Like I say, Doak's a god but not God.  And I can't get enough of seaside golf.  Different strokes for different folks.

 

David K:  I've made it clear I concur that off the tee the course is very playable - far more than could ever be expected given the site.  My contention is that the green surrounds are too severe, but again, it's site-specific; that is, nothing could really be done to make them more playable, Doak did the best anyone could.  But still, although there are better places to miss on most greens, even on those sides, death awaits a few more yards away.  Such is the nature of a boulder-strewn mountainside.    In any case, you can't possibly mean it's "as playable as any course you can think of", right?  Don't you play Rustic nearly weekly?  Good lord... the comparison is night and day....

TH

[cary lichtenstein]

Tom H

If the higher handicappers had trouble here, Black Mesa had to kill them. And I have heard nothing but praise for that course, and I thought it was terrific so what do I know?



Cary

[Tom Huckaby]

Cary - that's why I brought George Pazin into this... he was with us at Black Mesa and has stridently maintained his dislike for the course ever since, for pretty much the same reasons I'm stating about Stone Eagle.  See in post one where I say he'd hate it?

I too found Black Mesa to be terrific, and not nearly as severe as Stone Eagle.  At Black Mesa there really were places to miss, at least on some holes...

And don't get me wrong; the good player in me still finds a LOT to love about Stone Eagle.  I just also have a bad player in me, and he didn't enjoy the course that much.

Bad/Hack Tom wouldn't mind Black Mesa, I have to believe.

TH

[George Pazin]

Actually, Ryan, I do usually separate desert golf from mountain/canyon golf.

I think I've played 8 courses that fit into these categories:

- Eagle Mountain - mountain/canyon
- Whirlwind - don't remember which - desert
- Dragon Ridge - mountain/canyon
- Wolf Creek - mountain/canyon
- Primm Valley - desert
- Grayhawk - Raptor course - desert
- Las Sendas - desert
- Black Mesa - mountain/canyon

In general, I've found the true desert courses to be relatively playable. True, I beat the hell out of my 7 iron at the Whirlwind course and the Primm Valley, but I only hooked one completely off the plantation.

Here's an odd thought:

Does the relative scarcity of golf land in California mean that you guys haven't played many truly forgiving courses? Remember, I'm not talking about easy, just forgiving in the sense of few lost balls.

[rjsimper]

JB - cheers, brother!



Ryan:

Now we're talking.

See, I'm not sure that the world does need all that many more golf courses.  Palm Desert sure doesn't.  This might seem like blasphemy, but I'd sure rather Doak's talents get used on a site that makes for fun golf for all rather than one on which he does the best he can, but can NEVER allow for such.  And that's how I see Stone Eagle.  It's just not meant to be a golf course, and god love him Tom tried, and did better than anyone could... but golf course land that ain't.

I too have played LOTS of desert golf and mountain golf and hey, I'm older than you.    So let's call our experience level equal at least.

And I'm here to say that well... I wouldn't rush back to Stone Eagle.  One of the 10 courses on which to spend the rest of my life?  Only if I got a LOT better at the game.  And even then, well... I like to walk when I play and like to have fun more than suffering.

IF I were a scratch golfer in fantastic physical shape, I might put it in that top 10.  I get what you're saying - it sure as hell is unique for desert/mountain golf.  Doak did give it one hell of a try.

But it remains too hilly, too severe, too hot.  Like I say, Doak's a god but not God.

 

And I'll bet my affinity for Stone Eagle is due largely in part to my LA roots - knowing that as we continue to build houses and sell them for $800,000, the land remaining for golf courses will get more and more severe.

I'd venture to say that with the right approach, a site even MORE severe than Stone Eagle's could be tamed and made eminently playable, and that excites me.

No, Palm Desert does NOT need more golf courses, but I'd gladly trade a SilverRock and a Rancho Las Palmas for a Stone Eagle (and hey, we can always make room for one more as long as they agree to play nice...)

Either way, I loved the course and it's a fun way to mix it up.  Though, if I was playing it as one of 10 to choose from for the rest of my life I'd probably like a few more yards here and there just to give it a way to stretch out.

And hell, I didn't even play well!

[David Kelly]

In any case, you can't possibly mean it's "as playable as any course you can think of", right?  

No I didn't say that. What I said was "I think it is as playable off of the tee as any course I can think of..."

The one greensite that I thought might be overly severe with no room for error was the 6th green but even there most players are hitting 9 iron or less into it.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ryan:

I get what you're saying.  In the end I don't think we're all that far off on this.  Yes, I too have seen some hideous courses on hideous land.  Read my comments about THE RANCH in San Jose?  In terms of sites for golf, it makes Stone Eagle look like freakin' Pacific Dunes... I am just not so ready to punt forever and believe that crappy sites like this are ALL we have left.  I doubt Doak is either, as his globe-trotting proves.  So maybe it's weird, but I'd rather our all-star great designers like Doak be given the good land and make courses all will revere, and we leave the crap for Casey O'Callaghan and let HIM make the best of it.

But perhaps things are that bad in California... But man if a Rustic can still get built, I am not ready to relegate Doak to the sides of mountains.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

In any case, you can't possibly mean it's "as playable as any course you can think of", right?  

No I didn't say that. What I said was "I think it is as playable off of the tee as any course I can think of..."

The one greensite that I thought might be overly severe with no room for error was the 6th green but even there most players are hitting 9 iron or less into it.

David:

OK, that's better.  I thought you had gone insane for a second.  

And well... it is very playable off the tee, particularly so given the site.

But methinks you need to come play Santa Teresa or some other parkland, tree-lined, damn near impossible to lose a ball munis if you still think it's as playable off the tee as any course you can think of.  Perhaps you never play these... and if so, well you are better for it!

But do you really find Stone Eagle as playable off the tee as Rustic?

Hmmmm.... I don't see that.  SE does the best it can... but there are still a lot of rocks, on every hole....

As for greensites, for the high capper, 6 is a tough one, but every single one has him quaking.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Does the relative scarcity of golf land in California mean that you guys haven't played many truly forgiving courses? Remember, I'm not talking about easy, just forgiving in the sense of few lost balls.

In terms of NEW courses being built, it seems to be sadly true.  Gloom and doom Ryan is pretty much correct.

But in terms of existing courses, please.  We have lots of courses on which I'd defy you to lose a golf ball.

TH

[rjsimper]

Actually, Ryan, I do usually separate desert golf from mountain/canyon golf.

I think I've played 8 courses that fit into these categories:

- Eagle Mountain - mountain/canyon
- Whirlwind - don't remember which - desert
- Dragon Ridge - mountain/canyon
- Wolf Creek - mountain/canyon
- Primm Valley - desert
- Grayhawk - Raptor course - desert
- Las Sendas - desert
- Black Mesa - mountain/canyon

In general, I've found the true desert courses to be relatively playable. True, I beat the hell out of my 7 iron at the Whirlwind course and the Primm Valley, but I only hooked one completely off the plantation.

Here's an odd thought:

Does the relative scarcity of golf land in California mean that you guys haven't played many truly forgiving courses? Remember, I'm not talking about easy, just forgiving in the sense of few lost balls.

George - you're probably right re: desert versus mountain golf - Talking Stick is point #1 on this subject.

Of those that you list, I've played Eagle Mountain, and Grayhawk Raptor - both of which I found to be playable courses.  However, make no mistake about it - Eagle Mountain, while correctly classified as Desert/Mountain, has NOTHING on Stone Eagle's site.  I mean, Eagle Mountain plays far closer to Grayhawk than it does to Stone Eagle.

Here's the big difference for me -

Tee shots.

Maybe it's because I hit the ball a long way and a bit wild, but tee shots are where you make or break yourself for desert/mountain golf for me.  Courses like Troon North I find nearly impossible to score on because the fairways are targets to hit rather than paths to take.

Stone Eagle lays out in front of you a field of green and says "Go here if you want X, go here if you want Y, and if you really want to bust one, go here"  Whereas Troon North and others of that ilk put a little disc of green in front of you and say "come and get me if you can" and little more.

When talking severity, I find it as more of a problem if the tee shot punishment is severe moreso than the green surrounds.  I think we can all agree that by and large any golfer, low or high handicap, should be more accurate with a 9 iron than with a Driver, so it stands to reason that the fairest presentation of a golf course with designs on punishing the golfer SOMEWHERE would be to punish the errant shot at the green, not off the tee.

This just came to me - I doubt you've played it - Huck, maybe you have...

Angeles National - new course in Sunland (suburb of LA)

It's in many ways, minus the mountainous terrain, the opposite of Stone Eagle - to me, the fairways there are WAY too severe - most of the fairways have drop-offs on either side into the desert - they are too narrow for their own good, and there is little definition to them, leaving you guessing as to what the ideal line and shot shape is to find the short grass.  Once you hit the fairway, though, the course is a cinch - big greens, generous surrounds, very few "death" or "ping pong" shots, and huge chipping and collection areas.

I really disliked the course - it's just a backwards approach to design in my opinion - local players talked about it being modeled after Rustic in its approach to architecture when that couldn't be further from the truth - it's about as opposite from RC as you can get - protecting itself from the tee instead of at the green.

Anyhow, this is a "desert" course that is fundamentally different.

Regarding your final thought...

YES.

All of the land deemed unusable for homes is where all the courses built since the early/mid nineties seem to be going (Lost Canyons, Tierra Rejada, Eagle Glen) and even some of those (Lost Canyons Shadow) are being re-assessed and torn down for houses anyhow.  It's only going to get worse.  This is probably why I'm so geeked to see a course like this come out of land that it probably worse than any of the above listed layouts.

What it comes down to for me is that I've got few problems with forgiving off the tee and exacting at the green - if I can't hit a green from 125 yards, then I deserve to work for my par or even bogey.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ryan:

Very good points.  And you're right, punishment around the green is not as bad as punishment off the tee.  Thus Stone Eagle is indeed a far superior course than Angeles National (which yes I have played) for just that reason - bad tee shots at AN get immediately and irrevocably punished.

So yes, for this Stone Eagle should be praised.  But if that's the best we can do - better than Angeles National - then well, have you ever heard of the term "damning with faint praise"?  I know that's not what you meant, but still it is illustrative.

You have convinced me though that one truly ought to praise this course more than criticize it.  Creating playable tee shots on that kind of site is one hell of a feat.  And well... I didn't mean to get on such a negative track... I do understand this.  I just can't really call this course great, or one most would love, primarily due to the site.  But yes, Doak ought to be praised for how playable he did make it off the tee.  That is one neat trick.

In any event, I remain an optomist and hope some day Doak gets to our state on some land like that at Rustic.  It can't ALL be gone.... I think you have it worse in SoCal than we do up here.  But then again we're not seeing many new courses...

One final thing:  re hitting a green from 125, hell I'm not talking about working for par or bogey, I'm talking about being able to find and hit the ball again.  Too often at SE, you can't, with a miss that any bogey golfer routinely does.  Again it remains just the nature of the site...

TH

[Tom_Doak]

I still want to know what others besides Tom H think about the playability of the course, particularly the approach shots.  But, Huck, you've already posted 30 times that you think the approaches are severe, you don't have to keep reiterating it.

I will say that we enjoyed the challenge of working with this site, instead of just another boring plot of sand dunes.  And you are overlooking the good parts of the site -- it's a freaking spectacular place, and I believed if we could get a playable golf course on it, that would trump the difficult parts.

[Tom Huckaby]

I still want to know what others besides Tom H think about the playability of the course, particularly the approach shots.  But, Huck, you've already posted 30 times that you think the approaches are severe, you don't have to keep reiterating it.

I will say that we enjoyed the challenge of working with this site, instead of just another boring plot of sand dunes.  And you are overlooking the good parts of the site -- it's a freaking spectacular place, and I believed if we could get a playable golf course on it, that would trump the difficult parts.

TD:  I'm gonna hammer that home until people understand what I mean by it.  Sometimes that does take 30 tries.  And many times people post without reading prior comments.  

And yes, it is a visually spectacular place.  I just found I might rather be hiking and camping there than playing golf.  I know I'd rather ski on a site like that than play golf.  

In the end, my feeling is you did get as playable a golf course as anyone could out of that site.   But that site was not meant for golf.  I'm sure you did enjoy the challenge... and in a large way you did succeed....

But will you ever work on some decent land in our state?  I for one would love to see what you can do on a boring set of dunes a little north of Monterey...  

TH

[John_Cullum]

My observations for Tom D.

The course at first looks "otherworldly" and that is somewhat intimidtating. (Now the fatigue from the earlier round and extreme heat on our first view of the place added to that.) After taking in that initial amazement of the fact that somehow a golfcourse got built on this land, then a player has to figure out how to play it. It is very  manageable off of the tee, except for number 4, where the first timer is almost assuredly going in the water left after a seemingly well struck tee shot. The terrain confuses the player on a few holes that play uphill much moreso than they look. The challenge then is to just accept that and hit the next shot, even though the player thinks he deserves to be closer. As far as the greens, they seem severe, but I expect the members will figure them out. It is a course that requires a good bit of local knowledge around the greens. And face it, this is a course built for members, not a band of travelling gypsies that light upon a course for a day or two.

After both rounds, I felt like the course had beaten me up pretty bad, but my scores were not that bad, even with the three putts and botched chip shots.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sarge:

You are one of my bastions of wisdom, always have been.

So riddle me this:  yes, this course is built for members, and yes, they will come to learn it and love it over time, no doubt.  But isn't that true only if they are pretty good players?  I can't see the lesser player ever coming to love that golf course.  Am I all wet?  Am I still smarting over the shellacking I took on Sunday afternoon?  Am I completely full of shit?

I await your prognosis.  

TH

ps - I'll be gone in about 15 minutes and will quit responding to every single post thereafter.  This course really did ingtrigue the hell out of me, that's all... I have never been so confused about how to assess a course...  

[John_Cullum]

Huck

It will be a tough one for the high handicapper to love. At least as far as golf goes, now it is an incredible place for anyone to sight see. I enjoyed watching all sorts of lizards, birds, views of the mountains and valley, as well as an incredible feat of engineering.

But yes there are practical forced carries, desert scrub in play near greens and the like.  If a high handicapper is looking for an easy score in Palm Springs, there is no shortage of opportunities. If he is looking for a unique golf experience and a place to impress his cohorts (which cannot be overestimated in that part of the world), Stone Eagle is a great choice.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Has anyone played bothe Stone Eagle and Morgan Hill by Kelly Moran? I would be interested in a comparison of the two sites and finished products.

[Thomas_Brown]

Stone Eagle is *much* gentler than Morgan Hill.
98 rounds at Stone Eagle to 2 at Morgan Hill.

Morgan Hill is for skiing.
Stone Eagle may have the same slopes, but is much more playable.

Both courses have that trend centerline bunkering in spots.

Approach shots at Stone Eagle - It's clearly a 2nd shot golf course and the elephants in the greens do require some thought.  I might have favored some smaller greens at #9 or 11 to mix it up a little.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom B:  I think #11 is the smallest green on the course.  But we did not build small greens precisely because of Huck's complaint, that anything which missed the green would be DOA.  This is why a green like the third (a shortish par 3) is large and undulating rather than small and flat.

I'm still not buying Huck's argument.  I think he was tired and playing like hell and totally misjudging the distances of the approaches.  There's hardly a green on the course that's really tight if you are landing at the front edge -- you just can't attack back pins without taking a chance, ESPECIALLY if you don't have a good feel for the right club.

Also, regarding the forced carries, which tees were you guys playing?  There are some good carries from the back, but there aren't so many from the white tees where the oldest member plays from.

[astavrides]

Thanks to Tommy and others who made the event possible.  It was terrific.   It was great to meet and talk to a lot of people.

I thought Stone Eagle was a great design and a lot of fun to play.  I lost a lot of balls, but I recall these being off the tee, rather than on approach shots.  But I tend to be a pretty accurate iron player.   I think it was a fair course.  Although I don't like to lose balls, as somebody said, everytime I did lose one, I felt I deserved to.

It seemed that I hit a lot more fairways at the Palms and the Plantation than at Stone Eagle, even though the fairways seemed to me to be comparible in width (at least in effective width since there is a lot more run on the ball at Stone Eagle).  Perhaps it was just random that I was swinging worse at Stone Eagle, or perhaps I swung worse because of intimidation at Stone Eagle-knowing that the penalty for a wayward drive would be more severe.

[Thomas_Brown]

We played the back tees.
Routing-wise the uphill climbs back to some of the back tee boxes was a bit of a pain.  I tried to use some of the walking paths off of greens.  My guess is the cost to blast more paved cart path up to those tee boxes was prohibitive.

Unique to the design is the fact that you can use the contours in the fairways as speed slots.  #4 hole, we had 111 yards left because we hooked the ball onto the slope.  #18 had the similar effect down the left.  #18 on the first day was a fantastic hole location in the back of the green.  #9 is probably a drivable par 4 at 400 yards.

Most of the hole locations were about 10 paces from the edge.

#6 actually had a small green if you consider how few possible hole locations are on that green.

[Jason Topp]

So Evan Fleisher, struggling mightily with his game all day long, joins Mark Arata, Jason Topp, and myself for one final hole, the 19th, to put an end to the suffering.

His ball comes to rest long of the green right against a basketball-sized rock bordering the grass.  No shot whatsoever (as you can see in this image...he's left handed, so he is aiming directly away from the hole)

It's the 19th hole and we're out there to have some fun, so he reaches into the bag of tricks and comes up with the "hit it directly into the rock to ricochet it onto the green directly behind him"

See for yourselves... (click the image to play)

I know I had a good time when I had completely forgotten about that shot!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()