Wolf Creek With Pics

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Once again, the predictable "victim" approach is embraced by you.

George, thanks for confirming the "closed" mind approach.

I simply said this -- those who are classic types will likely not like WC -- that's fine with me. You may or may not be a classic orthdoxy course lover but your assessment for the course was way off in my mind.

Ryan:

Be mindful of George's invite -- he's cool until the object of your desires differs from his.

[Michael Dugger]

Matt Matt Matt....what a joke you are becoming!!!!

Wolf Creek is obviously less offensive to a player like you who apparently plays a pretty good game.

But yer like 10-15% of golfers.......

For the rest of us, the course is severe. 

Is golf suppose to be fun or what, man?  It's really that simple.....

[George Pazin]

George:

Once again, the predictable "victim" approach is embraced by you.

George, thanks for confirming the "closed" mind approach.

I simply said this -- those who are classic types will likely not like WC -- that's fine with me. You may or may not be a classic orthdoxy course lover but your assessment for the course was way off in my mind.

Ryan:

Be mindful of George's invite -- he's cool until the object of your desires differs from his.

But you didn't, Matt, and it's all there in black and white for everyone to read. You didn't do anything as simple as disagreeing with someone's stance, you openly derided those who criticise the course as "classic types" with their "nose up in the air." You trotted out the torn and tired Thai food analogy for the 10,000th time, yet again implying that anyone who disagreed with you lacked your open mind, your sophisticated tastes. Now you're telling Ryan that I'm not someone to discuss things with, simply because I disagree with you and called you on your definition of open-minded. And again you imply I'm closed minded because I'm not willing to spend precious time and money replaying a course when I have countless other better options.

My specific thoughts on the course have been stated time and time again, but apparently I need to review them for you:

Holes that I liked (the hole #s may not be perfectly accurate, it's been:

1) The first par 3 (#3) - I liked the greensite, perched atop the hill, thought it offered a cool skyline green.

2) The long downhill par 5 (#12) - like the meandering downhill nature of the hole with a gradual rise to a large green at the end, a green that was not overdone, I might add.

3) The 13th green - didn't much care for the tee shot, but I liked the greensite

4) The 14th - not much to say other than it was a fun hole.

5) I think the 16th - drive over a diagonal hazard, green beyond a ridge. Again, a simple, understated greensite that I liked.

Holes that I didn't like (not disliked, just didn't like):

Pretty much the rest. The holes that were potentially interesting, such as #7 and #13, were potentially interesting only in a trivial sense. It would be fun to stand with a bucket of balls and try to drive both greens, but I just can't imagine any sane person doing that if playing golf for real (i.e. in a match or tournament, or simply trying to record your best score).

I hated the aesthetics of the place, but can understand how others might enjoy it. It reminded me of the goofy calendar of world's toughest golf holes that is entirely photoshopped. I enjoy canyons, think they're beautiful, but don't waste my time wondering what it would be like to turf over part of the Grand Canyon so that I can hit perched tee shots.

I don't even mind the cartball nature of the course, but it is insulting to other cartball courses to call WC a cartball course. It is the only course I'm aware of that features speed bumps on the cart paths and the constant background noise of carts skidding their way down the hilly paths.

If someone has a good bit of free time on his hands, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it as something worth seeing. If, on the other hand, a golfer is like most of us and has a finite amount of time available, I can list a whole bunch of courses that I'd sooner visit. Heck, I'd rather play Black Mesa any and every day, it is far far beyond anything at Wolf Creek.

[George Pazin]

Matt Matt Matt....what a joke you are becoming!!!!

Wolf Creek is obviously less offensive to a player like you who apparently plays a pretty good game.

But yer like 10-15% of golfers.......

For the rest of us, the course is severe. 

Is golf suppose to be fun or what, man?  It's really that simple.....

Michael, I don't really have a big problem with the difficulty of WC. The only real difficulty is a unique skill (judging tee shots hit from very very elevated tees) and that's not so much difficult as simply something most golfers are unfamiliar with. The fairways are plenty wide enough to accommodate even most misjudged shots. I just don't find that particular skill very fun.

EDIT: I forgot the 8th hole - that's probably too difficult for most folks from either of the back 2 tees. But I wouldn't hold one very difficult hole against a course.

[Adam Clayman]

The course has few memorable holes and No sequences of note. Other than that, it's just fine golf. A collection of holes cut out of the raw desert with howlin winds and long vistas. If people are impressed with it from an architectural perspective, I don't see it. Doesn't mean it's not there, but from those who I know that are impressed by the course... It's more like an In and Out Burger Animal style, than authentic Thai food...

[Matt_Ward]

Michael:

Take a moment and put down the kool-aid can your sipping.

If people play the correct tees the net effect of Wolf Creek is far less than what many might imagine. You must have had your eyes closed when you played it.

Too many people crash and burn WC because they attempt to play the place at tee locations that their game can't support. Then they hit the 19th hole and bitch and moan about the difficulty when the real culprit is themselves.

You may have skipped plenty of posts that don't dovetail to your point of view but plenty of people -- Ryan started this thread with that thought in mind -- have liked the fun dimension Wolf Creek provides. I said this before -- it's a course that is far removed from the standard "classic types" that many on this site embrace like divine doctrine.

I've seen many high handicap types at Wolf Creek and interviewed many of them for their impressions -- they realized the fun aspect was there provided they only bit off a reasonable amount of challenge.

If you can't see that -- or see it differently -- so be it.

George P:

Now where should I start.

The issue I have with all the so-called GCA gurus who favor one style of golf design is that anything that ventures from their path they condemn -- then when I say as much they spin it back to me or others who feel likewise. I mentioned the Thai food situation because George let's face it -- you're a steak and potato type guy. Course design must be crafted in a particular way to be accepted as such. 

I appreciate your limited outline of the course -- I've provided my thoughts on each hole to provide a starting point for more full discussion.

Wolf Creek in detail ...

You forgot to itemize the 1st hole -- superb downhill par-5 that gets you off to a thrilling start. The hole can be reached in two blows for the strong hitter but not without considerable risk -- as it should be. Wind generally favors the player from the south-southwest but you need to avoid the narrowing landing zones for the 2nd shot. The green is pitched from back to front and is quite vexing to putt if you are left with anything longer than 25 feet -- especially if it's sidehill. Good opening hole that provides a birdie possibility but can bit back if you get too greeedy.

The 2nd is a stunning Cape-like hole. Several different tees are provided -- the champ tee is set highest of them all and providing sweeping vistas of the Nevada / Utah / AZ areas. The hole dog-legs left and the player has equally tough options either to hit a more demanding go-for-it tee shot or play a lay-up shot to the corner with sufficient distance that covers the minimum landing area but doesn't go too far past the safety of the fairway.

The approach is no less pedestrian -- green tilts from back to front and when the pin is placed towards the front can be very tough to get close in most situations. I've always found the 2nd hole to be a winning combination of beauty, seduction and risk/reward.

George, you and I agree about the 3rd. Although I wish they played hole at a somewhat shorter length -- the max should be no more than 175 yards given the steep climb to the target.

The 4th plays tougher than it appears. Short on card distance but it plays significantly uphill and those who try to cut the corner will pay a stepp price for anything less than 100% perfection. The further left you play for safety from the tee the more distance you need for the uphill approach. I really like the 4th because it falls perfectly between the nature of the 3rd and 5th holes.

The 5th should play as a long par-4 for strong players. No doubt the card lists it as a par-5. In somewhat of a similar way -- although considerably downhill - the player has to decide how much to cut off of the corner. Miss too far left and you are in deadsville. Uphill green reminds me of approach shots you often encounter at Bethpage Black. As a par-4 for strong players it's a fair hole -- for those who play it as a par-5 it gives you an option to get a birdie back on the course.

The return nature of the 6th is a great counterpoint to what you see with the 5th. The 6th plays downhill but you need to decide at the tee just how far you can hit the tee shot because of a stream that cuts across the fairway. Generally the hole plays into the prevailing wind so you need to really catch one here. The approach is fairly basic and so is the green.

The 7th is a real standout short par-4. With the prevailing wind players can get near or on the green with a tee shot. The one thing to keep in mind is that you can't miss it if you seek the boldest of plays. There is a hazard that cuts across the fairway and punishes anything less than a superb play. If you lay-up the approach is not automatic as the green narrows considerably the more the pin is cut tighter to the right.

The par-3 8th is often denounced as being too penal. That only happens when people play the extreme two tee boxes. The appropriate tee box for most players is no more than 150 yards from an elevated tee box to a target that you can completely see. You cannot see the entire green from the rear two boxes and people who decide to go that far back had better realize what is expected from those locations. No doubt it's a tough hole but from the 150-yd tees the hole is fairly tame and easily negotiated with a decently played approach.

The 9th hole is one that find puzzling -- the carry can be quite demanding certainly from a mental standpoint from a range of tee boxes. The hole generally plays into the wind so handling the rearesr tee position is not an option for most players. Decent concluding hole to the side but not a great one for sure in my mind.

The weak part of WC for me is the first two holes of the inner half. #10 is just a filler long par-4 -- just ordinary. The par-3 11th is an empty dropshot par-3 to an area that is devoid of anything challenging in and around the geen.

George we agree about the 12th. I like the way the H20 is angled to always be a factor for the tee shot. There's also the issue should one bail too far to the right and then have to handle the claywall that cuts into the 2nd shot vision of the player. The determination to go for the green is also something for players to think about if they hit a tee shot with sufficient distance. George you did mention the green but you failed to point the small landing pad in the very rear of the target -- makes two-putting or getting your approach close to that location a tough play.

The 13th seduces the player to go for the bold play but the percentage is for well-placed lay-up at the corner. The hole is quite short so location rather than brute strength wins the day here. The approach is quite demanding because it's uphill and the green is at least 3 clubs deep.

George we agree about the 14th hole -- plays from variety of tee boxes and the player generally encounters the hole into the prevailing wind. Could be the toughest tee shot you play at Wolf Creek -- the fairway is also questionmark because of the man-made ripples found there. Anything pulled left is deadsville. The further right you go the more the distance you need for the green. In many ways this hole reminds me of the 16th at Blacl Diamond's Quarry layout in Ocala, FL. The green is also well done here -- angled to put more pressure on the player to decide if they want to carry the bunkers that protect the entire left side.

The 15th is a sleeper hole at WC. Plays very short but often into a heavy wind because of the high nature of the property when you tee off there. When the pin is cut in the extreme rear you need to be really gutsy to fire all the way back to that location. Should be a birdie hole but a DB can happen very quickly here.

George the 16th is a fairly pedestrian hole on the inner half. Originally the champ tee was supposed to be where the 6th tee is located. Better judgement made the folks adjust the length to roughly 390 yards. Not a bad hole -- just so-so in my mind.

The downhill 17th is a real fun risk and reward par-5. You try to play the tee shot close to the left side to lower the distance to the green in two blows. Should you play out to the right the carry to the green can becomes problematic -- normally a lay-up ensues and the approach must be gauged correctly to a well contoured green.

If there's any real mutt hole for me at WC it's the closer. I like the short hole conclusion but the finale seems really cramp for the space provided. The formulaic waterfall is also an item that could have been spared.

In regards to the cart usage -- no doubt there are the bumps -- but plenty of other courses in severe grade changes have such things. For those who hold their noses at carts being used in such settings then know full well what's in store and judge accordingly.

I said this before -- Wolf Creek provides a "love" or "hate" outcome for most people. If you want something that's different and you have a desire to be challenged on a piece of property that's more Mars-like than Earth then go there. For the rest of those who prefer something more ordinary to their sensibilities just continue on I-15 in either direction.


Adam:

Your right -- you "don't see it."

The story is there and the sequences work well at different moments at WC. Clearly it doesn't provide the kind of "storyline" you prefer.

[George Pazin]

Nice post, Matt - seriously.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the 1st - it just didn't seem like anything special to me. Perhaps it's a one play thing, but it just seemed like your basic downhill tee shot, slog back up the green par 5.

I can see people liking the 2nd, but again, to me the principal element of interest is the tee shot, and I just didn't find it that interesting. Maybe it's just me, but cape tee shots lose A LOT from an elevated tee. Maybe I'll start a separate thread on that observation, seems like something worth debating.

The approach shots on 1, 2 and 5 were also a little too similar to me.

I'd have to see 7 again to believe any sane person would try to drive it, wind at your back or not. I'm not arguing it can't be done - I played the 2nd from the back tees and laid up the last level before the hazard with a 6 iron. I just can't see it being worth the risk, there is too much going on with the green complex - very elevated, pretty shallow, etc.

I barely remember 9 or 18 (besides the hideous waterfall on 18, which I understand why it's there and don't blame them for it, even if I don't like it), so obviously they didn't make much of an impression on me.

I agree with you on 10 & 11 - probably my two least favorite holes on the course.

I must have missed something on 15, I didn't think it was anything special - a straightforward tee shot and green that didn't do anything for me. I think it was wedge to the center of the green and an easy 2 putt for me, I just don't see it being double for anyone who doesn't horribly mishit it (which I am very prone to do, but I never hold that against a course).

17 didn't do anything for me, but as I stated, I don't like very elevated tee shots. Wide fairway, wide lay up area, maybe if I were going for it it would be more interesting, but the green didn't seem like anything special, so even if I were, I don't think if would've impressed me that much.

Glad we could take the discussion down a notch, but we'll have to agree to disagree about the course. I just don't see the thrills - too many elevated tee shots and then climbs to similar greens. It was too much hop scotch target golf for my tastes, and the poor aesthetics for me (I fully understand that's subjective) overwhelm the good stuff.

I'll let you have the last word.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Let me make sure you get this one key point -- I NEVER said Wolf Creek was bulletproof -- I did say it offers a different slant on what golf architecture can be and I personally see -- as have others -- the fun element which is clearly alive and well on a range of different holes.

Try to keep this in mind as I have said it many times before -- what irritates me to no end is when people (likely not you) play from the wrong tee boxes and instead of being candid about their own limitations decide the best course of action is to trash the course. It happens more than many people might realize.

Wolf Creek is playable when you realize one's limitations. Clearly, if someone is hitting mega foul balls then you pay a huge price. But, I can say the same thing for those who visit Bethpage Black or The Ocean Course at Kiawah.

Let me review what you responded to.

The 1st at Wolf Creek generally plays downwin in most cases. The hole provides for elasiticity in terms of strategic options. If someone hits a top notch drive you have to be mindful of how the 2nd shot landing area does pinch in with the pond that sits just off the right. In fact, the best angle to approach the green is to get as close to the H20 as you dare.

I said this before -- if one lays up to say 75-100 yards -- the pitch shot is just enough uphill that you need to gauge it correctly. When wind is behind the player it makes gauging how far and how high to hit the shot a bit more than elementary.

Let me move on to the 2nd -- George, here's what you are missing. Too many cape holes provide the E-Z out if a player decides to forego the more dangerous angle. At WC's 2nd -- the lay-up shot is no less a demand. You need to think carefully about the distanc to be covered over the blind ridge and to make sure it's not too far to run through the fairway.

Let me further point out something that a one-time play at WC does in terms of your assesssments. You only see the hole in a limited snapshot -- I've watched countless players play the hole and I have my own situation to consider when standing at the tip tees. The go with the big drive impulse can be tough to ignore. However, credit Rider with making sure that the all-out attack angle has to be flawlessly executed. I've reached the front of the green with a helping wind -- but you can't turn the ball left one iota -- even a slight push can be a crusher if too far to that side.

The elevated tee element is one you keep on mentioning as a weakness. Think of it this way -- the elevated tee shot makes players believe they can easily make the carry -- it seduces you into believing that the landing area in the far corner is within your reach -- that's when WC grabs you by the b*lls and makes you pay. Look at the overall distance for the course -- it's quite benign -- just at 7,000 yards.

You mentioned the similarity of approaches at 1,2 and 5. Uphill approaches are often neglected by most designs. They prefer to provide a DOWNHILL approach so that the player can see everything. Bethpage Black is strong because of this dimension. Anytime you are hitting uphill it adds a great deal of issues that must be factored into appropriately. Keep in mind, that the 5th would likely play as a par-4 for the strong players and that adds a good bit more into the equation with the tee shot execution.

George, your memory and take on #7 is in error -- with no disrespect. Rider placed the hole in that position because the prevailing wind just adds another risk / reward element to consider. You layed-up -- which is fine -- but then you faced a longer second and when the pin is cut tight to the right you'd better hit a career approach to get anywhere within 25 feet.

I've hit #7 with a 3-metal but I had to favor the left side because the carry and narrowness of the right side is fraught with too much danger. George, try to keep this in mind -- the hole plays downhill -- you have a helping wind and the max of the carry is at best 290 yards to clear the immediate danger. I think it's a real ballbuster hole because so many people just don't execute to their strenth on the hole.

I have to take issue with your lack of overall memory on #15. Rider placed the hole on the highest spot on the course if my memory serves me -- certainly the highest on the inner half. You often face the prevailing headwin and there are time when it's quite a bit more than a flip PW.

With the pin in the rearest position you have to really decide if you can hit a short iron that accurately when swirls are happening in a big time way. Pull it slightly and at minimum that's a four. What many people think of as being a rudimentary hole doesn't provide the amount of birdies one would ordinarily expect.

#17 provides the player with an opportunity to get something back on the scorecard. The issue is that too many players want to get the tee ball as far as possible and should they pull it there is H20 to the far left. You also have to hit a lay-up shot -- for those who don't go for the green in two blows -- to the correct side for the best angle. Pin hard left and you need to go far right -- ditto the reverse situation.

In regards to the green complexes Rider was smart to keep them from being overly contoured. If WC had Tetherow or Black Mesa greens the situation would be beyond what is there now.

Rider to his credit used a site and sculpted holes to fit the canyons and spaces. I like the range of holes found there -- you have real gamble type holes and then you have spots on the course where you need to be really cautious. Being able to switch gears is a key factor at WC -- like I said the total overall yardage is not backbreaking -- it's being able to shape shot into the preferred landing areas and then being precise with your approaches that pays dividends when there.

Wolf Creek is not for everyone -- but it certainly doesn't provide a boring or nondescript time. I can appreciate your take on the course but a one time play can often tilt one's thinking a bit. No doubt you'll likely not return there but I do encourage others who enjoy fun and adventurous golf to sample what's there and decide for themselves.

P.S. I only wish the 18th could be a better finished than what's there now. The waterfall is the least of the issues -- a real go-or-no-go short par-4 could really provide a fitting end to the day.

[Rob Rigg]

Matt - Fair point.

Edited due to poor choice of vocabulary.

[Matt_Ward]

Rob:

Anyone heading to Wolf Creek can easily find through this site -- and related threads on Wolf Creek - or in calling the club itself on the cart requirement when there.

Rob, I take strong exception to your slant that WC is "mini golf course" as in miniature golf or some sort of "place the ball in the clown's mouth sort of thing." (my quote marks from me -- not you).

I have to ask -- have you played the course? If so -- I'd appreciate a bit more detail -- along the lines George P provided that goes into specific not the short and woefully incomplete spot analysis that's gut oriented alone. You have people on this site who trash places simply from third hand accounts or from photos.

George accounted his tastes to specific holes and shot situations and I appreciate his detail -- although I see it differently.

Rob, I also don't know what you mean when you say you "enjoy my quirk on walking courses." What does quirk have to do with walking? Courses that are cart oriented can have quirk. Right? If not -- please tell me how you make such a distinction?

Rob, there will always be course disagreements but it's through a bit more detailed shot-for-shot & hole-for/hole that real unearthing of any course can happen. I understand what people say about Tetherow -- and the OR course is applied a double-standard because when you see similar type courses across the pond they get gushed about. I will admit that a number of the green contours found at Tetherow are beyond what most people can handle but the strategic calculations in getting from the tee to the green is quite well done -- although the naysayers really have a major issue with the 16th hole !

If you have personal firsthand accounts of Wolf Creek to shots / holes please let me and others read them. It can certainly add to my understanding of your specific feelings on the layout in question.

[Rob Rigg]

edited.

[Matt_Ward]

Rob:

Sure.

People can have opinions about anything in the world at-large.

What makes them meaningful -- is when people have actually sampled the item(s) in question. I don't agree with George's take on WC but I respect his thoughts from having been there. Too many people want to weigh in through third hand accounts or photos. That's not sufficient and frankly it does a major disservice to the places in question because far too many comments are simply in error for a whole host of factual reasons -- never mind the subjective stuff.

Rob, you throw forward a "mini golf course" tag and you have not personally sampled the place. That's a very strong statement with no concrete first hand account to back that up. Opinions without any real depth are nothing more than blowing smoke. That's what made Doak's CG book so powerful -- the guy was there.

Rob, it wasn't a"bit much" -- it was over-the-top and undercuts your credibility in half big time.

You can always decide where you want to play -- no one said you can't.

But, let's get real with computer armchair QB opinions on places you have not played. I value the direct connection people make when playing -- their opinions then come with a clear reference point that being there provides.

Yours doesn't.

End of story ...

[Rob Rigg]

edited

[Andy Troeger]

Rob,

With all due respect, playing a course on the Wii or any other simulation isn't the same as the real thing. You obviously know that, but still continue to refer to it. As you've admitted, the "mini-golf" comments were rather over the top.

All I'm getting out of your comments is that you like walking courses and since Wolf Creek isn't one you'll likely skip it. Fair enough, but that speaks to your preferences as much/more than the golf course itself.

[Rob Rigg]

Andy and Matt,

I have edited previous posts because - although they were not meant to be unfair - they were.

Matt - I do not think you need to play a course to have an opinion about it. As long as you state that your opinion is not based on experience. Does it mean much? Maybe not, but you can still share that with a group of people.

Very often people on the forum make sound observations about courses based on photos, that those who have played the course can speak to.

You can share your excitement about Castle Stuart just as much as you can share your lack of excitement for a course like Wolf Creek, provided it is done in a proper manner.

That is what I was trying to get at and I think that is where we disagree.

[Andy Troeger]

Rob,
There certainly is a double standard in that it usually ok to heap praise on a course that you haven't played but negative comments often get jumped on.

A comment such as "That bunker looks fantastic!" based on a photo probably won't elicit any response, but negative comments tend to bring out the calvary (or at least Matt!).

You're right in that just about everyone that's posted here frequently has made some kind of comment about a course they haven't actually played. I certainly have. We've also probably all seen photos of a course that's getting praised or ripped by the group and gone "huh?" and wanted to throw our two cents in based on a few photos. I've found its usually better to make that comment out loud to whoever is listening than to post it here though    Either that or ask a question--that usually stimulates discussion without being too heavy-handed.


In regards to Wolf Creek, I've posted in another thread but its a very unique course that's really quite a bit of fun with a lot of risk/reward shots. The nice thing here is that if one is playing well there's enough reward available in most places to make the risk worth considering. I agree with George that 95-99% of golfers will never consider going for the green at the 7th. I also think the middle tees (5800 yards total give or take) at the 5th force too large of a carry for a weaker player--its still pushing 200 yards (well downhill). As Matt says, its almost a par four for a strong driver of the ball, but then its pretty severe for a short-knocker who might not be able to fly the creek. He disagrees with that take. The 8th hole is great from the shorter markers, but again someone who's about 10 handicap would likely want to play the course from 6200 yards at least and then gets stuck from 215 into a peninsula green--a bit extreme. I don't love the 3rd but think its reasonable even with the huge uphill nature of the shot from the lower tees. The challenge can be that even from 175 it becomes a long iron which then is tough to get in the air--but short isn't that bad. Its a challenging hole, but nothing wrong with that.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

The issue with comments made from non-visited courses leaks water no matter whether such statements are made from a positive (supportive) position or one that is critical (denouncing). It speaks of weak homework and only serves to undercut the real exchange of info gleaned from seeing firsthand what is at a given course.

My position would remain the same -- if you think there's a double-standard that's fine -- but it's not I who is doing such a thing.

I've made it a clear point to state UPFRONT if I have not played a course and then if such comments do come from me I restate again and again that my perspective is indeed limited to the point of being nearly meaningless because I have not been to the course(s) in question.

I've found its usually better to make that comment out loud to whoever is listening than to post it here though    Either that or ask a question--that usually stimulates discussion without being too heavy-handed.

Andy, let me point out a few items in regards to your take on WC. You are right 95-99% of golfers will never consider going for the green at the 7th." The same can be said for the 10th at Riviera as well but that hole in California is generally regarded as one of the finest short par-4's in the world. I'm not equating the 7th at WC on an equal footing but the opportunity to go for the green is certainly present for those so inclined with the ability / gumption to try.

Enough with the preposterous take that the carry at the 5th is outside the boundaries of most golfers. We are talking seriously D-O-W-N-H-I-L-L, with a prevailing helping wind in desert air conditions.

If you are arguing on the behalf of short knockers then the facts do get in the way of your tear jerker admonition. Strong players would have the hole as par-4 and I know it's routine for them to get them with a drive and short iron when conditions of the type routinely happen.

In regards to the 8th -- the issue boils down to what type of golfer one is speaking about. I know plenty of "strong" 15 handicap types who can traipse back to the middle markers and try to handle the challenge presented at 215 yards. Let me point out the drop-off at the 8th is also quite noticeable -- likely in the range of 40-50 feet. The "effective" yardage needs to be adjusted accordingly. Although at times the prevailing win can be back in the player's faces.

Andy, it's not unheard of for groups to play alternate markers as their game and weather conditions demand. The 8th may be such a hole for those folks.

In regards to the "peninsula" green comment -- there is sufficient room to land short of the green -- the deeper you go the more accurate you need to be. You also have more room to the right than what the tee shot indicates -- especially when you play from the middle and tip tee distances.

The only people who belong on the tip tees are legitimate low single digit handicaps. Far too many people often play the incorrect tees and it impacts their final comments. When played at the 152-yard marks tghe 8th is very reasonable for most players.

The 3rd would be a far better hole if the tip tee distance were played at 175-yards. From the 227 figure it can be quite daunting save for the most skilled. Again, the general prevailing wind is often behind the player.

Rob:

People are free to say anything they want. It helps the person's credibility to weigh seriously about how far they want to go in making such comments.

Your "mini golf" comment is the one that tossed your credibility aside for me on WC.

People need to realize that educating people is a big element in which this site and others can offer when courses of any type are discussed. You don't educate properly or deeply when people throw forward deep left field seats analysis -- shall I call it that -- into the discussion that's nothing more than an armchair QB opinion. Third hand accounts and photo reviews are fine for those who wish to go that route -- but dissing a course with such a broad brush as you did specifically with WC undercuts your standing in my eyes.

Andy and George have different takes than me on WC but I can better appreciate their positions because they took the time to actually play it BEFORE lobbing any definitive statements.

Just food for thought -- that's all.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
The 8th is too long at 215 for some folks that want to play a 6200 yard course and the carry on the 5th from the third set is way too long from a forward tee. People should play a reasonable set of tees--but those are two situations where simply moving a tee would improve the experience for most golfers. Sure, they could move up on their own, but most people won't do that.

As I mentioned before, I played with two guys who both broke 100 from that middle set of markers, hit most of the fairways, but couldn't make the carry on the 5th. That's not good design in my book from a playability standpoint. There needs to be SOMEPLACE for them to go. Build a new tee 25 yards down the hill and the issue goes away.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

The tees are there for people to move to as matters dictate. The idea that people must blindly play the same markers day-after-day is not necessary and frankly when weather conditions become severe requires some adjustment. This happens even for the best of players at different times. Organizers at the PGA Tour level do this as a matter of routine.

In regards to the 8th -- the hole should be played at the 155-yd markers -- save for those who are legitimate single digit handicaps. No doubt a strong higher handicap player may want the challenge the 8th provides at 215 yards but that's a personal decision. The hole should not be blamed for the player placing himself in the wrong location when held against their playing skills (lack thereof).

In regards to the 5th -- the carry from the white tees is 193 yards. I'll say this again because you choose to ignore the physical characteristics the hole / conditions provide. The tee is at minimum 40-50 feet above the bottom of the fairway so that the "effective" carry is far shorter than what you mentioned. You also have the prevailing wind pattern which is behind the player most of the time. If a player cannot hit a driver a net 175 yards in the air -- the option is clear -- move up a box and play from that position.

The egalitarian playability defense you present is a noble one -- there are already options in play now -- the players just need to use them as provided.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
And the thing you don't seem to be considering is that the tees being discussed are just under 5800 yards--someone who can carry the ball 165 and hits it 200 consistently should be able to play those tees. The next set up is basically 5000 yards--moving that far up isn't reasonable either. If you were talking about the deeper markers I'd agree, but these are basically supposed to be for the short knockers--so give them a chance.

#1 at Black Mesa is a good example of what I'd like to see. There's still a carry, but the forward markers are placed where its very doable, in the 125-140 range. The 175 carry is reserved for the "regular" markers give or take.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Your argument is well taken but given the description of the holes I outlined and the "effective yardage" I mentioned I don't see the issue. I appreciate your egalitarian desires -- they are quite noble -- but the holes / shot required are far from draconian. If you apply that standard then I'd love to get your take on BB which is even more severe than Wolf Creek for the type of player you reference.

The tee boxes can/should be used as a mix and match circumstance depending upon the weather patterns of the day. The idea that you stay fixed on the same place is not needed and often is impractical.

Wolf Creek has its issues -- I don't see the 5th and 8th being among them and the solutions I mentioned can be applied by those who make such easy adjustments on where to tee off.

[Pete_Pittock]

Played Wolf Creek earlier today. Started in calm conditions so I played the blue tees, even though there may have been some problematic tee shot carries. By the 7th hole the wind was gusting to 30 into the players returning to the clubhouse. Played well (86) with 5 doubles (8,9, 16, 17, 18) into the wind. Greens were stimping around 8.5-9 with aerification last week.
My thoughts on the golf course are somewhere between Matt and George. First, with many afternoons where the wind can blow from opposite compass points, the course is severe with near impossible carries and the lack of width available in the canyons. But they built it and people still come and pungle up $195.
I don't really like that I had to hit driver, driver, 3-wood and punch 8 on the par 3s, but they were interesting to say the least. The front side 5s were average, on the back #12 had a bouquet of Sandpines 18, and 17 was nuke driver and three 9 irons into the severe wind.
#14 is all world into the wind. Even with all the bunkers having new white sand (also 11) in contrast
to the tannish sand in the less photograped holes.
The course rewards a straight hitter who plays from the correct tees. It had good marketing - the Canadians had $40 each to spend in the pro shop in their package deal. Maybe I should have gone with a group.
Will I return by myself-No. With a group-yes.

[Matt_Ward]

Pete:

Interesting comments ...

Couple of questions --

1). What was your preception of the placer prior to playing there and how did you actual experience add to that or take away from it ?

2). You mentioned the escalating wind conditions -- did the wind blow out of the prevailing direction -- southwest -- that would mean hole #1 and #10 would be downwind ? It appears that from the holes you DBed the prevailing wind was in your face for such holes as #8, #9, and the final trio.

3). You mentioned about the necessity in playing "the correct tees." If you had played the next markers -- not the blues -- would your thought procss have changed in terms of how to strategize / execute on a number of the holes ? Would it be fair to ask -- that playing the blue tees only served to put your game under more pressure than it can sustain on a consistent basis ?

4). You lost me when you said that "with many afternoons ... the wind can blow from opposite compass points." Pete, how do you make such a statement from just a one time play ? Was the wind blowing hard from the southwest and then change during midround. Given your comments about handling a headwind for the final two holes on the back and the final two on the inner half - it appears the wind encountered was from the prevailing pattern when one plays WC.

5). You further state that the "course is sever with near impossible carries." Might that be because you placed yourself on a tee box location that didn't allow for YOU to make such carries ? In regards to the "lack of width available in the canyons," can you illuminate specifically what holes you are referring to ?

6). You mentioned hitting driver on #8 -- if you had played the hole from the 152 yard marks would this have changed your perception of the hole ?


7). Andy mentioned the carry on the 2nd par-5 on the front (#5) can be a daunting carry for certain players. Can you weigh in with your thoughts on his take ?

I do agree with your take on #14 -- it is a first rate hole and when you face a howling prevailing southwest wind in your face you need two big time shots to get to the green and a deft touch to walk away with a par.

Two last questions -- would you recommend avid golfers, irrespective of handicap, to play the course ?

If you have played other desert-type courses where would you place the experience you had at WC when held against them ?

Thanks ...

[Pete_Pittock]

1) I went in with an open mind, expecting a high slope course which would fit in nicely between the the two polarities. With my game of a 190 carry driver, 9 wood 155 I feel comfortable at about 6200 without having to press myself. I was going to play whites, but the starter told me about the holes having forced carries and they were threshold achievable, so I went up to the blues.

2) The wind was out of the southwest, so there was a tailwind on 10, against on 8-9, 14-18.

3) If had gone back one set I would not have finished. If had had gone foreward one set #1 would be reachabe, #2 would not have been driver, #3, #4, #5, # 6 unchanged, #7 less club, # 8 with the cross wind would still be wet, #9 easier, #10 my driver bounced through the rocks, so easier, #11 big change (iron?), #12 reachable, #13 no change in strategy, #14 was a career par barely reaching the fairway when the wind nearly dies, I'd have to move up two tees to make a difference, #15 okay, #16 helpful to move up, #17 and 18 wind so strongI did move up to no avail bad drive on 18).

4) After the round I talked with the pro for about 15 minutes about the course and the wind and it said it quite often blows down from St George, so there isn't a prevaiing wind per se.

5) Perhaps I wasn't quite clear enough, I meant under the conditions I played, which was in winds 20+ and gusting. On the forced carry holes pointed out before the round I was able to reach the fairway with near perfect shots. Certainly it would have been easier from the whites, I would have been quite comfortable there.
On 14 I was able to barely reach the fairway. My playing partners ball were lost. On #16 I had to aim between the red tees and the start of the fairway, a very small area I was unable to hit. #17 we hit 9 tee shots. 
Regarding my "lack of width" comment, that was also predicated on the windy conditions. When you are hitting from elevated tees in high winds, the shot dispersal possibilies are enormous. #8 specifically comes to mind., and the 90 degree dogleg on 13.

6) I did hit driver on 8. The correct aiming point for me would have been close to the waterfall on 18. The is very little width for successful shots,  and I disagree with the yardage book claim that there is adequate bailout room on the  right. At 155 it might have been doable, certainly an easier shot, but the odds are the score would have been 4 or 5 from either set of tees.

7) For a 190-200 carry player the carry area over the creek is quite small but I was able to hit it. I guess you can lay up short and play a true 3 shotter, but I really didn't look at the area short of the creek and the reslultant shot. The creek is small and only a 1 shot penalty and the hole still parable.

I would not say stay away. I would not say you have to go play this course. If  it was a high handicapper I would suggest an early tee time. I have not played enough desert golf to make a comparison. It is visually stimulating. The natural areas are no-go zones, play as lateral hazards taking out recoverability options.

If they monitor this, if the players are made aware of wind forecasts, it would be of help to the golfer.

[David Kelly]

I remembered that I kind of hated the course so I looked up what I wrote on here years ago and found some comments I made.

"The par 3 3rd hole is more like a skyscraper green than a skyline green.  Playing the hole is like trying to hit a four iron to the top of a five story building 220 yds away.

As I have told a lot of people this is ur-cartball golf at its most extreme and you spend most of the day slamming on brakes and blasting over the SPEEDBUMPS that are placed throughout the course to keep people from killing themselves while flying down the sides of mountains.  The drive between 8 and 9 is the longest I have ever seen on a golf course.  I felt like I had to warm up again when I got to the 9th tee.

I have now played the course twice and that will do for a long while. Both times I have played were in 20+ mph winds and it made some of the holes close to unplayable since virtually every tee shot requires a long carry over an abyss.  Most of the strategy was trying to figure out what club to hit off of the tee to clear a canyon but leave the ball short of another canyon. "

I still have no plans to go back.