[Ryan Farrow]

Does Shadow Creek qualify as a desert course?  

YES, it does.

And Tom Doak assigned it a "9"[/color]




But for me, a great golf course has to be a natural part of the land, not forced on the land.

Then, by your definition and criterion, NO golf course in the desert would qualify, as they're all unnatural and forced onto the land.[/color]

2 issues here:

No Shadow Creek does not qualify as a desert course, maybe a dessert course after a day at the bunny ranch. Yes it is in the desert and that is all I will give you on that one. When you completely turn the micro climatic features of a site upside down and completely disconnect it from its surroundings then there is no way in hell you can seriously call Shadow Creek a desert golf course.

as for this statement:

"Then, by your definition and criterion, NO golf course in the desert would qualify, as they're all unnatural and forced onto the land."

Have you played Apache Stronghold?
And by that definition every golf course ever built was forced on the land, which I don't buy for a minute.

[rchesnut]

Patrick --

I have to admit, I was quite surprised that Tom D. was so complementary of Shadow Creek in the Confidential Guide.   Tom is obviously far more knowledgeable than I am about this stuff, and I can't think of another course I've played where my views of a course have been so far from his.  And to be fair, I don't like golf carts or rental clubs, and unfortunately I was stuck with both for my round at SC, so that didn't help my impressions of the course.  So SC probably has a lot of merit to it, architecturally, that I missed in my first (and probably only) round there.

You lose me a bit when you point to Golf Digest as an authority   (its ratings system has shortcomings that have been chronicled here quite a bit), and let's be clear...no leading authority thinks SC is a Top 10 US course.  I think the latest GD rankings put it at #27, and  Golf Magazine has it at #50.  But your point is a fair one -- the course gets very good ratings, and my view (which would put the course even further down the Top 100) is a minority one.  

I'm not an arborist, so I can't tell you what type of pine trees they planted at SC.  But I can tell you that a number of the pine trees looked pretty bad, a fact that even the caddies talked about.  That may be because, while you're correct that pines are found in a lot of places in North America (including North Carolina, where they're incorporated into the golf courses more heavily than any other place I've played), they aren't indigenous to the Nevada desert.  Some tree management is in order, and I can't imagine that it will be easy.  And they've got real turf issues as well, the 17th green in particular is just a mess.  

I can't define "soul" for a golf course...if you're seriously asking, then you'll never know.  Certainly, it's highly personal.  I've played Cypress Point, Oakmont, Pacific Dunes, San Francisco, Royal County Down, Pasatiempo, Ballyneal, Barnbougle Dunes, Royal Melbourne, and a number of others that have "it," at least for me.  It's a quality that I can experience when I'm walking a course, and enjoying a setting where the golf is in harmony with the natural surroundings and the features of the land.  The courses have character, another term that almost defies definition.  

I didn't get that feeling at SC...it's not designed as a walking course for obvious reasons, and it's not taking advantage of any natural terrain...it's all fake.  Something about man made waterfalls on golf courses that drives me nuts.  It sounds like you're a big admirer of Steve Wynn and that desert golf works for you.  Maybe desert golf just isn't for me...or maybe I haven't played enough desert golf.  Both distinct possibilities.  

Rob

[Tom Yost]

An interesting divergence in opinion is occuring:

Desert golf?
 or
Golf in the Desert?

To me, a "desert golf" couse is the modern, target style layout, where the off-turf areas are rock and native vegetation.

I'm not familiar with Shadow Creek, but in Phoenix in the early days before water restrictions, courses were built in the midwestern parkland style, a core routing with trees and 100% turf coverage.  (Phoenix CC, Arizona CC, Biltmore Adobe... etc).  These are in-town and mostly on flat terrain.   All features totally manufactured and all the veg is non-native.  Golf in the desert but not desert golf?

The growth of golf in the 80's and 90's was impacted by water restrictions which made it impossible to build a course with wall to wall grass.  This gave birth to the "desert golf" course - the first of which most of us became aware of was Desert Highlands (due to TV exposure on the Skins Game).  

Take a look at some of the more respected desert courses like We-Ko-Pa: the course is built on and makes complete use of the desert terrain and surrounding NATIVE vegetation.  Truely, a "desert course."

So, how is a course in the desert like Shadow Creek, which is totally isolated from its natural surrounding where EVERY feature is manufactured, could be world class, where a desert course like Saguro is unnatural and forced onto the land ??

I suppose that if you simply believe that turf in the desert is just wrong, then I guess you would also believe that proper golf can ONLY be found on true links land.  Any other site would be forced and unnatural.


Tom

[Matt_Ward]

Chris B:

I too like Stone Canyon but I would not rate it a 7 because of two holes -- the 2nd with its forced lay-up off the tee and, if memory serves, I believe one of the early holes on the back nine, features this same type of architectural inclusion that really is not needed in either instance.

The best feature of Stone Canyon is that its well done within the overall desert landscape. There is room to miss the ball without the "either or" dynamic that far too often intrudes upon playing so many other courses of this type.

I wonder if you have played the two courses I lusted from DM and what your thoughts are on them.

Gents:

I too like Apache Stronghold but a 7 from me would only be possible if the turf conditions were up to the same level as the design. I've been there a few times and that's never really been the case thus far. Candidly, I would rate The Rawls Course in Lubbock as a better overall design.

[Ken Moum]

I wonder if you have played the two courses I lusted from DM and what your thoughts are on them.

Freudian slip?

<grin>

[Matt_Ward]

kmoum:

Yikes, what a slip !

Now my wife will know why I love going to AZ !!!

[John Foley]

I thought parts of Stone Canyon (holes 7-9 & 16-18) had the potential to be that world class desert golf course. However some of the things there (the pond on #10 for example) realy brought the course down IMHO from what it could have been.

[Adam Clayman]

Matt, Shouldn't your evaluation of any DESIGN be sans conditioning?

You often make references to conditions of courses that you have not played for a long time. Is that fair? I don't think it is, and I'm sure those who are involved with the project you are critiquing do either.

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

I articulate in my posts the fact when and how many times I have played a course. People are free to interpret the information as they wish. People can also highlight their own comments to bolster or disprove mine.

My last visit to AS was a few years back -- roughly 3 years ago if memory serves. I liked the course and said so. I also weighed in with the fact that on MULTIPLE SUBSEQUENT VISITS to the course since my first time the level of conditioning was spotty at best.

You are free to dismiss my comments as I am free to dismiss yours.

Keep in mind -- others weigh in on courses solely through their examination of photos alone. I don't hear you beefin' when they do that and then apply a tag to the quality of the course or the lack thereof. Try to be a bit more forthcoming in your assumed role as GCA policeman.  

[CHrisB]

If one has to include courses I have played that I would rate a 7 or better I'd include the following ...

Desert Forest
Whisper Rock *original 18 by Mickelson & Stephenson
Desert Mtn *Chirichua
Desert Mtn *Outlaw
Wolf Creek in Mesquite, NV
Black Mesa
Silverleaf *very unheralded layout from Weiskopf
Vista Verde *solid effort from K Kavanaugh

Some people may laugh at my inclusion of Wolf Creek but when you see all the fanfare tied to the "creation" of Shadow Creek I believe Wolf Creek goes a bit beyond what you see there.

I played Wolf Creek for the first time last week, and although I enjoyed it a lot, I'd hesitate to rate it as highly as a 7 on my own personal scale. I don't think it holds a candle to Black Mesa, for instance.

First, I'd say that Wolf Creek doesn't offer the variety of tee shots that Black Mesa does--too many drop shots from elevated tees (though bombing driver from a highly elevated tee is fun), and the only hole that starts low and goes up is a 227-yard par 3. Second, there are several holes that either have long carries to the fairway (#14 is the best example), or widen up as you go (#4 is the best example), so that you'd rather bomb driver than try to fit 3-wood or less into a tight area or risk not making the carry. Third, marking all desert areas as ESA (environmentally sensitive area) makes the course play awkward in spots (you could have a playable lie 5 feet into the desert and have to take a penlaty drop, often back at the tee) and means that you see literally thousands of golf balls in the desert areas as you go around the course. I just glanced left of the 8th green and counted over 50 balls on the left bank of the pond there, with many more balls plugged into the cliff wall behind the green--very strange looking.

[Matt_Ward]

Chris:

I never said opined Wolf Creek as being the equal of Black Mesa. I did say, in my mind, that Black Mesa is the equal of Pacific Dunes although the two courses are in completely different locales. Nonetheless, both of them are rich in design details.

People who rate Wolf Creek need to keep this in mind -- it is completely and totally unnatural to the max. It is certainly unique in the manner by which it was created and with all that said there are a number of fun and stellar holes present when playing.

The risk / reward 2nd hole comes quickly to mind. After the loooooooong walk up to the tip tees -- they should place an ogygen tank there ! -- the decision to play either aggressively or conservatively has to be made.

Chris, you highlighted the fact of dropshot tee shots -- I don't doubt there is an abundance of them when playing but that only brings into play the massive winds that often blow when playing Wolf Creek. I have played Wolf Creek about half a dozen times -- three of those occasions featured consistent wind speeds in excess of 25+ with gusts in the range of 40-50 mph. The dropshot tee shots only place added pressure on the player to control the shot. Even in dead air you still need to angle the tee shot in the appropriate location because of the way numerous fairways bottleneck with all sorts of dangers.

Let's talk about #14 -- if people play the appropriate tee box the carry to the fairway is within range of the player(s). Those venturing to the back tee had better be prepared to step on the tee shot full throttle to get to the desire landing area. Keep in mind, that #14 often plays into the prevailing SW or W winds -- and as I indicated previously they can blow v-e-r-y strong into one's face.

Let me also point out your mentioning about ESA's throughout the course. They are limited and not as prevalent as you mentioned. The par-3 8th does have the feature you mentioned but keep in mind the hole is very demanding and again people take on too much risk by playing the wrong tees and then complain (not directed at you) about where their ball finishes up when executing poorly. Wolf Creek has plenty of playable areas and enough of the periphery to allow for recovery shots. However, those players hitting foul balls to the extreme will be penalized -- that's why the slope rating there is so high.

Chris, the reason I rate Wolf Creek so high is that it personifies man's desire to overcome harsh areas and build a rather unique -- and for some controversial layout. I find what is there to be USA modern quirk -- I rather enjoy hole like the dog-leg right uphill par-4 13th! Ditto the short pitch shot one plays into the par-3 15th -- play that hole into a stiff headwind and you'll know the meaning of utter precision -- especially when the pin is cut to the extreme rear. Ditto the challenge of the par-4 6th and the driveable but risky play with short par-4 7th.

For all the hype Shadow Creek gets and to a lesser degree other desert courses in and around Vegas like Cascata and Rio Seco -- I'd play Wolf Creek in a heart beat. I've said this before -- for those who are hell bent on classical school designs stay away from Wolf Creek. For those who enjoy the spicy nature of Thai food -- then Wolf Creek will be entertaining at times and no doubt hell raising at other times.

I accept it for what it is and realize many others won't like it or ever get it. So be it. I'm happy to hear you took the time to play it.

[CHrisB]

Matt,
I like your use of the word "quirk" in describing Wolf Creek--I think it is very applicable and highlights how fun of a course it is. It may not be a great course but it is quirky, fun, sporty, or however else you'd want to describe unusual in a good way.

I got lucky in my one play and got practically no wind, which meant that you could really let the driver go and a low score was possible. The pin was at the back of the 8th green, which meant that it played 256 yards (though straight downhill)--I didn't feel like throwing a 5-wood up in the air so I hit a hard 3-iron just to get to the front-right corner and managed to get it up and down. Can't imagine them putting the tee back there for a tournament--the waits would be too long.

I think Wolf Creek would be a great match play course, and a very good venue for a best ball or other team format. Anyone who can hit the driver long and straight can really squeeze his opponent there.

I was told before the round that all desert areas were to be played as ESA, and there seemed to be green poles designating such on every hole.

To me the funny thing about the course is seeing balls in the desert directly in front of a back tee, where someone with absolutely no business playing from back there has topped it or popped it up. I guess those are some of the highest longest carries, so it's fun for people to give it a try--but I'll bet the pace of play can suffer for it.

Case in point--it was amusing to hear the foursome ahead yelling at the group in #17 fairway to hurry up and get out of the way, and then watching them hit 12 balls off the tee...

One other strike against the course which keeps it from being great is that it is not at all walkable. On other courses on rugged terrain (particularly Black Mesa), architects have found creative ways to make the course walkable but this isn't possible at Wolf Creek.

But I definitely agree that if you accept Wolf Creek for what it is, then you can have a great time playing there. It is pure fun and definitely worth a play if you're anywhere near southern Nevada. Thanks for recommending it as that's a part of the reason I sought out a round there.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

GD has The Quarry at La Quinta at 47 and Estancia at 81 in their Top 100 in US. Does that qualify as world class?

I don't include Shadow Creek as a desert course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick --

I have to admit, I was quite surprised that Tom D. was so complementary of Shadow Creek in the Confidential Guide.   Tom is obviously far more knowledgeable than I am about this stuff, and I can't think of another course I've played where my views of a course have been so far from his.  And to be fair, I don't like golf carts or rental clubs, and unfortunately I was stuck with both for my round at SC, so that didn't help my impressions of the course.  So SC probably has a lot of merit to it, architecturally, that I missed in my first (and probably only) round there.

Driving the cart paths deprives you of the walking golfer's view and analysis.  Riding the cart paths limits your exposure.

Walking the course might provide you with a different perspective and evaluation.[/color]

You lose me a bit when you point to Golf Digest as an authority   (its ratings system has shortcomings that have been chronicled here quite a bit), and let's be clear...no leading authority thinks SC is a Top 10 US course.  

Tom Doak gave it a 9 and Golf Digest had it in the top 10.

You may disagree with some, or all, of Golf Digest's rankings, but, you can't dismiss or deeply discount their position of authority.
It's not as if one individual makes a pronouncement.
It's the averaging of a collective analysis, and to a degree, the collective has spoken.[/color]

I think the latest GD rankings put it at #27, and  Golf Magazine has it at #50.  But your point is a fair one -- the course gets very good ratings, and my view (which would put the course even further down the Top 100) is a minority one.  

I'm not an arborist, so I can't tell you what type of pine trees they planted at SC.  But I can tell you that a number of the pine trees looked pretty bad, a fact that even the caddies talked about.  That may be because, while you're correct that pines are found in a lot of places in North America (including North Carolina, where they're incorporated into the golf courses more heavily than any other place I've played), they aren't indigenous to the Nevada desert.  Some tree management is in order, and I can't imagine that it will be easy.  And they've got real turf issues as well, the 17th green in particular is just a mess.  

Here's my take on the trees, and I agree that currently, it's over treed.

Steve Wynn wanted the course to be mature on opening day.
As a result, the tree plantings did just that.
But, after about 20 years, what was near perfect in 1988 is overgrown today.

If Wynn were still in charge, my bet would be that he'd have pruned/removed many trees to retain the near original appearance of the golf course, but, that's just my guess.[/color]

I can't define "soul" for a golf course...if you're seriously asking, then you'll never know.  Certainly, it's highly personal.  I've played Cypress Point, Oakmont, Pacific Dunes, San Francisco, Royal County Down, Pasatiempo, Ballyneal, Barnbougle Dunes, Royal Melbourne, and a number of others that have "it," at least for me.  It's a quality that I can experience when I'm walking a course, and enjoying a setting where the golf is in harmony with the natural surroundings and the features of the land.  The courses have character, another term that almost defies definition.  

I believe that "Soul" is usually associated with older private courses.
It's rare when a public course has "soul".
You can count TOC and a few others, but, it seems that the attribute of possessing "soul" extends beyond the golf course, and into other areas that combine with the golf course to present that air.

Does Pacific Dunes have "soul" while Bandon Dunes lacks it ?
Bandon Trails ?

It's probably a feeling that's indigenous to one's personal tastes[/color]


I didn't get that feeling at SC...it's not designed as a walking course for obvious reasons, and it's not taking advantage of any natural terrain...it's all fake.  Something about man made waterfalls on golf courses that drives me nuts.  It sounds like you're a big admirer of Steve Wynn and that desert golf works for you.  Maybe desert golf just isn't for me...or maybe I haven't played enough desert golf.  Both distinct possibilities.

I am a big admirer of Steve Wynn.
I"m not an admirer of desert golf.

As to the natural terrain you reference, that land was flat as a pancake.  It was a flash flood zone in the desert.

I don't know how you can take advantage of that unless you're content to have your golf course washed away every six months or so.

Wynn was a visionary.
He changed golf in the desert, and he has a pretty good sense of what golf and golf courses are all about.[/color]

[Jason McNamara]

So Pat, as I asked above in #73, is it that one can build world-class desert golf as long as the oasis is built first?

At that point it's golf in the desert, but it's not really desert golf, is it?

Jason

[Matt_Ward]

Chris:

The issue I have with a number of people on GCA is this silly idea that ALL GOLF DESIGN needs to follow some formulaic script.

Those who are enamored ONLY with classical school of design seem to place all their eggs in just one design basket.

No doubt someone going to Wolf Creek who is a devotee of that school of design thought will no doubt revolt at what one sees there.

The issue, as I see it, is whether people favor a certain degree of elasticity in their overall embracing of different locations. I salute the foks at Wolf Creek because the final product is truly unique to thay area and when I add up all the elements there I find it to be a wild and entertaining golf design ride. No doubt the course is far from bulletproof - guess what, just about all courses leak water in some form or another.

I'm glad you made the effort to play there. Wolf Creek rises to the level of a "7" in my mind because there's plenty of unique and definitely entertaining holes. I've heard the complaints from people concerning the cart paths and the desert non-playable areas but for me at least there's more there that more than makes up for any shortcoming.

The only wish I have for Wolf Creek is a better closing hole. It's decent -- but it could be so much more. The waterfalls to the left of the green are certainly unnecessary and give credence to those who see that addition as nothing more than design fluff.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()