Paa-ko Ridge vs Wild Horse

[Andy Troeger]

Andy:

Check the spread on Golfweek Modern -- it's not WH is listed and Paa-Ko isn't. They are fairly close to one another.

What's amazing for me is how Black Mesa doesn't rate higher on that particular poll.

There's no doubt the styles / feel / architectural contributions are vastly different between the two courses but Paa-Ko is not some sort of waste of time layout. And I'll say this again I do favor Wild Horse over it -- just not the margin argument said by a few here.

Matt,
Very true as well regarding the split between then on the GW and Golf lists. They are about the same distance apart with Wild Horse ahead in one and Paa-Ko the other. Golf Digest is the one that favors Paa-Ko significantly by omitting Wild Horse from the top 100 public. I wasn't going to mention that as if Wild Horse is as strong as many of you say then that doesn't speak well to our omitting it. I'm hoping to get up there, but it probably won't be this year.

Jason,
The magazines are by no means always right, but at the same time there is something to be said for them in terms of getting multiple opinions, that's all any of this is anyway. I think if you got a large sample you'd get a lot of viewpoints on the merits of Paa-Ko and Wild Horse and in comparison to each other. Just because the majority of GCA'ers agree on something doesn't make us right either to the rest of the world.

[Scott Szabo]

The wide margin is appropriate, not silly, if one prefers the type of golf WH offers that PKR does not.
That includes non-dictational. recoverable golf with more interesting short game scenarios on firmer turf.
Personally, I use to have a full 2 point difference, now it is only one.

PKR is still a value at it's rate.

Adam,

I think I know your reasoning for bringing the two closer, but do you care to elaborate?

Scott

[Matt_Ward]

Jason:

I used the magazine references as a testament to the fact that Paa-Ko has some legitimate standing and is not as "wide" as others have opined. I have said that Wild Horse is the better overall course -- just as I have said that Black Mesa is better than the both of them (WH and PKR).

Andy:

Digest is out to lunch in not including WH. Frankly, too much of the Digest top public list is the credit card ($150+) type courses. Too many of them are resort oriented layouts that get mentioned because of their traditional location in vacation hot spots. More due diligence is needed from those who are Digest raters.

You certainly need to play it when in the area.

[CHrisB]

Matt,
Are you saying that because Paa-Ko and Wildhorse aren't separated by a wide margin, that means people aren't allowed to PREFER one over the over by a wide margin?

Aren't you allowed to like whatever you want to like?

BTW I too have played both and preferred them both by a wide margin over what I normally play at home. And I liked Black Mesa better than all of them.

[Jason Hines]

For me having played all three, WH, BM and then PK.  WH and BM very close, but the walkability of WH and the water hazard on 15 of BM push WH in the lead for me.  However, if you like BM over WH because of holes like 3, 10, 14 and 16, I would not put up much of an argument.  My favorite holes at WH, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14 and 16.  The strange thing after playing both BM and Paa-Ko, I left feeling better about PK than BM, but over time BM was definitely more memorable for myself.

[JohnV]

My personal opinion is that I loved Wild Horse, enjoyed Paa-ko and survived Black Mesa.  I played WH and BM twice and PK once.

Black Mesa definitely was my least favorite of the three at the time.  Probably because I under the spell of George Pazin and his anti-Matt Ward influence.

But, looking back at it, I can remember the holes at BM much better than PK and somewhat better than WH.  Some of that is because I didn't like some of BM's holes, not because I did like them.  BM probably has more great holes, but I also think it has some holes that are not very good from a playability standpoint.  That and it is a tough walk, but as is PK.

Wild Horse seems to be more playable and have enough variety and interest throughout the course for me to continue to rank it above the others.  But, looking at it today I probably would rank BM above PK, which I didn't do right after playing both of them.

[Jason Topp]

Jason:

I used the magazine references as a testament to the fact that Paa-Ko has some legitimate standing and is not as "wide" as others have opined. I have said that Wild Horse is the better overall course -- just as I have said that Black Mesa is better than the both of them (WH and PKR).

 

You certainly need to play it when in the area.

Matt:

I think the actual difference in our opinions is relatively small.  I really enjoyed Paa Ko Ridge and will make the effort to play Black Mesa some day because of how much I enjoyed my visit to New Mexico in general.  Would you differ with my approximate Doak ratings of 6 v. 7-8?  

[Andy Troeger]

Jason,
I played Paa-Ko once a couple years before I moved out here. I thought it was a lot of fun but probably had an impression like you and many other visitors here. Nice course, great scenery, but the golf doesn't quite measure up to the great courses of the USA.

Then I had a chance to play a fair amount of those courses after playing Paa-Ko with that opinion and it slipped down my list a bit. When I went back to Paa-Ko last year after moving here I was blown away at just how interesting the actual golf course was in addition to the setting. The greens were much more interesting than I'd originally given them credit for, there was movement in the fairways, the course is difficult but playable even for me as a frequently wayward driver. #2 is a tough little short par four, #6 is a fun drivable hole, #9, 10, 11 are tough four pars, and #15 is a wonderful par five IMO; I love trying to cut a runner down the fairway to give it a go in two despite being almost 600 yards long. #16 and 17 give you the definite eye candy holes from the top tee, but the angled green on #16 provided some architectural interest as well. Not to mention the 100 yard green at #4 which creates some interesting variety and pin locations. I think that the variety of the par fours and fives matches up pretty well with most places. #12 looks like a breather hole and I walk off with a double more often than not.

Its not a perfect course by any means. #18's driving area is a bit odd to me, the par threes as Matt said are a little too similar in yardage and being downhill (especially if you play the 3rd nine which I think is a bit weaker because it becomes more redundant with either of the first two nines than they are with each other...if that makes sense). Its manufactured more than Black Mesa for sure, but I could care less if it makes the golf course more interesting and fun to play and I think it works at Paa-Ko.

I guess I do question those who play it once and dismiss it as a thoughtless fun resorty type course because I think there's more there than that. Maybe its not as good as Wild Horse, I can certainly accept people having that opinion especially not having been to WH. I've had the discussion with Matt a few times regarding Paa-Ko and Black Mesa, while different they're a lot of fun to play and well thought out.

I'm admittedly in the minority, but Paa-Ko and Black Mesa both get 8's from me with no apologies.

[Tony Petersen]

10 Rounds I take...

Wild Horse 7

Paa-Ko 3

That being said, both are incredible public facilities that would cost a fortune in AZ this time of the year 

[Jason Hines]

Andy,

I would play PK again in a heartbeat if I had the chance, I don't feel it is a resort course by any stretch.  My playing preferences skew my opinion as well.  WH has a very links feel, always fast and firm, walkable etc. 

J.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Read your detailed comments. A few replies ...

Agree with you on #2 on the original 18 at Paa-Ko. Very much unheralded hole with plenty of stragetic consequences in play from the tee and with the approach.

I don't see the fanfer you attribute to #6 -- it's a bland short par-4. Compare it comparable short public par-4's in NM, especially at BM (#7 and #14, come quickly to mind) and the differences are most noticeable to me.

Andy, I do agree with you on the 15th -- very much a superb hole and worthy in being on any short list of top public holes for all of New Mexico. Can be reached in two blows but the drive and 2nd shot must be hit at a high level for such a result.

Have to disagree with you on the par-3 4th -- it's simply a miniature golf type green. I was looking for the clown's mouth and the bowling pins. The problem is that Dye went into overkill on the hole. Given the lack of real differentiation on the par-3 front, the 4th could have been very special -- a short par-3 with a bit more creativity rather than a slog of green that goes on and on and on.

Your take on #12 is spot on. One of the more undervalued holes at the course. The pin locations can be hidden and it's tough for the player to know precisely how far / how hard to hit the approach.

I also see the 18th as being a tough driving challenge. The further one goes the more precise the tee shot must become. The actual landing width of the drive zone as you get nearer and nearer to the break-point of the fairway is very tempting but can be a scorecard crusher if you push or pull the shot to any degree. The sad part is that the actual green at the closer is fairly nondescript.

Andy, salute to you for the details you have provided. It adds to the overall discussion. I liek Paa-Ko Ridge, even with some of the deficiencies I mentioned but I stil hold Black Mesa above it by a good margin because the letdown elements at Black Mesa are very few throughout the round. You also have a better overall site, more unique routing and a consistently higher set of diverse shot values throughout the round.


John VB:

You said, "BM probably has more great holes, but I also think it has some holes that are not very good from a playability standpoint.  That and it is a tough walk, but as is PK."

Help me to understand something -- which holes at BM "are not very good.(?)" I can appreciate the general comment but without a bit more beef it just lays on the table with no supporting info. And, on the flip side, you mentioned that BM has more "great" holes. A bit more on the detail (what/why) would be helpful.

When you say Black Mesa "is a tough walk" -- I beg to differ since other public layouts where walking is permitted (e.g. Bethpage Black) are more physical. I guess it comes down to what you have played and how it fits for your walking specifics.

One final question, you said you "survived" BM. I don't when you specifically played the course, what the wind conditions were like and even your own personal handicap and what tees you played. All of the preceding parts play a role in assessing a course. To your benefit you did play multiple rounds at BM so you could have had two completely different weather related situations when you played.

I find it more helpful when people lay in specifics and move away from the gut issued statements which are rather bland and often lacking in any real detail.

John, I'd be curious to know what public courses you see as being equal to Wild Horse that are in roughly the same dollar amount charged? And, how far behind you see BM and PKR when viewed in that same manner. Thanks ...

Chris B:

People can have opinions on anything and if they prefer "X" over "Y" so be it.

However ...

The purpose of this site is to challenge people in their overall thinking. To defend what they say with a bit more detail than to simply say Wild Horse is a "wide margin" over Paa-Ko Ridge. How is "wide margin" defined? I simply threw into the debate national publications which do rate courses and that they have weighed in on the subject -- especially since WH and PKR are both listed as top courses.

If someone doesn't want to include that element into their overall thinking -- so be it. Ignorance is bliss for some but nonetheless it is a source that needs to be weighed into the total framework.

Chris, there is no definitive CORRECT answer when people express their individual preferences. If someone really believes WH is better than Paa-Ko by a "wide margin" then so be it. I simply opined that other sources need to be calculated into the overall presentation on how both courses are analyzed. No doubt even the national magazines can be "wrong" because they are cumulative consensus driven assessments.

By the way -- I'm happy to hear your comments on how the trio of courses weighs out for you.

Jason:

Help me to understand -- what does the following statement that you made mean, " I left feeling better about PK than BM ...(?)" Then right after that you say BM was more memorable. You confused me with your statement. Maybe you can further elaborate.

Few other quick comments ...

Black Mesa is 100% walkable. The course permits this each and everyday and the routing does allow for it.

You need to explain for me how the H20 hazard at BM's 15th lowers the course in your estimation? The par-3 is one of the best holes at the course IMHO. In fact, the water is really not the main element in what the hole provides -- it's the ribcage that runs through the green.

Jason, do yourself a favor -- look at the collective nature of the par-3 and par-5 holes. BM has the better fit and architecture in those particular elements. I see the par-4 situation as being much closer in terms of overall diversity and challenge.

Jason, you first opined that WH would fall somewhere between 7-8 on the Doak scale for you. For me, it's no more than a 7 and I'm being generous in order for it to get that high. If you do some soul searching you'll find there are plenty of holes at WH that accentuate the "playability" functionality but in terms of real strategic consequence are rather ordinary. No doubt it helps some people to elevate the course when they encounter a strong 30-40 mph wind (not atypical) when playing there.

My main issue with Paa-Ko Ridge is that is superimposed on the natural ponderosa / pines area it occupies. It seems as if the course is really an opposite to the site itself. BM fits more naturally with the existing land mass and the holes there are working more in concert with that reality for me.

I also see the bunkering dimension at Paa-Ko as being ornamental additions rather than critical strategic inclusions for a wide number of holes. In my mind, you also have a weaker cumulative set of par-3 holes at Paa-Ko -- what I mean is that they are all long holes for the most part and the shot differentiation aspect is especially limited. One of the real strengths of the course is the quality of the par-5 holes -- I am a big fan of the 15th on the original 18 and see it as one of the best public holes in the state.  In Doak scale terms -- I would say Paa-Ko is at best no more than a 6 and I'm straining to say that.

[Adam Clayman]

I find it more helpful when people lay in specifics and move away from the gut issued statements which are rather bland and often lacking in any real detail.

You mean like this?

it's simply a miniature golf type green. I was looking for the clown's mouth and the bowling pins. The problem is that Dye went into overkill on the hole. Given the lack of real differentiation on the par-3 front, the 4th could have been very special -- a short par-3 with a bit more creativity rather than a slog of green that goes on and on and on.

BTW, Ken Dye didn't go for anything. He couldn't decide between two separate greensites and after careful deliberation he Eureka'd on combining them for what is clearly, for him, a design breakthrough. 

Paa-Ko isn't as good as Pinon Hills, so, so much for the lists.

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

Get serious.

You are in one of your contrarian moods. If Ward says red -- you'll say blue. Hello -- anyone home?

The par-3 4th is simply an overkill attempt by the architect. I am somewhat shocked because Ken Dye did provide a number of other greensites at Paa-Ko that work very well and I mentioned I few of them earlier.

In regards to your final comment -- I never mentioned Pinon Hills into the discussion -- you just did. By the way I am a fan of Pinon Hills provided it plays as it was supposed to (hint/hint applying far less H20) and provided they would change the routing to reflect the original intent of the architect.

[Tim Pitner]

Andy,

I would play PK again in a heartbeat if I had the chance, I don't feel it is a resort course by any stretch.  My playing preferences skew my opinion as well.  WH has a very links feel, always fast and firm, walkable etc. 

I played Wild Horse for the first time last July--I really enjoyed it; an outstanding course and an outrageous bargain.  However, it definitely was not fast and firm--not even close. 

[Adam Clayman]

Matt,
 I'm only commenting on matters for which I disagree.
It is not personal. Would you prefer I, and everyone else, just take all you have to say as gospel?
 I'd say the second hole is one of the best on the course BECAUSE it uses the natural arroyo to great affect. Plus the greensite, while benched, seems perfectly sized and oriented. Something Ken did very well at Pinon.


Andy, While I only played the new nine holes once, I thought the nine was actually better than the previous two nines, as a whole. If that makes sense?

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

C'mon -- let's be real OK.

If you think the par-3 4th at Paa-Ko is that grand of a hole then you and I are miles apart. It's overkill and I see your attempt to highlight it as nothing more than a inner impulse to be a contrarian. If you want to see a better overall effort at the course check out the work Dye did with the 16th -- multiple tee positions, a green protected in a wide variety of areas and a putting surface that is contoured in a much more complex manner than the three-story climbing mountain at the 4th.

Frankly, this isn't about gospel agreement and I'm more than happy to acknowledge the ideas / comments from others publicly on this site and I've done so particularly on this thread. Candidly, if you had to acknowledge anything I have ever written here on GCA I think it might cause your typing fingers to burn! 

I did salute the nature of the 2nd hole previously in response to what Andy offered on the hole -- the drive element is also a bit more demanding than you or others have mentioned. In similar but not exact ways to the 18th of the original course, Dye puts pressure on the longer play attempting to get further down the fairway. I also weighed in previously on a number of other greensites (beyond #2) in a bit more detail. You likely missed them -- I guess the rush to take the predictable contrarian impulse must have been too strong.

One other comment on the new nine - I was told Dye spent very little time / effort with the holes. That a plan was drafted and implemented by the local folks at the course. Maybe you or others can confirm that. 

[Jason Hines]

Hi Tim,

I did not get the chance to play WH last season, maybe someone else could confirm.  Most of the times I have played, you never had to repair any ball marks because there were none when you hit the green.

Forgive me, I am catching a flight in 20 minutes, but the water stood out for me on the 15th as minor eyesore.  I forgot to mention the first tee shot over the flag, however I loved the course.  Baxter Spahn did a tremendous job and enjoyed dinner with him the evening I played there.

have a good weekend everyone, I am off to get screwed at O'Hare.

[JohnV]

John VB:

You said, "BM probably has more great holes, but I also think it has some holes that are not very good from a playability standpoint.  That and it is a tough walk, but as is PK."

Help me to understand something -- which holes at BM "are not very good.(?)" I can appreciate the general comment but without a bit more beef it just lays on the table with no supporting info. And, on the flip side, you mentioned that BM has more "great" holes. A bit more on the detail (what/why) would be helpful.

When you say Black Mesa "is a tough walk" -- I beg to differ since other public layouts where walking is permitted (e.g. Bethpage Black) are more physical. I guess it comes down to what you have played and how it fits for your walking specifics.

One final question, you said you "survived" BM. I don't when you specifically played the course, what the wind conditions were like and even your own personal handicap and what tees you played. All of the preceding parts play a role in assessing a course. To your benefit you did play multiple rounds at BM so you could have had two completely different weather related situations when you played.

I find it more helpful when people lay in specifics and move away from the gut issued statements which are rather bland and often lacking in any real detail.

John, I'd be curious to know what public courses you see as being equal to Wild Horse that are in roughly the same dollar amount charged? And, how far behind you see BM and PKR when viewed in that same manner. Thanks ...

Matt, as always it is a matter of personal taste.

Please remember that I played there 4 or 5 years ago so things are a little fuzzy.

My general opinion was that the course was too difficult for a higher handicap player, but I feel that way about a lot of desert courses, especially when the course is isolated corridors of golf as opposed to a centralized property.  That is one of the reasons I say that I survived it.  At the time we played there I was about a 7.  But, I can get wild off the tee.  Any course where any shot that misses the fairway might be a lost ball or at least unplayable is one that I'm not fond of.  BM seemed to be to be that way.  Since I played my second round there with George P, I'll say that it was even worse for someone who had trouble hitting it consistently enough to reach the fairway all the time.  I think that we were both playing the right tees for our ability.

My take on the holes would be:

#1 - very good hole but the lake in front of the tee was bad for the lesser player, especially as it was the first swing of the day.
#2 - ok
#3 - ok, but I felt the fairway could have been wider
#4 - very good hole, a very interesting par 3
#5 - good hole, tough on the first timer as he won't know where to hit the drive, but the second playing was better
#6 - ok, not a great par 5
#7 - very good hole
#8 - not much there in my opinion.  A basic longish par 3.
#9 - good hole, but nothing special
#10 - I didn't like the tee shot at all.  The green was pretty good as I recall.
#11 - very good hole
#12 - ok
#13 - an ok par 5, possibly my favorite on the course
#14 - good short par 4
#15 - nothing special, as I recall there is a ridge running the length of the green which I felt was too severe.
#16 - I absolutely did not like this hole
#17 - an ok hole
#18 - I didn't think the tee shot was very good, but I don't remember a lot of it.

I always walk when possible.  I've not played Bethpage so I can't compare it, but I think that the some of the climbs along with the altitude make BM a tough walk.  The slog up 16 and then climbing 17 coming at the end of the round make it very difficult.  The hike between holes like 7 and 8 and 11 and 12 were also tough as I recall.

Probably the course that compares with Wildhorse in terms of price and quality is Rustic Canyon.  Pinon Hills is another one I'd put close to these along with Eastmoreland in Portland.

But, again, this is all a matter of personal opinion and I'm sure you disagree with a lot of it.

[Tim Pitner]

Hi Tim,

I did not get the chance to play WH last season, maybe someone else could confirm.  Most of the times I have played, you never had to repair any ball marks because there were none when you hit the green.

Jason,

When I played them last July, the greens at Wild Horse were firm; the fairways were not.  I'd like to go back in the fall when they likely will be watering less. 

[Matt_Ward]

John VB:

I have to say -- your memory is what you mentioned at the outset.

A bit "fuzzy."

What I can certainly understand and have heard the same criticism of desert styly course courses being more of an "either or" situation -- especially off the tee, I don't find the applicability of such a lament when Black Mesa is included into the discussion.

There's sufficient playing corridors on nearly all of the holes -- and you can find your ball in those situations and play from there. The idea that Black Mesa ties itself to "pocket golf" -- whereby players are forced to put their ball into their pocket and proceed to the next hole is not true.

If you were in fact "wild off the tee" then the question becomes how wild is too wild for any course. If you had played Pine Valley that day it's likely would have to apply the same standard you ascribe to Black Mesa. In fact, PV has less playable situations for such error prone play than Black Mesa.

To your specific points ...

John, if a person hits the water at #1 then they need to get serious lessons. C'mon if your going to start with that as an issue than you'd better not play any of the top tier layouts such as PV where the issue is more pronounced.

John, #3 fairway is actually wider in most landing locations than #2.

#6 is far better than you mention. The tee shot needs to find the right side and it is that side that becomes more problematic because should you push too far to that side you can find the high desert scrub areas. The 2nd shot needs to be properly positioned down the far left side in order to open up the entire green. The small problem is that the far left side is not easy to reach beause its' set a different angle and because it's a bit narrower to reach. The green is well defended from all sides.

John, you missed the point on #8. It's a great par-3 because the green falls off on all sides. The approach must be dead on perfect in order to both land softly and not be so far away that a possible three-jack comes into play. Generally, this hole also plays into the prevailing wind. I attribute your lack of detail to a fuzzy memory here.

John, at #10 you face a demanding tee shot no different than what you see with many holes across the pond. You need to maneuver the tee shot based on how the land falls. I don't doubt the first time play is tough because you can't see the botton of the fairway. However, the options at the tee are numerous -- it depends upon what you are comfortable in doing. The slightest push to the right will be dealt harshly -- as it should.

You also left out the green contour and the way it's angled. All very well done and in harmony with what you achieve on the tee shot.

You thought the rib cage at #15 was severe -- then you may might to take a pass on any number of other classic courses that feature this unique inclusion. Be curious to know where the pin was located the both times you played the hole.

I'll skip ahead to the 16th -- when you say you didn't like the hole that's little to go on in terms of criticism. The tee shot is a scary one but there's ample fairway to hit -- you just have to get the thought out of one's mind on what awaits should you be really wild. Baxter Spann placed the hole in a perfect setting for both intimidation and strategic consequences. Long hitter can get home in two blows but it take two first rate swings to do that. Even the high handicap types can successfully handle the hole if they achieve positioning starting with the tee shot.

John, with all due respect, you missed the boat on #17. There's plenty of natural movement to the fairway and if you pull / push the tee shot your ball can shoot off in those directions. Again, no different than what you find in courses in the UK and Ireland along the coast.

The approach is what separate #17 from many holes at BM. You need to loft it properly and that can be tough from a fairway that slopes in different directions and therefore you don't get the kind of flat lie that makes that shot more easily handled. The green is also tough to approach when the pin is placed on the far left. You need to hit it high and then soft if one goes for the attack play.

Since your memory is cloudy on #18 I'll pass on it.

In regards to walking -- Black Mesa is far easier than other courses I've played that are public. Bethpage Black is far more daunting. The walks you indicated at BM are not overly severe but that's a matter of opinion.

In sum, John the notion of desert golf is often not fully appreciated by many on this site. Too many people think of it as "either or" type golf. Either you hit the fairway or hit you another from the tee. That's not true because it's a major simplification and generalization.

At the end of the day it's opinions and tastes. Thanks for sharing.

[George Pazin]

I'll skip ahead to the 16th -- when you say you didn't like the hole that's little to go on in terms of criticism. The tee shot is a scary one but there's ample fairway to hit -- you just have to get the thought out of one's mind on what awaits should you be really wild.

It's funny, I played 2 rounds with 6 good golfers and saw multiple drives on 16 hit the fairway and then run off into trouble.

Matt, the only problem I have with you and BM is that somehow you see your opinion as fact, and everyone else's as simply opinion overly colored by his own play. How you can be so arrogant among so many golf course aficionados is beyond me - but clearly it's not beyond you. Congratulations on reaching a level of arrogance only a handful can aspire to.

[JohnV]

Congratulations on reaching a level of arrogance only a handful can aspire to.

George, it must be something in the water in New Jersey. 

Matt, you have your opinons of BM and I have mine.  The good thing is that I probably won't be taking up a tee time there any time that you want to play.

Actually not true.  I'd like to go back and play it again as I did enjoy much of it.  But, it didn't make my list of top 50 or more courses and I'll say I wasn't the only one there that week who felt that way.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt, I don't have a dog in this fight as I haven't played the course....

..but I think you pretty much proved John V's point on how difficult it is. How can you have a post riddled with these comments and have any mid-to-high handicapper want to go within 50 miles of it?  These are all quotes from your last post:

"needs to find the right side"
"2nd shot needs to be properly positioned down the far left side"
"green is well defended from all sides."
"green falls off on all sides"
"approach must be dead on perfect"
"face a demanding tee shot"
"need to maneuver the tee shot based on how the land falls"
"slightest push to the right will be dealt harshly "
"rib cage at #15 was severe"
"tee shot is a scary one"
"perfect setting for both intimidation and strategic consequences holes at BM. "
"You need to loft it properly and that can be tough from a fairway that slopes in different directions "
"You need to hit it high and then soft"

How are high cappers much less mid cappers supposed to deal with all these things?

[Matt_Ward]

John VB:

People have disagreements -- you must have missed my last line in my previous post to you. I did say,  "At the end of the day it's opinions and tastes. Thanks for sharing." Did you miss that part? The New Jersey smug reply about the water here is frankly sarcastic on your part -- how bout you ID your state and I can return the favor with an equally keen wit reply?

When you say the so-called "others" that's nothing more than a major generalization on your part. I can name plenty of "others" who see it differently. Guess what -- check out the various rating results from the different magazines to support such a claim.

John, if you ever do go back I think you'd be surprised that your own self-admitted "fuzzy" memory needs to get a bit more detailed in a number of spots. That's all I said -- I also did mean what I said clearly opinions and tastes are clearly going to be different and thanked you for your replies.

Kalen:

The short answer -- how bout people play the correct tees to start?

Too much of the bitch and moan session that comes from high handicap types is that they need fairways the width of Kansas and then they play the course(s) from the wrong tees and can't handle the carries or the more challenging angles / hazards, etc, etc. So when in doubt blame the course for their own inadequacy. How predictable.

Some of these same people have a particular and in my mind, very narrow range of what makes golf courses great. If such and such course doesn't follow the chart exactly in that way then ipso facto it's the course in question -- not the narrowness of their acceptability formula.

I've opined numerous times that Black Mesa is not the poster child for "either or" type desert golf that the same whiners keep erroneously stating time after time after time. You have sufficient room to play should you miss fairways -- but such misses can't be completely off the surface of the earth. Recoverability is indeed added by architect Spann when playing there. Black Mesa is not the point-to-point target golf layout that people keep saying wrongly time after time after time.

But hold the phone shall we -- some of these folks could not hit Kansas if they stood on the OK state line. There's a solution for these type of folks. It's called lessons.

I can point out that if the same people pissing in their shorts about Black Mesa were to suddenly be taken to Pine Valley the very same things they keep bitching about would be present there. But, wait a second. Since it's PV these same people know that their own whine would not work there given the course's premier (and rightful) standing.

Kalen, each of the expressions you quoted from me could be used for any of the classic demanding layouts here in the USA -- Shinnecock Hills, Oakmont, The Olympic Club / Lake, PV and on and on and on. Black Mesa provides sufficient corridors to play and is a good bit less rigorous than the aforementioned layouts I just cited. The combination of holes tests power, finesse and accuracy -- why don't you do yourself a favor and read what Ron Whitten -- a 15 handicap or thereabouts player -- said about the course when he wrote his first review.

George:

Please - nuff of the same tired and predictable comments about me seeing things as facts and dismissing others.

It's time to come up with something newer and a bit more accurate. The "arrogance" line is nothing more than a defensive posture given by people who don't want to be challenged on their opinions. So the general return volley is to spin the discussion back on the person (me) who has a different viewpoint. Send in your resume to the Bush White House they can use folks like you.

George, save yourself all the typing and simply respond in faster shorthand -- let's call your general response answer #1.

I have acknowledged numerous times the posts of others - see my final line to John VB previously. I can and will disagree and I always try to provide my reasonings for such comments. If I happen to write with passion on what I believe people are equally able to write passionately in response.

You're right George -- the study you did with six "good golfers" is exhaustive and everyone else who sees it differently needs to kneel before you and simply concede what you believe. There's sufficient room and frankly the smart play for many is not to tee off with a driver which can only bring more danger into play if they have a propensity to be wild to start with.

Black Mesa being rated so high by Golfweek and a few others of note is simply in error. Forgive me for missing the boat.

[George Pazin]

George, save yourself all the typing and simply respond in faster shorthand -- let's call your general response answer #1.

I have acknowledged numerous times the posts of others - see my final line to John VB previously. I can and will disagree and I always try to provide my reasonings for such comments. If I happen to write with passion on what I believe people are equally able to write passionately in response.

You're right George -- the study you did with six "good golfers" is exhaustive and everyone else who sees it differently needs to kneel before you and simply concede what you believe. There's sufficient room and frankly the smart play for many is not to tee off with a driver which can only bring more danger into play if they have a propensity to be wild to start with.

You'll note that the very first post I made on this thread was a short post noting that personal preference is the bulk of the difference in opinion.

You'll also note that, unlike you, I accept my opinion as opinion and don't insist others adopt mine. As I stated in my last post, that is the bulk of the ongoing difference between us. I accept others' opinions, you dismiss them.

You may feel there is sufficient room, but I don't, not in the ways that matter to a high handicapper, and likely not in difficult conditions. I have accepted that as a limitation of desert/canyon golf.