News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


henrye

Re: Why can't Golfweek get over Shadow Creek?
« Reply #25 on: March 11, 2008, 10:35:59 AM »
You don't think Muirfield Village being Jack's first course is the reason it's still his highest-rated venue? 

Just asking - I thought Jack's first solo design was Glen Abbey in Toronto?

Patrick Hodgdon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why can't Golfweek get over Shadow Creek?
« Reply #26 on: March 11, 2008, 11:13:09 AM »
Over the years I've played Shadow Creek five times including once with Wynn's brother (what a trip that was!).  I was initially wowed by the place but have since grown to appreciate the character of the place and holes.  SC, if anything, is growing on me.

Nice post Tom.

Matt - I'm sorry but I'd play SC 10-0 over Galloway Nat (which I like!)

Patrick H - good call as Calusa may be the second best manufactured course in the US (waiting to see if Bayonne is in the same league).

JC



If we're going to add the discussion of best manufactured courses, where does Chambers Bay fit into the mold?  Or is it more likely best manufacturers golf course with other quarries and reclaimed sites?

Calusa, Shadow Creek, Chambers Bay, Spanish Bay, and what others?

I can't answer about Chambers Bay but anyone who has played SC and comes to play Calusa Pines thinks of SC when they get to the par 4 15th hole. I put pictures in the Calusa thread if anyone wants to see but it has an awesome green complex in a "stadium setting" right at the base of the mound of elevation Fry "manufactured." If that hole, my favorite at Calusa, makes people think of SC I am pretty sure I would like the course and would tend to believe the top-10 rating. Most people rave about it however I have heard recently that some prefer the new Wynn course. Again I would love to see some of the pictures of the great holes at SC and also of anything people (i.e. you Matt) don't like about it.
Did you know World Woods has the best burger I've ever had in my entire life? I'm planning a trip back just for another one between rounds.

"I would love to be a woman golfer." -JC Jones

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why can't Golfweek get over Shadow Creek?
« Reply #27 on: March 11, 2008, 11:52:48 AM »
I'm surprised by the very high ranking of Whistling Straits, also (not from playing it, I might add, just from how new it is and all the extraneous bunkering). How does it compare on the "manufactured course" list to the others already listed? Is it a course where the "story" is a huge part of the rating? Or is the course just that good?
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

tlavin

Re: Why can't Golfweek get over Shadow Creek?
« Reply #28 on: March 11, 2008, 12:31:33 PM »
I've played there a couple times and my belief was that there were a large number of holes that were perfect from tee to green, probably on the order of 12 or so.  I think SC represents everything that's good about golf course architecture and everything bad about golf course architecture.  It's damn near perfect, but every inch of it is completely inconsistent with its surroundings.  It's completely manufactured and unnatural, but completely enjoyable, strategic and...gulp...beautiful at the same time.

I just played the Fazio course at the Wynn resort and I can attest that there are only three holes that are even remotely memorable.  Given that they are going to tear it up in a few years to build some more hotel towers, I can understand why it bears no resemblance to SC.

Final point, I don't pretend to know what Warhol's sexual preference was, but "nubile" refers to a "woman" who is "sexually developed" and "ready for marriage", so my edit would be "nubile waitress" rather than "nubile waiter".  (The curse of a Journalism degree!)

Steve Lapper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why can't Golfweek get over Shadow Creek?
« Reply #29 on: March 11, 2008, 01:14:08 PM »
Gentlemen:

How about a discussion of Bayonne vs. Shadow Creek.  As I understand it, Bayonne was started from a blank sheet as well.  The contrasts are dramatic so clearly, one might prefer a links style over what is viewed as a North Carolina type course or vice versa.  My question is which has better holes, better long par 4s, better short par 4s, different par 3s, risk/reward par 5s, etc.  I haven't played Bayonne and I only played SC once about 7 years ago so I don't have much recollection of it.


Jerry:

I'll try this on. I've played both over 10+ times (however, I haven't played SC for over 8yrs and I do believe that makes it tougher to be totally fair and unbiased).

Both are magnificent and unique creations from scratch. Each is a great example of the human imagination. Both are extremely fun to visit and play. That said, they are dramatically different experiences. Arriving by limo, then escorted to a lavish locker room with famous nameplates and luxury service, then wandering outside to a lavish flowery garden and eden-like setting all sets the stage at SC. Exotic birds and amazing flower beds couple with the beautiful artificial lakes along the 18th hole.

Bayonne, once it's towering new clubhouse is done, will offer equal luxury and drama. A well-appointed private boat shuttles the player from lower Manhattan onto a dock set hard by the 16th green (often photographed and arguably the best new par 4 built in the East in the Modern era). Turning around here bares panoramic views of most of the NYC Harbor. While I've yet to see the trim of the it's interior, I'm comfortable suggesting that the BGC clubhouse will be no less luxe than SC's.

Onto the golf course comparison.

SC, with it's verdant beauty never gives the senses a rest. The practice area is perfectly manicured. Near every hole is uniquely framed with mature pines and quite a few have strategically placed creeks running alongside and occasionally serving as cross-hazards. Conspicuously absent until the 6th hole is much in the way of real elevation change. The front side has an abundance of mid-to-longer par 4's and two very good par 3's, #5 a canyon-like carry of 170-210 and the sweet little 150ish #8 . The front side par 5's are not very special IMHO. The short and almost reachable par 4 is supposed to be the strategy-critical short par 4, yet I remember always taking the driver out and letting loose. Shy of a few just-off-the-green bunkers, no other strategic impediment calls for much thought. The long par 3 13th lets you know the finish in isn't going to be a cakewalk. #'s 14 & 15 are handily the best par 4's. The greensite for #14  and the creek on #15 both remind any architectural fan of the blank-slate elegance allowed by man's imagination. #16 is a long, unreachable and uninspired par 5 that sets up the beautiful (if not totally artificial and imagined) 17th...a 135-155yd postage stamp green surrounded by a lake, lagoon, bunker and waterfall. Clearly, Donald Trump has spent plenty of time looking at this hole! Finally, the 18th, a great closer, is the best par 5 on the course with a tucked green fronted by another creek. SC overwhelms a golfer with beauty and splendor. That's it's biggest strength.

Bayonne, IMHO, is vastly different. It's blatantly influenced by it's architect's study of several well-known Irish and Scottish masterpieces. Imagine throwing a piece of pottery across 100+ acres set hard against the industrial port of Bayonne with 270degree views of NYC and it's harbor. Now add a few Irish and Scottish strategies (think Dell, Redan, Eden, Leven, Channel, etc..) and toss, and that's BGC. The practice areas are dichotic. Long shots are practiced by hitting balls into a netted portion of the harbor and a fabulous short-game area has 3-4 target greens, several bunkers, canted hitting areas and a putting green. The opening Dell hole leaves a blind approach and sets the stage for a unique experience. A sharp dogleg (with an available, but inadvisable green carry) par 4 follows. The 160-180yd Redan sharpens the senses and sets up for the Royal County Down/Pine Valley-influenced par 5 4th. Wind ALWAYS plays a major factor here (with it's exposure to the harbor) and this 540+ hole even downwind is no bargain. It has a Hell's half-acre cross bunker with another massive quarry-like bunker fronting the green. Great hole, period. The short little par 3 fifth demands a deft touch as it is only 125ish usually with the wind.
The 6th is a fun par 4, but the uphill and long 7th has one of the best green complexes out there (with a little pit bunker along the left side) and allows for multiple ground options on approach. The 8th is the Channel-like par 5, that if driven into a small and narrow fairway slot, permits an heroic carry for potential eagle. It's green has a rolling spine, effectively splitting the green into halves that if on the wrong side brings three-putting easily into play. Playing down the fairway's right side yields safety, but makes the approach tricky to judge. The 9th, a big up-then-down par 4 has a massive undulating green demanding a sharp mid-iron approach.
  Bayonne's backside moves you to the water and reveals a great collection of wonderful par 4's. The 12th heads down to the harbor and again, has a series of well-place cross bunker 25yds in front of the green. Here, the wind starts to nearly dominate the strategy. The sharply uphill par 5 13th is a stiff three-shotter. The downhill 14th is a 180-200yd par 3 that plays to a plateau-like green and is all about gauging the building wind. The 15th, short uphill par 4 teases and deceives with a blindly uphill second to a green that rejects excessive backspin (think of the last 100 yds into Friars Head #14). Again, a wild and unruly waste area will find any wayward tee shot here. The #16 is the gem here. 480+ from the tips, it heaves and narrows its way to a terrific green complex that sits jutted out into the bay. With a wide  fairway, it appear benign enough, but the second shot here is among the best in the metropolitan area. The green, like most of the other BGC greens, is humped and bumped as well as anything you Doak lovers would see at a Ballyneal or Sebonack. Brilliant hole! The 17th is a very tough (440-490 par 4) reverse Cape that moves along the water (with waste and sand as a buffer) to another pocketed green that has a few tiers and lots of movement. The 18th, almost anti-climatic, disappoints just a tad, but by then you are either worn down by the wind, or ready to head back to the first tee. As I've said before, Bayonne is probably the best Modern match play golf course on the East Coast. Only Friars Head gives it any run in his area and this year's Met Am will define that. It doesn't try to compete with a  Merion, PV or Shinnecock. Instead, it brings a very good taste of golf from across the pond to the states.

I am biased (several friends are members at BGC and I have great admiration for Eric Bergstol, it's founder and creator), but with good reason. I know others like Mr. Doak (who I've argued with about this)don't give it the same merit, but I think it's one of the most pleasurable and fun places to set up over a ball. The creation is superb and I find it infinitely more imaginative than a Shadow Creek. It is also more testing with any of it's usual wind. I'd go 8 and 2 with 10 rounds between the two.
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking."--John Kenneth Galbraith

Matt_Ward

Re: Why can't Golfweek get over Shadow Creek?
« Reply #30 on: March 11, 2008, 01:33:09 PM »
JSPayne said, ...

"I find it amusing that Matt seems to despise the "totality of the architecture" of Shadow Creek, but has yet to make any specific examples of the poor architecture he claims the course to possess. The focus seems to be more on the media hype and story of the place."

Mr. Payne, the focus of the raters and its placement in various rankings is tied to the "media hype" that's been tied nearly 100% to how the place came into being. I never have seen any real detailing of the types of holes that truly standout at Shadow Creek. In regards to "specific examples" I'd be more than happy to point out such references and if you have bothered to check out any number of my posts I always try to provide such pointed details. More will be forthcoming from me in this regard.

You further said, "I'm confused.....is there an architecture related dislike you have Matt, or do you just hate the very IDEA of the place?"

I don't "hate the very IDEA of the place." Quite the contrary, I do like courses that have been created through the sheer will of man willing to put forward a ton of $$ in order to bring them forward. See the likes of Wolf Creek in Mesquite, NV and Bayonne GC in Bayonne, NJ, as just two prime examples that leap quickly to mind.

The issue with Shadow Creek for me is that while the place is "perfect" in terms of overall grooming and the spectacle in getting to the course (liom ride) and all the other hoopla is nothing more than a sideshow to the actual architecture itself. Even Tom Doak admitted in "Confidential Guide" that given the same circumstances TF found himself he (Doak) could design something better than what is there now. I've played roughly 70+ TF courses and while a good many are fairly formulaic there are a number of designs TF has done that I see as being better architecturally than what you see at Shadow Creek. Given that Shadow Creek is in Vegas and given all the promos and hype tied to the course it has been skillfully branded to be something much more than just a golf course. I would have hope raters who are a bit more seasoned would see through the curtain that separates OZ from the rest of us. Clearly, they have not.

Mr. Payne concludes by saying, "Seems like posts from those that have played (or visited) the course claim that is there is some good architecture to be had there...."

Ah, you need to check out the comments from others -- see the remarks from Steve Lapper on this thread plus others who have weighed in previously on the same subject. I am far from being alone in this matter.

Jonathan C:

I'd like to know the specifics that have you believing Shadow Creek is a
10-0 victor over Galloway National. Candidly, Galloway National is one of the 5-6 best courses in NJ and that says plenty given the overall competition. One must also recognize that Galloway National is also rated nationally now and shold move even higher IMHO.

Tom D:

I'll be glad to go point-by-point on your comments to me.

First, let's keep in mind that, as you quickly admit, your total TF playing references is good but less than half of what I have played from his portfolio. This only allows me to weigh even more potential candidates into the mixture. "Confidential Guide" is a well done book -- but it's a snapshot in time and time since other new courses have opened and updates have happened with pre-existing layouts.

The three courses I mentioned -- Galloway National, Karsten Creek and Glenwild have all been rated in some form or another. I believe the quality of their architecture -- defined by me as consistency of the holes from start to finish -- is better than Shadow Creek. Hopefully Tom, you will be able to see / play them when time and circumstances allow.

With all due respect, I will repeat this again -- the most noted aspect of Shadow Creek rests with how it came into existence. It's been wonderfully positioned in the way only Las Vegas can do it (with a very capable assist from Steve Wynn). When you delve beneath that huge story arc there is no real THERE in terms of the significance of the architecture. In sum -- where's the actual beef?

In the courses you mentioned -- Sand Hills, Ballyneal, Sebonack, Bandon and Pac Dunes, et al, I freely admit in each situation the creation of those courses and likely others (e.g. Pine Valley, Augusta, Seminole, et al) was also a big part of the discussion. But those respective courses GO FAR BEYOND that element and have demonstrated a compelling architectural contribution / storyline that goes beyond -- far beyond -- simply how they came into existence.

I salute the likes of Sand Hills and Ballyneal because the final routing worked the golf in a harmonious way with the existing landscape. Keep in mind I have nothing against courses that are built from next-to-nothing in terms of empty or challenging locations. Jerry K mentioned Bayonne and how it arose from a pier area along the Hudson River. I see the sheer quality of holes as consistently better at Bayonne than Shadow Creek and can start another thread with that thought in mind.

I disagree with you when you reference Sand Hills as being only discussed in terms of the where and how it was created. There's been plenty of threads on this site and elsewhere regarding the specific nature of any number of holes there -- e.g., the 1st, 2nd 7th, 10th, 13th, 17th and 18th, to name just a few.

Tom, you are absoluetly right -- the "back story" is part and parcel of the discussion for many courses. I never said it wasn't. The question is whether the back story is the ONLY continuing story of NOTE. That's the failure of Shadow Creek, in my opinion. Let me further state that I am not suggesting Shadow Creek is not a good golf course. Never said that. But from all the top courses I have ever played I don't see it as being some herculean contribution that merits the lofty standing it seems to have with so many. Tom Fazio has done better work -- but Shadow Creek has become his signature springboard -- no less Pacific Dunes was for you.

Likely, the majesty and pageantry at Shadow Creek has overcome the senses of a good number of people. Getting the limo ride to the course and having people fawn all over those fortunate to play there can make for a powerful allure to be smitten with the place. Raters are human -- I would have hope given the red carpet treatment many get at other courses that they would keep this in check. I guess the Vegas approach works better than others. And, I agree with others, who have opined on the pursuit of turf perfection and all the other contributory non-course related items can be.

Tom, you mentioned I have not provided specific comments on holes at Shadow Creek. Fair enough, I'll be happy to do that when time allows. For the record, allow me to point out I have done so countless of times with any number of courses on GCA. Some even accuse me of going way beyond surface level stuff whether I like, am so-so or dislike a place. I don't dislike Shadow Creek -- I simply don't see how it maintains its position as a statement of superlative architecture. You wince when I say "totality of its architecture" -- what I mean is a course that consistently demonstrates a high level of architecture that calls for the fullest range of quality golf shots and for the greatest range / variety of holes. You cited a few holes of note but I don't see how that then automatically pushes Shadow Creek to the highest of rating levels.

As I said before, the "creation" angle has been the fuel that lifted Shadow Creek off the pad. It's the hype -- the buzz -- the location in Vegas, that has people believing that there's more there than what is truly there (architecturally speaking).  If people are so taken with the "creation" angle then they should venture to Wolf Creek in nearby Mesquite, NV. There you have a course that is hoisted about a much more demanding site and has an array of holes that are indeed unique, fun to play and at times quirky / exasperating to some.

Shadow Creek is unique in demonstrating how man can overcome Mother Nature. That desire to getting something no matter the cost clearly has had an impact with other similar themed courses since then. I don't minimize that storyline but I think others need to keep it in context to what long term meaningful architecture is about.






Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why can't Golfweek get over Shadow Creek?
« Reply #31 on: March 11, 2008, 01:53:50 PM »
Matt: I agree with you that Galloway is a top notch course but its routing will always hold it back from being one of the very best.  How would you rank it when comparing it to Trump Bedminster and Hidden Creek?

Matt_Ward

Re: Why can't Golfweek get over Shadow Creek?
« Reply #32 on: March 11, 2008, 07:46:18 PM »
Steve Lapper:

Well done analysis on Bayonne -- no doubt there will be dissenters. I too would favor playing there over Shadow Creek by a similar margin as you indicated.

Jerry K:

You have to explain to me what you see as being deficient in terms of the routing of Galloway National.

In regards to Trump National -- I see The Donald having the more demanding layout but I see the wider diversity of holes as being more representative with what TF did at Galloway National. Trump National from the tips is one tough hombre.

Hidden Creek, in my opinion, is a bit overrated. No doubt those who are fans of the C&C style will see it in a much higher light. I like a number of holes there (e.g. 10th, 11th, 4th, etc, etc) but there's also a number that are merely functional and really don't have the same consistency when held up against the other two layouts.

Galloway National, IMHO, is a strong contender for top five status in NJ - I might include Trump National in a state top ten but Hidden Creek would be likely in the range of 11-16 statewide for me. Candidly, TF and his design team responsible for Galloway National deserve high marks because you don't see the excesses of other TF courses (the ones with the overdosing of eye-candy elements). I have heard from a number of people that they could not believe it was a TF layout. In a strange twist -- that's the ultimate compliment for TF.

Jerry -- how you would assess them ?





Jon Spaulding

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why can't Golfweek get over Shadow Creek?
« Reply #33 on: March 12, 2008, 12:30:16 AM »
I am playing there tomorrow, so if you could define the Golfweek model I'd be glad to see if it can be found out there.

What I might equate to some other top clubs would be risk/reward nature of the holes, conditioning, and a decent experience.

Jon,

Are you in Vegas for Con Expo?  The golfweek model is simply put as: "America's Best" rating criteria included ease and intimacy of routing, integrity of original design, natural setting and overall land plan, interest of greens and surrounding contours, variety and memorability of par 3s, 4s and 5s; landscape and tree management and other considerations.  You give each catagory a ranking and then without consideration of the individual numbers pick an overall rank.  What I am curious about is if the greens and surrounding contours are world class and if the memorability of par 3s, 4s and 5s really is up to standards.  Of all the people I know that have played the course I have never been told of an individual hole in the context of greatness.


Yes, I am in town for the unadultered pleasure that....is....ConExpo. It's the only motivation I can find to come here every 3 years 8).

The greens or their surrounds are not world class from a design standpoint. Conditioning...sure. Difficulty.....depends on your game. Interest level...no. There are a couple of false fronts which I find entertaining and solid. Pretty good for Fabio...but onsidering this is #9....they collectively do not hold the #99 courses jock. There are a few holes which are real standouts, which I will post under separate cover.

Of course all of this is moot as the course is closing in May for a lengthening and greens redux by Fabio. Which is a bummer because I finally made a 3 on #18 today, and that will be highly unlikely once the place re-opens.

I really like the course and it is a toss up between this and Pine Barrens as the best Fabio courses I have played.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2008, 12:34:55 AM by Jon Spaulding »
You'd make a fine little helper. What's your name?

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why can't Golfweek get over Shadow Creek?
« Reply #34 on: March 12, 2008, 10:40:15 AM »
Matt:  To me the routing a Galloway is forced for two reasons:  Maximizing the number of holes on the bay and the unfortunate fact that a road divides the property.  There is nothing that can be done about the latter problem and I know there are great courses with a similar problem.  The holes along the bay on the front cause you to double back after playing the second par 3 in order to get to the next hole(I can't remember hole numbers as well as you).  I believe there is a similar forced feeling when you get to 17 and have to double back. I still view it as my favorite TF course, but that routing issue will always knock it down in comparing it to other courses.

I look at Hidden Creek as a great members course - I don't look at courses with championships in mind when I play them.  The course has a great variety of holes and the greens and greens surrounds are great fun.  Is it the best course I've ever seen - no - is it the best I've seen in New Jersey - no - but I would sure be happy if I was a member and had the opportunity to play it on a regular basis.  Let me put it this way, if I was a member of a club and we were having a stroke play event, I would look forward to it at HC, but at GN I would hesitate to even enter. 

Matt_Ward

Re: Why can't Golfweek get over Shadow Creek?
« Reply #35 on: March 12, 2008, 10:49:37 AM »
Jerry:

Is you assessment -- on HC v GN based on how your game would fare at both? Often times the self interest trumps (no pun intended) the general interest.

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why can't Golfweek get over Shadow Creek?
« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2008, 11:38:43 AM »
It's not how my game would fare -  if I were rating the courses I would rate GN higher - I just think GN would rank even higher if the routing was not an issue.  I just look at GN as a really tough course where you could post a really high number on any number of holes and just play yourself out of a stroke play event.

Matt_Ward

Re: Why can't Golfweek get over Shadow Creek?
« Reply #37 on: March 12, 2008, 04:08:17 PM »
Jerry:

Keep in mind GN is far removed from the typical TF course -- the kind where "look" rather than function is the dominant ingredient. I don't doubt the toughness of GN but frankly Trump National is even tougher if played from the tip tee boxes.

When you speak about the routing I don't see any of the key holes being compromised because of it. I will admit that not all of the holes at GN are equal to one another but the plus side of the design TF created more than makes up for anything that may be lacking.

Sad to say -- Galloway National gets far less mention when held against HC and ACCC. Although I see the TF layout as one of the best he's ever designed.

JR Potts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why can't Golfweek get over Shadow Creek?
« Reply #38 on: March 12, 2008, 10:12:54 PM »
I can't remember the 4th or 5th holes.  I'm sure that is a result of the course or the state of my body and mind while in Vegas.  Come to think of it, I can only remember about 10 holes.

Tony Petersen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why can't Golfweek get over Shadow Creek? New
« Reply #39 on: March 14, 2008, 10:19:42 PM »
Shadow Creek proves that sustained hype can work wonders in combo with the Vegas motif. Hats off to Steve Wynn in creating mirages and making them real.

I have to strongly agree with this statement and I have played Shadow Creek 4 times in the last 3 years. It's really, really good stuff BUT to mention it in the same breath as Pine Valley & Seminole?  ;)

And Potts,  I am with you brother... I've been a wreck on the 1st tee, but that's Vegas for ya!
« Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 10:21:39 PM by Tony Petersen »
Ski - U - Mah... University of Minnesota... "Seven beers followed by two Scotches and a thimble of marijuana and it's funny how sleep comes all on it's own.”

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back