Hello and Shadow Creek pics...

[Brett Hochstein]

I love brown and fast and low inputs, etc., but not for $500 on something that is supposed to be insanely over the top.  Maybe with the sort of Southeastern look that Shadow Creek appears to be trying to pull off, they feel the winter maintenance practice of overseeding ought to parallel it for the full effect.  or not.

Those saturated photos that matt cohn posted are what I believe this course is trying to achieve, and it is what I would expect in playing there.  I believe in minimal construction and maintenance, aesthetically keeping with the native environment, and affordable golf for the people, but not here.  For just one golf course, and only one, I want to see the absolute maximum that man, machine, and money is capable of creating, if for nothing more than simple curiosity.

I don't think the complete effect will be achieved for another 50 or so years, depending upon the growth vigor of the many pines in the desert setting.  Only when those pines become mature specimen trees will the feeling of seclusion in a Southeastern (or wherever) forest dominate the golfer's experience and maybe block out those barren desert mountains a little more.  As of its look right now, I don't fully buy it or feel distant from the desert.

[Ryan Farrow]

Brett, well put, I just tried to say it with fewer words. Anyways, welcome to the club of reason on this board. And congrats on the Cup, just wished the Pens would have me the finals a little more competitive.

[PThomas]

is shadow creek under water restrictions??

and it was interesting to read that they apparently will be making the greens more challenging/more slope/something...for some reason i thought they were just regrassing/reseeding/whatever over the same green shapes

[RJ_Daley]

To each his own.... personally, Wynn would have to send his private plane and pay me $500 to play there.   I saw it (did not play) the year it was built.  I attended the dog and pony show that Wynn and the Faz put on for the GCSAA.  It was fascinating in 1991 or 2, because it broke so many LA GCA barriers.  Now, it is a boooor, and the schtick about the cost and being taken to play there in a limo is a laughable exercise in ostintatiousness.

[Brett Hochstein]

Thanks Ryan, you guys scared me to death at the end there.  I thought it was one of the best played series in awhile and maybe the last 'classic' series what with the classic logos, true sports arenas, star players, and cities that actually have snow and ice.  hopefully we get to do it again next year

[Jon Spaulding]

To call it "rough" is quite a stretch; in a number of places it's firmer and runs out better than the fairways....allowing the ball to deflect into the fairway.

I've played the course under three appearances: all green, brown fairways/green rough, and green fairways/brown rough. It was enjoyable in all 3 cases, but I'd have to say that the dormant fairways made for a most interesting contrast and firmer playing surface. It also penalized a tee-shot hit off to some degree (distance).

[John_Conley]

Wow, I don't care for that look at all.  I haven't seen it before, even in photos.

[Wayne_Freedman]

Nice golf course anywhere else. But in the desert, it's Fairyland.

Turn off the  water for one month, pay another 500 bucks, take more photos, and then let's talk.

[Ryan Farrow]

To call it "rough" is quite a stretch; in a number of places it's firmer and runs out better than the fairways....allowing the ball to deflect into the fairway.

I've played the course under three appearances: all green, brown fairways/green rough, and green fairways/brown rough. It was enjoyable in all 3 cases, but I'd have to say that the dormant fairways made for a most interesting contrast and firmer playing surface. It also penalized a tee-shot hit off to some degree (distance).

AHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!





Please tell me you have more pictures.




Please!

This is quite possible the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in my life.

[Rick Shefchik]

Which raises the question: If the fairway turf is an exceptionally good playing surface, does it really matter what color it is?

[Jim Franklin]

BTW, when I played I happened to run into Steve Wynn, who noticed I was taking pix and told me it was strictly forbidden.  Just out of curiosity, has that policy changed?

Steve Wynn has nothing to do with the course any longer. When he owned it, you could not take any pictures. Since he sold it, he does not have a say. Nor does he have a say in the conditioning aspect. When he was owner, it was wall to wall green all year long.

[Jon Spaulding]

To call it "rough" is quite a stretch; in a number of places it's firmer and runs out better than the fairways....allowing the ball to deflect into the fairway.

I've played the course under three appearances: all green, brown fairways/green rough, and green fairways/brown rough. It was enjoyable in all 3 cases, but I'd have to say that the dormant fairways made for a most interesting contrast and firmer playing surface. It also penalized a tee-shot hit off to some degree (distance).

AHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!





Please tell me you have more pictures.




Please!

This is quite possible the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in my life.

I have pictures from all 3 scenarios; they simply do not care anymore.

A bit light on the brown fairway photos, but I had already taken a number of shots a couple years earlier. I pulled the camera out that day simply to get shots of something I had never seen before.

According to our caddie back in March, they now alternate the fairway color each year. It might look goofy but I enjoyed the firmness.

If I were to post photos of the Crossings at Carlsbad, these would pale in hilarity. But I took an oath some time ago not to post smut..........

[Michael Dugger]

Looks nice.

I agree with Jeff Brauer in that some of the corridors are awfully narrow.  I suppose this is due to the "Wynn effect" or whatever the deal is with his eyes.

The green on #17 looks to be about the size of the hood of Riviera.  That hole looks completely unplayable for anything but a perfect shot.

When cost is no expense.  When space is not a problem, it seems silly to have golf holes like this. 

Can someone who's played the course confirm nor deny how playable it is?  Does it play as penal as it looks in places? 

[Adam Clayman]

Absolutely not. The course is very playable. Mr. Fazio showed great restraint in building something that would be construed as over the top.
 The unnaturalness is hardly evident once on the property. Only when thinking of it's macro surrounds is it unnatural.

My favorite hole was not pictured. The fifth is a wonderful par 3 over a gully. It has a center line bunker over which lies a peanut shaped green whose length is perpendicular to the teeing ground.

The golf course belongs on GW modern list. A bit high for me, but still a worthy candidate.

[George Pazin]

Welcome, and thanks for the photos and the tour.

The greens look fine to me - I wonder if the re-working is evidence of the type of thinking Ryan is suggesting (or mocking, I can't quite tell).

[John Mayhugh]

Thanks for sharing the photos.  I'm sure I would enjoy playing Shadow Creek, but not sure if I would pay $500 for the experience. 

One compliment for Fazio based on your pics and other courses I've played: he does a really nice job hiding cart paths. 

[Jed Peters]

THe course looks beautifully placed--as if it'd be in the pine foothills of the sierra nevada mountains, or the pine forests of north carolina, or the like.

I'd love to play there.

However, if I were to pay $500 (which is a pittance in vegas, really), I'd want:

1. wall to wall lushness--I want green, year round, purity. This course style demands that.
2. I want perfect maintenance. They should have a dude follow me with sod for crissakes. (They do that at the Institute in Morgan Hill, CA)
3. I want to be able to NOT have to take a cart
4. HOT beverage chicks, with free shit every couple holes.

For all that, in Vegas, I'd actually pay more.

But as it looks in the photos presented, I admit--I'd be disappointed.

[Michael Dugger]

THe course looks beautifully placed--as if it'd be in the pine foothills of the sierra nevada mountains, or the pine forests of north carolina, or the like.

I'd love to play there.

However, if I were to pay $500 (which is a pittance in vegas, really), I'd want:

1. wall to wall lushness--I want green, year round, purity. This course style demands that.
2. I want perfect maintenance. They should have a dude follow me with sod for crissakes. (They do that at the Institute in Morgan Hill, CA)
3. I want to be able to NOT have to take a cart
4. HOT beverage chicks, with free shit every couple holes.

For all that, in Vegas, I'd actually pay more.

But as it looks in the photos presented, I admit--I'd be disappointed.

Jed,

Really?  More lush?  Do you realize this is the kind of mentality many on this website are attempting to beat back?

At the heart of the matter, whether it's $5 or $500 you are paying, isn't what's most important is the golf experience?

Do you really like spongy turf?  Conditions where you get no roll?  Target golf, so to speak where balls stop where they land?  Where the ground game means nothing?

Is this really your preference?

[Jed Peters]

Jed,

Really? 

Yes.

 

More lush? 

Yes.

 

Do you realize this is the kind of mentality many on this website are attempting to beat back?

Yes, although often times the reasoning is misguided.

At the heart of the matter, whether it's $5 or $500 you are paying, isn't what's most important is the golf experience?

Not always. I'm not paying $500 in vegas for a "pure" golf experience.

Do you really like spongy turf? 

No. You don't have to have spongy turf and no roll if you do it right.

Conditions where you get no roll? 

 No, I like roll; I don't hit it very far in the air and I hit a draw.

Target golf, so to speak where balls stop where they land? 

 I like this at times; again, it depends on the course.

Where the ground game means nothing?

I like courses where you can run the ball up onto the green at times. And I like courses where you have to fly it into holes. It all depends on the style of golf course.

Is this really your preference?

I hope I've answered you adequately. It depends on the venue. And at Shadow Creek, I want over the top lushness.

[Brett Hochstein]

Michael,

I look to beat back that mentality of grass color vs. playability, but this instance is a different case. It is just the same as you don't go to Vegas to marvel at the great architecture of a pyramid or a Venetian palace (or any of their other monstrosities). I'm not going to Shadow Creek for the golf; I'm there for the show.

On another note, overseeded roughs and dormant fairways??!!  This looks completely ridiculous and doesn't seem to make sense.  But if you consider playability, it makes great sense.  The middle provides extra roll and reward while the sides slow the ball down and force longer second (or third, or fourth, or whatever) shots.  This reminds me of the inverse of a late July drought on some of the muni courses around here where we would purposely hit out toward the dead and dried rough to gain extra distance. 

[Mark Arata]

I played there in April, it didnt seem that narrow to me, but the 17th green is about the size of a car hood. I hit it in the right bunker both times. 

They are tearing the place up and stretching it out to 8000 yards for some of the pga players that like to practice out there.  Apparently the entire course is Driver/Wedge for Tiger and Phil and some of the other PGA guys that like to practice there.......They are going to spend something like 10m more dollars to stretch the course out and change some things up, and maybe 1% of the people that play there will ever use it.....

I was also told they were going to have the course slope rated for the first time, they dont have an official rating now.

[rchesnut]

Tony, welcome to the board and thanks for the pictures....it's hard to get good pics of Shadow Creek given their policy of no photos and their requirement that you take a caddie (who nicely enforces the rule).

Count me among those who like the brown...I like the contrast it offers, and it doesn't negatively affect playability.  Dumping a bunch of water on the rough just to keep it green would be wasteful even by Vegas standards.

I played the course once last year, and didn't like it.  At the time it was built, it was a spectacle, and a real accomplishment for golf course architecture.  But I don't like courses that introduce a lot of non-native plants, trees and wildlife, and I admit that artificial water features annoy me.  In an era where courses are going to come under increasing scrutiny for water usage, this stuff isn't sustainable.  I thought that a lot of the plants and trees looked sickly, and some of the greens (17 in particular) were in awful shape....I'm not sure that the SC model of creating its own ecosystem in a desert climate is sustainable over the long term.    But my bias is toward courses that integrate themselves well with their natural surroundings. 

All in all, I don't see this as a top 20 US course.

[Tony Gorski]

I agree Rob. 

The par 3's play very difficult, the par 4's play fairly easy (almost too easy hence the reinvestment), and the par 5's (all reachable, although 18 is tough around the green) are more than fair.  I believe Tiger and Freddie Couples hold the course record at 61.

I have to say that I'm not a huge Fazio fan (although he did do Finley at my alma mater - Chapel Hill), but the course was very playable and once you get inside the gates it does appear very natural. 

You're correct on the plants and trees.  They must be fighting a fungus or something.

The larger problem I have is how it can rank higher than Congressional, St George's, North Berwick, Swinley Forest,  Machrihanish, etc.  I don't get too hung up on rankings, but that just doesn't make much sense to me.

[Wade Whitehead]

Thanks for posting these photos and your helpful insight.  I was surprised, pleasantly and otherwise, by several of the holes.

I've always noticed that discussion of Shadow Creek seems to be dominated by where the course is located rather than what it actually is.  Fazio did what he did out of nothing, true; would we, however, consider the course as highly  - architecturally - if it were located in western North Carolina or Washington state?  How much of the course's success, notoriety, and/or pedigree is based on its juxtaposition with its barren surrounds and/or the Strip?

WW

[Jon Spaulding]

Hole #5 - best par 3 on the course, as already mentioned. Plays about 190. The road is the entry road to the club and this is the only hole you can see driving in. Quite a preview.



Hole #9 - another decent drop-shot par 3 playing roughly 150.