[John Kirk]

The Rock Creek #7 thread is straying away from hole #7, so let's focus the rest of the 18th hole commentary here.  Here's why I like it:

--  The Cattle Company is a ranch.  The homestead, with cabins and club buildings, are situated at the bottom of the valley, in the pines and firs, by the water, and out of the wind.  The beautiful Rock Creek rushes by the pro shop.  The course starts at Rock Creek and finishes along Rock Creek.  This is how the course should be, starting and finishing by the community.

--  The hole is very strategic in nature, and not easy.  The green slopes down to the back left.  Therefore, the second shot is best played to the left, closer to Rock Creek.  The second shot is more difficult to judge from the right side of the fairway, if one tries to play from the left side for their third shot.  So the drive is also best played left, closer to the creek.  And it is very difficult to drive down the left side here.  Drives to the center of the fairway tend to bound a bit left into a good spot.  Not that I could accomplish this.

--  It's a difficult golf hole.  The green is quite flat, sloping away in places.  The back left pin is pretty easy, but all others seemed tough.  A good drive will allow the player a 15-20 yard wide slot to try for the green in two, and there will be a few eagles each year.  But this hole will also spoil rounds with an occasional double bogey.  I saw a few pulled second shots bound into the hazard on the second shot.  It's a "3 or 7" hole.  I think I made three 6s there.

--  On the final afternoon, I played the course from the back tees, and though it is 7400 yards long, it was very manageable.  In fact, the back tees were more enjoyable, though I am only a medium strong, straight player.  Plenty of room to drive the ball, except for hole #18.  The back tee on #18 is high above the fairway and gives a beautiful view of the valley.  I carry the ball about 230-240 at sea level, which meant my drive will land in the first 50 yards of the fairway.  The first 50 yards are quite narrow, only about 50 yards wide, with Rock Creek on the left side and native fescues on the right.  I was nervous, because it looked small from up there.  I hit a slight pull into the center of the fairway, which bounded a bit left and was rejected by a large shoulder which effectively blocks half of the balls from advancing.  I then played in with 9-iron, then a 6 or 7-iron.  The shoulder would not impact me much from the second tee (555 yards), but having Rock Creek left still makes the 75 yard wide fairway look narrow, and pushes you right.

The problem will be with elderly members playing from the third tee.  A good 70 year old player may have a good round going, but have his tee shot rejected by the shoulder.  It is too penalizing for a very important golfer at Rock Creek, the 60-75 year old man.

In addition, I saw many balls lost in the right side fescues here, and believe an additional 10-15 yards of fairway in the primary landing area might be beneficial.  The further right you go off the tee, makes that second shot back at the creek more difficult, and it is already a difficult hole.

--  I nominate the name "Home" for this hole.  The name fits in every way. 

 

 

[Kalen Braley]

Can we get a pictoral review for those of us not yet able to make it to them neck of the woods?   

[Matt_Ward]

John K:

Tell me what's a better concluding hole -- the 18th at Rock Creek or the 18th at Sebonack. Look forward to reading your indepth analysis on that front.

I'll respond after your detailed reply.

[John Kirk]

I'm sorry, Matt, but I don't want to devote time to a detailed comparison.  You like Sebonack's 18th better.  That's fine.  I like Sebonack #18, but one round I played it in a 20 mile per hour crosswind, and the tee shot was nearly impossible.  It required a long carry on the second shot from the right side of the fairway to carry a large bunker, in order to leave a wedge approach.

They share a water hazard down the left side.  The Peconic Bay is larger than Rock Creek.

I wasn't knocking Sebonack #18.  I was offering a positive view of Rock Creek #18.

[Ian Andrew]

Here is the hole from the upper tee.

[Philippe Binette]

at 598 yards, the name should be Long way Home

[Matt_Ward]

John:

Avoidance of discussion doesn't really add much to a site where such dialogue can be most helpful. Just a thought to consider.

I don't see the finale at Rock Creek as a stellar hole. It brings the round to a conclusion but it fails to provide a fitting summary conclusion to the superb holes you've faced prior to reach the tee box at the home hole.

Sebonack, on the other hand, and sadly for you because of the one time play wind conditions you faced -- provides a clear and more compelling summary statement. The tee shot at the LI layout needs to think strategically because of the bunkers presence. You also don't get a formulaic second shot at the LI closer -- it needs to be really thought out as to how far and where you need to be. In terms of the green -- again -- the Doak / Nicklaus creation puts a high premium on where to land it to avoid a quick and ugly 3-jack.

John, here is the $64,000 question and a straightforward answer is appreciated.

Do you see the 18th at Rock Creek as being the equal of the stellar holes at the facility?

Where would you place the 18th at Rock Creek among the other par-5's at the facility?

Many thanks ...

[Brad Swanson]

Thanks for the picture Ian, though I must say my eye is drawn to the creek and hopes of landing a nice big brownie or rainbow more than playing the hole.

Brad

[Michael Dugger]

John:
Avoidance of discussion doesn't really add much to a site where such dialogue can be most helpful. Just a thought to consider.

 

[John Kirk]

 

[John Kirk]

I suppose I would rank the hole third best out of three par 5s.  I really like #3, and #10 is very dramatic.

Please understand that my evaluation of a golf course is more as a complete entity, not as 18 individual holes.  At Rock Creek, we start at the homestead and finish at the homestead, on a gentle walk that sweeps slightly left back to the clubhouse.

While there, I had a chat with a very good friend, who was ranking Rock Creek and Ballyneal's individual holes on a 1-10 basis.  Although I played along, I have great difficulty evaluating the course in this manner.  Let's say I think Rock Creek is an 8 or an 8.5.  For me, all 18 holes are 8.5.  Sure, there are certain holes I like a little less or a little better, but that is far outweighed by the sum total of the experience.

Golf is a game to play while engaging in the primary activity of walking in a park.  If I were to route a golf course, I'd select the most interesting walk as the top priority.  The final hole at Rock Creek is a fitting finish to the walk around this park.

[DMoriarty]

--  The Cattle Company is a ranch.  The homestead, with cabins and club buildings, are situated at the bottom of the valley, in the pines and firs, by the water, and out of the wind.  The beautiful Rock Creek rushes by the pro shop.  The course starts at Rock Creek and finishes along Rock Creek.  This is how the course should be, starting and finishing by the community.

John

I was thinking similarly, but would take the ranchland concept a bit further.  To my mind, Rock Creek's strongest quality may be how well the golf course blends into the rugged ranchland setting, and the 18th fits as well as any part of the course. 

Western Montana's ranches consist not only of wild rangeland, but also small, less wild meadows, terrific locations to 'make hay while the sun shines' in preparation for the coming winter.  Like the 18th, these meadows are usually located at slightly lower elevations and near a stream or other source of water, and are oftentimes adjacent to the ranch buildings.  At one time these meadows were a necessity for winter feed, without which the livestock would perish.   

So I see 18 as fitting in to the ranchland motif perfectly.  It looks like a freshly hayed meadow.  In fact in one way it may be best fitting hole of all, since such meadows would often be the only place on a ranch where the grass (or alfalfa) was green.   My vote for a name for the hole would either be "Make Hay" or  "Meadow."

I agree with your assessment of the hole, but would add (from experience) that the high shoulder on the left will kick balls into the left hazard which effectively narrows the landing area for those not carrying this ridge.   I didn't mind the ridge though, but I guess it might make sense if the right side was a little bit less prevalent so it would not stop running shots dead. 
________________________________________

John K:

Tell me what's a better concluding hole -- the 18th at Rock Creek or the 18th at Sebonack. Look forward to reading your indepth analysis on that front.

Matt, you seem to be most concerned with the location of the golf hole at the end of the round.  I understand your point, but do not have the same requirements of a last hole as you.

Can we set that aside for a moment?    Let's pretend that this was not the last hole, but that the course ended after the 10th or the 14th, or anywhere else you choose.   How much does that change your opinion of the hole?  How much does that change your opinion of the course? 

How does the hole compare to the third best par 5 at Sebonack?

You have written glowingly about the 16th, yet without the 18th, the 16th and 17th would dead end.  Is it a better course without 16-18 or with 16-18? 

[Jonathan Cummings]

I anticipated, enjoyed and warmly post-reflected on each hole at RCCC.  Is that any measure of quality and character of a design?

JC

[John Kirk]

Yer darn tootin' it is!  That's what it's all about, buster!

[Matt_Ward]

David:

Allow me to straighten out any confusion you may have had on my previous points outlined.

I understand how the 18th hole Rock Creek was laid out by Doak and company. I understand Doak's reasoning. I don't dispute the fact that it's decent hole. However, you and others who see it as being a fitting conclusion can't cross the bridge and say that the hole is really not a solid summary statement of what you have faced throughout the round at Rock Creek. Likely, we may never see such things in equal measure. So be it.

I didn't say the hole is an anchor around the course's neck but c'mon let's be a bit more forthcoming instead of the cheerleading parade of how the hole is really so special. It's simply OK in my book -- I expected better given the high level quality holes you face when there.

Yes, the 16th is an all-world hole for me and likely many others who have and will play it. The par-3 17th is solid -- nothing really awesome mind oyu but a very solid hole (even if it's another downhill tee shot for a par-3 ). The 18th should add to that unique trio in the par-4 / par-3 / par-5 combo. Frankly, the 18th doesn't add to the hefty height of the two holes that precede it for me.

You asked if another hole ended the course on how much does that change my opinion of the hole? The ending hole needs to be a summary statement on all that has been encountered. It should end the note with a real capper on what's been done throughout the day. Let me point out that is one reason why I feel the original 18 at Bandon Dunes ends with a loud dud sound. The closer there is frankly one of the worst finishing holes for a course that has been rated as highly as it is for a modern course that has opened in the last 10 years or so. The same argument can be brought forward in a similar vein with the closing hole at Cypress Point. I still rave about CP but I know the 18th does take it down just a tad for me given the importance that a closer should have.

My opinion of Rock Creek is quite high -- I still have been able to weigh and say plenty of laudatory statements tied to any number of other elements. But, when a course starts to rise up the totem pole of analysis the benchmarks needed for overall greatness becomes much more stringent and intense. Rock Creek is spectacular in so many ways but the par-3 criticism I provided, as well as the closing hole, do take something off the luster of the place for me.

In regards to Sebonack -- the 18th there is the 3rd best par-5 at that course in my mind and that is no slap because the others there are truly well done. Yet, even with its 3rd place position in my mind, the 18th at Sebonack encapsulates so much of what you have seen previously with the course. In addition, the built in design elements are so well calculated to ensure that only the soundest of plays is rewarded when the execution matches the requirements at hand. 

John Kirk:

I understand the nature of what 18 holes are about from a collective perspective. However, one cannot diminish the importance that while the totality is critical the capacity that each of the individual holes can stand up as an equal to any other hole is no less important. Both dynamics should go hand in hand in my mind.

[DMoriarty]

I understand how the 18th hole Rock Creek was laid out by Doak and company. I understand Doak's reasoning. I don't dispute the fact that it's decent hole. However, you and others who see it as being a fitting conclusion can't cross the bridge and say that the hole is really not a solid summary statement of what you have faced throughout the round at Rock Creek.

I don't cross that bridge because I don't agree that a final hole has to be a "summary statement of what you have faced . . .. "   But even if I did accept your subjective "summary statement" requirement, I would still disagree.  The first 17 holes are a terrific golfing experience through amazing and diverse ranchland, where the golf holes make the most of what the landscape has to offer, and the landscape has plenty to offer.   The last hole summarizes this perfectly.   By the time I get to 18, I've already played 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13,  14, and 16.  I don't need to finish yet with another wild, rolling hole to appreciate what I have experienced, especially if the last hole must be tricked up to meet some artificial expectation of what a final hole needs to be.

I didn't say the hole is an anchor around the course's neck but c'mon let's be a bit more forthcoming instead of the cheerleading parade of how the hole is really so special.

Interesting that you feel it necessary to dismiss my opinion and the opinions of others as "a cheer leading parade of how the hole is really so special."   

Is it really so impossible for you to comprehend that some of us find your last hole "summary statement" standard to be dogmatic and impractical.  Likewise, is it really impossible for you to understand how one might honestly find strange your antipathy for back-to-back par threes, no matter how different they may be?

Speaking of par threes, for the third time, what are your favorite modern par 3s under 150 yards?   Can't think of a single one you like?  What's that tell ya?

[Matt_Ward]

David:

In summary -- as in many situations here on GCA -- little real change of opinions occurs. So be it.

David, I can fully appreciate the TOTALITY of what Rock Creek offers. You make the erroneous claim that somehow I need another Indiana Jones type hole to make my day complete (sorry for the Clint Eastwood expression here). That's not the case and I have explained it a good number of times.

I laugh when you say my feelings are "dogmatic and impractical" but low and behold what you see as being important is totally sound and practical. David, my opinions comes from playing a rich variety of courses -- I've had the pleasure in playing at least a dozen Doak layouts so I think I have some appreciation of what he has done with previous work. Let me point out that I have high praise for a number of elements at Rock Creek and have opined on any number of them. I simply don't walk in LOCK STEP with your comments. Get over it. No big deal to me.

I also don't have any GENERALIZED NEGATIVE feeling that back-to-back par-3 holes can't be included. I just don't see the combo at Rock Creek to rise to the level of super stardom -- although I am more a fan of the 13th because of its overall design. 

Here's shote list of moden par-3's (-150) I would include on my short list ...

Off the top of my head the following two examples would be among the best I have played ...

*Bandon Trails / 5th hole (133 yards)

*Bully Pulpit / 15th hole (161 yards) *again few will play from the tips so middle tee distance is anywhere from 153 to 135 yards

A few others of note ...

*Pacific Dunes / 11th hole (148 yards)

*The Rawls Course / 3rd hole (158 yards) *falls just beyond the requirement you mentioned -- but I still would include it because most play will come from the 139 yard markers

*Rustic Canyon / 8th hole (127 yards)

*Ventana Canyon (Mtn Course) / 3rd hole (107 yards)

*Hawktree / 3rd hole (164 yards) *plays considerably downhill so it's effective yardage is much shorter.

*The Kingsley Club / 9th hole (157 yards) *plays slightly downhill but many will opt for the middle tee marks at 133 yards.

I can likely add a few more when I gather some additional thoughts.

David, please nuff of this silliness that somehow I don't have a fondness for ANY short par-3 holes. That's a gross generalization on your part. The reality is that I place a heavy emphasis on having the widest diversity of holes for any course I play. The short par-3 model, which you are enamored, is but one part of that total picture. I might ask you the same to itemize for me your listing of top par-3's which play in excess of 225 yards from the same modern course listing.

[John Kirk]

Just so you know, Matt, #13 was my favorite par 3 on the course, probably because it seemed the most unusual par 3 on the course, and it also suits a rolling draw which I sometimes like to play.

[DMoriarty]

Matt, 

And Matt, this is not personal with me.  I do appreciate your viewpoint and your willingness to express it.  I just don't agree with much of your criteria for what constitutes quality golf design.  And I didn't say your "feelings" were dogmatic and impractical.  I said your requirement that the final hole offer a summary of the totality of the experience of the entire course is dogmatic and impractical.   What I mean is that it forces the designer in a direction that has more potential to hurt the overall golfing experience more than improve it.  The course starts and finishes where it seems like it should.  To force a different ending would lessen the experience for multitude reasons.

I still do not understand what you think Doak should have done differently?  Scrap 16-18?   Artificially construct a flashier hole in an attempt to match the holes in the Moraine-land?   Bus or cart golfers to a remote starting or finishing hole?  Move the entire ranch complex near a finishing hole of your liking?   Or do you think that they made about the best decisions for the finish that they could, but for you this is not quite good enough? 

If you are not looking for an Indiana Jones finish, then I really do not understand your comments about the hole!  Your complaint has been that the hole is "filler," not typical or a summary of the rest of the course (which is pretty much Indiana Jones if you ask me,) an easy chance at birdie, and simply a way of getting back to the clubhouse.  It sounds like you think the hole needs more of the wildness, challenge, and excitement that much of the rest of the course offers.   Is not an accurate assessment? 


As for par 3s, I generally agree with you that, generally, elevated tees on par 3ths are way overdone, especially from the back tees.  I just don't see this as being an avoidable issue at RCCC, or that it has much impact on the quality of the course.  My original thought on No. 8 at RCCC was that the back tee should have been way down and to the left of the existing tees, but after seeing the hole a number of times, I really don't think the hole would have worked from down there.  On the 17th my hope was that the tee would be down and to the right as far as feasible given the natural landscape, and I think this is probably where the tees are.  I think most designers would have utilized the hill behind the 16th to create a bigger drop, and I am glad Doak and Co. did not do that on the 17th. 

Next time you play the course, I suggest you play the par threes from a tee box up (and the eighth from the lower part of the middle tee box), and you may appreciate the par threes more.  As I said before, I think some of them are better holes from the up box, the one that most people will usually play. 

As for longer par 3s, not sure where I have ever complained about them.   They are often my favorite holes; 225, 250, 275, I don't care.   So long as they provide an option for the short hitter to survive the hole, I have nothing against them.   I like them for the same reasons I sometimes like really short ones-- building good ones is generally a lost art, and they knock the golfer's expectations somewhat off balance.  Of all the holes at RCCC, the one I was most looking forward to playing was the 13th, and it is my favorite par 3 on the course.

As for the back-to-back par threes, you did make this particular criticism about RCCC.  Hasn't this been a criticism of yours with regard to other courses with back-to-back par threes?  How about at Pacific?  If you think the back-to-back nature of the par threes is a problem at RCCC, then I cannot imagine that you would ever approve of back-to-back par 3s, given that the 12th and 13th at RCCC are about as different as two par threes could be. 

I am a bit surprised by your list of short par 3s.  I don't recall you having much positive to say about Rustic 8 in the past, but I am glad to see the hole has jumped up to be one of your favorite holes.  In fact, I don't recall many past raves about many of these other holes either.  How many of these holes do you consider to be truly excellent golf holes, regardless of distance or par?   How many sub-150 par threes are in your favorite 20 golf holes?

Honestly, is it at all possible that you have relatively less appreciation for short, exacting pitch shot holes than you do for man-sized challenges?  There is nothing wrong with this, I just think we ought to put our preferences on the table so others can understand where you are coming from.

Also, I notice that you moved up to the middle tees on a number of the par 3s you list, justifying the move because that is where most will play.  Ironic, isn't it, that doing the same thing at RCCC would largely take care of your drop shot issue?    Shouldn't you be consistent on the location from which you critique these holes?

[Matt_Ward]

David:

There's no further point to reclarify positions that have been reclarified by me several times over and over again. We simply see things differently. Accept that reality and go from there.

I just don't see the shotmaking elements at the 18th -- it's a nice hole but it's far from being ideal or even above average in my book. Adding a few other elements would have made for a fine summary statement to tie into all that one experienced at Rock Creek. I love the place and have said so -- because I don't walk in exact locak step with you doesn't mean I don't have a real fondness for the place.

David, in regards to my listing of short par-3 holes I quickly included the holes that came quickly to mind. There are others -- and with sufficient time and thinking I'd be happy to supplement the ones already listed.

David, my consistency is there - I simply noted where the bulk of most people will play such par-3 holes. I generally play the tip tee markers or wherever they are placed for that day. Nothing odd or strange in that statement or my feelings relating to it. If I return to Rock Creek I'll take up your suggestion to play from different par-3 markers to see if your point has validity.

In regards to back-to-back par-3 holes I really love one particular type - the ones enocuntered at CP. I'm OK w the ones at Pac Dunes but I don't see the two of them as true equals.

My preferences are not so easily discerned by your limited understanding of what I have played over the course of a lifetime. I have opined on GCA and other places about courses of all different types -- those that are extremely quirky and those that are not long at all. Clearly, you seem to want to tag me as being only of one perspective or of a limited one when compared to possibly you and others. That's not fair and it's certainly not accurate.

I don't have much time to go further because I have to leave for now. Suffice to say -- we see golf design differently -- you are unconvinced by me -- so be it. In the case of the 18th atRock Creek I feel just as strongly about my position. Nuff said -- time to move on.

[Matt_Ward]

David:

One further thing -- because you asked me about my all-time holes and what short par-3's would be in the mix -- no doubt the 7th at PB would be one of those holes.

I also mentioned rather qucikly in my last post the qualities of the 5th at Bandon Trails and the 15th at Bully Pulpit in Medora, ND. Bully Pulpit plays 160 yards from the dead back and with a slight downhill shot it plays to the required amount you stipulated previously.

All three are excellent holes and the two modern ones I mentioned I have raved about in previous posts. If you have not seen or read them I'm sorry that's the case but my attraction to golf holes is quite wide and far reaching.

As an FYI -- I see Rock Creek as an 8.5 on the Doak scale and with a second visit it's possible that could go higher. As I said many times previously -- the cumulative impact of all the par-4 holes is the best I have seen from the courses I have played with Tom Doak's name attached.

[Ronald Montesano]

Congratulations to Ian on his 1000th post.  See you at Cherry Hill.

[DMoriarty]

David:

There's no further point to reclarify positions that have been reclarified by me several times over and over again. We simply see things differently. Accept that reality and go from there.

If this is the way you see things then what is the point of these two posts?

Matt, as you know, we both have a strong appreciation for Rock Creek, and we should not lose sight of that.   My disagreement with you regarding the 12th and 18th are really not that important in the overall scheme of things.  People should play the course and consider these holes for themselves, hopefully over multiple plays so that they will be able to fully appreciate the subtleties in the holes and the role they play in the course as a whole. 

While our focus has been on a few holes at RCCC, I believe our differences are actually much more fundamental than any one course.  I have been reading your reviews for close to a decade and appreciate them, but they do contain rather consistent limitations that hamper your ability to truly convey the nature a course to your readers.   This is my opinion, mind you, but it is based on reading your hundreds if not thousands of your posts and reviews on various holes and courses.

That being said, I commend you for producing such a large body of work for me and others to read and review, especially about out of the way and lesser known courses.  I have always admired and appreciated your willingness to get out there and see the courses, especially courses that others do not bother to get out and see.  As it turns out, many have and (hopefully) will get out and see RCCC, but that is not always the case with other courses in the middle of nowhere, and you have been instrumental in focusing attention on these courses.

Thanks Matt.

[Craig Sweet]

The thing for me about #18 was suddenly you are back down around the cottonwoods...river bottom trees...after playing up through, and back down the sage/fescue/scrub pine foothills of the Flint Range mountains...it was in some ways a let down. Perhaps a jarring realization that the round was over? 

After reading some other opinions of the 18th I have changed my mind a little about the quality of the hole....certainly not the best of RCCC's par 5's, but a good, solid,  closing hole.  The tee shot is as good as any at Rock Creek...and yes, the second shot can easily run quite a bit to the left, toward the creek....I don't remember much about the green, except it melted into the fairway and was not easily visible from 100 yards out...and the right side bunkers were not as close to the green as they appeared. (or am I imagining that?) 

[Matt_Ward]

David:

Why is it so difficult to simply admit that two people can see the exact thing very differently? I've taken considerable time and effort to explain my position and you seem equally intent on rejecting it. End of story in my book.

I can certainly appreciate your take on things but when you go so far as to easily slap a convenient stereotype on me that all I ever promote or highlight are long holes or difficult courses than such a summary is not accurate. The posts are here on GCA for you and others to read David. I've made it a point, and I thank you for saying as much, to bring to life a number of courses that often times fly considerably below the radar.

David, people can certainly have fundamental differences and preferences in golf architecture. That's life. I personally see my tastes being very pragmatic and certainly beyond a very easy to apply tag line that says only "X" number of courses are truly unique and worthy of a special visit.

I'm glad you were able to play Rock Creek -- because as I have said I see it as a solid layout of considerable challenge and joy to behold / play. On that much we certainly do agree -- the finer points are simply areas where we part company. No big deal since we agree about 85% or more on what is there.

If the time and opportunity allow it's my hope to return to Rock Creek and I'll take up your suggestion to play the par-3's from different lengths. I might even have a change of heart on the 18th hole too.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()