[Matt_Ward]

In writing a parallel thread on the best NV courses I was struck by a comment sent to me offline in which a person stated that I had vastly underrated the qualities of Shadow Creek.

This same person highlighted the mentioning of the course by Doak in his renowned top 31 picks in CG.

I explained to him in a rebuttal -- also offline -- that Shadow Creek was nothing more than the desired aims of a owner (Steve Wynn) to create a golf course that would add to the overall brand awareness of what he was doing in Las Vegas and to differentiate the course from other desert motifs the course was deliberately made into something so completely foreign to what anyone could remotely contemplate for the area.

I simply weighed in that the story behind Shadow Creek was less what came from the finished product -- but rested squarely on the feat in actually creating what came about.

Unfortunately, to my chagrin the course seems to have established itself as an architectural contribution in terms of what has come about. The facility is rated extremely highly by nearly all the key pubs and I still shake my head that a number of people -- some of whom I would think would see through the smoke screen hype that Wynn carefully created -- have not been able to see it for what truly is there.

Even on this site -- you rarely, if ever, get a discussion on what the top holes are at Shadow Creek -- it invariably falls back upon the storyline that Wynn, in concert w Tom Fazio, created.

I have to ask those on this site -- especially those who have played the course and thought highly of it -- where is the real beef behind the stature of Shadow Creek and how have so many people come to view it as being one of the very best golf courses in America.

[David Stamm]

Matt, please let me preface this by saying that I have never played the course.


I think what contributes to the fascination of the place is two fold. 1, the course was made from nothing, literally, as you know. I think sometimes the architectural merits of a place such as that gets a pass and the awe of what can be created from nothing skews the real story. 2, the cost and having to stay at one of Wynn's resorts added some exclusivity to the place. If I'm not mistaken, the place when it first opened was $1k to play. Even now at $500 it's more than PB. I think it became kind of a trophy course for some, but like I said, I've never played it and I doubt I ever will.

[Matt_Ward]

David, et al:

Thanks for your comments ...

However --

How does that square the fact the raters at Digest, Magazine and Golfweek all see the layout as being one of the best in the USA?

Can all of them have simply overlooked the critical component of architecture and bought into the side-story of how it came into existence.

I also have to wonder how other courses which followed the same mechanism of being created literally from no where (e.g. Bayonne, Wolf Creek, get far less attention).

Is anyone really looking into the architecture (lack thereof) or is the Wynn story and the elements associated with him the story that so many are focusing upon?

[Adam Clayman]

Matt, There's  a lot to be said about the real story of Shadow Creek. It defines exactly why the design is miles ahead of Wolf Creek.

Mr. Fazio's ability to restrain the showman, create an oasis with a variety of classically inspired features, showed a level of sophistication worthy of top 100 modern courses. Throw in the experience factor and human's are tough to pigeonhole.

I'd agree it's been over rated, but not as significantly as your post would intimate. Unlike previous versions of over rated courses which have had their day in the sun (on the lists) and then quickly disappear, it has stayed.

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

Get real please.

Miles ahead my foot.

Wolf Creek has the better collection of holes and no less a story on how it was built and what hurdles -- more than what Shadow Creek faced.

There's never -- repeat after me -- any real mention / analysis / description of the holes at Shadow Creek. Yet, people who should know better -- at all three key rating pubs -- have listed the course as being somehow unique.

The essence of the rating should be on what is THERE -- not on the sidebar showmanship angle stories.

I have opined the final trio of holes is quite fun at Shadow Creek but the rest is just an engineering feat of making sure out-of-area plants, trees and the likes get drip irrigation in order to keep it up and running.

David hit the nail on the head to a large degree -- the fanfare of Steve Wynn has been a major hook for so many people. The other being it's Las Vegas location which parlayed all the elements why people head to Vegas to start with.

You say there's an "oasis" there -- OK, but what about the golf?

Adam, you say there's "a lot to be said about the real story of Shadow Creek." Please tell me what I and others who think like me have missed? And, please reference your comments to specific holes, design features that are directly golf related -- not the predictable PR story on the Wynn / Fazio tandem and what they did from a builder's perspective. I assume you understand my drift and can stay on point.

[David Stamm]

David, et al:

Thanks for your comments ...

However --

How does that square the fact the raters at Digest, Magazine and Golfweek all see the layout as being one of the best in the USA?

It doesn't. But if I'm not mistaken, the course has fallen fast from it's initial ranking. I've given up trying to figure out why certain courses get ranked where they do.

Can all of them have simply overlooked the critical component of architecture and bought into the side-story of how it came into existence.

It wouldn't be the first time.

I also have to wonder how other courses which followed the same mechanism of being created literally from no where (e.g. Bayonne, Wolf Creek, get far less attention).

Is anyone really looking into the architecture (lack thereof) or is the Wynn story and the elements associated with him the story that so many are focusing upon?

I vote for the latter assesment. I question sometimes the abilitites of some raters to separate the course's merits from the "experience".

[Adam Clayman]

You originally criticized the architecture without one word devoted to specifics about architecture. Save for this gem..

I simply weighed in that the story behind Shadow Creek was less what came from the finished product -- but rested squarely on the feat in actually creating what came about.

Then, you state ...

 but the rest is just an engineering feat of making sure out-of-area plants, trees and the likes get drip irrigation in order to keep it up and running.

You must've missed the eye tricks, false fronts, side kick plates and all the other green side interest as well as the greens themselves. So who should get real?

The fifth hole is the best hole of the bunch, and, the meandering creeks that come into play on some holes was well conceived but fatally decorated with too fake a rock surround.

It's the restraint that Fazio showed, from his years of experience, where Wolf Creek fails. WC's constant attempts to go over the top leaves the designer with nowhere to go but down a blazing pile of rubble.

You acknowledge that many others feel differently than you do about the design's ranking, and, that they are all wrong, and you who should be listened to, are right. Is that a correct synopsis so far? Anyone want to independently confirm that? Or have I missed something?

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

Talk about gems -- I'll repeat it again -- for your benefit.

Shadow Creek is about the story on HOW it came into existence. That's the one and only main story tied to the place. I said that from the get go.

You comically throw forward the 5th as some sort of compelling hole. It is nothing more than a standard par-4 with a creek that meanders around the place but there's nothing utterly unique that rises above the level of above average architecture and I'm being very kind in giving it that much credit.

Adam, you must have been drinking the kool-aid because all of the "eye tricks, false fronts, side kick plates and all the other green side interest" have been done far better with other Tom Fazio designs that didn't need to jump start their position with a $35+ million investment. Maybe you need to hook up to mapquest and check out the locations of other TF courses that are far better for what they do provide architecturally -- allow me to help you with such names as Glenwild, Karsten Creek, Galloway National, Victoria National, etc, etc.

By the way -- if you ever happen to bother and find out -- head over to nearby Boulder Creek in Boulder City and you'll see many of those same elements in place there and a much better overall result from the original 18 when balanced against the budget of that respective layout.

I love your spin on TF's supposed "restraint." That's a great way of saying nothing much of note is there.

Adam, you did raise one good point. Let's have all the people who think the course is a  top 100 course come forward and defend its position. Please, all who think that -- please knock yourself out with whatever defense can be mounted. I am happy to learn from others what I clearly missed.

You see Adam -- I do think Shadow Creek should be celebrated -- BUT -- not within the context of what architecture and design should be about. Not the flowery hype bolstered through a sustained and top shelf PR campaign has done. I would think raters -- the knowledgeable ones that is -- would be above and beyond such things.

Final comment on Wolf Creek - it's a wild and fun ride. If you or others happen to overdose on the classic school of architecture then by all means avoid it. Wolf Creek has holes that you'll remember -- not everyone hits a home run for sure -- but many do and they provide a reason for many people to return there and play it. It was built on a very challenging site and it offers holes for the most part where the essence of golf -- the good shot rewarded and bad shot penalized -- is treated in a fair and consistent manner.

By the way -- please step out on a limb and let us all know if Shadow Creek would crack the Clayman top 50 courses you've played in the USA.

And if not a top 50 position -- then a top 100 position.

A direct response on the last two questions is appreciated.


WC's constant attempts to go over the top leaves the designer with nowhere to go but down a blazing pile of rubble.

[Adam Clayman]

You comically throw forward the 5th as some sort of compelling hole. It is nothing more than a standard par-4 with a creek that meanders around the place but there's nothing utterly unique that rises above the level of above average architecture and I'm being very kind in giving it that much credit.

 Matt, I'd of sworn the fifth was the par 3. So much for copious notes.

Adam, you did raise one good point. Let's have all the people who think the course is a  top 100 course come forward and defend its position. Please, all who think that -- please knock yourself out with whatever defense can be mounted. I am happy to learn from others what I clearly missed.

 I happen to play my first round there with the mad Armenian and the Emperor. Two architectural critics of the highest order. On our way home we discussed the GW # we would be inclined to vote. To a man we independently came up with the same value. In the top 100 Modern, somewhere near 80th place.

You see Adam -- I do think Shadow Creek should be celebrated -- BUT -- not within the context of what architecture and design should be about. Not the flowery hype bolstered through a sustained and top shelf PR campaign has done. I would think raters -- the knowledgeable ones that is -- would be above and beyond such things.

That's assuming someone was privy to said hype. This is not the first time you've projected the heavy lifting of a PR machine that frankly never existed. SC has historically intentionally tried  to stay below the radar. Most of all the early stories about this course were generated by word of mouth.
Let's see if there's anymore facts you have made mistakes on, before anyone starts criticizing you for your opinion?

Final comment on Wolf Creek - it's a wild and fun ride. If you or others happen to overdose on the classic school of architecture then by all means avoid it. Wolf Creek has holes that you'll remember -- not everyone hits a home run for sure -- but many do and they provide a reason for many people to return there and play it. It was built on a very challenging site and it offers holes for the most part where the essence of golf -- the good shot rewarded and bad shot penalized -- is treated in a fair and consistent manner.

You'd be more accurate to say it was forced onto a bad site. The earth moving and shaping is an a front to the senses. If thats what you label a classicist? It's your definition.

By the way -- please step out on a limb and let us all know if Shadow Creek would crack the Clayman top 50 courses you've played in the USA.

And if not a top 50 position -- then a top 100 position.

A direct response on the last two questions is appreciated.

I won't give the score I gave it for GW, anymore than I already have. And Matt, I doubt I've played enough courses to have a pissing contest with you over any personal lists, which I don't keep and you seem to not be able to keep from keeping.

[Tom Naccarato]

I have to ask those on this site -- especially those who have played the course and thought highly of it -- where is the real beef behind the stature of Shadow Creek and how have so many people come to view it as being one of the very best golf courses in America.

[/color]

Matt,
The one course where we probably both meet head on. I can't speak about Wolf Creek.

But to address your points:

-- where is the real beef behind the stature of Shadow Creek and how have so many people come to view it as being one of the very best golf courses in America.

In the past, I've always alluded that it wasn't an amazing feat to recreate Bourbon Street, The Jungle, The Forest, Fantasy and glimpses of Tomorrow at Disneyland. Why should it be viewed differently in North Las Vegas?

As a golf course Shadow Creek is a series of repetitive golf holes; some of them good, just never great. As an architect looking at Shadow Creek as an accomplishment, well, I think it is only because an architect wishes he was given such a budget to create something out of nothing--no different if I was given an unlimited budget to light a room. (You see, I  think I can always light more with less. My definition of minimalism! ) And that's why I think Tom Doak places it in such high regard.

For a Top 100 rated course, let alone Top 25, I find it hard to believe that it could even be there with the set of greens which seemingly repeat themselves over and over and over and over.

I think people view the course as popular as it is simply because of hype. When people go to Vegas, the first thing they'll always state is where they are staying. You see hotels in Vegas are generally amazing things to look at and experience. A lot of money flows around the palaces, and the rooms are really nice.

--Ceaser's makes you feel like a Roman Emperor.
--The Hilton makes you feel like a big shot.
--The Bellagio has you thinking that your a character in Ocean's 11.
--The MGM has you thinking like your Clark Gable.
--The Desert Inn always had you thinking that you were that close to being near the maniacal world of Howard Hughes.
--The Venetian, Paris and New York, New York have you feeling like you have escaped all reality, and that your favorite town in the world.

That's exactly what Shadow Creek does. It makes you feel like your on one of the greatest courses in the world that you'll never see--or never get the chance to experience and that's how Shadow Creek succeeds. Its a great place for that. It more of a mirage of what a great golf course is supposed to be like, and I think that was Wynn's true intent; and Fazio gave that to him.

But ultimately, and to put it in Ward-ian terms, its no different then a good restaurant--not a great one, whether it be Thai, Chinese, American of French cuisine. Only its being served at a chain. Sort of like P.F. Changs. You'll get a good meal, but will it be one that will stir your insides and create memories that will have you coming back?

I had a great time when I played Shadow Creek. It was great company and I think they have one of the greatest Directors of Golf in the Sport in America. It also taught me a lot about Golf Architecture, both good and bad, and in some cases, over-stated; while showing us the ideals of others and how they view golf courses. I think your going to get a lot of replies on this thread Matt!

I do think Shadow Creek belongs in the Top 100. Not The Top 50.

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy:

Thanks.

Quick question -- you have a date with a hot blonde (you can change the hair color if you'd like) -- but Shadow Creek is also available to be played but only on that same date / time frame.

Your call ...

p.s. The juxtaposition with Vegas lies at the core for why Shadow Creek is rated so highly. Next time you go to the area Tommy - check out Boulder Creek in Boulder City -- a lesser known public layout that does wonders with a limited budget. The quality of the architecture for the original 18 will tell you plenty.

Tommy, you use the following verbiage -- "repetitive golf holes; some of them good, just never great." Is the benchmark for a top 100 placement for you to have a course that only has some good holes and never any great ones? Can you give me another top 100 course you would rate as such with the same tag lines that I just provided? Thanks ...

Adam:

Appreciate your direct answer when you say 80th position. Be curious to know if that 80th position still holds true since the time you played there.

PR hype can take many forms. I would trust someone of your intelligence would know that. SC was very adept in making sure key people were very aware of what they had there.

I don't blame any course for touting themselves -- I would dare say that those who should know more on the design front would have been able to sift through all the smoke and mirrors -- yourself included. Pardon me for my error on that front.

The reality Adam is, in my mind, Tom Fazio has done far better work than Shadow Creek. You may not have played these courses but unfortunately the amount of hype associated with Shadow Creek tends to obscure these layouts to those less inclined to expand their horizons.

Adam, in regards to pissing contests -- try to provide a bit more substance than simply deflecting my comments. I don't see Shadow Creek as especially noteworthy -- and its through the range of courses I have played that allows me to weigh in and provide some sort of perspective on other courses that were built in a similar fashion but get much less attention - Bayonne in NJ is an even better example than Wolf Creek. I'm more than happy to hear the comments of others who can say definitively that Shadow Cree is as great as the various magazines say it is. My only recommendations is that those arguments should not use your previous responses as a satisfactory guidepost though.

When Shadow Creek came into existence it had the right man (Wynn) and right city (Vegas) tied to its core development. Engaging TF was also a plus in plenty of ways given his standing in the profession. Once you go below the surface though -- you find the Emperor indeed has no clothes.

p.s. Read what I wrote on Wolf Creek before inventing what you think I said. Those who see classic school architecture as the be-all / end-all should not venture there. I've said that many times. I never equated Wolf Creek in terms of classic Citizen Kane (classic type) cinema -- but if one does like the Indiana Jones adventure type flicks then Wolf Creek will provide that type of fun and rousing kick in a healthy manner. It doesn't work in all senses and has some noteworthy shortcomings -- the concluding hole being one of them -- the 10th and 11th for being rather lack luster, etc, etc. But, it does provide a range of holes that are exciting, fun to view and to play over and over again because of the shotmaking challenges encountered. I've itemized them before many times.

In regards to the site issue -- I salute Dennie Rider and the folks involved there with overcoming a range of obstacles in getting an 18-hole course to fit as well as it has there. What they did there is more noteworthy than working off an entirely flat site which was shaped in the manner you see today with Shadow Creek.

Adam - you and I will not convince each other. So be it.

Now, it's time for others to make the case for Shadow Creek. If, indeed, there is a case to be made.

[Tom Naccarato]

Matt,
It all depends on whose the blond.

If its Kate Winslet in that Katherine Deneuve getup, I think that would pretty much answer itself. Other blonds that I like are Sienna Miller, Keira Knightly, Monica Potter,  and Amy Smart. If it was Paris Hilton, I would go golfing.

(half of them because of the English accent)

Pelican Hill--Both North and South.
The Quarry At La Quinta

[Adam Clayman]

Appreciate your direct answer when you say 80th position. Be curious to know if that 80th position still holds true since the time you played there. I wouldn't change my vote if thats what you mean?

PR hype can take many forms. I would trust someone of your intelligence would know that. SC was very adept in making sure key people were very aware of what they had there.this sounds like paranoid bullshee

I don't blame any course for touting themselves -- I would dare say that those who should know more on the design front would have been able to sift through all the smoke and mirrors -- yourself included. Pardon me for my error on that front.Juxtapose to me, who understands how you could easily miss the attention to subtle details Mr. Fazio gave and still gives to this course.  You may call it "nothing of note" but I call it solid subtle design. Save for the 17th a hole which you seem to really like. Go figure! Also, how you go about trying to evaluate courses, gain access to courses and insult people who actually try to DISCUSS differing opinions. I'm done!

BTW, How did you happen to make the error of confusing the 4th and 5th holes. My memories are all I have. S'plain that one Lucy?

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy:

Of all the TF layouts you have played where would you place Shadow Creek ?


Adam:

If you think it's "paranoid bullshee" - consider what Digest did after the quick elevation of Shadow Creek to its top 10 listing a number of years back. The insertion of tradition and walkability.

SC was very slick in promoting itself and I salute them for their efforts - the payoff was certainly there.

The real failure rested with raters who should have seen through all the Wizard of Oz hyperbole and looked at the sum total of what was actually designed there. I guess even a classic school proponent like you Adam have been seduced by the dark side. I thought you'd be smart enough to see it clearly -- I guess you must have played a very small grouping of other TF courses. 

You comically say it's "solid subtle design." How long did you take to come up with that babble Adam? The course is a wonderful Disneyland adventure which Tommy N eloquently explained so well. The course fits the bigger-than-life mantra that Wynn / Vegas have long embraced as a way to provide visitors with such a glorious detachment from everyday life.

Nuff of the juvenile protests -- I welcome your difference of opinion -- but be a bit more adult like and welcome the differences others have.

p.s. I do make errors and simply confused the holes in question. It happens -- I'm human. One last thing - The final trio of holes at SC provide a solid mixture and provide some real shotmaking challenges -- you diss the 17th -- so be it. The short hole is a tough target to hit and the surrounding eye-candy only serves to make the play to the hole even more mentally tough. The closing hole is also a decent risk and reward par-5 which can provide a range of scores before the day is through.

[Craig Sweet]

Tommy, even a fake blonde?

[Tom Naccarato]

Matt,
Surprise! I don't have a lot of love for Fazio's brand of architecture. I think its expensive to maintain and for the most part, doesn't take advantage of the better sites he is given. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it until I come across one which I feel is worthy to pronounce the end all end all. I know its out there somewhere and I'm sure Mike Strantz had something to do with it. Although I do think he is a very good architect that just steps aside thought-provoking strategy when it comes to aesthetics. That's my opinion. I don't doubt he has designed a great golf course somewhere. I just haven't played it yet.


With that, as much as we agree on Shadow Creek being over-rated, I'd like you to answer Adam's question regarding the 4th & 5th holes. For one, isn't the 4th a par 5 with a pond (not a creek) that acts as a buffer between it and #3? (the most interesting green on the course) The 5th hole I played--and liked--was a par 3 that had you thinking at-the-tee of Pine Valley #5, even though it isn't anything close to being like Pine Valley #5?

Pardon me if I'm wrong, I'm going off of memory here.

Craig,
Give me credit where credit is due here: I put Kate Winslet in there! She is a somewhat auburn/dirty brunette isn't she? But for that image from Vanity Fair, she was as beautiful blond as you could get!

[tlavin]

I have played Shadow Creek a couple times and I rate it highly for several reasons.  First, you have to give the owner and the architect a lot of credit for chutzpah.  The audacity to come up with this sort of creation on the most nothing site ever is not only worthy of comment, it is worthy of heavy praise.  Second, each and every hole, from tee to green, is exceptional.  The par 3's are challenging and visually inspiring.  The par 4's are demanding and varied.  The par 5's are solid.  There is a short par 4 on the back nine that is one of the best examples of a modern short par 4 that I've played.  The drive into the club is spectacular.  The clubhouse is terrific.  The ambiance is perfect.

Having said that, the 18th hole is a bit cheesy and the overall artificiality of the place can wear on you. 

[Matt_Ward]

Terry:

Thanks for your comments.

Given what you just said -- would you place the course among your top 50 you have ever played? Is it the best TF course you've played.

Have you played other desert courses of note?

One final note ... what does the drive into the club have to do with the architecture -- ditto the clubhouse -- ditto the ambiance? Although I do concede they are each marvelous for what they provide.

Tommy N:

The 4th is a fine risk and reward type hole. But it's not noteworthy given other similar type holes you can find throughout the Vegas area. I mentioned to you the layout in Boulder City called Boulder Creek -- very well done and quite affordable during much of the year. You find a high quality style of architecture with the original 18 and it came for far less a price tag and all the razzmatazz you get from Shadow Creek.

One other thing on the 4th it would be nice if the choke point for those laying up would be a bit narrower -- especially as you get closer to the green. Here TF has elevated playability for those opting to go that route.

The 5th is a solid par-3 somewhat reminiscent of what George Fazio (Tom was likely present when it was built) when he designed the Hills Course at Jupiter Hills.

But Tommy, go back to what you said originally ...

Repetitive holes ...

Some good ...

Just never great ...

Given all that - you would place it among your top 100? Maybe I don't realize that given the total number of courses you have played.

 

[Tom Naccarato]

Matt,
See Terry's comments above. Shadow Creek has a varying affect on everybody and what they see and don't see. This isn't a negative, but more of an example that people have different tastes in architecture. There is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes opinions do change over time. We suddenly see things we hadn't seen before. Hopefully you can respect that.

[Tom Naccarato]

Matt, I didn't see your reply before my posting--and I have to get going to the golf course, but quickly, I will check out Boulder next time I'm in Vegas.

As far as it being in my top 100, yes it is. I think its deserves to be considering the others that don't. I could go on further, but time just isn't on my side! Shadow Creek is everything I've said above for a modern course. It works. Call it the sum of the parts. I don't think there is anyone that can argue that its a great experience no different then walking in a great mansion in Newport Beach.....if you watch Housewives of the OC, you'll know what I mean..

There are mansions and there are places that people think are mansions--especially those Cougars...

[tlavin]

Terry:

Thanks for your comments.

Given what you just said -- would you place the course among your top 50 you have ever played? Is it the best TF course you've played.

Have you played other desert courses of note?

One final note ... what does the drive into the club have to do with the architecture -- ditto the clubhouse -- ditto the ambiance? Although I do concede they are each marvelous for what they provide.

Matt,

I would put it in my top 25.  I've played a fair number of Fazio courses, most of which have been fairly solid but not celestial.  In terms of desert courses, my resume is fairly thin.  I've played a handful of Arizona and Vegas courses, but not enough to have a meaningful conversation with you about the merits and/or demerits of desert golf.

In terms of the drive into the club, of course it has nothing to do with the architectural bona fides of the golf course, but to deny that an impressive entrance as being part of the overall experience is just as silly as trying to say it's a better golf course because of the magnificent driveway! 

One of these days, I'll make it to Black Mesa!  Based on the photos, I'm sure I'll enjoy the day.  Is it as good as Shadow Creek.  I doubt it...

[Jeff Goldman]

There was once a thread or couple of threads, seemingly lost in one of the site upgrades, where Tom Doak cited certain holes (I think one was a par 5) from Shadow Creek as some of the best he had seen, or something like that, and defended the 9 he gave the course.

Anyone have access to that stuff?

[Matt_Ward]

Terry:

Fair enough ...

But ...

How do you assume Black Mesa is not as good or even better than Shadow Creek until you play there?

Don't you think when you say in your last post ... "Is it as good as Shadow Creek. I doubt it" -- that you are presuming something from mere speculation rather than direct connection?

You might be pleasantly surprised -- be forewarned -- Black Mesa doesn't have a driveway entrance of the sort you are enamored with at Shadow Creek.

In regards to the non-specific elements tied directly to the course -- no doubt, people will apply whatever weight they feel such situations matter to them. I tend to look squarely at the elements of the site the course is located, the complexity of the routing and the totality of what the shot / holes you face when playing. If the place has a fancy locker room or other such elements I think that's great -- but I don't equate them as being equals -- they are merely side issues at best and usually worthy of nothing more than a footnote. For others that may be entirely different. So be it for them.

Tommy:

Fair enough.

Tastes can vary - the issue is what emphasis on what topics come first.

If you think Shadow Creek makes your top 100 courses from the courses you have played to date so be it. It doesn't for me.

There are other TF courses - a number of which I have previously mentioned -- that either are not rated or get far less ink than what Shadow Creek engenders. Unfortunately, having a Vegas address makes things a big easier for people to venture there and weigh in with what they encountered.

Great experiences are a matter of tastes -- some people will find Disneyland to be the quintessential vacation spot of all time.

[Ken Fry]

Let me interject a question.  This IS NOT, I repeat, NOT a rater bashing question and I have not played Shadow Creek.

Given Shadow Creek's position on most "Best Of" lists, how much is rater judgement clouded by the "rater rate?"  I admit I would look upon this place differently if I wasn't $500 lighter than when I showed up.

Does the ambience and experience take over?

Ken

[Philip Caccamise]

Had the pleasure of playing Shadow Creek last week. I have played a lot of golf in Vegas but never SC. First, the pregame experience is excellent. The limo ride, the staff, etc. all fantastic and accomodating. The caddy was outstanding.

As for the golf itself, I really enjoyed it. It's a difficult golf course, but not overly so- we played from 7100 yards and never felt like it was too long. I felt like with another couple rounds I could post a reasonably good number. There were 40 MPH winds last Thursday and it was still very playable. Even though the greens are very quick, there is always a place to miss and have a chance (and a place to miss and have NO chance.) The course rewards good shots and penalizes bad ones (which is my personal #1 criteria). My only (minor) criticism would be on a couple of the par 5's challenging the water would be the correct strategy to reach in 2, but if you do, there's almost a 100% chance you're going to bounce into the water (#4, #18.) The par 3's are varied and excellent.

Is it worth $500? Of course not. But I would definitely play again for $250-300.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()