Wolf Creek With Pics

[John Mayhugh]

I'll drop the sarcasm if you will lay off the condescension.  Agreed?

Would you mind answering few questions:

1.  Does Pine Valley have areas that are considered hazards where the player is not permitted to enter and either play a shot or retrieve a ball? 

2.  If there are areas as described in question 1 at Pine Valley, how prevalent are such areas?

3.  Would you rather lose a ball in plain sight (i.e. you can see the ball but not play it or retrieve it) or in a water hazard?

4.  If all of the sandy area at Wolf Creek where play is not permitted were water instead, would that change your feelings about the course?

5.  You conceded that Wolf Creek is not as good a course as Kingsley (for one example).  Which ranked courses (any list is find) do you think are similar in quality to Wolf Creek?

6.  What do you think are the major weaknesses with Wolf Creek? 

[Matt_Ward]

John:

I never was condescending -- I simply provided an answer(s) to the statements you made. If anything -- it was you who kicked the ball off regarding the various put downs.

Let's get back to the task at-hand -- shall we?

In regards to your first two questions -- keep this in mind -- PV is a private club and therefore the overall course set-up can be quite unique to that specific location. If PV were public there's little doubt that a number of areas where play can be permitted would likely be ruled out of play either through environementally sensitive designations or through the insertion of boundary stakes -- whether for property line purposes or internal.

Wolf Creek is a public course and with that comes a desire to keep pace of play at a reasonable level. I can't answer whether the designations of environmentally sensitive areas were done as a condition for the course's creation. But as I have said a number of times -- and clearly you have failed to date to cite specific shots / holes -- there is sufficient recovery areas througout the golf course and such elements as fairway width are present to accomodate a wide range of players. If the course were bowling alley wide -- 25 or fewer yards on all fairway area locations with absolutely no room for anything other than pure shot after pure shot then clearly something would be amiss. That's not the case.

In regards to question #3 -- I have lost balls in plain sight -- it happens often on courses located in difficult terrain areas in which you might have adjoining canyons and the like and the ball plunges to its final resting place.

In regards to question #4 - I don't deal with hypotheticals. The same has been asked of Pebble Beach -- if the layout in CA didn't have water next to the course would it's overall standing be the same? The reality is that one cannot separate one from the other. Wolf Creek provides sufficient playing areas -- and for recovery situations.

You see John -- I've asked you for situations that you deem as being unfair, hookey -- use any word you like. You keep speaking in general broad brush terms. Where's the specific beef because I'm more than happy to review such info?

In regards to question #5 -- Kingsley is the better course. Guess what John? Kingsley is easily within my personal top 50 courses in the USA. If Wolf Creek is not better than Kingsley - that doesn't mean to say the course is a piss poor one. Check out the various ratings Wolf Creek has earned. Until Golfweek dropped it from their modern listing -- the facility was mentioned all the time. Given the nature of how the different ratings assess courses -- for a layout to be included on all three of them (Digest, GM and GW) is quite noteworthy.

I don't have the time to list all such courses I have played that are above and below Wolf Creek -- suffice to say I would include it among my top 100 public and top 100 modern. In an overall top 100 the competition is far more intense and would require a good bit of analysis on my part.

Among the weaknesses of Wolf Creek ...

1). An inadequate practice area.

2). A reinforcement to people playing the course to go to tee boxes they can successfully negotiate. I have seen too many players think that they are playing the same low level layout that they play back home. As a result you get people who bark and whine about how unfair the course is when the reality lies within them. The same happens to people who play Pine Valley, Bethpage Black, The Ocean Course, etc, etc.

3). The 10th and 11th holes are fairly nondescript and out of character with the rest of the course. It migth have been smarter to start with a par-5 at the 10th hole and have the present 17th turned into a par-4 with a separate location for a par-3 nearby. The dropshot 11th is also ho-hum at best.

4). Not a big time fan of the closing holes on both nines. The par-4 9th is better of the two but given the nature of the hole that precede it I was hoping for something a bit better. The 18th hole is just a dud IMHO. I don't like the formulaic waterfall and the hole appears to be more "forced" into is location than so many others you play at Wolf Creek. A bit more imagination would have worked better to summarize your time there -- althought a concluding hole that is a short par-4 would be a nice finale.

[John Mayhugh]

Matt,

Sorry if the purpose of my first two questions weren't clear.  I'll ask again following this brief chronology:

Post 55.  I said "The biggest flaw in the course is that every hole is essentially bounded by a hazard.  I don't have the scorecard anywhere handy, but as I remember it pretty much any ball that is hit off the grass has to be treated as if it's in a hazard or environmentally sensitive area and abandoned.  You cannot go retrieve the ball and are not permitted to play from the red sandy area, even if it might be possible to play a really fun recovery shot."

Post 59:  After I used the term "cluster of islands" as a partial clarification of my feelings about WC, you said "Fair enough ... but keep this in mind -- many of the holes at Pine Valley no less -- are "cluster of islands." I guess you would not like Pine Valley either given your aforementioned comments."

At this time, I should have said that your assumption I would not like Pine Valley does not make sense to me.  Instead, I said that the comparison of WC to PV was ridiculous.  The discussion got off track as you focused on the fact that I haven't played PV. 

I would like to determine if, in fact, I would not like PV.  The thing that I disliked most about WC was the hazard areas that border pretty much every hole.  It's not simply that these are hazards, but that one can stand and see their ball in a playable position but is not permitted to enter the area to play a shot or recover their ball. 

Given that background, that is why I asked my questions #1 & 2:
1.  Does Pine Valley have areas that are considered hazards where the player is not permitted to enter and either play a shot or retrieve a ball?

2.  If there are areas as described in question 1 at Pine Valley, how prevalent are such areas?

Since I have not played PV, I am attempting to learn more about the course.  Perhaps I am wrong and these areas that I dislike are common at PV.  If this is the case, then you could be right - I might not like PV.  However, I do not believe areas as described in my post 55 are common at PV.  I am asking for your assistance in clearing up playing conditions at a course that I have not seen. 

Instead of doing that, your answer talks about the difference in setting up a private and public club.  I understand that point.  Keep in mind, though, I am trying to decide how similar the current PV (not some imaginary public PV) is with WC.  You're the one who posited that I would not like PV.  I am trying to better understand that comment as the comparison does not seem valid to me.  However, given my lack of firsthand knowledge of PV, I am asking one who has played there to help out.

Are you willing to give a direct answer to these questions?
1.  Does Pine Valley have areas that are considered hazards where the player is not permitted to enter and either play a shot or retrieve a ball?

2.  If there are areas as described in question 1 at Pine Valley, how prevalent are such areas?

As far as question 5, I wouldn't expect you to list all courses that are above and below WC. I just wanted to hear courses that you felt were similar in quality.  For example, GW has Black Mesa ranked at 94 Modern.  Do you think Wolf Creek is close to Black Mesa quality-wise?  Caledonia is ranked 98 on the GW top 100 Modern.  I've played it, and think Wolf Creek is a notch below that. 

Thanks for your list of WC weaknesses.  I couldn't disagree with any of them.

[Matt_Ward]

John:

Let me try to assist you with a bit more clarity so you can understand -- Wolf Creek could just as easily have the extreme left side of holes #1, #2 and #4 and #5 play as OB. Simple as that. They decide to call it environmentally sensitive but the net effect is the same. The remaining holes on the front are quite wide and clearly provide for a range of shots -- recovery ones included.

The same can be done for holes on the back nine starting with the 10th -- miss too far right and you can be OB -- no doubt that piece of the property is off the actual golf course itself. The interior areas of the course allow for recovery play so long as the missed shot is not missed so bad as to place the player in a location that an unplayable lie will likely result. In addition, you have areas of land that are neither grass or rough and players can find balls in such unkept areas which are likely dirt or a combo of dirt / sand.

John, you keep on saying hazard areas border 'EVERY HOLE.' Please knock yourself out and let me know how such situations exist. I'd like to know because the WC I have played at least 7-8 times provides for much more area than you erroneously keep on concluding. There is sufficient width to handle all but the clearly misplayed shots -- if you are looking for a course with 60+ yards of verdant grounds with no limitations to what you can do then WC is not your course. John, I think the course spooked you because of the nature of how severe the site presents itself from an "eye" perspective. It appears to be much more daunting and sometimes players are intimidated because of these landscapes.

Let me point out -- you questioned my usage of PV as a relevant example. John, try to understand this -- you ADMITTED you have neither seen nor played PV. I don't how you or anyone who does likewise can remotely question the adequacy of my comparison.

John, allow me also point out something you failed to acknowledge -- WC is a public course -- it needs to consider speed of play for those who are there. That means a set-up that allows for such movement. PV is a private club and therefore can provide for a course that allows for people to play from deep into the woods when clearly if it were public such play from those areas would likely be restricted in the hopes of keeping play moving to a reasonable degree.

John, I have answered your numerous questions endless times. You simply don't like my answers. Fair enough. I have asked you several times for clear examples -- specifically shots and holes where the situation of unfairness you keep on talking about exists.

I opined that PV has "cluster of islands" in which the player must have sufficient skills to hit from one well-kept area to the next. Crump built PV to be extremely penal and the course has maintained the penal nature to this date.


1.  Does Pine Valley have areas that are considered hazards where the player is not permitted to enter and either play a shot or retrieve a ball?

John -- I have answered this questions several times. PV, being a private club allows for such play to continue -- even when players are piling up scores. If the course was public that would not be the case and ergo would be similar to what you see now with WC. Likely if WC were private those areas you complain about would likely be available for such play -- but as I said you can remedy that with an appropriate tag of OB in the specific areas I mentioned. The interior areas of WC are quite open to such play -- so long as the misses are within reason.

2.  If there are areas as described in question 1 at Pine Valley, how prevalent are such areas?

As far as question 5, I wouldn't expect you to list all courses that are above and below WC. I just wanted to hear courses that you felt were similar in quality.  For example, GW has Black Mesa ranked at 94 Modern.  Do you think Wolf Creek is close to Black Mesa quality-wise?  Caledonia is ranked 98 on the GW top 100 Modern.  I've played it, and think Wolf Creek is a notch below that. 

John, Black Mesa should be rated much higher -- in my book I have played nearly all the leading public contenders and the Santa Fe layout easily makes my personal top 20 public in the USA. I don't view Wolf Creek in the same terms with Black Mesa but I do see the Mesquite layout making my top 100 public and top 100 modern listings. For any course to be rated in a top 100 says a lot in terms of its qualities. Keep this in mind, no less than all three of the major rating groups -- GD, GM and until recently GW -- all had WC in its listings. Hey John -- if the place was that bad then all the three pubs have erred considerably. That's not the case.

I also liked Caledonia very much -- but here the issue boils down to the style / concept of the two courses. Those who prefer a more traditional classic design will likely find Caledonia more pleasing. Those who want to try something a bit more free-wheeling and clearly with an edge to it -- may like WC more.



 

[John Mayhugh]

1.  Does Pine Valley have areas that are considered hazards where the player is not permitted to enter and either play a shot or retrieve a ball?

John -- I have answered this questions several times. PV, being a private club allows for such play to continue -- even when players are piling up scores. If the course was public that would not be the case and ergo would be similar to what you see now with WC. Likely if WC were private those areas you complain about would likely be available for such play -- but as I said you can remedy that with an appropriate tag of OB in the specific areas I mentioned. The interior areas of WC are quite open to such play -- so long as the misses are within reason.

Matt,
Well, at least we have established that the thing I disliked most about Wolf Creek (holes bordered by hazards that one cannot enter) does not exist at Pine Valley.  That's what I thought as soon as you introduced the comparison.  Thanks for clearing this up.

[Matt_Ward]

John:

No problem -- but you still artfully tapdanced around my question to you in providing clear shots / holes where play is so limited at WC.

I'm still waiting for those details ...

[John Mayhugh]

John:

No problem -- but you still artfully tapdanced around my question to you in providing clear shots / holes where play is so limited at WC.

I'm still waiting for those details ...

 

No tap-dancing at all on my part.  You diverted the discussion to Pine Valley (and my lack of experience there).  I didn't see the relevance, and clearing this up took all my posting energy. 

Now, if you actually want to talk about Wolf Creek, I'm glad to do that.  If it helps you to know, I haven't played Fishers Island, Shinnecock, or Merion either.  Maybe you can work those into invalidating my next Wolf Creek comments.

I have played two rounds at Wolf Creek.  Both were on the same day and under similar conditions in Sept 2006.  I was there as part of a group of eight guys and played with a different group in the first round from the second.  Our handicap-levels (since not everyone has USGA handicaps I'm going to guess)  ranged from around 3 up to 25.  In the first round, we played from tees that were maybe 6800 yards (I don't remember exactly).  In the second round, we moved up a set of tees to something nearer 6500 yds.

Working from this background, I made the following comments on the course. 

1.  Wolf Creek is a fascinating course. 

2.  I think there is room in the golf world for it and I'm glad to have had a chance to play it. 

3.  I don't think that it's a great course, but it is definitely unique.

4.  The biggest flaw in the course is that every hole is essentially bounded by a hazard.  I don't have the scorecard anywhere handy, but as I remember it pretty much any ball that is hit off the grass has to be treated as if it's in a hazard or environmentally sensitive area and abandoned.  You cannot go retrieve the ball and are not permitted to play from the red sandy area, even if it might be possible to play a really fun recovery shot.  Contrast this with a place like Coral Canyon, where you can go out and try all sorts of weird shots.

5.  This lack of recovery options turns what should be an entertaining, quirky course into one that's not much fun.  Sure there are some wild-looking shots and hair-raising cart rides, but I just found the golf itself to be mostly target golf.

6.  Wolf Creek is worth seeing, but I don't have any real desire to play it again.

You are asking me to provide clear examples of holes where play is limited.  I wish I could do that from memory, but cannot.  My comments were based on a general impression of the course played under the conditions described above.  I did not record specific observations because I did not have any reason to.  Unfortunately, my memory is not good enough to give you the kind of detailed commentary that you have asked for.

I don't think details are warranted.  I was only sharing my basic impressions from the course.  This was pretty much a consensus of the group that I played with.  Perhaps none of us are good enough golfers to appreciate the Wolf Creek playing corridors.  I can assure you that the numbers of bad golfers far exceed those of good ones, though. 

From what I can recall, one guy lost 6 or 7 balls in a single round, but he was definitely spraying it around.  I think I lost one or two balls in each round.  The vivid impression was of a ball laying in plain sight in a playable lie that couldn't be played.  This happened to almost everyone in our group at least once.  While I realize that golf is not "fair," this situation did leave a negative impression.

Is there enough width at Wolf Creek to accomodate decent play?  Probably yes in most cases.  But that doesn't mean players are going to be happy abandoning an accessible and playable ball.  It's as much psychology as anything else.  There are some memorable holes on the course, but unfortunately the memory of a golf ball laying in the sand, with retrieval prohibited, pervades.

[Matt_Ward]

John:

Here's the story -- see if you can follow -- OK.

You -- not me -- made a BLANKET STATEMENT -- "cluster of islands" and I provided you with a comparable example in the likes of Pine Valley. You -- not I -- BLEW IT OFF saying I was being "ridiculous" and "obtuse."

I also went into greater clarity to point out your erroneous conclusion that hazards abound to such a pervasive degree that recovery shots and the likes are not possible because of the environmentally sensitive tag one sees there. I answered that back with clear specifics tied to the width dimension you see when playing there -- plus the fact that the bulk of such environmental areas are off to one side of a given hole -- the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th -- are predominantly on the left side. I also mentioned the fact because WC is a public course keeping play moving is helped by such designations -- they could just as easily deem them OB. You then harped about playing areas at PV being accessible to players to play shots -- I answered that's true but being a private club allows for such situations. Make PV public and likely the same restrictions would occur. Make WC private and you'd likely see less restrictions of what is there now.

Let me address the list of comments you provided.

1.  Wolf Creek is a fascinating course.
AGREED

2.  I think there is room in the golf world for it and I'm glad to have had a chance to play it.
GOOD TO SEE YOU HAVE AN OPEN MIND TO DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES 

3.  I don't think that it's a great course, but it is definitely unique.
I WOULD NOT DEEM WOLF CREEK A GREAT COURSE EITHER BECAUSE SUCH COURSES ARE GENERALLY ONES WITH FEW FLAWS -- WOLF CREEK HAS A FEW HOLES -- SAY ROUGHLY 4-5 -- THAT ARE MERELY BYSTANDERS TO THE BETTER ONES ENCOUNTERED (holes such as 9, 10, 11 and 18).

4.  The biggest flaw in the course is that every hole is essentially bounded by a hazard.  I don't have the scorecard anywhere handy, but as I remember it pretty much any ball that is hit off the grass has to be treated as if it's in a hazard or environmentally sensitive area and abandoned.  You cannot go retrieve the ball and are not permitted to play from the red sandy area, even if it might be possible to play a really fun recovery shot.  Contrast this with a place like Coral Canyon, where you can go out and try all sorts of weird shots.

JOHN, HERE YOU GO AGAIN. I HAVE SPELLED OUT THE SITUATION ON A PER HOLE BASIS WHERE WHAT YOU JUST MENTIONED IS IN ERROR. IN REGARDS TO CORAL CANYON -- IT'S A FINE KEITH FOSTER LAYOUT BUT NOT IN THE SAME LEAGUE WITH WOLF CREEK.

5.  This lack of recovery options turns what should be an entertaining, quirky course into one that's not much fun.  Sure there are some wild-looking shots and hair-raising cart rides, but I just found the golf itself to be mostly target golf.

JOHN -- PINE VALLEY IS TARGET GOLF TOO.

6.  Wolf Creek is worth seeing, but I don't have any real desire to play it again.

YOU ARE CLEARLY ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION.

You are asking me to provide clear examples of holes where play is limited.  I wish I could do that from memory, but cannot.  My comments were based on a general impression of the course played under the conditions described above.  I did not record specific observations because I did not have any reason to.  Unfortunately, my memory is not good enough to give you the kind of detailed commentary that you have asked for.

JOHN, I LOVE 'GENERAL IMPRESSIONS.' LET ME POINT OUT THAT BROAD BRUSH ANALYSIS IS ESSENTIALLY EMPTY. YOU NEED TO SPELL OUT DETAILS TO BOLSTER YOUR 'GENERAL IMPRESSIONS' -- I ENJOY SEEING PEOPLE PROVIDE DETAILS BECAUSE OFTEN IT IS THROUGH SUCH DETAILS THAT REAL DIALOGUE CAN ENSUE. IF YOU CARE TO NOTICE -- THE BEST THREADS ARE OFTEN THOSE IN WHICH PEOPLE REALLY SPELL OUT THE DETAILS. WE HAD SUCH A DISCUSSION ON WOLF CREEK WHEN THE 8TH HOLE WAS DISCUSSED BETWEEN ANDY, GEORGE AND OTHERS.

I don't think details are warranted.  I was only sharing my basic impressions from the course.  This was pretty much a consensus of the group that I played with.  Perhaps none of us are good enough golfers to appreciate the Wolf Creek playing corridors.  I can assure you that the numbers of bad golfers far exceed those of good ones, though.

SERIOUS DETAILS PROVIDE THE UNDERPINNINGS FOR THE 'GENERAL IMPRESSIONS' YOU ARE MAKING. THEY ARE FUNDAMENTALLY 'WARRANTED.''

BASIC IMPRESSIONS' ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A VERY GENERAL OVERVIEW AND OFTEN TIMES DEMONSTRATES INCOMPLETE ANALYSIS.

THE CORRIDORS YOU MENTIONED AT WOLF CREEK DO PROVIDE ENOUGH LANDING AREA PROVIDED PEOPLE PLAY FROM THE APPROPRIATE TEE BOXES. IT SEEMS AS IF YOU AND THE FOLKS YOU PLAYED WITH MADE IT A POINT TO PLAY FROM AREAS WHICH YOU COULD HANDLE.

JOHN, I PROVIDED YOU WITH CLEAR DESCRIPTIONS OF SHOTS / HOLES IN WHICH PLAYERS FACE. YOU BELIEVE A GENERAL ANALYSIS -- WITHOUT DETAILS -- IS SUFFICIENT WHEN DISCUSSING THE LIKES OF WOLF CREEK. I DON'T.       

[Roger Wolfe]

To me, Wolf Creek is like a stripper with giant fake 48 DDDD's.  I wouldn't want to date her... but a nice "brrrrrumski" every now and then would be nice.

[John Mayhugh]

Here's the story -- see if you can follow -- OK.

You -- not me -- made a BLANKET STATEMENT -- "cluster of islands" and I provided you with a comparable example in the likes of Pine Valley. You -- not I -- BLEW IT OFF saying I was being "ridiculous" and "obtuse."

You took a comment that I made out of context.  I have no interest in defending your interpretation of a partial comment.

JOHN, HERE YOU GO AGAIN. I HAVE SPELLED OUT THE SITUATION ON A PER HOLE BASIS WHERE WHAT YOU JUST MENTIONED IS IN ERROR. IN REGARDS TO CORAL CANYON -- IT'S A FINE KEITH FOSTER LAYOUT BUT NOT IN THE SAME LEAGUE WITH WOLF CREEK.

The reason I posted that was to show just what my actual comments were.  It was summary of what I posted and not an attempt to satisfy some requirement of yours.

JOHN -- PINE VALLEY IS TARGET GOLF TOO.

It might be, but I'm not able to comment on that since I have not seen the course in person.  You should know this as you have pointed that out several times.  Why do you keep bringing up an example for debate when you say I'm not qualified to discuss it? 

JOHN, I LOVE 'GENERAL IMPRESSIONS.' LET ME POINT OUT THAT BROAD BRUSH ANALYSIS IS ESSENTIALLY EMPTY. YOU NEED TO SPELL OUT DETAILS TO BOLSTER YOUR 'GENERAL IMPRESSIONS' -- I ENJOY SEEING PEOPLE PROVIDE DETAILS BECAUSE OFTEN IT IS THROUGH SUCH DETAILS THAT REAL DIALOGUE CAN ENSUE. IF YOU CARE TO NOTICE -- THE BEST THREADS ARE OFTEN THOSE IN WHICH PEOPLE REALLY SPELL OUT THE DETAILS. WE HAD SUCH A DISCUSSION ON WOLF CREEK WHEN THE 8TH HOLE WAS DISCUSSED BETWEEN ANDY, GEORGE AND OTHERS.

SERIOUS DETAILS PROVIDE THE UNDERPINNINGS FOR THE 'GENERAL IMPRESSIONS' YOU ARE MAKING. THEY ARE FUNDAMENTALLY 'WARRANTED.''

BASIC IMPRESSIONS' ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A VERY GENERAL OVERVIEW AND OFTEN TIMES DEMONSTRATES INCOMPLETE ANALYSIS.

THE CORRIDORS YOU MENTIONED AT WOLF CREEK DO PROVIDE ENOUGH LANDING AREA PROVIDED PEOPLE PLAY FROM THE APPROPRIATE TEE BOXES. IT SEEMS AS IF YOU AND THE FOLKS YOU PLAYED WITH MADE IT A POINT TO PLAY FROM AREAS WHICH YOU COULD HANDLE.

JOHN, I PROVIDED YOU WITH CLEAR DESCRIPTIONS OF SHOTS / HOLES IN WHICH PLAYERS FACE. YOU BELIEVE A GENERAL ANALYSIS -- WITHOUT DETAILS -- IS SUFFICIENT WHEN DISCUSSING THE LIKES OF WOLF CREEK. I DON'T.      

I don't care if you're satisfied with my comments. You are not the sole audience for my posts (or any others) and are not the arbiter of what is acceptable to post on GCA.  I suggest you focus your considerable energies on some other topic.  I can assure you there are a number of posts elsewhere even more vague and inane than mine on Wolf Creek.  Surely those people would benefit from your guidance as well. 

[Matt_Ward]

John:

There is no "context" to your original comment except it is what it is. You did say it. C'mon, let's stop with the tap dance and accept what YOU posted.

John, you made a broad brush sweeping generalization about Wolf Creek and when I responded in total detail to specific shots / holes your reply was, "I don't think details are warranted."

Really?

Oh, I see, we can discuss courses simply from applying a convenient tag and leave out all those messy details that get in the way of one's faulty original premise. I get it now.

I bring up PV because YOU told me my usage of it was "ridiculous" and "obtuse." I simply said you are not in a position to tell me that since YOU admitted you have neither played nor seen PV. I also took considerable time and effort to provide additional info tied to what PV is about and what you see with WC.

John, sorry to hear you get your nose out of joint when called on the carpet to provide the details on a course you admitted to playing twice. It's the details that are needed -- you are either not interested or simply view such details as unnecessary to deal with the position you have taken. That's unfortunate because I'd be happy to see such a position(s).

John, you are entitled to your opinion on WC -- by whatever means you have reached it. I simply wanted to pick your brain for details. Forgive me for seeking such info -- I don't see much value in broad brush generalizations which are sweeping in scope with no details to support them.

So be it.


Roger:

Love the analogy !

[John Mayhugh]

There is no "context" to your original comment except it is what it is. You did say it. C'mon, let's stop with the tap dance and accept what YOU posted.

You took three words I used "cluster of islands" out of context.  When I used that term, I was referring to the Wolf Creek holes seeming like a cluster of islands surrounded by areas where play was not permitted even though the ball was accessible.  You fixated on the words cluster of islands without addressing the context in which it was used. 

I was not commenting about holes being isolated from each other.  The issue I have with Wolf Creek is that I did not like having areas on pretty much every hole where a golf ball was accessible and playable but play was not permitted.

You have tried to make all sorts of counter-arguments.  Some may even be valid.  I've tried to paraphrase these (using my understanding of your points)
MW argument:
If I do not like holes that are isolated from each other, I wouldn't like Pine Valley. 
JM response:
While that might be true, I never said that I disliked holes that were isolated from each other.

MW argument:
There is ample width on the course to accomodate play from the appropriate tees.
JM response:
I never said that there wasn't enough room.  I never said that the course was unfair.

MW argument:
Broad brush analysis is simply empty.
JM response:
It happens all the time.  Look at pretty much every other topic on the site.  I was only stating a dislike of one aspect of the course.  That's a personal preference.  People disagree on those sometimes as you surely know by now.

If you want me to provide very specific details on particular holes or shots that I did not like, I will.  But only on one condition.  You need to direct me to two separate threads or instances where you, Matt Ward, admitted being wrong or misunderstanding something.  Two posts of this sort out of your over 10,000 would be a very tiny percentage and none of us are right 100% of the time, are we?  The thing is, I cannot imagine the Matt Ward I'm reading being able to concede anything.

I don't believe you are able to engage in a productive discussion.  You seem intent on proving others wrong and yourself right, even distorting what the other person said to accomplish the goal.  What's the point in having a discussion, then?  Both sides need to be open to the possibility of being wrong, and I don't think you are.

I did change my avatar to honor your argument skills, though. 

[Matt_Ward]

John:

Beg to differ -- again !

I didn't take the words you wrote out of context. I simply provided a clear example of another course that could illustrate a comparable situation.

John, here you go again with the following statement ... "I did not like having areas on pretty much every hole where a golf ball was accessible and playable but play was not permitted."

Ok John -- far enough -- what holes and what specifics? Please knock yourself out -- but then again that would require some details which you have already stated, "I don't think details are warranted." Ok -- so you revert back to form and simply lob the broad brush condemnation but then provide no specifics -- on the flip side -- I have provided such details to the holes / shots in which situations you mention are further explained.

My counterpoints have been made -- ENDLESS times. I am looking for you to provide such specifics -- not simply parrot the same vague assertions time after time. John, you want to engage in debate about the merits of Wolf Creek but you fail to realize that meaningful details are part and parcel of that discussion.

You assert that broaf brush analysis "happens all the time.' That may well be but the same result happens -- nothing is really gained and often times the approach provides a permanent tag to a golf facility that is not appropriate. Details matter John -- good homework is appreciated by me -- even if I should disagree with the conclusions.

Details are not a "personal preference." They itemize real analysis of a course in question.

John, I have served up mea culpas plenty of times on GCA. I have no issue in saying I am wrong. But you need to serve up the fact that when you make a statement that, ""I don't think details are warranted" you minimize your standing and wherewithal to really provide clear and probing analysis.

I didn't distort anything you have said on this thread. I have called you out to provide details beyond the elementary surface level approach you have taken thus far. Big difference.

I learn a great deal when people provide specifics -- even those I don't agree with. I said this before -- you can have whatever opinion you want for WC -- that's not the issue. It's about reading -- really reading what others -- myself included -- have mentioned on this thread in the painstaking manner in which I have provided it.

John, one final thing -- there is no right or wrong in golf course reviews. People can certainly have opinions -- but such opinions needs to be grounded through some form of meaningful analysis that demonstrates a far deeper capacity than the broad brush vague assertions you have made thus far.

I have tried to provide a real sense of what the strengths and weaknesses are of WC. Clearly, the course made an impression onyou -- I just want you to try to do what others have provided on WC -- see the likes of Andy T, George P, et al -- I don't share their thoughts -- but I salute them for going below the surface and trying to illuminate concerns that might influence my feelings on the course. Without details John -- the whole point of course analysis is reduced to a mindless touchy feely proposition.

Thanks for the avatar !

[John Mayhugh]

Matt,
Sorry that I am unable to meet your expectations.  I'm comfortable that what I posted made sense to most everyone else that read it.  That's good enough for me.

[Matt_Ward]

One of the more interesting elements at Wolf Creek is how the lay-up shot is not treated as a simple formality. You can see that on a range of holes -- the cape-like 2nd, the downhill 6th, the short 7th and 13th holes, to name a few.

The lay-up shot has to be no less calculated in terms of distance -- both for carry and for the wherewithal to gauge just how far you can hit it without bounding into trouble.

I've often found that most courses treat the lay-up shot as a simple matter with really no thought to execution. Wolf Creek does entice the bold play and pity those who fail to execute -- as it should be. However, the lay-up option is one architects need to reinforce with consequences as well beyond the fact that you will then face a longer next shot.