[Garland Bayley]

Slag,

I understood your meaning. However, I listed two close anagrams to this hole to suggest that either
1) Engh was not thinking that far outside of the box, or
b) Engh has company in thinking outside of the box.

  Two close anagrams !?!  Hardly. Unless I'm totally missing something or you are impersonating Norm Crosby.
      I read only alliteration of the second words - Ranch, Rock, Ridge.

Anagram ---->                William Shakespeare = I am a weakish speller


  (Put in yer own emoto robo gizmo.)

Slag, I thought you said you didn't do well in school! Perhaps spelling was your only thing there.
I meant to write analog, which somehow came out anagram.
SORRY. 

[DMoriarty]

David:

The pic you posted does not show the different options available from an actual playing perspective. Players can hit the ball short off the tee (using the 499 yards white tees) and be left with the same array of choices as those who opt for the back tee area.

Matt as I said the photo is from their website and I believe just like one you hvae posted in the past.  The white tees?   At under 5700 yards at altitude much of the course would be a bit of a joke for a quality shorter hitter, wouldn't it?  Who exactly would be playing the white tees to experience the options you mention?

Of course, you won't know that but you can then throw some inane drivel when you state I am some sort of paid flak for Jim Engh. I don't receive one cent from Engh or his facilities for my comments. What BS is that? Hello David -- but there are quality designs out there that fall outside the "preferred" choices of a number of people here. Clearly you trashed Black Rock for not being your cup of tea. Nothing like an open mind -- huh?

Just a question Matt.  I know you write and much of your stuff reads a bit like a puff piece, so I thought I'd ask.  Ever do any PR writing for any firm or course or designer?  Ever author any puff pieces?   Who are you ratingfor these days?  Are you writing or working in the industry?

As for Black Rock, I criticized it for being a piss poor golf course when it comes to golf course architecture.  An "open mind" considers more than "butt pucker" and views for the cart paths when it comes to judging golf design. 
_________________________________________________________

As I said, I haven't played the course, but the hole looks like it would be fun to play a few times, but is it really a good hole to play regularly and a good hole for anyone but a low handicapper and moderately long hitter?  Is the lay up area even reachable without a decent drive?  How many heroic carries should one have to face when playing a hole conservatively? 

What do you suppose the ratio of lost balls to golfers is?   I wouldn't be surprised if it was 1:1. 

For anyone other than Matt (who knows no options but to swing harder than humanly imaginable) I don't see the options from the tee . . . How long is the carry if one aims at the far left corner of the fairway?   What would be the purpose of aiming any further right (or left) than that?

___________________________________________

I'll chime in.  I thought 17 was ghastly with its jutting thumb at the back section of the green.  I also thought there were no options on 18 other than to hit a drive, lay up, then try to squeeze a wedge into a vary shallow area (pin was front left when I was there).  Overall, a disappointing experience for quite a high price tag.  If this is some of the best of the west, I'd be truly surprised. 

Here is the 17th.

[Kalen Braley]

Tee shot on #16




And the approach in...

[JESII]

David,

It looks to me like the best way to get to the green in two is to drive it in the right portion of the fairway. I think the hillside likely obscures the green from the left side of the fairway.

For me, if for some reason I were not going to try to get to the green in two I would think a long iron or fairway wood to the left followed by a long iron to the right...that's why I asked if the front edge pin provided a big advantage to coming in with a wedge from the right.

[Carl Nichols]

Here is the 17th.

That reminds me of a baseball glove .... or maybe an imprint of the San Diego Chicken.

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

FYI to all -- the fairway at 18 runs out at roughly 155 yards ... there is a marked sprinkler cap at roughly 165-168 yards on the right side. Therefore it is possible for a player to lay-up on the original fairway and not have to move the ball to the other side if the situation was called upon.

Another error -- the approach from the right side is quite short -- depending upon how close you play to the left edge of the bailout out right area -- you can have from 50 to 100 yards and the angle of the green works in your favor as it slopes towards the player from that side. If you approach from the original fairway the target size of the green is much smaller and the angle more demanding.

Of course, few people know this as they are opining from what they think they see from the picture of the hole.

Jim:

A short reply to help your understanding of what I said -- I had a helping wind -- about 1-2 clubs worth and the tip tee is from an elevated position. I also hiit a career drive with the above conditions assisting me. I also hit the ball a good ways and use a 5.5 degree driver.

Jim, I guess my explanation must not be adequate for your understanding -- there are poor places you can drive it on #18 and there are places where the level of execution must be quite good to get the kind of reward one can ultimately want. Options do abound there and the range of score can vary dramatically from 3 to a snowman or moose.

You have to realize that power when executed with utter precision can gain a tremendous advantage ... Jack Nicklaus made a living of his power in younger days -- Tiger has done the same thing as well. Lakota's 18th is a very fair and strategic hole -- maybe you need to play it for yourself and see what Kalen and I are talking about before you add anything else?

In regards to the pin in front -- the angle and the seeing of the total green area is much easier with a 100-yard shot -- even for a 3rd then assuming that a 165-yd shot (which is a rare situation given the conditions that favored my play that day) because you don't see any of the green and the landing area from that angle is much more demanding - as it should be.

Hope my additional clarification has helped your understanding.

Carl:

The effective landing area of the 17th is quite demanding. You also have ample wind gusts because of the elevated tee. The green is contoured effectively in plenty of spots. When the pin is all the way in the rear getting it near to the hole is quite exacting. I don't know if you have played it but if you have not then your left field seat analysis that the hole is akin to a "baseball glove" is really a foul ball on your part.

David M:

The 499 yard tees actually make going for the green a reality for even the shortest of hitters. Playing from the back tees would eliminate that possibility for many. Hope this helps clear up your clear misunderstandings of the hole -- of course, you would not know since you base your comments on a pic alone.

In regards to the rest of your comments they are beyond a new low ball for you.

I liked Lakota Canyon Ranch and said so. I don't get paid a cent from Engh or his layouts for my thoughts. They are simply mine and mine alone. I have also posted flipside comments on a number of his other courses -- the repeat mounding concepts that are often overkilled -- as well as the lack of a quality long par-4 type hole that often is missing from many of his designs. I also believe that the hype and attention that the nearby Redlands Mesa gets is a bit much given what Lakota Canyon Ranch has achieved for Engh since that layout in Grand Junction came on the scene a number of years ago.

The lay-up area at #18 at LCR is reachable but you'll need to define "decent drive" because the hole won't handle ground balls or those akin to military golf like far right / far left. If someone hits a drive in the neighborhood of 225-250 yards the right bailout fairway is very much in play but you'll need to hit a quality shot to get it there. People can also lay-up through the main fairway and have a shot of roughly 150-160 yards -- but the angle from that direction is more demanding.

Clearly, you think "heroic" carries are needed to play the hole in a conservative fashion -- that is laughable but predictable since you base that on a pic alone. I've seen seniors and women play the hole and they handle it quite well -- in fact, nearly all the people I have talked to in regards to the course have said they enjoyed the last hole immensely because it provided a range of options and playing angles.

[JESII]

...in fact, nearly all the people I have talked to in regards to the course have said they enjoyed the last hole immensely because it provided a range of options and playing angles.

"Options"? or Consequences?

[Carl Nichols]

Matt:
I didn't say anything about how 17 played or what it's "akin to," having never played it; I was just commenting on what it (the entire hole, not just the green) LOOKS LIKE in the picture that David posted.  I doubt you'd disagree that it has a very distinctive look, particularly with those shadows, and my reconsidered view is that it looks more like the imprint of the San Diego Chicken than a baseball glove.  What do you think it looks like?   

[DMoriarty]

David,
It looks to me like the best way to get to the green in two is to drive it in the right portion of the fairway. I think the hillside likely obscures the green from the left side of the fairway.
For me, if for some reason I were not going to try to get to the green in two I would think a long iron or fairway wood to the left followed by a long iron to the right...that's why I asked if the front edge pin provided a big advantage to coming in with a wedge from the right.

I don't know Jim, I haven't played it, but the hole seems like yet another Engh ego-booster for the big hitter to me.  The hole must be measured using the right landing area as it looks to be about 500 yards from the back tee to the green in a straight line, with a downhill drive from a very elevated tee, and with ground slope right advancing the ball improving the golfer's position.   Left side or right side, a quality big hitter has a medium to short iron in.   You may be hitting 3 Wood - 7 iron and probably won't even need to pull out your 5.5 degree driver.

Seriously would a good player ever think about anything other than going in two, when the other choice is an awkward layup to a small landing area surrounded by trouble, leaving a tough angle of approach to a very shallow green?
_____________________________________________________

Gents:
FYI to all -- the fairway at 18 runs out at roughly 155 yards ... there is a marked sprinkler cap at roughly 165-168 yards on the right side. Therefore it is possible for a player to lay-up on the original fairway and not have to move the ball to the other side if the situation was called upon.  

So the struggling golfer can avoid one forced carry by trying to leave himself 170 yards over nothing but unplayable crap all the way to the green?  Gee, thanks.

Another error -- the approach from the right side is quite short -- depending upon how close you play to the left edge of the bailout out right area -- you can have from 50 to 100 yards and the angle of the green works in your favor as it slopes towards the player from that side. If you approach from the original fairway the target size of the green is much smaller and the angle more demanding.

This is in complete contradiction with your original post, where you talked about the stringent requirements of the wedge shot in, and praised Engh for putting the screws to the golfer who played it safe by making this golfer hit his third(!) forced carry over unplayable crap to a very narrow green.  

Make up your mind, otherwise it sounds like you are just writing whatever you think will make the hole sound reasonable

Of course, few people know this as they are opining from what they think they see from the picture of the hole.

 What are you talking about?  I was taking your word for the difficulty of the wedge from this angle!  Don't change your tune and then accuse us of playing the wrong son.

Jim:
A short reply to help your understanding of what I said -- I had a helping wind -- about 1-2 clubs worth and the tip tee is from an elevated position. I also hiit a career drive with the above conditions assisting me. I also hit the ball a good ways and use a 5.5 degree driver.

Matt Ward . . . your my herooo.

You have to realize that power when executed with utter precision can gain a tremendous advantage ... Jack Nicklaus made a living of his power in younger days -- Tiger has done the same thing as well. Lakota's 18th is a very fair and strategic hole -- maybe you need to play it for yourself and see what Kalen and I are talking about before you add anything else?
In regards to the pin in front -- the angle and the seeing of the total green area is much easier with a 100-yard shot -- even for a 3rd then assuming that a 165-yd shot (which is a rare situation given the conditions that favored my play that day) because you don't see any of the green and the landing area from that angle is much more demanding - as it should be.
Hope my additional clarification has helped your understanding.
Carl:
The effective landing area of the 17th is quite demanding. You also have ample wind gusts because of the elevated tee. The green is contoured effectively in plenty of spots. When the pin is all the way in the rear getting it near to the hole is quite exacting. I don't know if you have played it but if you have not then your left field seat analysis that the hole is akin to a "baseball glove" is really a foul ball on your part.

Matt, have you ever noticed that your course critiques always come down to things like "demanding" and "exacting" and "execution and utter precision" and "career shot" and "165 yard second shot" and "5.5 degree driver."   Quit kidding us that this has anything to do with strategy from your perspective.  

David M:
The 499 yard tees actually make going for the green a reality for even the shortest of hitters. Playing from the back tees would eliminate that possibility for many. Hope this helps clear up your clear misunderstandings of the hole -- of course, you would not know since you base your comments on a pic alone.

You again change your tune.  You were talking about the options from the White tees, but now you criticize me for not realizing the options from the blue tees?   I haven't mentioned the blue tees and neither have you until this post.  

Bottom line is, you and others confuse courses designed to magnify the advantages of length with courses offering actual strategy, regardless of what tees you are talking about.    I haven't played this course, but it sure looks like you are doing the same thing here.  

As for the rest of my comments, they were questions, most of which remain unanswered.  

The lay-up area at #18 at LCR is reachable but you'll need to define "decent drive" because the hole won't handle ground balls or those akin to military golf like far right / far left. If someone hits a drive in the neighborhood of 225-250 yards the right bailout fairway is very much in play but you'll need to hit a quality shot to get it there. People can also lay-up through the main fairway and have a shot of roughly 150-160 yards -- but the angle from that direction is more demanding.
Clearly, you think "heroic" carries are needed to play the hole in a conservative fashion -- that is laughable but predictable since you base that on a pic alone. I've seen seniors and women play the hole and they handle it quite well -- in fact, nearly all the people I have talked to in regards to the course have said they enjoyed the last hole immensely because it provided a range of options and playing angles.

Again Matt, mine were questions.   By your descriptions (before you began changing your tune) the hole requires multiple carries where the option is hit the shot or its "deadsville."   When a mishit on any shot will almost always result in a lost ball I question the quality of the architecture.    When the heroic shot over trouble is used again and again and every "choice" seems to be entirely dependent on how far one hits the ball, I question the architect.  

_____________________________________________________________

Matt:
I didn't say anything about how 17 played or what it's "akin to," having never played it; I was just commenting on what it (the entire hole, not just the green) LOOKS LIKE in the picture that David posted.  I doubt you'd disagree that it has a very distinctive look, particularly with those shadows, and my reconsidered view is that it looks more like the imprint of the San Diego Chicken than a baseball glove.  What do you think it looks like?    

Carl,

I think it looks like a cozy and intimate place for a small concert.  The stage could be on that back level, and the seating could be on the front level and all around on the sides of the hill. Like the Hollywood bowl, only grass.    In fact Engh's courses should be considered for these massive multiband concerts, with most of the greensites offering stadium seating around a stage with multiple levels.   Rock on, Jim Engh, Rock on!

[Matt_Ward]

Carl:

How some hole looks and how that same hole plays can be vastly different as you likely know.

What's amusing is that people will play similar type quirk holes overseas and be gushing about its stellar qualities.

I don't doubt that Engh brings to the table a clear perspective on how golf holes should look and play. I'd be curious to know if you have ever played any Engh course and if so which one(s) and what were your general impressions. This site gains from hands-on commentary -- a good bit more than the armchair QB verdicts that often can be swayed by a picture that fits or doesn't fit within one's personal sensibilities.

Carl, when you say it looks like the "imprint of the San Diego chicken" -- you are clearly drawing a conclusion -- in my mind, it's not a favorable one. Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion no matter how you have come to such a conclusion. You asked me what the hole looks like -- I see the hole as a solid par-3 -- the frontal pin placements are even more challenging than the rear one -- especially front left and hard right near the bunker on that side. The mounds in the rear area provide uncertainty depending upon the kick you get -- what's again so funny to me -- is that the same people who gush about the renowned Dell Hole at Lahinch -- which does the same exact thing -- will then trash the concept when applied to an American hole. Amazing indeed.   

David M:

You can twist it to any degree you want -- since you have not played the hole you frankly are commenting from the seat of your pants.

I didn't say 170 yards of forced carry -- a player at that elevation has even less to carry than the stated distances. David allow me to help educate you since we are talking about Colorado -- Lakota from my memory banks is at least 4,500 feet above sea level. The effective yardage from a lay-up position from the original fairway would be no more than 150 yards if a player were to get the ball to within a few yards (say 5-10) of where the actual fairway runs out before the high grass starts. If that player plays from the 499-yd markers the same player would need to hit two shots a total of 350 yards to get to that cut-off point. Geeze, that's really onerous on them don't you think?

If a player hits their tee shot that badly what do you think they should get as a reward for poor play? If the same person played the famed 7th at Pine Valley they would face a far worse fate than what you can get at the 18th at Lakota Canyon. Under your reasoning the 7th at PV would also be deemed a poor hole too. Allow me to poiint out that the existing fairway doesn't hit the higher grasses until you are within 150 yards -- Engh did a solid job in conveying more demand than really exists. That's what good architects do -- they make holes look tougher than they are and as a result it gets golfers thinking that the demands cannot be met when the reality is the other way around provided they can overcome the mental distractions such holes provide. The 18th at Lakota works well because of the elevation of such mental pressures the player believes are there.

The hole can play well from either tee box -- those who opt for the tip tees will have to raise their games appropriately to handle the demands  presented -- as it should be for those who play from the tips. There is also a corresponding challenge for those who play from the 499-yard markers. Those who hit the ball in the range of 225-260 yards will find a similar challenge to what other players face when playing from the tips. I call that design balance for the greatest range of players and those who play from the 499-yard markers would have a similar decision to make with their 2nd shot as those who play from the tips.

David, you have played -- if my memory is accurate -- just one Jim Engh layout. Count'em again OK -- one ! If I am in error please correct me -- OK? Before barking about what I don't know how bout you play a few more and then you can weigh in whether the man has talent and whether his courses provide a fun element for a range of players -- low handicap and high handicap types respectively. You've used one picture to make some clear statements when the reality of playing the hole clearly provides a completely different perspective. Of course, you don't know that because you base your statements on a picture. That's some heavy duty analysis on your part, in my mind.

Let me repeat again what I have said countless times -- the 18th at Lakota keeps a consistent level of challenge depending upon the risk sought by the player. Those who favor an aggressive play can reap huge dividends if the execution matches up to that specific level. However, you don't gain reward without a corresponding element of risk. Those who opt for the conservative play will also gain from an option that Engh has provided. However, that option -- the wedge shot, previously mentioned, when played from the right side or alternate fairway-- is not some sort of slam dunk automatic shot -- as well it should not be. It needs to be executed at a high level -- as it should be for any shot between 50-100 yards. My message has been consistent -- what you understand or don't understand I cannot say.

In regards to how I played the hole on my last visit -- I spoke honestly in regards to what Jim mentioned. When one is playing at a local altitude of at least 4,500 plus from an elevated tee with a helping 1-2 club wind it's possible to hit the driver a good ways. Not just me -- but for any golfer.

Let me also point out that I have made it a point to highlight different routes on any number of holes at Lakota Canyon or any other course I weigh in with my opinion. I always try to ask other golfers who likely play such course(s) more than me what their overall impressions are. Often times I ask the head professional or other staff people on what makes such hole(s) special from a blending standpoint of challenge and playability. I also have with me in many cases a range of players who play the game in a far different fashion than I do -- my good buddy is a bus driver for NYC and sports a 18-20 handicap. I often ask him numerous questions on what shots/holes are fair, unfair or somewhat in-between. I've even posted a changed position on certain holes / courses when I have had the opportunity to return to them and be played again. David, you read what you like -- unfortunately, you simply cherry pick those comments that can be manipulated by you into some sort of position that frankly only you advocate in the manner that you do.

This is the same tactic you have used on other threads and the old tap dance is getting tiresome. This is my last response to you ... I urge you to play a few Engh courses -- possibly even Lakota Canyon -- and see if the man has a sense in knowing what he is doing. Clearly, the market has bought into what he provides and his courses have received glowing praises for specific projects he has done. Engh is not Donald Ross or Pete Dye -- he has hit a few foul balls in my mind that are less than his top tier stuff -- some of which has used previous ideas to the max and become formulaic. I've triied to be fair in looking at what he has produced. I am not his flak or anyone else's for that matter. This situation in not hitting design home runs across the board is not unique to Engh -- other architects, past and present, have done the same thing too from time to time.

I like what Lakota Canyon provides -- in fact, I may also post an update on my recent visit to Four Mile Ranch in Canon City, which I believe Engh has done an even better job for a layout that charges some of the most affordable fees in the nation.

Please feel free to fire away again -- I am sure it will comprise the best of David M on holes / courses he has never played but has total certainty in what he sees as their errors. Thanks for your comments.

[cary lichtenstein]

Matt:

You are glutten for punishment, don't you get enough at home?

Engh is not favored on this site. What I like best is the criticism from people who have never even played the course.

I have never posted on a course I haven't played.

Even riding a course is way different from playing it.

Ditto if you hit every drive into the trees or heavy rough. I played Oakmont once, hit the first drive in the fairway, it bounced in the rough by 2 inches, hit my iron about 3 feet, got intimidated and never saw the fairway the rest of the day.

[Joe Hancock]

Cary,

So with yours and Matts perspective in mind, when is it OK to post an opinion about a course? If the requirements are too high, then why bother posting threads here if very few are qualified to respond?

If there's no discussion allowed, it becomes an exercise in egotism....i.e what courses are under the belt, how many times played, expert opinions, etc. etc.

I'd suggest to those who are offended at people stating opinions on "their" threads, then don't start any. This is a discussion group about golf course architecture, not a high school-aged bragging forum. People see things differently and I don't understand why that's so difficult for some to accept.

Joe

[Norbert P]

Engh is not favored on this site. What I like best is the criticism from people who have never even played the course.

I have never posted on a course I haven't played.

 I enjoyed Redlands Mesa and would probably enjoy Lakota Canyon but I come into a golf course,  --- given, at less than an expert --- with critical eyes and heart.   I have nothing against Engh but I do believe that a designer should adjust his/her styles with what the mood of the land presents.   The 18th has 3 forced carries and that generally reduces playing options but since I haven;t been there, I can't comment on that. The chasm is undoubtedly dramatic but to my sensibilities the bunker style doesn't add to the jaggedness, it detracts from it.   Like putting a silk tie on Tarzan.  

  When I post a criticism it is for the work presented.  And I do try to be constructive and not mean but, obviously, saying anything at all is not the nicest thing to do, but we are here to "frankly discuss golf course architecture"

[cary lichtenstein]

Cary,

So with yours and Matts perspective in mind, when is it OK to post an opinion about a course? If the requirements are too high, then why bother posting threads here if very few are qualified to respond?

If there's no discussion allowed, it becomes an exercise in egotism....i.e what courses are under the belt, how many times played, expert opinions, etc. etc.

I'd suggest to those who are offended at people stating opinions on "their" threads, then don't start any. This is a discussion group about golf course architecture, not a high school-aged bragging forum. People see things differently and I don't understand why that's so difficult for some to accept.

Joe

Just my opinion, everyone is entitled to theirs

[DMoriarty]

Matt,

Most of my "comments" have been in the form of questions about the hole, questions which have not been answered.  My statements about the hole are based on your description before you started backpedaling.   You described this as and extremely demanding hole, no matter what route one takes.  You also praised the fact that the slightest misses will result in "deadsville," a lost ball.   Based on your description, it seems to me like the hole may have some questionable attributes to anyone but the type of golfer you think you are.  Accordingly I have raised some questions based on your descriptions..  

What about my understanding of the hole is inaccurate?

As for the higher handicap player and the shorter hitter.  
-  Are there NOT three forced carries where one can easily lose one's ball if one plays the hole conservatively?  
-  Is the pitch shot from the right fairway NOT to a shallow green, with a miss hit likely finding itself in "deadsville?"  (If not, why did you describe it as such, and praise Engh for making the third shot so?)
-  Will a higher handicapper or a short hitter NOT often face an extremely challenging and relatively long second shot just to make it onto the right landing area?    That is if the higher handicapper and short hitter doesn't nut their drive, or even if he does?
-  Will the higher handicapper or short hitter who has to lay up in the first fairway NOT often be facing 170 yards or more on this third shot, the last 150 yards of which is over unplayable crap?
-  Will a missed shot at any point on the hole (except the green) NOT often result in a lost ball?  
-  Will NOT the bogey+ golfer lose at least one ball (on average) on this hole?  Won't some lose a sleeve or so?

As for the better player and longer hitter, given that the hole plays at almost 6000 ft above sea level, and by your description offers a downhill drive from an extremely elevated tee box, and sometimes downwind . . .
- Will NOT any well hit drive in the fairway leave the golfer a mid to short iron to the green?  
- Will NOT this golfer only play his second to the right fairway if he screws up his first?  
- Will NOT the realistic better player always view this hole as a medium to long par four, at least before he hits his drive?

As for your description of the hole . . .
- Did you NOT describe playing the hole driver - 9 iron?  (Unless it was a 5 club wind, I don't give a damn about the conditions or the loft of your driver.)
- Did you NOT describe your nine iron as being very demanding, with the slightest error finding "deadsville?"
- Did you NOT then have the nerve to claim that it wouldn't be over-the-top to expect the crappy golfer to be able to hit this same shot on his or her THIRD SHOT?  
- How can a shot be a demanding butt-puckerer for you,an expert golfer in your eyes, YET not too difficult for the hack who has already hit two shots to get to where you hit it in one??  
- Did you NOT describe the approach from the right fairway to also be extremely demanding to a shallow green from an awkward angle, and did you NOT praise Engh for taking it to the golfer who took the conservative route?
- Did you NOT then have the nerve to change your tune and claim that the third shot was short and very manageable for the hack?  

Further Matt, I haven't played it, but I believe your comparison to Pine Valley 7th to be inapt.   Hell's Half Acre is mostly sand, isn't it?   There is a big difference between a carry over sand on the one hand and unplayable crap and canyons on the other.  

And Matt, your claims about talking to higher handicap players about the course ring totally hollow to me.   Whether or not you talk to them, you obviously have little concept about how anyone else plays the game except for how you think you do, otherwise you wouldn't make ridiculous claims about what one can and cannot expect from these golfers.   A high handicapper laying up within a few yards of trouble? What a joke.   A shot being manageable for a high handicapper yet extremely demanding and challenging for you?  Ridiculous.  Asking a higher handicap golfer to hit a shot over 150 yards of crap plus however much he missed on the lay-up?  Absurd.  

_________________________________________________

Cary,

Drop the persecution complex.   At this point most on this website seem to to be Enghophiles, and while a few may acknowledge some of the flaws, they forgive him or look past every one.   A few others and I seem to be in the minority here, and I seem to be the only vocal critic.  

The same questions apply to you.  What is it that I do not understand about this hole?  What would I see differently if I played it?  

[DMoriarty]

This Engh thread seems to be rapping up about like the rest of them.   Questions are asked and concerns are raised about a course (or in this case a hole) but there is no real substantive response.  It is not as if the concerns are based on inaccuracies, yet the Enghophiles dismiss the them as being either sour grapes or simply differences in preference.

But shouldn't everyone condemn golf holes (and courses) where the trouble is largely irrelevant to better golfers yet constantly and repeatedly beats the crap out of higher handicap players?    Is it unreasonable to advocate for golf holes were the mass of golfers have a fighting chance to finish without going to the bag for more balls?  

Why does Engh get a pass on these issues and related issues brought up in other threads?  What the hell are you people looking out when you evaluate a golf course?   Seriously.  I don't get it?  Is it really just about whether the views are pretty from the paths and the "demands" excite you personally?  

[Kalen Braley]

This Engh thread seems to be rapping up about like the rest of them.   Questions are asked and concerns are raised about a course (or in this case a hole) but there is no real substantive response.  It is not as if the concerns are based on inaccuracies, yet the Enghophiles dismiss the them as being either sour grapes or simply differences in preference.

But shouldn't everyone condemn golf holes (and courses) where the trouble is largely irrelevant to better golfers yet constantly and repeatedly beats the crap out of higher handicap players?    Is it unreasonable to advocate for golf holes were the mass of golfers have a fighting chance to finish without going to the bag for more balls? 

Why does Engh get a pass on these issues and related issues brought up in other threads?  What the hell are you people looking out when you evaluate a golf course?   Seriously.  I don't get it?  Is it really just about whether the views are pretty from the paths and the "demands" excite you personally? 

David M,

I suppose you have the same contempt for a hole like CPC 16 then?

A hole that high cappers have really no chance to par.  A hole where even the layup can be tough into a prevailing wind.  A hole where the approach even after said lay up can be difficult to negotiate and can easily find the water again.  I took a huge number when I played it. Are you ready to condem this hole as well which is widely considered one of the finest in the world, and by most even in here?

The problem you have going is that you want to leap to dasterdly conclusions on courses and or holes you've never even played...so pardon most of us who aren't intested in engaging you.  We've seen how you operate on the Merion threads...when you have a viewpoint you won't give it up.  So why would any of us keep going until your satisified... when this clearly will not happen?

In the meantime if you're really interested in discussing architecture instead of focusing in on particular architects that you want to put down then why don't you go give it a try.  Ironically you accuse others of being an "Engh-ophytes" when all you are doing is clearly showing that you are the "Anti-Engh".

And this leads to your 2nd problem...instead of at least trying to be objective on these things, your bias agianst the man is way too obvious so the gig is up and everyone knows it.  In the end you're only hurting your own crediblity in future threads and/or posts by continuing to slag on him and anything he touches...

Kalen

[Andy Troeger]

Part of the problem with the argument is that I'm seeing people claim that anything on #18 not in the fairways is "gone" when that's just not the case or at least wasn't two years ago. I hit the ball thirty yards left on the second shot quite a ways up the hill, grabbed my bag and walked up there, found the ball, hit it on the green, and made a par. You can certainly lose balls in the canyon, and I probably got lucky to find a playable lie, but its not entirely deadsville.

Its a tough hole for the high handicapper--but Lakota Canyon as a golf course has relatively few forced carries for a course in a canyon/mountain setting. There is definitely potential to hit the ball out of play, but a lot of the off-play areas are basic scrub and finding the ball isn't out the question at all. Most of the forward tees make the course pretty playable, although the 18th is an exception to that. I don't have my scorecard on me, but I don't recall the slope being particularly high, perhaps mid-130's from the back. Perhaps someone else can confirm/correct that.

The most valid point that David makes regarding the 18th is that the hole is more difficult and not as interesting for someone who MUST play the three-shot route. The angle into the green is worse and the canyon itself is the place where lost balls are most likely to happen. Playing to the right does mean crossing it two additional times (as opposed to going straight over the scrub). I will say that bothers David much more than it bothers me--neither shot is that difficult. The fairway is wide and the green is a reasonable size target with a fair amount of grass behind.

Jim Engh's courses are generally much more friendly to the higher handicap in my opinion than some other modern architects, especially Nicklaus' recent work.

[DMoriarty]

I suppose you have the same contempt for a hole like CPC 16 then?

 Funny question.  I almost started a thread on this very issue last night.  Maybe I will if I get the time.  

I've no contempt for the Lakota hole, but If you mean to ask whether I have similar concerns about CPC 16, the answer is YES.

I have discussed the negative aspects of CPC 16 on many occasions, particularly the negative impact CPC 16 (and holes like it) have on the mentality and expectations of the golfer, and on the types of golf holes that are built as a result.  Do I hate Cypress Point or Alistair Mackenzie because I have suggested that CPC 16 has been bad for golf design?    Hardly.  I have great respect for MacKenzie's work and was blown away by CPC.   But when I look at a course, I consider more than whether or not I had fun or got a thrill.  

Whether at Cypress or Lakota, playability is an key component of quality golf design.  But by playability I don't mean easy, and I don't give a damn about par.   I mean whether the course generally allows even the duffer to continue to pleasurably golf without the constant threat of loosing the ball or having to constantly search through the brush for it.  

So while I understand the point you were trying to make, I think you help me make mine instead.   I no Engh-hater, but I do hold him to the same standards of quality golf course design as I do anyone else, including the dead ones like Mackenzie and Macdonald, both of whom I have taken to task in the past.

My frustration is that many around here don't seem to give a damn about such things as playability, other than to pay it occasional lip service. That is what I objected to here.  Matt and others pretend to care about such things as playability for all abilities, then go off on self-centered reviews of golf holes that even by the review's own terms describe playability nightmares for the duffer.  So in a sense my problem is not with Engh or his courses but with Matt, you, and others who just don't seem to really give a damn about many of the things that make truly great golf courses great.  

And as for playability, I don't think your description of CPC is entirely accurate.  I think CPC is playable for the golfer willing to actually consider the OPTIONS presented.   The actual carry from the middle of the right tee box to the lay up area is only 110 yards to 130 yards, depending on your angle, and the lay up fairway is about 75 yards wide by 80 yards deep.  It is a huge area. (The carry is much shorter from the left tee boxes.)   While the green entrance is very narrow at this angle and one can lose a ball in the Ocean, the green is very large, the approach is very short and mostly over fairway, and the bunkers left and long are not "deadsville."   So I don't think that CPC 16 is nearly as problematic from a pure playability perspective as much of what passes for quality golf design these days.   The problem I have with CPC 16 is with its imitators, who go for the "glory" aspect but misunderstand the option aspect.  

The problem you have going is that you want to leap to dasterdly conclusions on courses and or holes you've never even played...so pardon most of us who aren't intested in engaging you.  We've seen how you operate on the Merion threads...when you have a viewpoint you won't give it up.  So why would any of us keep going until your satisified... when this clearly will not happen?

I understand your frustration about me commenting on a course I haven't played.  I've been similarly frustrated many times.   But usually when I am frustrated it is because the person is commenting about a course and they HAVE SOMETHING FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG FACTUALLY. What are my dastardly conclusions about this golf hole?  What have I said about the golf hole that isn't true?  

In the meantime if you're really interested in discussing architecture instead of focusing in on particular architects that you want to put down then why don't you go give it a try.  Ironically you accuse others of being an "Engh-ophytes" when all you are doing is clearly showing that you are the "Anti-Engh".

I've nothing against Engh.  I've heard he is a nice guy and he is even from my part of the world, sort of.    I do disagree with some of his thoughts on design because I think they are bad for golf and bad for golf design.  But it is not personal.  I've nothing against this course.  I said it looked fun to play once or twice.  It looks a hell of a lot more interesting to me than Black Rock.  

And this leads to your 2nd problem...instead of at least trying to be objective on these things, your bias agianst the man is way too obvious so the gig is up and everyone knows it.  In the end you're only hurting your own crediblity in future threads and/or posts by continuing to slag on him and anything he touches..

That is one way to see it.  Another alternative is that the points I raised about Black Rock have at least some validity, and at the very least those points (and my questions about this hole) have not been adequately addressed, and that raises the question I asked in my previous post.  Just what the hell is it that you guys look at when you are considering golf course design?  

I ask because if the only thing that matters is whether you had fun, then why bother to discuss it at all?  Why not have your fun and leave the discussion of golf design to those who actually try to understand it beyond their immediate visceral experience?

__________________________________

Andy,

Thanks for addressing a few of my questions and concerns.  I don't have time to respond immediately but will try too soon.  

[TEPaul]

"My frustration is that many around here don't seem to give a damn about such things as playability, other than to pay it occasional lip service.  That is what I objected to here.  Matt and others pretend to care about such things as playability for all abilities, then go off on self-centered reviews of golf holes that even on their own terms describe playability nightmares for the duffer.  So in a sense my problem is not with Engh or his courses but with Matt, you, and others who just don't seem to really give a damn about many of the things that make truly great golf courses great."



?


Huh?    


I sure don't know Lakota Canyon but I do know a bunch of courses that most of the world has always considered great----so what's the DEAL?  







"I understand your frustration about me commenting on a course I haven't played.  I've been similarly frustrated many times.   But usually when I am frustrated it is because the person is commenting about a course and they HAVE SOMETHING FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG FACTUALLY."



Hmmm. I don't know about the rest of you but there is something about that statement that just doesn't seem to make much inherent sense to me. Does anyone else happen to notice why? 

[DMoriarty]

Part of the problem with the argument is that I'm seeing people claim that anything on #18 not in the fairways is "gone" when that's just not the case or at least wasn't two years ago. I hit the ball thirty yards left on the second shot quite a ways up the hill, grabbed my bag and walked up there, found the ball, hit it on the green, and made a par. You can certainly lose balls in the canyon, and I probably got lucky to find a playable lie, but its not entirely deadsville.

Glad to hear that there is at least a possibility that one might find an errant shot.   But thirty yards left wasn't really my concern. I am more wondering about what looks to be a bit less than 150 yards of lush and tall grass directly in line between the first fairway and the green.   In the photo it looks as if this grass has either been planted or the native is being heavily irrigated (there is a line that might indicate one of these), and in the photo a good portion of this swath seems to be relatively flat.   Please correct me if I am wrong, since you've apparently walked it or next to it.

Why do you suppose this swath is maintained as what looks to be fairly unplayable crap?  Is it an environmentally sensitive area?   Is there something about it that I am not seeing?      Or was it simply left there so as to make the carry from the first fairway more of a thrill, and to try to force those not going for the green back over the canyon to the layup area?  

Would anyone bother with the other layup area if this swath was fairway?   Would the hole be much different the Matt Wards and their 9 iron second shots?   Because it seems like this would make a big difference to the higher handicap player, wouldn't it?

Its a tough hole for the high handicapper--but Lakota Canyon as a golf course has relatively few forced carries for a course in a canyon/mountain setting. There is definitely potential to hit the ball out of play, but a lot of the off-play areas are basic scrub and finding the ball isn't out the question at all. Most of the forward tees make the course pretty playable, although the 18th is an exception to that. I don't have my scorecard on me, but I don't recall the slope being particularly high, perhaps mid-130's from the back. Perhaps someone else can confirm/correct that.

Glad to hear that as well. But don't all three of the holes Matt highlights here have forced carries?   The 17th is mostly carry with a canyon short, with a relatively small bailout area short right, isn't it?  And isn't the tee shot on the 16th an angled carry over water and the canyon then an approach crossing back over the canyon?

Looking at the photographs, there appear to be other forced carries as well, over water or canyons, but I'll take your word for it that they are not all that prevalent.   But let me ask if it is possible that you are looking at the course from the perspective of a better golfer on this issue?   How many forced carries are there for a duffer or bogey?   Keep in mind that this golfer is often going to be hitting all but their tee shots from a less than ideal place.  

So while you might not even notice the water and diagonal carry drive on the 16th, the bogey might be quaking in his boots about slicing it or topping it and losing one of his last few balls.  And while you might almost always have a short iron from an straight across the canyon with a good view, the bogey might have have hit a crummy drive and might have a relatively long diagonal carry not only over the canyon but also over the side hill and native.   Would this bogey even be able to see the green?

Don't get me wrong.  Diagonal carries are fun for all levels of golfers, and everyone gets a thrill of hitting over something like a canyon or a lake, but the trick to great architecture is to give a variety of abilities of players this type of thrill without unnecessarily beating the crap out a huge portion of the golfers.   I don't know whether this course strikes that balance or not, but considering just the last three holes as Matt described them, there is at least a question in my mind.

The most valid point that David makes regarding the 18th is that the hole is more difficult and not as interesting for someone who MUST play the three-shot route. The angle into the green is worse and the canyon itself is the place where lost balls are most likely to happen. Playing to the right does mean crossing it two additional times (as opposed to going straight over the scrub). I will say that bothers David much more than it bothers me--neither shot is that difficult. The fairway is wide and the green is a reasonable size target with a fair amount of grass behind.

Again, I wonder if you are thinking about this from the perspective of the bogey golfer.  You say "the shots are not that difficult" which makes me wonder, what shots?   The only "shot" you will necessarily get from the duffer is a shot from the tee, and from there who knows where the ball will go.  For me the question isn't so much about what happens when this golfer hits three shots in a row that are all very good, but what happens the other 90% of the time when this golfer doesn't hit three good shots in a row.   If the drive is alive, it may well be in a spot that makes it extremely unlikely that they will reach the second fairway safely, and the same may be true about reaching the green even if the second shot ends up somewhere alive.  

If bogey golfers average less than one lost or unplayable ball per round on this hole, I would be surprised.  

What do you think?   On average how many golf balls are bogey golfers going to lose on this hole?   Is there a too many?

More importantly, shouldn't we consider such things when we evaluate these courses?    Shouldn't playability for more than just a few golfers matter in golf course design?   Generally, hasn't the golf architecture failed if the course is only playable for a very small percentage of players.

Jim Engh's courses are generally much more friendly to the higher handicap in my opinion than some other modern architects, especially Nicklaus' recent work.

I'm no expert on either of their courses, but this doesn't surprise me.  There may have been too many severe hazards directly in front of greens at Black Rock, but otherwise I didn't find it to be terribly unplayable.  I thought it was a slog, but one where one could generally continue to golf their ball.   Can I count that as a compliment?

Maybe these last few holes are the exception (like CPC 16) and the course strikes a good balance between thrills and playability.  But as Matt presented these holes (and has in the past) it is all thrill or "deadsville."   I feel compelled to question "do or die" architecture whoever the architect.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I suppose you have the same contempt for a hole like CPC 16 then?

A hole that high cappers have really no chance to par.  ....

If I remember The Spirit of St. Andrews correctly, Dr. Mac claimed he could make bogey playing it only with a putter. Anyone who's play leads him to hit into the hazard is simply letting his ego get in the way. Of course Dr. Mac admitted to letting his ego get in the way leading him to take much higher numbers himself.

Why do high cappers have really no chance at par? That's like saying low cappers really have no chance at birdie. I think you need to rethink that statement, and some of the others you made later in your post.

[Garland Bayley]

...  Ironically you accuse others of being an "Engh-ophytes" when all you are doing is clearly showing that you are the "Anti-Engh".
...

Kalen,

Either you aren't paying attention, or you have a spelling problem. Ward is not spelled Engh!

[DMoriarty]

Garland,

Believe it or not I like Matt and appreciate his willingness to go see and write about courses most people will probably never bother to see.   He was traveling to places like New Mexico before they were even on the radar and for that he should be commended.   But while he would deny this I find his perspective to be extremely one dimensional and, when you cut through the talking points, largely centered around  the type of "butt-puckering" thrill or "deadsville" monsters that he obviously loves above all else.   That is fine, he is entitled to his opinion.  But he also tries to play off his narrow personal preferences as a broad and objective account of the quality of the golf course design, and I like to call him on it once in a while.    

So you are correct that my posts have been much more about how Matt Ward (and others) view golf course architecture than about Lakota Canyon or Jim Engh.  

[Andy Troeger]

David,
I don't have a lot of time before I head out to address all your points so please excuse the brevity...

That area short of #18 doesn't look terribly inviting. If you made it too easy I think you could take away from the "heroic" nature of the hole for the better player to help with playability. Probably a good change in the grand scheme of things, but I don't think that's the way the hole was intended. Personally I don't think having a 20 yard swath of short grass or even rough wouldn't be that appealing to the better player as a target but might help the golfer that bunts it down the fairway to have an alternate route. Just not sure if that's the original intent.

The last four holes actually do have forced carries, although none of them are long distances from the forward tees. You tend to alternate what you mean by "duffers," so its hard to know what kind of player you are talking about. This course is not designed for beginners or those with a handicap over about 30, at least if they intend to play stoke play. Just about every modern course in the mountain time zone is that way unfortunately. I do think #18, and basically all the others, are fairly manageable for a 15-20 handicap. They are going to lose a few balls along the way, but arguably not many more than Rustic Canyon (which I only mention because you are familiar with it) if they find a few of the ESA's out there. The 17th green is a huge target and from the forward tees its a relatively short shot. #16 is the most difficult hole on the course for everybody.

Personally I think the front nine at Lakota is where the golf course shines--the back nine isn't bad but its definitely not the courses' strength. There are old threads on the entire course (at least one by Kalen) that should have photos.

PS: Kalen is a bogey golfer essentially--so if you're looking for their perspective on the place he has already posted many of this thoughts.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()