[Ran Morrissett]

Some courses are easy to photograph but don't play particularly well (e.g. Birkdale).

Some courses play well but are hard on the eye (e.g. Lytham).

Two of the best courses that both play and look great are certainly Banff and Jasper Park. The only rub there was that they were expensive to build because the soil had to be brought in. Even to this day, the courses are still a challenge to present in a firm and fast manner due to the rocky soil content. Of course, hoping for a setting like those AND natural sandy soil seems a bit much, even for the supremely confident Stanley Thompson!

At least, so I thought before seeing Clear Creek two weekends ago.

Below is a photograph of the natural floor of this property that is 5800 ft above sea level:



Clearly (no pun intended  ) ideal for golf. In regards to the merit of the setting, please be the judge for yourself based on the other forty plus photographs found in this new course profile.

Clear Creek represents the best of both worlds: great architecture in a great setting. As they always do, Coore & Crenshaw took what the land gave them and then enhanced it for golf. Apart from all the grand views, if you want to get to the x's and o's, the ultimate target are the greens - and this is where the course shines and is why the course review is so positive. Be it the six foot drop from back to front at the ninth or my favorites like the fifteenth and seventeenth that fall away to the back or the killer sixth that looks simple until you putt off it  , this set has it all. The greens by no means are screaming and competing with one another yet the total collection is amazingly varied. Yes, this course is built as part of a housing development but the land plan I saw and the set backs as I understand them make me think that the joys of playing the course will stay at the level that my photographs indicate.

See what you think but I'm willing to bet that it won't remind you of too much that you've seen before!

Cheers,

PS We are very bullish with the comments on the two profiles posted today because we think the two courses deserve it; we won't be so with the course profile tomorrow which is a world top 100 course.

[Chris_Clouser]

I'll take a cue from Mayday and ask this question.  Aside from the setting, what is it about the golf at Clear Creek that makes it distinctive from other C&C courses.  In the photos I saw several things that I have seen in portrayals of other courses that they have done.  I still wonder sometimes why they bunker the courses in the way that they do.  A perfect example of my inquiry is the bunker to the front right of the sixteenth green in the photo.  That is a great opportunity to let the ground contours be the arbiter of justice instead of allowing some to find solace in the arms of the lone bunker on that side when they hit a weak approach.  I agree the green designs look great in the photo, but what really seperates this course from anything else in this type of setting?

I'd be interested to hear the comments from anyone that has been there and hear why this is the next great C&C course that we should all recognize as the greatest since Sand Hills.

[Tom_Doak]

I was excited to see pictures of this course.  Three years ago it looked like one of our clients was going to develop it, and I spent some time working on a routing for the property; Eric Iverson spent some time on the ground, but our guy backed out just before I went out to walk around the site.  So I was curious to see what it looked like.

Ran's review is EXTREMELY enthusiastic.  If it was not Ran and it had been one of my courses, the phrase "butt boy" would have already been employed here.

[Matt_Ward]

To piggyback on what Chris C mentioned -- I'd be very interested to hear how Clear Ceek differentiates itself from earlier C&C work. Candidly, if it's just repackaged from earlier designs and just happens to be in the greater Reno area then I'm wondering if the pair are treated a good bit differently than other architects who do something similar.

The pics look great -- the western setting is indeed alive and well no doubt.

The comments from those who have played it and also a few other previous layouts from the twosome's creative hands is something I look forward to reading.

[Chris_Clouser]

Tom,

You are probably right.  I wouldn't have used such a base term, but even you have to admit it seems that the cavalcade here is usually to simply praise courses by some architects regardless of what they do and condemn those done by a some others.  I think the photos of this coruse look stunning, but architecture wise these are a lot of the same things you see at courses like Friar's Head and Bandon Trails and some of them are the same things I've seen at Notre Dame and in photos of Sugarloaf Mountain or Cuscowilla.  Why would C&C get a free pass from doing the same things over and over again when if Engh or Fazio use the same ideas repeatedly they get thrown to the wolves?  I'm sure the answer to that is somewhere along the lines of strategic design, complementing the natural terrain, and so on.... But my question was essentially what is new here that we haven't seen before?

The photo of the 16th is a great lead into my thought.  That green looks almost exactly like the 16th at Notre Dame.  

Also, I think I counted 6 holes with a solitary bunker at the back middle of the green.  Some of that can be skewed because of the angle of the photo taken, but they seem to do that alot.  And I know you have commented in the past about how they always have a par five with a bunker directly front and center of the green.  I believe you also recently said something about how Bill sometimes falls back to a squarish green design when he isn't sure what else to do.  

And lastly in that setting why in the world would you want to clutter it up with so many bunkers along the edge of holes?  i would think you would leave it as natural looking as possible so you don't detract from the setting, which is what I think those bunkers do.  I've heard that criticism about several courses that don't have near the natural terrain advantages this course has to work with.

[Alex Miller]

The photo of the 16th is a great lead into my thought.  That green looks almost exactly like the 16th at Notre Dame.  

Not to mention the 8th at Sand Hills...

[Tom Yost]

Was Clear Creek mentioned as one of the venues for the Tahoe KP 2010 ?

[Rob Rigg]

Ran's review is EXTREMELY enthusiastic.  If it was not Ran and it had been one of my courses, the phrase "butt boy" would have already been employed here.

Maybe Jim and Crew can work up a song for C&C - "I'm on a C&C" has zero ring to it.

Great review by Ran with stellar attention to detail as always and some fantastic photos.

It definitely "looks" like a C&C course - and there is nothing wrong with that - it screams "fun golf".

Also - based purely on photos of their courses (I have only played BT) - I believe that C&C are absolutely class in their design of par 3s. I don't recall ever seeing a "mediocre" C&C par three (?).

[Tim Gavrich]

Every time I see pictures of a C&C course, I have to lunge for the tissues to catch the drool.  The common "look" is undeniable, but to me, it is one that implies tons and tons of fun to be had on each golf course.  Visually, the bunkers hit that sweet spot between ruggedness and careful artistry.  The green complexes look like one could spend as many hours studying them as it seems to have taken to craft them.

As for the comments about praise for C&C courses by default, if there are similar features employed at Sand Hills and Sugarloaf Mountain and Cear Creek and Kapalua and Cuscowilla (the one C&C course I have had the fortune to play), sign me up!  It would appear that if this is the case, Coore and Crenshaw may be occupying the same ideological sphere as Macdonald, Raynor, and Banks did nearly a century ago: a broad set of template holes and features used in various settings.  Obviously the visual styles of both architect teams are quite different, but are the apparent philosophies so divergent?

Cheers.

--Tim

[Kenny Baer]

I think they use the same ideas over and over again because they play well and look good.

IMO Engh repeats something that many on this board may not enjoy as where C&C repeat something most on this board do enjoy.  I am confused as to what would you like to see; every artist/architect/writer has there own style, at least they are best at one style so they choose to master it.  What could or would you have like to seen different, an island green?  Crazy mounding? Sideboards on both sides of the fairway?  It looks like a great golf course to me.  Repeating something done right is a good idea IMO.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I did not find this course to be cookie cuttor anything but then again other than trap design, strategic holes and greens generally open to multiple options I do not find C&C to be predictable. This course is not and likely will not be. It is an amazing property and combined with Martis Camp have lifted golf in Tahoe light years. I cannot be as enthusiastic as Ran but did love the course. I feel it is swimming upstream in this market and hope the backing is as was presented to me. I enjoyed everything about the course.

[Mac Plumart]

Here's a comment from the golf course architecture newbie/idiot...

That picture is friggin' awesome.  Seeing something like that gets me PUMPED to play it.  

I've only played one C&C (Cuscowilla), but I think it is a great course.  I looks good...no doubt...and that is nice...but you've got holes that require booming drives (#1), holes with shellbacked greens (#5), short par 4's, long par 4's, down hill shots, uphill shots, etc, etc, etc.  I think people on this site bagged on hole 7 (I think it was) and I don't love that one per se, but it is good enough especially with that sweet/unique par 3 right after it, and then that beast of a hole next, then on hole 10 you get some forced carries/beauty, etc.

Anyway, what does one C&C course add that the next one doesn't?  A chance for more people to play one, maybe.  If Sandhills was their only one, I wouldn't have played one and I would be missing a truly great experience in my golfing life.

[Kyle Henderson]

 Great review, Ran!


For those seeking more imagery from CCT, I've posted my own stash of photos on the following thread:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42066.0/

[Bill_McBride]

Here's a comment from the golf course architecture newbie/idiot...

That picture is friggin' awesome.  Seeing something like that gets me PUMPED to play it.  

I've only played one C&C (Cuscowilla), but I think it is a great course.  I looks good...no doubt...and that is nice...but you've got holes that require booming drives (#1), holes with shellbacked greens (#5), short par 4's, long par 4's, down hill shots, uphill shots, etc, etc, etc.  I think people on this site bagged on hole 7 (I think it was) and I don't love that one per se, but it is good enough especially with that sweet/unique par 3 right after it, and then that beast of a hole next, then on hole 10 you get some forced carries/beauty, etc.

Anyway, what does one C&C course add that the next one doesn't?  A chance for more people to play one, maybe.  If Sandhills was their only one, I wouldn't have played one and I would be missing a truly great experience in my golfing life.

See Mayday Malone's heretical screed on the Friars Head thread.   

[Mac Plumart]

I saw it...it makes me laugh a bit.  I think he is serious on a lot of it, but I get the feeling he is pushing peoples buttons a little bit.  But I don't know him at all and I may be way off base.  But he is either pushing buttons or a very critical critic!

C&C seems to be very good at their jobs.  However, perhaps Mayday has a point...why do these new courses shoot way up the rankings right away and then a lot of them fade away after awhile.

Nevertheless, Clear Creek looks great!

[Jim Colton]

Is the review over the top?  It's not like he started off comparing it to Pebble Beach, Bandon and Sand Hills.  Oh wait...

Seriously, I have to trust Ran's opinion on this one.  Tahoe is now on the short list.  Kudos to C&C if it is as good as advertised.

[Tom Yost]

As a thirty year Arizona resident, the Sollenberger name is quite familiar to me. 

[Tom_Doak]

Chris:

My point was not to say that I don't think Clear Creek is an excellent course.  I have every confidence that it's a terrific course.  I know it was a beautiful piece of ground and I don't believe Bill Coore has ever messed up a beautiful piece of ground ... or that he ever will.

I was just pointing out two double standards:

1.  The phrase "butt boy" is only applied to people who love my courses; Bill's fans are not accused of the same bias.  And,
2.  Ran is the ultimate homer, although I guess he has promised to write a less positive review later this week, and possibly offend one or two people.

Nor do I agree with your phrase that "even you have to admit it seems that the cavalcade here is usually to simply praise courses by some architects regardless of what they do and condemn those done by a some others."  Many posters play favorites and have certain styles that they prefer, but where on this thread has anyone praised something "regardless of what" was built?  I think you are just hearing guys praise pretty bunkers that they love to look at and turning it into something larger.

At the same time, I have to say that the new "Mike Malone standard" for evaluating golf courses on the basis of whether they add something to the world of golf course architecture, is an almost impossible standard for any architect who has already achieved great things.  It is hard to reinvent yourself every time out.  Sometimes you will get a piece of property that allows you to find holes that are really different than anything you've done before, but after 15-20 good courses that becomes less and less likely.

I think I try as hard as anyone does not to repeat myself too often ... possibly at times even to the detriment of a particular golf course.  But of course even if I succeeded, there would be the people here who would be annoyed that I hadn't built a Biarritz and a Redan and all their other comfortable favorites.  [Honestly, that was one of the great reasons for me accepting the job of building Old Macdonald -- now I've done my own version of all those templates, and I don't have to do them again!]  

But, if you're going to oversimplify someone's style into "putting a single bunker behind a green" then EVERYONE is going to repeat themselves fairly often.  That would be like saying I fall back on putting internal contours in a green.  Perhaps so, but if you simplify it to that degree, how many options are there?

[Andy Troeger]

I'm by no means as experienced with C & C courses as some of you that have seen most of their work, but I have definitely noticed similar green complexes and bunkering schemes from them just in having played four courses (Saguaro, Colorado GC, Warren, Talking Stick North). At the same time, most of the themes on their courses are good ones and I don't have any problem with the repetition. As Kenny mentioned, Jim Engh does the same thing although with very different themes. In both cases, I enjoy seeing how the architect's style works on a different piece of ground. In thinking about the five Doak courses that I have played, I really can't think of any two holes on different courses that I would say were anything near "copies" of each other. There are stylistic similarities of course, but good variety even from course to course so far (Lost Dunes, Charlotte, Apache Stronghold, Ballyneal, Rock Creek).

As someone who likes mountain golf and mountain scenery, Clear Creek looks fantastic. Even though I am more accepting than most others of "mountain goat golf" that goes up and down through difficult terrain, if Clear Creek is an improvement in architecture and walkability over other courses of that type, then that would make it a must-play in my book.

[Brad Swanson]

As someone who likes mountain golf and mountain scenery, Clear Creek looks fantastic. Even though I am more accepting than most others of "mountain goat golf" that goes up and down through difficult terrain, if Clear Creek is an improvement in architecture and walkability over other courses of that type, then that would make it a must-play in my book.

Agreed 100%.  If I happened upon a truckload of $$, I'd pony up for a membership and home.  It looks like a great golf course in a beautiful setting with all of the other great rec activities (hiking/fishing/skiing) I enjoy nearby.

Brad 

[Bill_McBride]

I haven't been to Lake Tahoe to play golf in years, but never saw much up there that really turned me on - too many abrupt slopes, too much cut and fill, too much stony soil - but this is really a cool looking course.  Maybe one of these days......

I wrote a brief report on playing another C&C course a couple of weeks ago, Austin Golf Club.  What I concluded there, and what was reinforced in thinking back to Friars Head, was that it's all about the greens with their courses.  Each of their courses I've played (Barton Creek in Austin TX, Talking Stick North and South, Cuscowilla, Friars Head, Austin) is in a different terrain, in every case you get to the greens a little differently, but in every case, the true challenge of the course is in the design of the greens and surrounding bunkers and slopes.

What I think they do best is to just lay the greens over the natural slopes and not fight the terrain by moving a lot of dirt around.

At Barton Creek there are THIRTEEN front to back sloping greens because that's how the routing turned out.  At Austin, 10 miles away, there were only a couple.  What the C&C greens have in common is the potential for real disasters if your short game is not finely tuned.

That naturalist approach to how the course and greens are laid out is what sets C&C apart in my mind.  The handful of Doak courses I've played have the same attribute.  Most other modern designers seem to force the course on the land because they can with modern earthmoving equipment.  There are exceptions - Longshadow's a good example - but not that many.

[Tim Leahy]

Tom D, it seems like most of the great GCA's are now represented in the Reno/Tahoe area(C&C, Nicklaus, Jones, Fazio,etc) when are we going to see a course from yourself in the area?

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

As I related at the start of this thread, I thought Clear Creek was going to be our chance to build something up there.

All of these new courses are second-home developments and that side of the business is dead.  So I would guess that the answer to your question is, unfortunately, "not in the next five years, minimum." 

[Joel_Stewart]

I've played 5 C&C courses (including Clear Creek) and I guess they are all alike in they are perfectly constructed and fit the ground perfectly.  Nothing is obviously forced.  I'm not sure who is complaining and what they would like to see from C&C?  Waterfalls, island greens, geometric bunkering is not a direction they want to go and I applaud Bill Coore for staying true to his style, vision and away from modern influences.

As for the review, it's generally spot on.  I told Ran that I thought he should add that it is a housing development, just they have elected to not sell lots or build homes until the economy gets better.

[Bill_McBride]

I've played 5 C&C courses (including Clear Creek) and I guess they are all alike in they are perfectly constructed and fit the ground perfectly.  Nothing is obviously forced.  I'm not sure who is complaining and what they would like to see from C&C?  Waterfalls, island greens, geometric bunkering is not a direction they want to go and I applaud Bill Coore for staying true to his style, vision and away from modern influences.

As for the review, it's generally spot on.  I told Ran that I thought he should add that it is a housing development, just they have elected to not sell lots or build homes until the economy gets better.

Given the obviously high quality of the development, there are hopefully very wide setback lines that will keep the houses way back in the woods.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()