Wolf Creek Inspired Question/Discussion

[Blair Mancini]

I had the unique opportunity the other day while taking a weekend trip to Las Vegas to head up to Mesquite, NV and play Wolf Creek.  It was one of the most visually pleasing courses I can remember playing, with almost every tee shot giving the golfer a dramatic panorama of the entire course.  And while there were several unnatural additions to the course (mini waterfalls and ponds), I have to give it credit for being a good course that made me think about certain routes off the tee on every hole.  This course is for sure a driving course.  With drastic elevation changes from Tee to fairway, even the slightest mishit is exacerbated by the fact that it also has to travel 60, 70, even 100 ft downhill.

Hold that for a minute...

A month ago, I traveled to Boston where I met a friend who belonged to Vesper Country Club in Tyngsboro, MA.  It's a Donald Ross course dating back to the late 1800s that has recently been restored to its original Ross design after a few unfortunate tinkerings earlier in the club's history.  Unlike Wolf Creek, this course required accuracy around the greens and on approach shots (as most Ross courses are known for).  I didn't make one birdie on this course, and really only had two or three chances to do so.

I found the latter, Vesper, to be a much more interesting course, as it seemed like strategy had a role all the way through to the green (then again, Ross was great at this).  For the most part at Wolf Creek I thought the tee shot required strategy, but after that the approaches were relatively straightforward, and the green complexes were not difficult, save for the very errant shot that I hit about 2 or 3 times a round.

I wondered what all of your opinions would be regarding a course that you'd rather play: one that puts a premium on accurate driving, or one where the trouble around the greens determines the strategy.  The answer can't be both, or a mixture of the two (obviously that is the answer, but if you had to choose one or the other...) 

Anyway, long time listener, first time caller...hope you all are doing well

[Andy Troeger]

Blair,
I actually thought Wolf Creek was reasonable off the tee as long as you could deal with the forced carries. I'm guessing you went to the back tees, which would make it much more difficult. From 6300 yards, I only hit driver a couple times and then played pretty well. I think the course is great fun once in awhile, but I wouldn't want a steady diet of it. The wind probably adds another level of difficulty when present.

In any case, without question I'd prefer a course that determines strategy around the greens. I think courses should benefit good drivers of the ball, but that can be done strategically as well.

[Adam Clayman]

Blair, Some clarification please?

In describing WC, you say the tee shot had strategy, but then, because of the greens, there was no great aspect to the approach. In the past, what you appear to be describing has been affectionately known as anti-strategy. In other words the tee shot placement mattered little, strategically, because the greens were accessible no matter where you drove the ball (within reason). Is that accurate and or did I miss your meaning? And if that is the case, how was the tee shot strategic, if the green was receptive from all manner of angle and distance?

Personally I found WC to be a slog of uninspired golf. Sure, for the novice, or adrenaline seeker, all those vista tees looking out over the stark desert landscape, is unique. But, in the final analysis there's no thoughtful design there. Just shock and awe golf that feeds the machismo and egos of the way layers.

[Anthony Fowler]

Hi Blair, welcome to the site.

I haven't played either course, so I cannot comment on each one specifically.  However, I would always choose strategy/challenge/excitement on and approaching the greens over strategy/challenge/excitement off the tee.  Here are a couple reasons:

1) You will only hit 14 tee shots per round, while the greens are relevant for almost every shot (with the possible exception of tee shots on par 5's).  If you're a par golfer that comes down to 68 shots where the green is part of your thought process and only 14 tee shots.  If an architect could spend more time improving the greens vs. the tee shots, he will get more bang for his buck by working on the greens/green surrounds.

2) Exciting greens are more egalitarian than exciting tee shots.  Only the top 1% of golfers can appreciate a challenging/strategic drive while everyone can enjoy and appreciate a great green.  My fiancee, Gloria, who has never played a full round and only hits it 150 still appreciates a fun chip or putt.

From your simple descriptions of the two courses, I would choose to play Vesper 8 out of 10 times, and I'm sure that Gloria would play Vesper 10 out of 10 times. 



Can you provide some specific example of strategy on/around/approaching the greens at Vesper? 

[Matt_Ward]

Blair:

Wolf Creek, unlike the predictable diss from Adam, is quite fun to play. I lean more towards what Andy said -- for many a steady diet would be demanding. Keep in mind the green contours were kept soft because it's not unheard of form winds whipping through the property at say 30-40 mph.

Much of the feelings tied to Wolf Creek is related to the tees one plays. There are forced carries but it's the psychological demands that prey upon the player that be quite intimidating. Unfortunately, there are people who gush about Shadow Creek -- which is wonderfully conditioned but falls woefully short of the range of shot demands you get at Wolf Creek.

Let me point out that I do take issue with you that approach angles do not matter at WC. Please give me a specific hole where you feel that's the case. Happy to discuss with you.

[Scott Warren]

I never knew you had strong feelings about Wolf Creek, Matt.

[Matt_Ward]

Scott:

Thanks -- love the thoughts !

By the way have you played Wolf Creek -- your comments ?

[Scott Warren]

I haven't, mate. Never been to the US. Though a good mate of mine played it last summer, made an ace and rang me that night drunk in a Vegas bar saying something about "the greatest place I have ever played". On the basis of that enthusiasm, who am I to argue?

Anyhow, I'll stop threadjacking now...

[Matt_Ward]

Scott:

Wolf Creek is not classic type golf -- the kind that many gush about on this site. I've often said that people who prefer standard meat and potato golf will not like Wolf Creek. Wolf Creek is like solid spicey Thai food -- if one has a hunkering for something different and one that has a range of modern quirk then Wolf Creek will not disappoint. It also helps to have a place like Vegas only a short 70 miles away.

[Blair Mancini]

Matt,

You're right, I think I overstated the approach shots.  What I meant was - In comparison to the tee shot, where the elevation and frequent narrowness of the fairways puts a premium on not messing up the drive, the approach shots aren't all that demanding.  In fact, the only one where I really remember being challenged to put the ball in a good spot was number 17 (where I did not put the ball in a good spot, and ended up with a 7).  Consequently, I thought that was one of the better holes on the course although I loved the straight uphill par-3 on the front nine.

[Matt_Ward]

Blair:

It would help to know what tee boxes you played.

Wolf Creek is a far different kettle of fish from the tips. Good example being the 8th hole -- played from the middle tees it's just 150 yards downhill to a visible target. Played from the tips you are looking at 225+ yards with no visible target and often into a fairly healthy prevailing southwest wind.

Let me also point out that Wolf Creek doesn't speed up the greens for normal play so the element of getting to the right position is not as keenly imagined if the greens were at 10-11+ speeds.

When the greens are really moving it then pays huge dividends to place your ball where you avoid downhill or sidehill putts.

In regards to the tee shot dimensions - getting through those many choke points is not easy and often times the further back you layback the more demanding the shot becomes in terms of lofting it all the way to the hole.

Let me point out that the par-3 15th is very short -- however -- when the pin is cut all the way to the rear left -- few people -- VERY few people will challenge the hole position -- why ?  Usually you are back into the wind and the slightest pull left is certain doom. Push to far right and with a speed green it's more than likely a quick four (4) on the card.

WC is about psychological intimidation from the tee -- get some healthy wind blowing and anyone who happens to play military golf (left/right/left) will be in for a long day -- even if the approaches are a tad easier as you mentioned.

[Blair Mancini]

Matt,

That's a perfect way to describe it: psychological intimidation from the tee.  I did play from the tips (shot even on the front, then 46 on the back...solid number).  Also noticed that the greens were fairly manageable at the speed I played it.

Interesting you point out a few par threes.  Both of which were my second and third favorite holes on the course behind 17.  I really liked number 8, despite the fact that it was a blind 225 into the wind and you really needed to pray that a missed green didn't result in a penalty due to water.  I found myself hitting a straight hybrid over the blind spot and ended up in a swale of rough.

The pin on #15 was up, right in front, but by then the wind was kicking up pretty well and I put it just short.  That's such a fun shot.  Both holes I thought were really interesting.

It seems that Wolf Creek gets people with blindness as well.  Almost every tough hole had a blind tee shot.  It made the yardage booklet a very necessary purchase.

I really appreciate the insight.

[Matt_Ward]

Blair:

The issue for some here on GCA about Wolf Creek usually ties to the fact that the course requires carts and the paths are akin to an Indiana Jones adventure.

There are few holes that are in need of serious overhaul in my mind -- the uphill par-3 3rd is one of them. The extreme back tee makes little sense given the carry you need to make in order to get to the green -- fortunately, the hole is usually downwind but one should not have a hole with that massive an elevation change -- UP !!!

Blair, if the greens at WC were at the speed as you find at Shadow Creek the demands would be even greater. WC is about controlling the trajectory of one's shots -- the up and down nature of the terrain puts plenty of pressure on being able to constantly adjust.

The short par-3 15th appears e-z on the card if one simply looks at the posted yardage. However, as you correctly surmised, the heavy prevailing wind makes the hole a tough one -- especially with a rear pin placement. Having the hole serve as a transition between the demanding par-4 14th and the nicely done par-4 16th is also well done. The hole sits high on a crest and any wind will have an impact.

Place Wolf Creek in the UK or along an ocean with gorse instead of desert scrub and the comments would likely be different.

The other hole that leaves me scratching my head is the closer. I'd like to see it play to a max of 300 yards and allow a bold play to come on or near the green. The waterfall to the left is also out-of-place. A better closing hole would seal the deal from a fun time there.