Thanks guys, for your perspective. I was feeling pretty low-down about my reaction to a really nice course. The course was very memorable. I found myself constantly staring at the landscaping in the “native” areas. As for the golf, that too was visually attractive and well presented. We played the blue tees at about 6700 yards. It wasn’t difficult, except it was long for me. Lush Palm Springs golf—no roll, an aerial game. Lots of long approach shots into the 4’s. Didn’t lose a ball and scored reasonably for a rusty snowbird. We had fun. I’m an average golfer and I could easily see why an average golfer would see this place as golf heaven.
I have nothing against this kind of resort golf. I love it just like every other golfer seeking to escape the winter up north. I guess what bothered me more than anything was that the city (Palm Desert) must have spent something like 50 to 60 million creating this place, millions a year to maintain it, and, spectacular as it is, the actual golf course was so “above average.” As Tom D. said, “blends” into the memory banks as another big, fancy Palm Springs course. That’s not to say it’s bad. It’s not. Quite good, in fact, and probably one of the better public offerings in the Coachella Valley in my limited experience. It’s just that for such a vast investment, shouldn’t the golf be great?
To be more precise, I thought of the experience as an example of how golf in America has lost its way. So much presentation, so little substance. Sustainable? I don’t know. If your tax base and your tourists are rich enough, anything is sustainable. Enjoyable? Sure, a big, brawny, golf course that tests all golfers’ games and pumps up their egos if they are hitting it well. A work of art? Yes, landscape architecture. Is it a great golf course? No, it is product for an affluent clientele.
Some folks here have implied that my reaction was perhaps a product of country bumpkin wondering into the glitter of Hollywood and SoCal. Thank you, that is exactly the voice I wished to convey. It’s just golf, so what is all this other stuff so lavishly on display? Is this important to people as reward for a life well lived? Is this a course I want to travel to, in a perfect winter climate, and enjoy a pleasant round or two? I’m genuinely interested in these questions and answers and want to examine them on a pretty simple level. The country bumpkin or shepherd is exactly who invented this game and, in whatever permutations have evolved in the centuries since, still has a modest foothold in its attraction to us all. I believe that most golfers undervalue the very simple, basic appeal of spending a few hours wandering around a natural environment with their like-minded pals.
Now, not too many folks are going to wander around with their pals in the Mojave (Sonoran?) Desert for four hours. So what do we have to do spruce up that environment to take advantage of its blessings, mitigate its discomforts, and make it appealing? Maybe that is the essence of Palm Springs: an unnatural oasis plopped down in the middle of a harsh, brutally beautiful landscape sitting atop a huge underground aquifer. Got the dough? Make it bloom. God bless America.
In the most general way possible this thread is about architecture. Is all of this fancy shit more important than the architecture?
A few other responses. First, thank you all again. If you want to ask real golfers a question, there is no better place.
Mark, sadly, I agree. Most golfers think conditioning is architecture. For me, architecture is about what happens when the ball hits the turf. For most golfers, that is root of most complaints. This course, however, was not a 140+ slope. Rather the opposite: scooped out, concave bowling lanes with beautiful bumpers on the sides, and gobs of bunkers that looked cool but didn’t seem to make any sense as to their purpose.
Tiger, I agree with you too. The service and facility were superb, a beautiful clubhouse. Why not spend some of that money on the golf and scale back these amenities just a bit? This was no County Down.
Brian, yes.
Kalen, the comparison to Couer D’Alene is apt. Haven’t played up there, but I live in Idaho and appreciate this great state as much as anyone. If I headed up there for golf, I’d probably want to play Gozzer or Circling Raven first (if I could get on). I’ll sure give you a call, if I do. You’re invited here as well. The difference is that Desert Willow is a muni, built with massive public funds. I guess my disappointment was that the golf should have been the public work of art and the other stuff the accessories.
Garland, you’re right, I’m a hick. Also a hack. I’ve got some other baggage as well, some of it pretty highfalutin. I’m not opposed to opulence per se. I don’t have much use for it, but it’s fine with me for those folks that enjoy it. I just don’t think it has much to do with golf. Funny, I was thinking of Melvyn when I wrote the initial post. I almost said something like “Melvyn, don’t jump in here, this is for other folks.” Especially that bit about driving around in GPS carts. Yikes, he’d break out in hives at that joint.
Joe, you are damn close. We are a 7 iron away, just across the river in the same glorious canyon. Canyon Springs is the name. Good fun can be had here, too. Some would say more, and at a lower price.