The land right of Black Mesa #13

[George Pazin]

I was interested to see that Lou Duran indicated both foursomes he was in at Black Mesa felt the land to the right of #13 appeared to be ideal land for golf. I had the same reaction, as did another member of my morning foursome.

Conversely, another noted member of this site indicated to me that this land looked pretty bland.

In viewing the awe-inspiring photos of Sand Hills, I couldn't help but feel the land right of 13 looked similar. To me, that terrain surrounding #1 and the terrain in the panoramas looked pretty similar.

That same noted member told me that the land at SH is closer to the dramatic terrain the chosen land at BM, not the gentle hills right of 13 (which actually probably aren't all that gentle close up).

From a business standpoint, I certainly understand why the land the current 18 is on was chosen - it is far more dramatic to the eye & more likely to entice people to make the trip. From a golf standpoint, you'd have a hard time convincing me that land right of 13 isn't better suited for golf.

What say the rest of you? Which land is closer in character to what is your ideal golf terrain? Is either area remotely similar to Sand Hills? Help straighten one or both of us out!

[THuckaby2]

I assume I'm the "noted member" who said it looked pretty bland, given we had this off-line conversation, George.  I appreciate the protection of that anonymity, but it's not necessary here.

Because you have to remember that I said that it looked bland RELATIVE TO THE REST OF THE TORTURED LANDSCAPE ON WHICH THE CURRENT HOLES SIT.

Sorry for the caps, but that distinction is important.

That being said, it looked to me like it could house some fantastic golf holes, if created by a great mind like Baxter...

We discussed this in our group as well - Baxter said many things about the land, which he can come on here and repeat if he wishes.  Basically, that land might still some day see golf played upon it...

Which would be fantastic!

In any case, having been to Sand Hills, I'd still say the tortured landscape that BM sits on now is more like Sand Hills than that relatively flat landscape to the right of 13 (as you attribute to me)...

Sand Hills has a lot of elevation change to it - that lanscape to the right of 13 looked pretty darn flat to me.  For example, #1 SH, which looks relatively flat in that pic, actually goes up a LOT to the green... it has to be 30 feet or so (though I'm not good at estimating elevation change).  In any case the pics really flatten things... as great as they look!

TH

ps - bottom line is that BM really isn't similar to Sand Hills that much at all, nor is the land to the right of 13.  Sand Hills is pretty darn unique.  So this is a case where maybe the wrong comparison is made, period... Sand Hills covers my version of "ideal golf terrain" which is maybe why I often refer to it as the greatest course on the planet.  

[George Pazin]

Tom -

I've always felt that anything shared via IM is private unless otherwise noted, so I appreciate your stepping up.

When I say similar to SH, I obviously know that there isn't much land anywhere that is truly similar - I just mean that smaller bumps are more ideal in my mind. I wouldn't describe the land right of 13 as flat under any circumstances, it just isn't as dramatic as the land chosen.

[THuckaby2]

George:

No hassles, I treat things the same way re IMs/emails.

Re this land, well... sure it does have subtle humps and bumps.  But Sand Hills has that and a LOT more...

And in any case, it surely could house some great golf holes, which in the end would likely be a fine addition to what's there presently at BM.  As to which would be "better", well... that's very hard to say, and depends hugely on what one likes in a golf course, and exactly what holes would be created.

TH

[Lou_Duran]

Funny how we can look at the same thing yet see and experience something so different.  The land that I commented on reminded me of Sand Hills with plenty of roll and the needed elevation changes to make the course interesting, yet walkable.  The site reminded my a little more of Desert Forest without the saguaro cacti, and its potential for a more traditional non-Scottsdale desert course (sans water features, sculptured fairways and surrounds, meandering cart paths in man-made valleys designed to hide them).

The BM site gave me the feeling more of mountain golf than a sandy prairie or links land  (I saw very little Sand Hills in BM).  From a WOW factor it is definitely superior, but the scenery to the south and west ain't all that bad either.  I do hope to see Baxter's sensitive-to-the-land approach transform this rocky "remnant" into grounds for golf.  It may make a nice contrast to the rugged BM, and more of a reason to spend a few days in the area.

[A_Clay_Man]

One of the features in that land right of 13 is the ridge of a large riparian. Possibly ancient, but with the possibility of hard rains after long periods of no rain, the potential for disaster exists. Building on the lower parts of that ground maybe more difficult than any of us could know. If it's anything like some of the areas between the gaps at BM, the soft silty sand with that grey color is probably not the greatest foundation for a golf course. I also assume it has tons and tons of adobe clay which can be a rather sticky wicket.

Hopefully BM will be a huge success and the plans for the 2nd 18 will incorporate that exact land, if doable.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Who knows -- maybe the folks at BM will add another 18 in the near future?

I've seen the area you mentioned but I am still unconvinced that the existing land is somehow deficient in anyway. If people feel otherwise that's fine but a bit more details would help me, and I'm sure others, understand. What holes are really that bad or unfair or whatever the word people want to apply?

[George Pazin]

Matt -

I suppose it comes down to personal tastes. I'm not saying that the current holes are necessarily deficient in any way, I'm saying that I prefer a different style of golf course. Hitting from ledges or cliffs to target fairways is not the kind of golf I enjoy. I am fully aware this is a personal preference.

Put a different way - I will be returning to Texas to play the Rawls Course again. I will start lobbying Southwest to add service from Pittsburgh as soon as USAirways goes under/leaves. I don't plan on returning to NM or NV to play golf anytime soon.

When I see the vast rolling sandhills of Nebraska, I think, what a place for a golf course. When I see large mountains in a desert setting, I think, what a place for a nice hike.

[THuckaby2]

George:

That's a great way to sum this up!  We all have our personal preferences.  For example, when I see huge expanses of grass lined by trees, I think what a place for some logging... and a football game!

Thus I tend to play parkland courses once and never come back, unless they are VERY special.

But I like tortured mountainous landscape, and I like the desert as well... so I play a lot in AZ and NV and I'd go back to NM in a heartbeat.  To each his own, without a doubt.

The rolling sand hills of Nebraska were created for golf, btw.  This is where the golf gods live.  

TH

[Matt_Ward]

George / Tom:

I share the sentiment regarding parkland courses -- unless they are very special (i.e. Winged Foot, et al) one round is usually sufficient. I've always enjoyed the wide open spaces when playing a first rate course -- it gives you so much more than a cramped place IMHO.

I don't doubt that the SW portion of the USA can be a bit different than many people woul expect -- particularly for golf. I have always enjoyed the setting -- I guess it's because New Jersey is so bucolic.

P.S. Huck -- the golf gods are in many places -- even Juuuuuuuuuuuursey!!!

[George Pazin]

I agree wholeheartedly with the love of wide open space, but I think the cramped feeling on many parkland courses has more to do with out of control trees than anything endemic to the nature of parkland style golf.

I also think that the vistas of mountain & desert golf are wide open, but that doesn't always mean the courses are! Although, there aren't many golf courses that can contain my sorry game. Lots of work to do for yours truly.

[Brad Swanson]

Hitting from ledges or cliffs to target fairways is not the kind of golf I enjoy.

George,
   Is this due to you taste in golf, or due to your dislike of cliffs and ledges (remembering the tips on 16 at BM)?

Cheers,
Brad

[George Pazin]

Sure, pick on a guys fears, that's fair....

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

Oh yes, thankfully the golf gods have many homes.  One is out here as well....

 

TH

[JohnV]

I prefer golf courses that are core type courses where I can see most of the holes rather than a course where I am moving from one area to another to play each hole.  For that reason I felt more comfortable at Pinon Hills than I did at any of the other courses we saw last week.

[THuckaby2]

Very interesting, JV.  You and I are exactly opposite on this:  I prefer courses where each hole is isolated and I CAN'T see the rest of the course!  Of course this isn't a universal, and there can be good and bad in each variety for me, but in general I do go just the opposite of you.

It must have to do with height.  

TH

[JohnV]

Tom, one of the other rules officials on the Futures Tour felt the same way you do.  He was wrong and so are you.  

[THuckaby2]

JV:

 

I am wrong about so many things, well... just add this to the list.

But of course as a great man here once said, all of this is just my opinion.  It should be yours.

 

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Matt- I recall some of your tee box location ideas about "The Hideout" and Mike Nuzzo pointed out one of your suggestions for Black Mesa. They both, as I recall, involved hieght or better put, severely elevated.

Is this "your" preference and since it apparently is, do you think it's what "everybody" should prefer? or just how you will design your course, someday?

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

First off -- I really enjoyed The Hideout but there was zero -- zilch turf on a number of the greens when I played there earlier this year. I truly pray that issues of this type will be recitifed and given the folks involved there I believe they will.

Regarding tee locations -- I'm a firm believer that many courses can add tee locations much cheaper than moving green sites. In the courses mentioned -- The Hideout and Black Mesa, there are additional locations one can place if need be.

I enjoy the elevated tee when it FITS into the scheme of things and isn't created to look like the Empire tate Building and looking so completely out of place. On the flip side -- how neat is the back tee placement for the 16th hole at BM!!!

When I mentioned a few additional locations they were meant to add an additional angle / yardarge to certain holes. Having that type of elasticity, I believe, is something that can come in handy when needed.

Adam -- I can't speak for "everyone" -- and neither can they for me. It's just something that can be a part of the design when it fits the natural elements of that particular property. Pinon Hills has a few that work quite well -- the "real" 10th hole is a very good one that is now the starting hole.

There are other times when a tee location needs to simply be in the right position to afford a few different angles when playing the hole. Sometimes, IMHO, when they are flush to the ground it can be just as noteworthy as when it's placed on a hillside or higher.

[A_Clay_Man]

I find an uphill climb, to a tee box, after palying a downhill hole to be disrespectful to the walkers and likely unnecessary. If providing beautiful vistas is one's motivation, than I think they are pandering to the wrong crowd. I'd be interested in seeing actual $ numbers on the different styles of modfern courses. I bet they would reflect that the nature of designing for the fickle masses is a waste of time and $. Now, if they could simutaneously be designed, for seriously less bling while providing the framing and photographic excellence some strive for, I'd say "more power to 'em". But, if the numbers do show that these modern hyped gems are becoming nothing but tax write offs, I think they have hurt those masses in their education of gca and leads to the wrong expectations of what a good or great course should be.