Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: cary lichtenstein on June 30, 2005, 09:31:16 AM
-
I have played the vast majority of top courses in the world, and I am ready to declare that:
Lakota Canyon is among them
This is one thrilling golf course, and after playing it 3 times, it just keeps getting better, as I learn more and more of its nuiances.
Visually, the course is spectular. I have tried to separate the beauty from the shotmaking, and I still come to the same conclusion.
Anyone interested in playing it with me, I'll be here in Colorado for 8 more weeks, send me an instant message.
Lakota Canyon is located about 10 miles west of Glenwood Springs, about and hour from Vail, and an hour from Aspen, and about 3 hours from Denver.
-
Cary - I trust your opinions quite implicitly. You do get around, and you do know your stuff.
But to help me out here, put it in context... Give me a top 10, with Lakota in it.
Top 10 in the world is such a HUGE statement, well... I want to see if you can really make it work, that is, what course it displaces, etc.
TH
ps - if I don't see Sand Hills in that list, well... it becomes nothing more than a curiousity, one man's opinion. ;)
-
Tom:
Let's take Sand Hills as a great example. If you put Sand Hills in the top 10, and I believe it firmly is, then based on the type of course Sand Hills is, a sand based, links course, then Lakota Canyon is a top 10 based on its category, which is a mountain/canyon course.
When I make this kind of statement, I am using my own critera for saying this. I leave out tradition, ambiance, walking, and I judge it based on pure golf architecture and shotmaking.
-
Bill:
I'm firmly in touch with my full mental faculties ;D ;D ;D ;D
Anybody want to play marbles?
-
Cary:
"Pure golf architecture and shotmaking"? Seems to me that encompasses all of those other criteria you seem to discount, depending on how one looks at things. And just where did you get those criteria, and why would you state that in a post to me, particularly? ;) But since you seem to want to go down this road, well...it's curious to me why you'd say this:
"Visually, the course is spectular. I have tried to separate the beauty from the shotmaking, and I still come to the same conclusion."
Interesting. So if it's all about shotmaking and architecture, why mention that it's visually spectacular? Seems to me in your world this or any course would be just as great sitting next to a toxic waste dump....
Oh well, this wasn't meant to be argumentative. As I said, I do value and respect your opinions. Just do give me a world Top 10, if you like, so I can see the context into which Lakota falls. Remember, I don't doubt its greatness - I'd love to see it some day. That's just such a tall statement, it will be very interesting to me to see how you feel it compares.
I'll help you out. Here's my world top 10, just off the top of my head:
1. Sand Hills
2. Cypress Point
3. NGLA
4. The Old Course
5. Pine Valley
6. Shinnecock Hills
7. Pebble Beach
8. Royal Dornoch
9. Augusta National
10. Ballybunion Old
See what I mean? Putting Lakota Canyon in amongst those, or among the many other courses one might consider Top 10 (ie Merion, Oakmont, County Down, Pinehurst #2, Portrush Dunluce, Royal Melbourne, Muirfield, etc.)... well.. it just seems like a very tall statement.
I assume you meant it that way. I just want some further confirmation, that's all.
TH
-
Cary:
Very well. And you'll notice I didn't put Pinehurst #2 in the top 10 either. I just mentioned it as a course that others might - it is quite well-respected. I'm with you way more than you might think about how all of this should go....
So are you gonna give me a top 10 or not? Come on man, it's not that hard...
;D
-
Tom:
I have not played Oakmont, Pacific Dunes, or Kinlock, so I cannot include those. I do not include TPC at Sawgrass because it is just too hard.
In no particluar order:
Lakota Canyon
Pine Valley
Cypress Point
Augusta
Pebble
National
Fishers
Sand Hills
Whistling Straits
Old Course
Ballybunion
Royal County Down
Royal Dornock
Friar's Head
My 2nd tier:
Bethpage Black
Shinnecock Hills
Crystal Downs
Olympic
Merion
Bandon Dunes
Sage Valley
-
Well I haven't played Augusta or Pine Valley, but I think I feel safe including them.
And I note you didn't place Lakota anywhere. So the idea is it fits in with all of these?
Well that's a lesser statement than saying it's a world Top 10, now isn't it?
Come on man, rank them like I did, insert Lakota. Hell all I'm gonna say is "neat, it must be one hell of a course."
I'm just learning from the great Pat Mucci that at times, statements need to be backed up.
;) ;D
-
I only glanced at the pictures on the website, but it appears to me every hole but one plays downhill.
Is that true Cary?
If so - that's not a whole lot of variety
looks fun though.
-
Very cool. Heck, your listing of Black Rock is controversial enough, in this crowd anyway. Well done.
I look forward to the list.
;D
-
Cabell:
Every hole does not play downhill.
The 3rd plays downhill on the tee shot, uphill on the 2nd, and way uphill on the 3rd. Great hole.
10 also plays down hill and then uphill.
18 plays downhill and then finishes off uphill.
Cary
-
In addition to the holes Cary mentioned, the following three are not downhill.
Par 4 #14 Actually plays uphill from the back tee box. In fact, from that tee box most of the fairway is not visible.
Par 3 #15 plays flat across a pond.
Par 4 #16 plays relativley flat crossing the hazard twice.
While Lakota is very good and by far Jim Engh's best, I think I would have a very difficult time displacing any of the world's top ten courses for Lakota.
-
While Lakota is very good and by far Jim Engh's best, I think I would have a very difficult time displacing any of the world's top ten courses for Lakota.
That's more what I would expect, and is why I am giving poor Cary the third degree.
However, Sand Hills has done this (by some takes, anyway)... so it's not like a new course CAN'T make this happen.... I surely remain open to the possibility.
TH
-
Tom:
Very cute "Thanks more of what I expect"
Why? Come see and play the course and compare for yourself.
Just choicing the comment that fits what you would expect, does not make Matt's comment more valid than mine.
Cary
-
Cary
The photos on the website show significant containment and convex features that would keep errant shots in play. Is this the case?
Lakota Canyon looks to be interesting and worth a play but I would not have expected that bold a statement from you. By comparison what other new courses besides Friars Head (which is on your list) would compare favorably
Ocean Course
Kinloch
TPC Sawgrass
Rustic Canyon
Wild Horse
Victoria National
World Woods Pine Barrons
Pac Dunes (I see you have not played it but I didn't want to leave it off)
Thanks
-
While I am a hige fan of Lakota Canyon Ranch I will not go so far as to say (no disrespect Cary) that it makes my personal top ten in the USA.
However, I will say this -- Lakota would make my top 100 and I would certainly include it with the likes of Black Mesa and Red Sky Ranch (Norman) as three (3) superb mountain time courses worthy of attention for the totality of their architectural dimensions and the sheer majesty of the sites they each occupy.
Lakota Canyon Ranch also plays firm and fast as any course you could ever hope to play in America.
One last thing -- for all those blowhards (you know who you are) who continually keep on barking about mountain time golf being some sort of diversion or inferior product it's time for you to play the courses in question and end the incessant pissing and moaning contest.
One further thing on Lakota -- the following holes play uphill to some degree -- the 4th (superbn driving hole from the tips), 7th, 14th, 16th and 18th (on 2nd and 3rd shots).
The one key ingredient with Lakota is the pur fun and scenery to the mx when playing. Utterly enjoyable for all types of players and one of the best affordable you can play.
-
"Lakota Canyon was in our opinion, better than Redlands Mesa, and second only to Sanctuary in the state."
Quassi, September 4, 2004
Cary,
What happen to Sanctuary since last September? ;)
-
Tom:
Very cute "Thanks more of what I expect"
Why? Come see and play the course and compare for yourself.
Just choicing the comment that fits what you would expect, does not make Matt's comment more valid than mine.
Cary
Cary: There's nothing personal here whatsoever. And where did I ever compare validity of the statements? It's just that "top 10 in the world" is SUCH a huge, enormous, Paul Bunyan-tall statement, that it is quite unexpected from anyone. Great but not making a top 10 in the world is much more to be expected, no?
Because the world only has ten top 10 courses. Displacing one is rather huge.
;)
I hope to see it some day. As I'm now saying for the third time, I very much admire and respect your opinions. Notice I don't at all question the greatness of the course - if you (and Matt W.) say it's great, that's good enough for me and I have no reason to doubt it.
Top 10 in the world? That's another story.
You could very well be correct. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of why that might be so.
TH
-
Cary, Is Lakota walkable?
-
My bold statement:
Everybody's got one course in their top ten that doesn't really belong, and which they really know doesn't belong. (At least one frequent poster here has about five of them, but he doesn't know it.)
Cary is a Jim Engh-o-phile so it's not surprising he's picked Lakota Canyon, the latest and greatest for the time being.
But he hasn't said anything so far which would convince me that it belongs.
Would ANY hole at Lakota Canyon beat any hole at Pine Valley or Cypress Point in a match play? Are there no holes at all which fail to impress? Unless the answers to these questions are a resounding yes, then it's not worth arguing the point.
-
Tom D:
How bout you hold off with the "Jim Engh-o-phile comments" since there are people here on GCA who are Tom Doak-o-phile people, Crenshaw & Coore-o-phile and etc, etc, etc.
Does anyone make those type of comments in regards to such people with such preferences?
Let me mention you were the guy who had a big time question on the 18th at Lakota based on nothing more than a picture and made a disparaging comment on the nature of the hole / strategic implications on the nature of the 2nd / 3rd shot options without ever having played it.
Might it be possible that others in the design universe have a sense on what makes for a good hole / course?
GCA has become the launching pad for a certain style of golf course and the designers who specialize in producing them. I say hats off to them but I ugre those same people to remember there are other very skilled and equally talented people who inhabit the golf universe too.
Let me mention that I am not suggesting Lakota Canyon Ranch is a top 10 in the USA for me. I have played my share of outstanding courses but I will say this -- I have no hesitation or reservation in throwing the course into my personal top 100. I also believe the likes of Black Mesa (Baxter Spann) and Red Sky Ranch's Norman Course (Greg Norman) are no less highly intoxicating designs that clearly demonstrate for me how quality modern designs are clearly coming forward and they are coming forward beyond the limited and narrow range of architects that too few here on GCA seem to prefer.
Bill:
Take a chill partner -- you need to get out and play more golf. ;D
Adam:
Carts are mandatory at Lakota Canyon Ranch but if play had to institute a walking only procedure in the event of a special event it could be done.
-
Is the goal to take Lakota private eventually? Looks like a nice place, hope to get out there the two weeks I am in Denver around the International.
-
Tom:
I think your comment is way out of line. Have you seen or played Lakota? Have you built a mountain course that compares to anything Jim Engh has done? If so, give me the name and I will surely play it and comment on it fairly.
In the meantime, since I understand you are building Ballyneal, which I hear is coming also nicely, you're here in Colo, meet me at Lakota, let's play together, and you can disect each and every hole. I'd be happy to learn from you.
Geoffrey:
There is significant containment and there needs to be that containment, and it is not walkable except for a Billygoat.
Others:
It's all about what turns me on. What are the best holes are Pebble Beach and Cypress? #8 at Pebble because it combines beauty and shotmaking. At Cypress, #16 becasue it combines beauty and shotmaking. At Spyglass, it's the first 6 holes, all for the same reasons.
Take Muirfield in Scotland for example, besides being treated badly when we were there, no caddy would carry my wifes bag, the sign said no dogs or women allowed, we were bored to death with the course. Was it hard, yes...so was Carnousie, which was bleak, cold, and nasty.
Are they good British Open courses, absolutely because they test the best golfer, do they belong in the top 10 or 20, I don't think so, they are no fun, just punishing. Ditto with Pinehurst #2, which I think Donald Ross would be turning over in his grave if he saw how they bastardized his course.
Pine Valley has it all, so does Augusta.
-
To answer a few questions:
Geoffrey:
Other new courses:
I have not played Kinlock, Rustic Canyon or Wild Horse. The other you mentioned I have played:
Ocean Course: excellent but not as thrilling as Whistling Straits
TPC Sawgrass: A masterpiece by Pete Dye but just too hard
World Woods Pine Barrens: The 2nd time I played it was in such poor condition, asd it is not in Pine Valley's class
Tom:
Lakota has some weak holes on the back nine, just as Friars Head has some weak holes in the potato batch, just a Pebble's 1,2,3 are really weak holes, just as Cypress has some weak holes, but that did not keep me from including those.
I don't play the match play game to prove one course is better or worse than the other, I look at the whole and the sum of the parts, the total experience as my criteria.
-
Lakota has some weak holes on the back nine, just as Friars Head has some weak holes in the potato batch, just a Pebble's 1,2,3 are really weak holes, just as Cypress has some weak holes, but that did not keep me from including those.
Cary,
If you won't compare the best holes at Lakota to the worst at Pine Valley, please compare the worst (or best) at Lakota to the worst at Friar's or Cypress.
Just because each course has worst holes, doesn't make them comparable.
Thanks
Mike
-
"Dog pile on the Rabbit!...
Dog pile on the Rabbit!"
*A Hare Grows in Manhatten
Buggs Bunny - 1947
-
You know for all you guys bitching and moaning I offer the following -- how bout you get your fat butts off the couch and see what Cary and I are talking about through a firsthand experience.
I'll say this again -- I'm not suggesting it's a top ten layout as my esteemed friend is suggesting. I do insist that it provides a wealth of fun and excitement that few new courses rarely introduce and give to you the player time after time after time.
Part of the problem I have is that the narrow-minded cognoscente only favor one style of course here on GCA -- heaven forbid -- an equally talented and gifted architect provides his own unique vision on what golf design should entail.
Plenty of people here on GCA have NEVER played a Jim Engh course -- these same folks then lob some vague verbal dart about what his courses are like simply through their keen sense of aerials and the likes.
Lakota Canyon Ranch is a fun place to play golf an done that should be seen / played by those here on GCA.
Guess what?
You may actually find what has been said is on target -- although I still hold that it's not top ten in the USA in my book with no disrespect meant for Cary.
-
I think it's great that Cary is so enthusiastically in love with the course he's playing. As the song says, "love the one you're with".
And since Matt acknowledges that Cary is off his rocker, calling it a top ten in da' world, and Cary says; Geoffrey:
There is significant containment and there needs to be that containment, and it is not walkable except for a Billygoat.
How could a top ten have either?
Matt, When you say Lakota Canyon Ranch is a fun place to play golf
Is that similar to the "fun" one has at Wolf Creek?
-
Do we have any pics of Lakota? I probably missed that thread, I have been away alot lately.
Just finished a great 2 week business trip/golf junket (10 days, 10 states, 3100 miles on the Honda, 4 business meetings, and 15 golf courses) that included some remote travel including True North and Greywalls @ Marquette GC. I will post some pics when I get some time.
Man I need to rest.
-
Adam:
Lakota is similiar to Wolf Creek in Nevada, Black Mesa and Paa Ko Ridge in New Mexico.
All are worth playing. Here is my skinny on how they compare:
Wolf Creek was a one time play for Bette and I. A little too shoe horned, with cart paths (just way too steep) that scared us to death. We both liked the course, would highly recommend everyone to play it.
Black Mesa is a better course than Wolf Creek. More natural. Still needs a little more work, some containment as balls can run off into the unknown. Bette and I played it twice and liked it better the 2nd time as we got to know where to hit it. We both liked the course, and would ighly recommend it to everyone.
Paa Ko Ridge is another course in this category which we liked better than Black Mesa and is also in New Mexico.
Lakota is the crown jewel of the 4.
-
Cary:
Just HOW was my post "way out of line"?
I didn't claim to have built any mountain courses better than Jim Engh has ... of course I wouldn't, since I haven't built any mountain courses to date.
Nor have I ever claimed to have built one of the top ten golf courses in the world, or America, or whatever the title of your post implied. Maybe in twenty years somebody will say one of my courses belongs there, and it will be taken seriously, but saying that about a new course is just overhype in my opinion. A course has to prove it belongs in that rarefied air ... and, sorry, but proving it means convincing more than two GCA posters.
Did you object to being labeled a Jim Engh-o-phile? You've praised many of his courses on here, and your reply to my post seemed to confirm that you are a big fan of his work. I didn't mean to say it disqualifies you from commenting on his newest course, but to place a course in the top ten, I don't think the site's biggest fan of someone's work is really the person to convince us.
Since I asked my question, the only thing you've said in defense of the course is that it has more containment than Black Mesa [which your defender Matt rates higher than Lakota]. I'm just trying to get you to say something about the course which piques my interest enough to actually take a day of my time away from Ballyneal to take you up on a round of golf.
Telling me why it is different and superior to the other Jim Engh courses I've seen (Redlands Mesa, Black Rock, or True North) would be a good start.
-
Tom:
Fair enough, let me see if I can explain why it is different and so good.
First, none of the other Jim Engh courses are built within canyon walls. These canyon walls have a natural flow to them that Engh's routing has utilitized.
Some dogleg left, some dogleg right, some go up, and some go down and some do all 3. For example, the 4th hole is off an elevated tee maybe 150 feet high, if you hit your drive into a slight fade, you have 2 choices, a 258 yard uphill shot over brush and trees, or lay up a 4 iron to the correct part of an uphill landing area and your third shot is way up hill, perhaps 70 feet to the green.
If you're long, you're faced with a very delicate chip shot into a green that runs away from you.
Hole #3 requires you to walk thru a winding path uphill to the tee, that takes you thru the natural terrain, to a green maybe 130 feet below. There are 3 distinst greens within the one green, really a horseshoe around a lake in the center. The back tee is 170 yards, which I used a 9 iron (my sea level 9 is 135 yds), besides the tee shot being spectular, the green is awesome. The putting is a major challenge,, with the green sweeping around the horseshoe, with the most elevated portion at the top of the horseshoe.
#16 is a downhill tee shot, 418 yards with a severe dogleg right into a green bordered by a serpentine elongated bunker and ravines on 3 sides. The stragety is to hit as big a drive as you can on the right side, avoiding the ravine, to leave yourself as short a short into the green, again avoiding the ravines and bunker.
#18 must be played twice to fully understand it, unless you study it from above, and then can carry what you see backwards to the tee. You have seen the pictures and commented on it already, remember, I play with my wife, so I see the hole from her perspective too. She has to play the optional fairway to the right on the 2nd shot as she cannot carry the green directly.
I, on the other hand, if I hit a great drive, can go for the elevated green in 2, all Engh shows is the top of the flag stick if you look carefully. If you bail out left to avoid the ravines, there is a single bunker to a terrifying downhill green, that you must hit correctly or go out sideways.
#17 is an extreme drop shot par 3 into an usually shapped green with a back pin placement that extraordinarlly challenging.
#5 is a par 5 shaped like a boomerrang, this 630 yarder requires a high tee ball along the right ride to get the big left bounce of maybe 35 to 50 yards which puts the green into play onthe 2nd shot. A great risk reward hole. The boomerrang goes downhill the whole way, thus being able to reach a 630 in 2 for a guy like me who hits it only average distance.
#8 requires a walk uphill of 100 stairs, to an elevated tee, with 3 or 4 moon shaped fairway bunkers. The stragety is to hit a hit 3 wood to the right side of the fairway, catch the containment and avoid the bunkering. The 2nd shot is hit into a peninsula 2 level green.
I'm getting tired typing.
Tom.
You could learn alot by seeing and playing what Engh has done. 1st, how far does a ball fly from various elevations, how go create flat landing areas, the importance of containment on these type of courses, otherwise they are not playable.
Engh's greens are a whole other game, just not the usual 2 putts.You did a lot of that very well in Indiana at the Lost Dunes course.
Engh's routing is superb if you can accept that this is a cart course. If you can't, then there would be significant uphill walks, which would not be bad in any respect, but there would be alot of blind shots.
If you play with me and my wife and perhaps bring a 4th with you, you will get to see the course from 4 different perspectives. Bring a box of balls, because if you hit an errant tee ball that does not catch the containment, you need to retee.
Engh hides greens on some holes, confuses you as to whether the green is uphill or downhill on others. Other holes of significance are 1,2,7,9,11,12 and 16.
When you are done playing, you are left with the impression that you have just played a course on one of the greatest sites in the world. There is sooooo much drama, that you want to go back to the first tee and see what you missed.
Perhaps it is more than the normal brain I have to take in, and you having more vision, can analyze more rationally. Riding around on the cart paths and not playing it, does not do it. You can see the terrain, but you have to experience the difficulty of your missed shots that hang up in the side hill containment grass...these are tough puppies to hit.
-
Cary,
Let me first say that I think your opinions on golf course architecture are important on this board. While your preferences may fall into the minority on this board, I believe your tastes are in line with the majority of the golfing public, and I have the utmost respect for your ability to speak your mind.
With that said, your last post has done nothing to make me believe Lakota Canyon is a top 10 golf course – even in the US…even just daily fee.
I work in construction, and in my business we have a term for when a landscape architect goes over the top… it’s called an FTP (The ‘T’ and ‘P’ stand for Theme Park… you can guess what the ‘F’ stands for)
….and from your description, I’d call Lakota Canyon an FTP.
-
I always enjoy reading the thoughts of others as they tear apart someone's opinions on a golf course from people who have never set foot on the property in question.
Look, let's cut to the chase -- there are certain "preferred" architects here on GCA -- let's really stop all the tap dancing around this FACT and let's also understand that certain other architects are deemed to be outside the box of those limited preferences.
Jim Engh happens to be one of those people who falls "outside that box."
Let me quickly add that I don't fawn or rave about all of Engh's designs. Case in point being Sanctuary in Sedalia, CO and the work he's done at a few of his courses whereby I see the quality of his par-4's being a bit lacking when compared to his stellar work in many par-3's and par-5's.
With that said -- maybe the people who sit in judgement of Cary should do themselves a huge favor -- go out and play the courses in question and stop with the bitch sessions on how wrong someone can be.
I'll also say this again -- yes -- I really enjoy Lakota Canyon and see it among the very best Engh has designed -- I would not rate it among my personal top 100 in the USA but it's one layout that I certainly recommend if anywhere near the I-70 area in western Colorado.
People who comment on the qualities "lacking" in Lakota Canyon need to play it and give a bit more credence / respect to those who have played there and countless other places here in the USA and abroad.
Adam:
To answer your question -- Lakota Canyon Ranch is a better balanced course than Wolf Creek -- the one in Mesquite is a pure quirky "over-the-top" rollarcoaster ride of emotions throughout the round. Could it be played everyday? Yes, but the strains would begin to show. Lakota provides a much more even keel presentation and the fun aspect with the layout in Colorado would strike a more positive chord for all types of players than the one in Nevada.
Nonetheless, I still love both for what they individually provide.
-
Matt,
To follow up regarding what you said of Engh and most people on GCA not being a fan of his, which is true. I simply say that the first thing I look at with a course is the course itself. I could care less who designed it until after I played it. I never got into course architecture until a few years ago and a lot of my personnal top 50 was played before even becoming involved and concerned with course desginers (when I played a lot of amatuer events). So, that being said...Engh's courses that I have played I always thought were fun and I would play them again. Were they great...no...but they were fun and different and all good courses. I am planning on playing a few of his courses at the end of the summer, including Lakota thanks to your recommendation. I think you take his work for what it is, or at least what I have played of it, fun layout and design with very interesting par 5's and 3's and somewhat pedestrian par 4's....but overall puts out good golf courses, not great.
-
Cabell:
One of the things I do here on GCA is I never make comments, good or bad about something I haven't played.
I try to compare similiar type courses so other CGA guys can get a good handle of comparison.
I am neither a fan or a detractor of minimialism, that's why I ranked Sand Hills and Friar's Head in my top 15, but excluded Pinehurst #2. As I've said before, minimialism works best on a great site, with significiant topography.
I am not from the East Coast, so I never grew up playing all the courses that the majority on this board did. I am from the midwest, Chicago was my home for 50 years.
I have no bias. I call it as I see it and I try to make an important contribution on GCA. I have loved and hated courses by the same individual architect,, e.g., Tom Fazio.
He has done alot of really good work and some real pedestrian overrated work.
I do perfer courses with great topography, blown out bunkering, sand scapes, more of an unkept look, links, but I equally enjoy a perfectly manicured course like Sage Valley.
My art background required us to produce quite an array of different styles, and I learned to appreciate all of those styles when done well.
When I made this post, I never meant to say that Lakota Canyon replaces something in the top 10, and when I came up with my top 10 list, I coulen't narrow it down to 10, so I listed all 15. I hear that Pacific Dunes and Kinlock are great courses, and after I play them, if I think they are, then my top 10 will grow to 17.
Lakota will never replace any of the top 10 courses based on the the criteria that courses are judged. First, it's a mountain course and that automaticaally will exclude it, ditto it is a non walking course, 2 strikes. It has alot of containment, and mostly downhill tee shots, 4 strikes.
You get that at Augusta, Pine Valley, Friar's, Sand Hills, etc...so maybe my criteria are just a little bit different.
There are many on GCA who see and enjoy the very subtle, I am the first to say that it is difficult to recognize those playing a course once and if I have the time, I try to play courses twice, and sometimes I come away with a different respect, but mostly the same.
I went on for much longer than I thought, but maybe this will help.
-
Brian:
Well said but I would say that Lakota Canyon Ranch and Engh's new private layout in Parker, CO called Pradera are beyond merely the "fun" limited golf course -- they both have unique aspects that make them a high level 18-hole-round of many strategic decisions from the tee to the green.
I hesitate to toss around the word "great" because it's use in modern sports society is often poorly attributed. I will say this -- the totality of what you have with Lakota and Pradera clearly demonstrate an evolution in what Engh has done from say the likes fo Redlands Mesa or Sanctuary.
Some people will not like Engh courses -- but heaven forbid if any other architect is deemed at the "high exalted" level of the special few here on GCA or even has the potential to be listed among such a listing.
I don't deny Engh does have a repetitive flavor -- the issue of containment mounding -- especially around his greens needs to be lessened because it tends to "democraticize" any type of approach shot played. However, the repetitive aspects that Engh incorporates from one design to the next is no different than what you find from the other more "preferred" modern architects who have such aspects in their design portfolio meet with either total acceptance or muted criticism at best.
Too many people on this site have a very limited and narrow sense of what makes for unique and compelling design. They are often rigidly dogmatic and what's so funny is that the very people who see me as being only for long and demanding courses are completely and utterly clueless on the pragmatic sense, I believe, I try to bring to the table.
-
This thread is quite hilarious! Imagine, ranking golf courses!
Thank god no one "ranks" trout streams, or high mountain trout ponds. Is it just me, or are these (sorry) clowns that produce glossy golf and ski magazines the only people that feel compelled to "rank" the recreational experience?
-
Cary,
Frankly, I'm glad you went out on a limb as you did with your assessment of Lakota Canyon. You did a nice job of stating your preferences, and even if others don't agree with your criteria and judgements I'd rather hear someone lay their opinions on the line and take from it what I can.
In the case of Jim Engh, I've yet to play any of his courses. From pictures, I think there's a lot going on...lots of earth movement, lots of shaping, lots of containment, lots of conscious attempts at strategy. I think the thing that intrigues me is that so many of his courses have been so highly rated by the Golf Digest crowd that I'm really curious to see one for myself.
Doing daring designs can be a tightrope walk between fun, adrenaline inducing stuff (as Mike Strantz did so well) and over-the-top, circus acts, so I'm really interested to see for myself where his work falls upon that continuum.
-
Mike
I agree with your thoughts and will be in Colorado later this month. I will be playing, among others,Engh's Pradera and Lakota(with Cary) and will report back then.
For those who care about ratings, I think there is a big difference between the GD and GW raters as evidenced by recent results.
My portfolio of top courses is weak,unlike Cary, so I can't comment on the scheme of ratings other than to offer my personal list of preferences.
Steve
-
Steve:
It would be most helpful for you to also play Redlands Mesa in Grand Junction to provide a very full picture ont he evolution of Engh's design success when compared to the likes of Pradera and Lakota Canyon Ranch.
One other note -- since you will be in the area with Lakota you should also attempt to play the Norman Course at Red Sky Ranch -- it is easily on par with the the likes of Doonbeg -his more noted design in Ireland.
-
Look, let's cut to the chase -- there are certain "preferred" architects here on GCA -- let's really stop all the tap dancing around this FACT and let's also understand that certain other architects are deemed to be outside the box of those limited preferences.
Matt, I've never played Lakota, so I will refrain from commenting on it specifically.
What I am commenting on is credibility. Cary puts Engh's Black Rock in his nation's best category, and you too have repeatedly praised Black Rock.
Well, as you know, I have played Black Rock and it is absolutely awful. If that is the kind of thing you guys are looking for in a mountain course, then I feel perfectly comfortable dismissing your views on mountain courses entirely.
In short, based on what I feel are your absurd statements on this board, you and Cary have no credibility with me when it comes to so-called mountain courses. And Jim Engh courses.
-
David:
That's what makes the world sooooooooooo interesting when people disagree. Glad the "Wizard of Oz" could come out from behind the curtain -- and frankly your raising the issue of credibility is laughable given your zero grade in having seen the wealth of top courses that inhabit a good portion of the mountain time zone area. I guess the opinions of Cary and myself count for next to nothing from the couch potato set. So be it.
I liked Black Rock -- not as much as Cary does -- but there are a number of holes that are well done IMHO. We have had this tired discussion before -- you can take whatever position you want.
My position on new golf courses -- especially those int he region -- is a bit more pragmatic and certainly not as rigid and dogmatic as a number of people here on GCA -- including you. Some here on GCA take the opinion -- that a particular type of design in almost all instances is the ONLY way to go with a design. Nothing like a straightjacket mentality in golf course assesment.
I don't see it that way.
Jim Engh gets dissed off here on GCA by people who have played at best a very tiny fraction of his designs -- in some cases people have only played one at best.
Before blowing me off with your ignorant comments let
me add that you need to play Lakota Canyon Ranch and Pradera -- two of his most recent designs and see the process in his design evolution.
There is plenty of substance, fun and uniqueness in those two courses. Whether you take my opinions seriously or not at all -- I could frankly care less.
redanman:
With all due respect partner -- you keep highlighting about the limitations of the courses in question but you have jettisoned your life to another locale of the USA and have failed to keep pace with what is happening there NOW and in the last few years.
I disagree 100% that someone because courses are located in the mountain time zone that such layouts are freaks of nature and unworthy of any high praise because the essence of their design is severely compromised because of their location.
That is not fair.
To answer you briefly partner -- I see a number of modern designs in the region -- Black Mesa, Norman's Red Sky Ranch and Lakota Canyon Ranch as being no less of the qualities that people wax on about with places like Wild Horse, Lawsonia Links, etc, etc.
They are well done layouts and the design has calculated the aspects of high altitude into the total equation.
This idea that great golf is only the province of one area of the country is nothing less than elitism -- the evolving nature of golf design is branching out in some many locales. Not every one is home run or even a solid double -- but there are clear instances where the alignment of a superb site, quality architect and first rate routing do mesh together.
Bill, I salute you in being fair regarding the totality of what Engh has designed and the maturity you show in not branding a permanent label on him as others are wont to do from such a tiny sampling in his design portfolio. Too bad others on this site cannot heed such a wise course of action.
Gents:
What will be really funny is when Doak finishes his work with the two layouts in Colorado and the one planned for Montana. Then all the "pro" mountain time zone folks will come crawling out of the closest and proclaiming such work is so thrilling and worthy of high praise when compared to any courses that exist not only in the immediate region but throughout the country and the world.
How painfully transparent and preferential.
I have nothing against Tom Doak and his extremely talented skills and that of his team but the idea that "others" in the design business cannot reach a high bar of performance is clearly evident of a desired preference at best and a clear bias at worst.
-
I have nothing against Tom Doak and his extremely talented skills and that of his team but the idea that "others" in the design business cannot reach a high bar of performance is clearly evident of a desired preference at best and a clear bias at worst.
(emphasis added)
I don't know that anyone has said cannot, I think they most have simply said have not.
-
David:
That's what makes the world sooooooooooo interesting when people disagree. Glad the "Wizard of Oz" could come out from behind the curtain -- and frankly your raising the issue of credibility is laughable given your zero grade in having seen the wealth of top courses that inhabit a good portion of the mountain time zone area. I guess the opinions of Cary and myself count for next to nothing from the couch potato set. So be it.
Matt, you egotistical jerk, you dont know a thing about my knowledge of golf courses in the Mountain Time Zone, or the potential for truly great golf in the region. So drop the holier-than-thou rhetoric.
Jim Engh gets dissed off here on GCA by people who have played at best a very tiny fraction of his designs -- in some cases people have only played one at best.
Before blowing me off with your ignorant comments let
me add that you need to play Lakota Canyon Ranch and Pradera -- two of his most recent designs and see the process in his design evolution.
Matt, I've commented on one of Engh's courses and it was terrible, at least relative to the accolades it received. Playing two more Engh courses isnt going to make that first one any better, is it?
Gents:
What will be really funny is when Doak finishes his work with the two layouts in Colorado and the one planned for Montana. Then all the "pro" mountain time zone folks will come crawling out of the closest and proclaiming such work is so thrilling and worthy of high praise when compared to any courses that exist not only in the immediate region but throughout the country and the world.
How painfully transparent and preferential.
Matt, I've got newwwwwwwws for you, partner, you don't own the Mountain Time Zone, and neither do the few architects who have thus far been marking their territory on every tree they pass.
The Mountain Time Zone has vast potential for good to great golf. In fact that is one reason I've been hard on many of the designs I've seen there-- They have failed to tap that great potential, and failed to build courses worthy of their surroundings. Now perhaps this is changing-- I haven't seen Black Mesa but people I trust (read: not you) have told me it is worth a look; and while Engh miserably botched Black Rock, maybe he got it right elsewhere.
So if I am ever fortunate enough to see Doak's course in Mt (I get to Colorado much less), or Weiskopf's or Fazio's for that matter, I'll bring my same standard to those courses.
I have nothing against Tom Doak and his extremely talented skills and that of his team but the idea that "others" in the design business cannot reach a high bar of performance is clearly evident of a desired preference at best and a clear bias at worst.
Geez, Matt dont you think it a bit early to be screaming bias. How presumptuous of you to start judging Doak's work before it is even built. This stuff hasnt been built, so not even you have seen them yet! So how do you know what sort of accolades, if any, the work deserves? I am really tired of you judging courses with your fat butt securely jammed in your computer chair.
-
There is certainly plenty of potential for great golf courses here in Montana. I am sure, given what I have seen, and know of that piece of land in Deer Lodge, that Tom Doak will build a great golf course. Unless of course he suffers a severe brain cramp ;D
However, there is currently little in Montana that would be considered a "good" golf course, much less a great golf course. I have high hopes for Brian Curleys Canyon River in East Missoula, and Farbers Phantom Hills in Missoula is growing on me with each play. The Old Works is nice, but the wide fairways, and mounds that move tee shots to the middle of the fairways, are distracting.
So it might be only a matter of time before the Big Sky state is giving Colorado a run for its golf money.
-
Why does this board use over three pages of post to discuss a topic such as this. No matter how good the course is, and with all due respect to Cary and his opinion, it just cannot be a top 10 course at this time.
However, parity has made it where there are many fine courses but top 10 is a HUGE statement. JMO
-
If I can draw a parallel between golf architecture and fine art, at one time all the great artists were landscape and portrait guys trying to capture real life scenes on canvas.
Then came a wave of different types of art, and I am sure that at first, the GCA guys of the 18th century made fun of these new artists, Matisse, Cezannne, Van Gogh, Rembrandt, and then came a newer wave of artists, Picasso, Dali, Roy Lichtenstein (no relation), and these guys were dirt poor at first and sold there paintings for food.
So whaat happened? These guys were just ahead of their time, and over time the world matured and recognized that not everything has to be as it was...that other forms of art can coexist at the same time and be appreciated.
All I ask is that those of you who are intelligent and openminded take a look at somethiing other than Doak, Coore and Crenshaw, etc. They do excellent work to be sure, but not all of it is excellent and to just worship their work and embrace it 100% and ignore the other architects who are cutting new ground and doing fine work is to ignore the Picasso and Van Gogh's....
-
Personally, I think the idea of a "top 10" or "top 100" course ranking is absurd. You might as well be ranking Thruways or Interstate Highways.
Certainly, there are features, locations,etc.etc. that might make a course unique,beautiful,fun,challenging....but to me, ranking shows a total lack of respect for "the course". As soon as you rank it, you look for something "better" to rank higher...it is the worst of human nature.
-
I think there is a lot of truth in what Mr. Doak said, everyone probably does have a favorite or two that no one else sees the genius in.
He also makes quite an argument in asking do any of the holes at Lakota surpasses those at Cypress Point, Pine Valley, NGLA, etc?
The answer is probably no, they do not, but that's not to disparage them by any means.
Geez, everyone is awfully testy around these parts, partner!
-
David:
Do yourself a huge favor -- if someone has zero credibility why waste your valuable time and bitch and moan as per your usual MO.
Just ignore people like me and I will do likewise with you.
Enjoy the comforts of your favorite couch -- I do my analysis through playing varied golf courses from different architects who often get little attention on this site. The mountain time zone is one of those areas I see as getting little attention when rightly deserved.
David -- I thought you were above such juvenile name calling and the like -- forgive me to think you were such a classy guy. My error. ;)
-
You might as well be ranking Thruways or Interstate Highways.
Actually I have and here they are (I haven't driven on all of them but the ones I haven't driven I've walked):
1. I-10
2. I-90
3. I-95
4. I-15
5. I-40
6. I-75
7. I-35
8. I-65
9. I-80
10.(tie) I-70, I-81
-
DavidKelly -
Any Intersate that goes through Pennsylvania - as I-70, I-80 and I-81 do - is by definition horrendous, so your list and you, by the transitive property, have zero credibility in ranking interstates! ;D
-
DavidKelly -
Any Intersate that goes through Pennsylvania - as I-70, I-80 and I-81 do - is by definition horrendous, so your list and you, by the transitive property, have zero credibility in ranking interstates! ;D
George,
With all due respect. Have you put the time in to walk or drive the ENTIRE Interstate highway system? I have so if you haven't I can't see how you could question my list!!!
-
They really are doing some wonderful road construction here in the mountain time zone. If you would all
just get out and see it.... Heck, we even have a Mona Lisa in our town (Pinon Hills) but it gets hung upside down. ;D
-
I'm happy to see this thread end on a high(er) note. Let me put my two cents in for I-5, plus the delightful I-280 in the San Francisco Bay Area.
-
Good to see you're getting the hang of this ratings stuff! I have always been fond of the Taconic State Parkway...
-
Bill:
I feel no reason to back down just because the consensus here doesn't agree with me. I'm entilted to my opinion. More importantly, I simply wanted others to enjoy what I enjoyed.
It's like a movie: Batman or War of the Worlds. I liked Batman better, and I thought the original War of the Worlds was way better than the new version.
Some like Blondes, others prefer redheads.
Lakota is what is it, and those who wish to play it, should and those who don't shouldn't. Those who haven't played it have no business pontificating about it. I never make comments about a course I haven't played.
Mountain golf clearly is not for everyone and neither is Jim Engh, that is clear from the posters here at GCA. It's a shame so much negativity exists here.
I will have played Lakota about a dozen times by the end of my stay here, and if I feel different I will post accordingly.
But what pisses me off is a guy like DMoriaty, who I have never met, who makes dergatory comments concerning my credibility. I have yet to make a deragatory about anyone on this webiste, nor will I in the future.
I try to make a legitmate contribution to this website and also add a bit of levity at times. Sorry to be verbose.
-
But what pisses me off is a guy like DMoriaty, who I have never met, who makes dergatory comments concerning my credibility. I have yet to make a deragatory about anyone on this webiste, nor will I in the future.
I try to make a legitmate contribution to this website and also add a bit of levity at times. Sorry to be verbose.
Cary,
I feel bad that I offended you by questioning your credibility when it comes to evaluating mountain courses. Unfortunately, after reviewing my posts and yours, I am sticking by my initial assessment.
Let's put this in perspective. You've listed two Jim Engh courses on your short list of the World's greatest golf courses. I have played only one of those courses, Black Rock. The notion that Black Rock is one of the world's very best-- ahead of courses like Merion and Crystal Downs, is absolutely absurd. Preposterous. Unbelievable. Incredible. It calls into question your ability to soberly evaluate the quality of "mountain golf" courses in an impartial manner. It is so contrary to my understanding of what is quality architecture that we might completely lack common ground to even discuss the issue.
As to your tastes, more power to you. But there is a difference between a person's subjective taste and a person's ability to critically analyze a golf course. For example, I really like the Cavenaugh Course on Lanai. I'd rather play it than the Lodge course it borders, and sometimes would rather play it that Manele. But I would never call it an excellent course, or even a good course. It is a terrible course, it just fits my quirky tastes. You seem to have your tastes confused with your evaluation of what is truly great architecture.
Take your art comparison. According to his website, Thomas Kinkaid is the most collected living artist in America. His work obviously appeals to the tastes of many. Does this make him one of the greatest artists of all time? While I am sure that those who buy his work think him great, I disagree.
If you claimed that one of Thomas Kinkaid's works belonged on the short list of the greatest works of art in history, then I'd refrain from taking your advice regarding art in the future. In other words, you'd have no credibility with me.
It may sound harsh, but comparing Black Rock to Cypress Point is like comparing the latest Kinkaid painting to Monet's Water Lilies.
By the way, like Matt you have no idea of my likes or dislikes when it comes to so-called mountain courses.
____________________
Matt, you are correct. True or not, it was inappropriate and rude of me to call you an arrogant jerk. I hope you will accept my apology.
-
Regarding derogatory comments: You and Matt have repeatedly accused me and others of being biased because we disagree with your views regarding certain Jim Engh courses. Not sure the difference in degree of derogation between me calling you incredible and you calling me biased.
The 15, which does not go anywhere near Pheonix, rules.
-
My top 5 Interstates (from a pure golfing perspective):
I-5 (which got me part of the way to Bandon from Portland)
I-74 (which got me most of the way from Greensboro to Pinehurst)
I-43 (which got me to Whistling Straits from Milwaukee)
I-95 (Going to get me most of the way to Bethpage in a couple of weeks)
Canada 1 (which is going to get me to Banff Springs next month)
-
David M:
Apology accepted. Let's get back to the discussion at hand OK without the personal invective.
By the way -- my comments on Jim Engh course come from roughly playing ten of his designs. I have not played just one or two and then make leaps on the nature of what he has designed and what elements add to or detract from what he designs. I never stated that Black Rock is his best work -- I see that with Lakota and Pradera -- they are both solid efforts and worthy of play by any interested person. I did acknowledge a number of shortfalls with Black Rock but I also stated there are a number of holes there that are well done. If we don't see eye-to-eye on that one lone course so be it. No people will see everything the same way.
I am also a huge fan of Lakota -- although not to the level that Cary favors. It would still make my personal top 100 though.
David -- hold the phone -- the bias you alledge comes from people who play a very limited portfolio of a designers works and then draw conclusions on the talents / lack thereof concerning the person in question. This has happened with such architects like Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus and Rees Jones, to name the three most prominent who fit the bill in question.
I have indicated that I have played a much greater representative sampling of courses than a number of people who opine on this site. That doesn't make my opinion 100% correct -- but it does allow me to present a wider view of what the designer in question has done and if there are courses within the portfolio that are beyond being redundant or even less so.
Jim Engh is often dismissed on GCA as some sort of "outside the box" architect. I feel that assessment of his work is completely unfair when people play just one or two of his courses. He is extremely talented and while he doesn't follow the pro-forma formula that many on GCA prefer I found it hard to believe that only one particular style is the only way for golf courses to be designed.
Given your knowledge of architecture I would hope you can see what I am saying. If not -- then as I said before -- if you see my credibility of golf course assessment as being in right field then simply ignore it and go your merry way. Simple as that.
-
Personally, I like I-95 ;D
-
Matt, first let me state my agreement with a few things, so you can hopefully stop repeating them endlessly:
-- You've seen a large number of courses. Many more than most here. Certainly many more than me. No doubt your opinions are backed up by your immense experience.
-- People should refrain from specifically commenting on particular courses until they have had sufficient exposure to those courses.
What you dont seem to understand is that our differences aren't so much about what courses we have seen, but rather the standards by which we evaluate the courses we have seen.
Black Rock highlights our difference in approach. You see shot values, tests, and chances for the good golfer to excel by hitting it straight and far. I see an unwalkable slog with fairways sunken deeply into the ground, claustrophobic "Hollywood Bowl greens" (Whitten's term), overdone manmade features which distract from the natural beauty, little strategy or choice except for the herioc type, repititous concepts, houses and the clubhouse on the best land, generally a complete failure to utilize the natural advantages of the blufftop site.
Not trying to rehash an old argument, just pointing out that none of these things have anything to do with how many courses you've played versus me.
I agree that it is unfair to judge Jim Engh based on a single course. One has to wonder though, if I so dislike what many consider to be his best, is there really much chance I will love the others??
-
This is just my opinion, I don't think the man made features at Black Rock distract from the natural beauty, I think they are there because of a lack of "natural beauty". I don't find that particular 50 square miles of Idaho very attractive, except for the lake.
-
David:
Let me answer your latest comments.
You have -- my belief that is -- a very narrow and very particular sense on what golf architecture should be. So be it. I find such a narrow definition of quality design to be limiting because as Tom Paul is wont to say -- we do live in a big world and there is room for many styles.
I commented that Black Rock is a wonderful course but that it does have some limitations that take away from the sheer qualities it offers. I mentioned the repetitive nature of the back-to-back par-3's on the back nine -- the first one is simply eye-candy and failed to deliver for me. The second one is much better and in some ways compromised by the position of the first. The opening hole is also nothing more than pro forma stuff.
I see why Engh did the back-to-back par-3 holes as a means to get from piece of the property to the other but the net result didn't advance the level of the course for me.
On the flip side -- the totality of the five par-5's is extremely well done IMHO. You have a wide range of strategic options to consider on all the shots and the "fun" element is clearly alive and well in this area. The par-4's at Black Rock don't have the kind of heft you see with later designs Engh has done with the likes of Lakota and most certainly Pradera. There are a few good holes -- I liked the par-4 10th and 11th holes -- and I can recall your comments on what you didn't like about the 11th. So be it -- we see things differently in that regard on that hole.
David -- my course sample size gives me a advantage over plenty of people because I can bring to the table -- through my personal experiences in playing the courses -- a range of comments / re: comparisons & contrasts, that others likely cannot make. You seem to miss my point -- it's not just the amount of courses but the analysis that needs to come with that part as well. I believe I have tried to provide as much when using these two elements together.
I have no issue with people making comments on any course they have played. It is when they extrapolate the findings of one course and then ipsi facto broaden that into some sort of overall assessment on the capacity of the designer in question. This happens all the time with Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus and Rees Jones, as I mentioned previously.
I salute you in saying you have only played one Jim Engh design. You need to play a few of his others if your schedule ever permits -- namely Lakota and Pradera would be two good places if you should ever make it to The Centennial State.
Frankly, the tastes of certain people here on GCA is fairly narrow and candidly quite dogmatic. I take -- my personal view -- a somewhat more pragmatic approach. There are a number of "classic" designed layouts that I enjoy but no less there are a quite a few modern day layouts by a range of people who fly well below the radar screen such as Baxter Spann with his superb efforts at Black Mesa, among others.
David -- when you say the word "standards" I take a much wider view of how such instances can meet the key "standards" you mention. I have often said -- I take into consideration three essential elements -- the land the course occupies, the complexity of the routing and the creativity of the shot values the player faces throughout the round. These three elements provide for me a blueprint on what a superior course should have. How the architect does that is something I give wide license to because of the unique aspects any given site might produce.
You mischaracterized my comments on Black Rock. I never said that simply hitting it straight and far is the reason why I liked it. I indicated in previous threads how strategic elements on particular holes designed by Engh work quite well. Placement -- not simply wacking the ball a country mile -- is a requirement when playing a good number of holes there.
I salute you in being honest enough to admit that forming an opinion off of just one layout is not helpful in the long run. I have seen the evolutionary process of architect's and their work and I can say with some certainty that in playing a wide range of courses you can then better evaluate the progress made or in some cases the retardation that takes place.
-
Matt,
Perhaps you could indulge me by answering a few specific questions about your "standards." (No need to again tell us what you bring to the table; we've covered that.)
No doubt the following design elements exist at Black Rock:
-- Numerous trough-like fairways, where the ground to the sides is almost always higher than in the fairway.
-- "Hollywood Bowl Greens," where many of the greens are surrounded by high mounds or hillsides.
-- Relegation of the course to the convex portions of the property, while the houses and clubhouse occupy most of the high ground.
-- A virtually unwalkable routing, or at least one that would be very difficult for even avid walkers to walk regularly.
Where do each of these design elements fit into your evaluation of Black Rock, if at all?
Are the above design elements (trough fairways, hollywood bowl greens, unwalkable, etc.) indicative of Jim Engh's architectural style?
You speak of "creativity of shot values the golfer faces" as being an "essential element" of a quality design. Tell me what is special, if anything, about the "shot values" around the greens at Black Rock? What is special, if anything, about the "shot values" of the recovery shots at Black Rock?
Thanks Matt.
-
Top 10? Mabey of Colorado courses!
I played Lakota Monday after reading this post and Cary's comments. It was a fine course. While the views were great, there was a simularity about the holes. 4 of the 5 par 3s were downhill where you could bounce the ball off one side of the green (in some cases that was the only way to play the hole. Many holes played downhill with mounding to keep the call in play.
This is a course I am glad I played but would have no desire to return. In Colorado I have played Cherry Hills, Castle Pines and Maroon Creek. Each of these was better than Lakota.
Top 10 in the world? Must be the altitude affecting Cary's judgment.
-
Matt and Cary:
While trying not to draw any complete conclusions about Jim Engh's work (he may be quite capable of doing different styles in different places), it seems to me that on all of the four courses I've seen that he's designed, he makes very little attempt to hide the earthwork he's doing and make it look like the golf course was always there.
That is so completely the opposite of my style and belief system, that I find it hard to feel good about his courses, no matter what strategic options the par-5's offer in their totality, or how creative are some of the golf shot options he offers. (Some of them are undeniably creative beyond what most other architects build.)
Are Lakota Canyon and Pradera different in this respect? Do they look like they fit on the ground? Or are you saying that's not important to you?
-
While the question was not directed to me and I have not played Lakota, I have played Pradera and felt like the course fit the land nicely. It had a Sand Hills type feel on a few holes and I only worry about the proximity of future homes to the course.
-
Isn't there a difference, though, when considering what kind of landscape you're putting a course on? How does one go about making a golf course in a mountain canyon look like it's always been there? Or in the desert? How does one minimize the blatant artificiality of such an endeavor? Are there examples of mountain courses or desert courses that truly look like they are occurring naturally, or is this just a goal to achieve, an ideal to reach for...........?
I have no axe to grind, I'm just asking........
-
Kirk,
Yours is a good question, a very good one and its simply one of the reasons why when an architect posts here, regardless of anyone's personal preference--that he or she listens with great interest. You'll see different styles and how a DeVries, Hanse or Coore might do it differently then a Doak--creatively; but more then anything it hilights why many of us favor the work of Doak, C&C, Hanse, DeVries, etc.
I also think that reading plays a big part in this. Reading books like Robert Hunter's The Links; Wethered & Simpson's The Architectural Side of Golf; Captain Geo. Thomas', Golf Architecture in America and many others. It all displays the importance of how and when and where man can be in compliation with Nature to make golf work.
You see, length, slope rating and contact information don't matter in this regard, but seeing how features both natural and artificial are utilized to present interesting and challenging shots while taking advantage of the visual impact (once again, both natural and artificial) is what this is all about. A Seth Raynor works because the natural and artificial features are meant to work with the pre-conceived holes given the locations of the site. Each has its own varying character, while a MacKenzie relied more on the natural features that were further refined to create those very same options. It's a completely different school of thought.
While I have not gone out of my way to experience a Jim Engh course, its because of several things:
1-Cost and time to travel
2-Reason to travel
Why I'll be the first to admit that Engh style of architecture from what I have seen in photographs--is far from what I would want to take the time and precious resources to go and see; I will vouch for him as a character. He certainly is a genuine sort and I've enjoyed his company at the downstairs Bandon pub. Now that was a good time.
-
I also played Lakota on Monday and my sentiments echoed that of Fred Ruttenburg. While I may not be as analytical about GCA as most people on this site. I tired of the similarity of the holes in which the greens were built in bowls and fairways which funneled shots. These were my initial feelings I gave to my wife who rode with my that morning. I hit more shots off the intended line of play that ended up far better than I deserved. I am not questioning the implementation of the feature but of its frequency and the fact that you see it on both sides.
I don't think I have played two courses (incl Redlands) that had as many elevated tee boxes or as much vertical relief as those two. It was enjoyable and different from my normal mix but I would rather play Wildhorse or Black Mesa time and again over either of these two. For a course with good elevation changes, I definitely like Black Mesa better than Lakota. The location of hazards and the penalty associated with misses both of positioning and execution is much more significant.
I must admit that 18 at Lakota is a great tempting risk/reward par 5 that gets your attention. It is the most memorable hole on the course.
Fred,
I wonder if I was playing in front of you. I was playing as a single early in the morning. I completed the round in 2 hours 20 minutes and had a single pushing me around on the back nine and I thought I was playing at a good pace.
-
Dan: I teed off as a twosome around 11:00. We went thru 2 foresomes and finished in around 4 hours. My partner shot 70 with 2 bogies on the holes where we went thru. He bounced 3 shots off hills surrounding the green for birdies. For example on 9 he hit high on the hill on the left and rolled down next to the pin. I hit the left side of the green and almost roll off the green. It did not make sense that the only way to play some of the shots was to intentionally aim off the green for a favorable bounce. The weather was great.
-
Tom D:
I can sit here and write until the cows come home regarding Lakota -- in the final analysis -- you will need to play the course to judge for yourself.
I've played a very fair representation of public courses throughout the USA and in the State of Colorado
specifically -- the qualities of Lakota mesh very well and IMHO have clearly indicated a progression on the evolution of Engh design.
Tom -- you have a very particular sense on what constitutes superior golf design. Fair enough. Engh is not in lockstep with that type of thinking. So what. Does that makes his efforts poor golf courses? For those who march in lockstep unison on this site and who CLEARLY have their own favorite designers I can understand where they draw their thinking from and what courses they would prefer.
I said this before -- I don't take the very narrow -- "this is the only way to design" school philosophy that others seem hellbent on accepting and often time condemning those who don't see things exactly their way.
Jim Engh has designed a number of outstanding holes at Lakota and Pradera. Clearly, his design style is evolving and I have been fortunate to have played a fair representation to see how that style has moved along and to then provide some sort of cogent comments on where he has improved and where he still comes up short.
No doubt the earthmoving aspect is a fair criticism. However, I have seen a clear movement from the more harsh examples of this type to a more muted style. Frankly, I don't know how one can be able to deliver a style that says in loud and clear language that a golf course has always been there.
Your effort at The Rawls Course in Lubbock clearly makes the statement that it is manmade and clearly above and beyond the drab landscape that inhabits what was there previously. Does that fact take away from what you designed there? Not to me it doesn't.
What's so darn funny is that when anyone on GCA takes the tact that others can be talented and that these same "others" may have a different take on what superior golf design is - you get the whiners who claim such a "different style of design" is way out on the fringe of what is permissible.
I do value strategic considerations when playing any course. Golf is a game of shots and how they are interconnected to each other through a routing that maximizes the greatest elements of a given site. Jim has overcome the demands of sites in some unique settings. I don't think by any stretch that he hit home runs with each of them (e.g. Sanctuary) but he clearly has kept in the forefront the "fun" factor and his evolving style is clearly improving from the courses of his I have played.
You do raise a fair point on how Engh's design philosophy will be impacted upon the different locations he will likely be facing in the years ahead. Engh is now moving beyond the mountain time zone area and his work at Carne and at True North are just two examples on his branching out. It will be most interesting to see the results in those situations.
Tommy N:
You articulated a clear position but I have to say that personal preferences are clearly a guiding point on whether you will or will not play a particular course. I just don't hunt certain architects and leave the others on the side. But, clearly time and $$ are considerations for each person to decide upon for themselves.
The Jim Engh design motif may not be the "cup of tea" for you and others on GCA who favor a very partcular, and dare I say narrow style of design. I said previously that the architects you mentioned are all very gifted -- so is Jim Engh as well as others.
Tommy -- you are right concerning the scarcity of time / resources to travel, however, until you personally sample a few of his designs it's really hard for me to say you can understand the totality of what he does simply through secondhand observations via aerials and the like.
p.s. agree with you take on Jim's personality.
Jim F:
Well said regarding Pradera -- the course is right now away from the inane clutter that dominates the landscape of so many courses of this ilk. If the homes are kept at bay to some degree the totality of what is present at Pradera will only serve to go higher and higher with each play.
Fred:
With all due respect -- Maroon Creek is not in the same zip code as Lakota Canyon Ranch. For the sake of argument (being as kind as I can be), I won't get into full bore discussion regarding the merits of Cherry Hills and Castle Pines but frankly there's more to Lakota than you saw.
You must have missed how delicate the par-3 3rd plays to a wide variety of pin locations. You must have missed the fact that the two other par-3's on the front -- the 7th plays uphill to a well protected and well-contoured green.
The 9th is also quite demanding in getting the ball close to the hole. Each of the holes is angled in a different direction than the other.
On the back side you have superb 15th and 17th. The 15th plays slightly uphill and requires a deft choice of club. Yes, the 17th is a dropshot type hole but again getting close to the pin is not an easy chore -- particuraly with a rear placement.
Fred -- you talk about mounding elements -- where were they on the 1st hole (especially the tee shot or second?), the entire length of the 2nd hole -- the demands presented on the tee shots of the superb back-to-back par-5's at the 4th and 5th holes?
Yes, there is mounding that fires back the ball to the target on the downhill par-4 12th but from the nature of your comments you make it sound like Lakota is some sort of "rebound" course where the ball simply fires back to the fairway with no penalty for wayward shotmaking.
David M:
I've answered all the pertinent questions you have asked. You have played one Jim Engh course and are clearly determined to state a particular case. So be it.
We agree to disagree. Let me know when you play other Engh designs and I'll be glad to continue the discussion with you.
-
Tom:
"Do Engh's courses fit the Ground?"
They do not fit the ground. You can see that alot of dirt has been moved. I would prefer that they fit the ground better, I would prefer that there was less containment.
You cannot compare your work with Engh's as your styles are very different.
Nonetheless, I can enjoy both of your courses despite whatever I or others preceive as faults.
I'm tired of defending my position, so I'll relent and just say that everyone should play Lakota once, and leave it at that. I don't want to argue with anyone anymore on this thread.
If anyone doesn't like Lakota, they should not go back.
-
Whose to say what Jim Engh likes? but Jim Engh. He's in business to appease the will of the developer.
I do know that his favorite hole at Redlands, was my favorite hole. It wasn't an over-constructed, manufactured looking thing. It was a wonderful short two shotter with a blind fallaway green, through two natural cader-looking like features. 13th, I think??
-
That'll be great Matt, You cover Engh and others, and I'll cover the Doak's & C&C's. (How many Top 10's do they have?)
It will also work best that way for you and your readers over at bunkershot.com. ;)
-
Maybe this whole argument would have been avoided if Cary had simply said, it is in my personal top 10 courses I've played.
Then again, if we had avoided this whole argument, the rest of us who haven't been there wouldn't have learned a damn thing about why we should.
Let's face it - gca is a hopelessly subjective endeavor. As long as people are clear that their preferences are indeed theirs and not some sort of God given mandate, I think it'd be great if everyone were as passionate about any course as Cary is about Lakota.
-
Geo:
For goodness sakes, do GCA minimialists like breast implants?
Do they have to fit the landscape?
What if they are a C cup and a B would have been better?
Which GCA guy doesn't stare at a nice body and only the wives say "Those implants are awful"
-
I like breast implants ;D.
-
Ah, but Cary, you are not asking the regular GCAer to simply appreciate the woman with the implants, you are asking him to rate her among the top beauties of the world. :)
As I said - or at least implied - I think your bold statement was a good thing for eliciting comments about the course, and I wish everyone were as bold in outing themselves.
Me, I prefer no implants, but have seen some beauties with them. ;D
-
Matt:Mounding is the overall theme of the course
1. I agree-no mounding
2.Mounding right side
3. mounding right side or over green
4.mounding on right for 2nd shot
5. Entire hole a funnel
6.mounding both sides
7. mounding around green. just hit lond and ball bounces back on green-similar to 15.
8.mounding right
9.hill on left side-aim anywhere on hill and ball bounces on green. Hit the green and ball barely stays on green (I watched 10 shots hit to the green).
10.mounding both sides
11.Hill on left funnels anything hit on it to the fairway. Like many holes it is preferable to aim for the hill than the fairway.
12. Severe funneling
13.mounding left
14.mounding around green
15.Over and left of the green are large hills. I again watched several balls hit on this hole. The preferable target was over the green or on the left hill depending on pin placement.
16. The entire right side of the green is protected by a hill. The best way to play the second shot is just aim ofr the hill and let it bounce on the green.
17. My playing partner hit high on the hill to the right and the ball just rolled to the middle of the green. Same feeling as hole 3.
18. If going for the green in 2 the best action is to aim for the hill on the left from where it will either roll on the green or leave an easy chip. If playing safe on the 2nd shot,there is a large mound on the right which keeps the ball in play and opens the hole for an approach.
As I said, there is mounding or hills on almost every hole that keeps the ball in play and very often is the best (certainly the safest) target.
-
Fred:
Let's get real -- I can name plenty of places -- with a high degree of mounding / shaping. As I said before you can see plenty of what I just mentioned at The Rawls Course in Lubbock, TX -- a dead flat site that Tom Doak artfully transformed. No one complains in that regard.
Ah, but I forgot -- the key, for many on GCA, is who the actual architect is. That may not apply to you but it rings loud and clear to me and others. Let me also add that I thoroughly enjoyed The Rawls even though this feature is there at the site.
Let's go hole-by-hole at Lakota because in your exuberance you left out a few details.
The 2nd has a hillside that works all the way down that side. Frankly, there's no benefit in "trying" to play towards that position. Get stuck up or anywhere near that and the hole becomes a tad more demanding -- if not impossible.
You mention the 3rd -- help me understand something -- how does the mounding relate to the actual playing of the hole? You must have forgotten the quality contours and several different pin placements that Engh provides there. Trying -- that's right -- by the player to deliberately bounce off any one of those areas would be the most silliest of plays.
The back-to-back par-5's at the 4th and 5th are completely well done. At the 4th the mound you allude to has no bearing on the actual hole. On the 5th you say the "entire" hole is a funnel. Sorry -- don't buy it. The tee shot must avoid the debris on the left and if you should push it too far right you get blocked out or face a more demanding second shot. On the second shot you also face a non-mounded landing zone with a pond that tugs into the left side and even more debris on the right.
You are correct / re: 6th hole but you forgot that the green especially narrows towards the rear and you need to fly the approach to get back to that narrow area.
At the 7th there is mounding but you make it seem as the approach is as automatic as can be -- far from it.
The mounding on the right at #8 is so slight as to be completely irrelevant to the playing of the hole.
At the 9th the "bounce pad" provided by Engh is really a false gain for the player. You can try to play for the bounce but the ball often runs completely off the green. In many ways -- I found its inclusion to be a huge plus for the hole and something players need to avoid.
At the 10th you must deal with a center placed fairway bunker that guards the opening towards the green. The mounding there can be seen and I agree it can be a bit much.
At the 11th the falloff on the left and right is completely open and literally a danger for any ball that goes too far in either direction. Fred -- you are in error wrong on the notion that you can hit left and the ball feeds to the fairway. If you aim left the ball will go in that direction and simply go into the gunch.
I do agree with you on the 12th -- the green site does provide for what you mentioned. However, there is no 100% guarantee it will provide the most favorable of bounces.
#13 has the tiniest element of mounding on the left. C'mon Fred -- you are really trying to make a point from even the most out of the way situations.
#14 #15 do not have any mounding that would
Fred -- again at the 16th you make it sound sooooooo simple -- simply play to the right and the ball will always follow the player's command and nestle off the hill and come to rest by the hole. That's very nice to say but far from the actual truth. The hillside you mention does not provide 100% assurances that it will release the ball to a favorable position for the player all the time. It is simply an esthetic addition and works quite well IMHO.
#17 does have mounding for the "rear" portion of the green. A ball hit up on the hillside has no guarantees that it will automatically settle near the hole. Fred -- if the pin is cut towards the front the mounding may provide a benefit -- or it may simply hasten the speed / bounce of the ball to a far corner or even off the green. If the pin is all the way towards the back the approach has to guide itself all the way between the two mounds that protect that pin placement.
Fred -- hold the phone on #18 -- how do you figure the ball easily bounces off the hill to the green or easily provides a simple chip? Did you see the height of the grass on that slope? I've played the hole several times and watched countless groups play it. The mounding to the left of the green is extremely severe and the probability in recoverying is slight at best -- even for the best of players.
The mounding on the right if one takes the "safe" 2nd shot avenue doesn't make the hole easier in any manner. You also have a very narrow green when approaching from the 2nd shot landing area.
Let me also mention that Lakota is a public course -- it is not private so that the sheer demands of the topography can simply be "left as is."
Fred -- do me a huge favor -- can you identify the mounding at the following places ...
Cherry Hills
Castle Pines
Maroon Creek
In each case you find mounding that's been added -- in the case of Maroon Creek the issue is clearly front and center and it has been added especially to the bulk of the course on the other side of the road that divides the layout.
One last thing -- did you factor into your equation the nature of the site -- the adroit manner by which Engh routed the course -- the sheer diversity of the holes -- the manner by which the player must "work the ball" off the tee? Or was your eye simply on the mounding?
Thanks ...
Tommy:
You sound like the mullahs over in Iran & Iraq -- there are only the "true believers" -- everyone else are the infatels.
So much for tolerance -- closing one's eyes is a very short step to the closing of the mind.
Tommy -- enjoy the layouts you play -- you'll never know what you're missing. ;)
-
Fred:
1. What did you shoot?
2. The right side of 2 is a canyon wall, check out Webster for the definition of Canyon
3. The 5th which you call a funnel, is another canyon. It has canyon walls 200 to 500 feet high on both sides. Did you perhaps miss that?
4. You probably don't like implants either
Cary
-
Matt- Comparing the landscape created in Lubbock, to the uniform periphrial shaping that haunts many a modern venue, is as preposterous as Whitten comparing it to Shadow Creek.
This gca.com bias you speak of, is not a result of any conspiracy. It's the result of respecting the way nature is formed, and, how artful a job the architect and crew has done in combining all the multi-faceted tasks at hand.
-
David M:
I've answered all the pertinent questions you have asked. You have played one Jim Engh course and are clearly determined to state a particular case. So be it.
We agree to disagree. Let me know when you play other Engh designs and I'll be glad to continue the discussion with you.
Come on Matt, you havent answered any of the questions I have asked! Why not answer them? Of what are you afraid?
Let me summarize:
A few design elements of Black Rock:
-- Repeated trough-like fairways;
-- Hollywood Bowl Greens;
-- High convex land = Development, Low concave land = Golf Course
-- Virtually Unwalkable.
Where do each of these design elements fit into your evaluation of Black Rock, if at all?
Which of the above design elements are indicative of Jim Engh's architectural style?
Tell me what is special, if anything, about the "shot values" around the greens at Black Rock? What is special, if anything, about the "shot values" of the recovery shots at Black Rock?
Come on Matt, don't cop out now. Conversationwise, this is where "the rubber hits the road." Let's hear your answers.
-
Cary,
And of course the obvious analogy between Engh's style and the style of Doak and C&C is that implants may look good but there is a big difference in how they feel compared to naturals.
-
Cary,
And of course the obvious analogy between Engh's style and the style of Doak and C&C is that implants may look good but there is a big difference in how they feel compared to naturals.
David,
Thatta boy...the only way that analogy would be obvious is through experience.....SoCal, gotta love it! ;D
Joe
-
Tommy -- enjoy the layouts you play -- you'll never know what you're missing.
Yes, that's right Matt, go ahead and keep on telling yourself that.
Crazy Joe,
We'll deal with testing breast implants next week! :)
-
And Cary, Oh those doglegs........
-
Matt: Perhaps you misunderstood me. I think the architect did a fine job with the site. The problem was there was not enough diverisity on the site. There certainly was mounding present at Castle Pines. While there are many holes that have significant elevation changes at Castle Pines, there are many holes that do not. The diversity of the holes there make it significantly better than Lakota.
Certainly there is mounding at Maroon Creek. However, the effect of the mounding was to contain certain errant shots. It did not have the effect of bouncing the ball back to the fairway or on the green. This happened on 8 occasions in the round played by my friend and I.Again I am not suggesting that there were better alternatives on any of the holes. Just that the repetitive nature of this feature lessened the overall quality of the course-especially compared to the others I named.
Cary-1.I shot 81-my friend(who was your host at Maroon Creek)-72.
2.I agree that on many places there were not mounds but canyon walls. Hitting these walls had the effect of funneling the ball back to the fairway.
3.I do like implants-just in proper proportion. Obviously they can be overdone-just like mounding.
4. You know my home courses-to pick one I don't think there is any contest between Hidden Creek and Lakota. Hidden Creek is far superior. I would not put it in the top 10 in the world. I could easily name 50 courses where I would say there is no question that they are superior than HIdden Creek.
There is a big difference between a good course (both Lakota and Hidden Creek) and a great course. For example Merion is a great course (I was there two weeks ago for its new course rating with its new back tees on 10 holes). The feeling that you have from playing such a course is just so different from playing another good course. A round at Lakota (no matter how the architect was able to maximize the site) is just not the same as playing Pebble Beach or Ballybunion.
Everyone has their own opinion as to what makes a great golf course. Part of it is the overall experience of the round,the scenic beauty, how you are treated, conditioning,etc. With this in mind, how can you even mention Lakota in the same breath with Fishers Island (not on your top 10 list)?I would run back there in a minute to play. (I am using this as a reference as we played it together). While we differ on the relative merits of National vs. Shinnicock, there can be no doubt that they are both great courses and great experiences.
The purpose of this post, about which most seem to agree, is that Lakota, while a fine course, is not close to greatness.
-
Fisher's Island is in my top 10, you just missed it when you read it.
-
Fred:
You need to understand the rugged nature of the site that is Lakota Canyon Ranch.
You either glossed over or did not fully account for the nature of how Engh was able to overcome the natural obstacles that Mother Nature has put forward. If you have played Sanctuary then you can truly see how Engh has modified the hard edges / mounds that the layout in Sedalia possesses versus what you see now at Lakota and Pradera.
Given these obstacles Engh was able to create a golf course that maximizes the fun element for different levels of players. Here is the rub -- if the guy had created no mounding -- zero, nada, nilch -- then he would get hammered by those who would whine that the course is too demanding and too one dimensional.
People need to get a reality check and understand that the style of the most favroed architects here on GCA (e.g. Doak, C&C, Gil Hanse, Mike DeVries, etc, etc) represent a particular philosophy on the nature of course design.
Unfortunately, the fanatics seem to operate under the rule of design law that says the same thing as the mullahs over in Iraq and Iran -- you are an infatel if you are not a true believer -- under THEIR terms and definitions.
Fred -- you say Lakota is not great -- but the sheer bulk of the people have not played the course. You get people like David M who weighs in on the design contributions of Jim Engh through the playing of only ONE COURSE. He then extrapolates that to make some sort of definitive conclusion. That is laughable and comical at the same time.
Let me also say I never said anything about Fisher's Island -- I love the course and believe it's one of the finest in the
land -- along the way with Camargo in OH. However, there are plenty of Raynor courses that are rated that get a free bounce because of his name and one dimensional design style (see Shoreacres as a good example).
Fred -- when did I reference Lakota against the likes of the following:
Merion
Ballybunion
Pebble Beach
You're the guy who is inserting those courses against Lakota. What I said is that Lakota would make my personal top 100 courses in the USA -- I disagred with my friend Cary when he said Lakota is among the ten best in the USA.
Let me say this compare Lakota with the top public courses that have opened in the last few years and the course holds up very well. It is not at the same level as Black Mesa and the Greg Norman Course at Red Sky Ranch but the dropoff is only by a small degree. The fun element is something that really impressed me at Lakota -- Engh calculated this into the mixture and the course provides it time after time.
One other thing -- the strategic calculations you downplayed or barely touched at all through your spotty analysis are alive and well at Lakota. There's plenty of risk'n reward type holes at the course and the finale trio of holes is simply delicious. I personally believe that the 18th at Lakota is one of the finest public par-5's in all the USA.
Fred -- let's be fair -- Hidden Creek gets a huge bounce from the names of the duo who designed the course. It is well done but given the limitations of the site (the pinelands of Jersey minus what you see at PV are really disappointing as a land form) you get a solid course but nothing close to the rave reviews and placement that a number of magazines and raters have argued. I can name no less than 10 courses in the Garden State that are superior to Hidden Creek but get far little fanfare and visibility because they don't have the cache of the names of the designers which has causes a major influence for the small fanatic club here on GCA.
Fred -- let me point also state that as a member of a club you have a clear conflict of interest in stating its standing. I have no connection to any club and simply call it as I see it. There's no contest in my mind that I would rather play Lakota over Hidden Creek for the host of reasons I have mentioned. As a member I can understand your pride in your club and salute you for it even when I disagree.
What's funny is that minus you as a clear exception if the designer of Lakota Canyon Ranch were one of the most favored names on GCA the course would likely get rave reviews from many of them.
-
Some of us feel that Hidden Creek gets a huge bounce from the talents of the two designers, not their names.
And drawing an analogy between the artifically created Rawls Course - because it was a dead flat field - and the mounding/containment found on many modern courses is just flat out wacky.
-
Matt Ward
My comments were directed to Cary's assertions that Lakota belongs in the top 10. I would agree that Lakota belongs among the top public courses-but not a top 10 in that category either.
There also is a difference in making a critical evaluation about an architect's ability and how well he did with a specific site-and specific budget and an overall evaluation about the end product. Many less known architects may have the ability to produce outstanding products if given a great location etc (eg. Bandon Dunes). Perhaps, the mark of a great architect is what he does with a lesser location. You have much experience and are able to evaluate how well the architect has performed much better than I. My comments deal only with my evaluations of the end product and how it stacks up against others.
-
Fred -- you say Lakota is not great -- but the sheer bulk of the people have not played the course. You get people like David M who weighs in on the design contributions of Jim Engh through the playing of only ONE COURSE. He then extrapolates that to make some sort of definitive conclusion. That is laughable and comical at the same time.
I did NOT make some sort of definitive conclusion about Engh's larger body of work. To the contrary, I have gone out of my way to limit my conclusions to a single one of Engh's courses.
What's up Matt? Why won't you answer my questions? I'd really like to know how you evaluate some of the features which are so obvious and prevalent at Black Rock - - - The half-pipe fairways? The amphitheatre greens? The relegation of the better land to the houses and clubhouse? What weight, if any, do you give these features in your evaluation?
Are these stylistic elements? Are they indicative of Engh's style?
What is special about the shots values around the greens at Black Rock? How about the recovery shots?
Matt, these are not unfair questions. I am really starting to wonder why you wont answer them . . . you are usually not so coy about addressing such straight forward questions.
Matt, you've time to take yet another pot shot at how I view golf course architecture. So surely you have time to answer my simple questions. How could I or anyone else view you as credible when you refuse to answer even the simplest and most straight-forward questions about one of your evaluations?
-
Fred:
There is sooooooo much more to Lakota than your dwelling on the negative that I don't know if I really want to take the time and trouble to explain it to you.
Let me first say, that if I want to dwell on the negative at St. Andrews, I could say that 17 and 18 are awful holes. 17 you have to hit your drive over a building and then you got a sideways green with a road and wall behind that. Who would ever design that or call that a good hole.
18 is a terrible finishing hole, Tiger hit it with a 3 wood and everyone else with a driver. Its really a par 3.5 today.
So, does this make St. Adrews a bad golf course?????? That is exactly how you are trying to discredit Lakota!!!!!!!!
I was going to go thru all 18 holes, and explain all the stragety on all the shots, but I don't think its worth the effort.
Suffice it to say, while you are a really intelligent human being, it is impossible to argue rationally with you. You used to tell me your standard for rating courses was how memoriable each of the 18 holes are. Now that you are a member of Hidden Creek you have abandoned that critera.
-
Bill (now I call myself, "just your plain old everyday redanman"):
I have mentioned how Jack Nicklaus should be complimented on what he designed at Outlaw because of the manner in which the course was allowed to breathe and work in total harmony with the desert landscape.
Lyle Anderson saw fit as the principal not to have houses engulf the property -- you can also walk the property too. The vistas and mountains of the Valley of the Sun add immeasurably to the experience in playing the course and are not obscured by the McMansions that dot the rest of the courses at DM.
In addition, Jack has designed an array of greens that put pressure on the second shot / approaches throughout the round. The course is not overly penal or demanding as Geronimo and it's a bit more member oriented than the equally outstanding Chirichua course IMHO.
Jack has provided plenty of width when playing the course -- it's nearer to the green where you must deal with contours that sweep in a range of directions.
The only two lesser holes are the repetitive par-5's that climb the same hill -- one on the front (8th) and the other on the back (16th). They are good holes -- but one is sufficient. A bit more variety on that front would have been far preferred by me.
The other hole that is quite demanding is the par-4 9th -- it plays downhill but the green is quite narrow and players sometimes play towards the 10th fairway to get a better angle into the green. It's a tough hombre but I can see the points raised by some that the green is too severe. Maybe they need to play a few of Doak's before they say that. ;D
Nonetheless, the bulk of the course provides a quality desert environment without the bombardment of "either or" golf from the tee. Granted, some people do not like desert golf at all but much of the criticism is tied to the "my way or highway" design process that way too many desert courses often follow. That's far from the case with Outlaw.
I see Outlaw in the same vein as Desert Forest -- a revolutionary design from a man who has clearly modified his points of emphasis -- strategic overlays are 100% present at Outlaw -- you don't get the idea that higher handicaps are persona non grata there. As much as people talk about Desert Highlands -- I see Outlaw as a clear advancement from a course that has way too many penal features. In many ways the creation of another relatively new desert course in the same area -- Whisper Rock by Gary Stephenson and Phil Mickelson is also well done and a top five course in the Grand Canyon State without any question IMHO.
George:
What's wacky is the inconsistency that's applied to the most favored architects versus those viewed as outsiders. Maybe you missed the point because the airplanes are flying above your head.
George -- you need to play the "other" Jersey courses that get lost in the sauce because the "true believers" of what constitutes quality golf architecture are only selling the products of a very select few. For Hidden Creek to make the top 100 in America is quite a stretch given the inability for others in the same state to get even a sniff of attention. But then again what the hell do I know -- I only live here 24/7.
The Rawls Course is pampered with plenty of mounding -- plenty of which I don't find the least bit disconcerting or annoying. However, when Fred points out the mounding at Lakota Canyon -- we go towards an overkill analysis. No doubt there are mounds on a number of holes there but the desire by the architect was handling the vast number of public players who will likely be playing the course without compromising the sheer qualities of the layout -- of which there are many IMHO. The mounds do not provide some sort of automatic "cushion" or intrusion that deflects from what the property or design was meant to be IMHO.
George -- you have not played Lakota -- do yourself a favor and avoid lumping it into the vast "modern courses" of "mounding / containment" you attribute. Jim Engh is a very talented fellow and that comes out in Lakota and Pradera IMHO.
David M:
You are a classy guy -- we see things vastly different -- nothing I say will change your mind or mine. End of story.
-
Matt and Cary: Thanks for answering my questions. From all of your answers, it seems that I would not find the artifice of Lakota Canyon that much different from the other Engh courses I've seen, and therefore I probably wouldn't like it very much, no matter how strategic some of the holes are.
I don't know how you can compare The Rawls Course to something in the mountains. On flat ground, it is clear that you have to move some earth to make the course interesting. I thought my crew did a fine job of making the shapes unpredictable and differentiated throughout the course, and not just a bunch of parallel movements down the sides of the holes [although we couldn't do much about the rectangular property boundary]. On hilly property, I think it's possible to make earthmoving seamless to the viewer, I just think Jim Engh doesn't bother.
Matt: I like a whole lot of different styles from different architects. I think my style is different than Bill Coore's or Mike DeVries's, even though we prefer not to move earth ... and our styles change a bit from course to course depending on what we're given. Everyone might have thought that my style was the opposite of Mike Strantz's, but we had much more in common than people might think ... he moved earth boldly, but he did a great job making it look like it belonged there. MacKenzie, Macdonald, Ross and Tom Fazio had radically different styles from each other, and I've appreciated certain courses by each of them.
I'm not picking on an architect just because he likes to move earth, because sometimes that's what the property demands. I just can't understand why someone would choose to grade every inch of every fairway and green and not try to blur any of the edges of disturbance.
-
Tom:
Fair point.
But, I think the anti-Engh forces need to see how Jim has progressed from the over-the-top introductions he applied to Sanctuary and now to Lakota and Pradera. There has been a major step in the positive IMHO.
No doubt -- personal preferences are at work and I have to say again I thoroughly enjoyed The Rawls Course because clearly you needed to bring that property to life.
Tom, it simply boils down to people playing a fair representation of what an architect designs before extrapolating some grand theory on the shortcomings or positives that person possess. Too often the mullahs who rule on GCA view any dissent or promotion of others as infatels raising a fuss when they believe there is only one "true path to paradise."
-
Cary:
That in itself does not make St. Andrews a bad course just as the 18th at Cyprus does not make it a bad course. However, IMHO St. Andrews ,outside of its historic value, is not a great course. It certainly has not held up in resistence to scoring(even Jack shot 72,75). Outside of 17,its holes are hardly memorable. The reason we all want to play it is just that it is St. Andrews,the town is so fascinating, and Kingsbarnes is nearby for great golf.
-
The reason you want to play St Andrews is the course can play differently everytime you play it. That, to me, makes a course fun. The history is nice too, but the variety of ways to play each hole are its crowning achievement.
-
Cary:
That in itself does not make St. Andrews a bad course just as the 18th at Cyprus does not make it a bad course. However, IMHO St. Andrews ,outside of its historic value, is not a great course. It certainly has not held up in resistence to scoring(even Jack shot 72,75). Outside of 17,its holes are hardly memorable. The reason we all want to play it is just that it is St. Andrews,the town is so fascinating, and Kingsbarnes is nearby for great golf.
This maybe the runaway candidate for most ignorant post of the year. Your Golf Digest Panelist card is in the mail.
Congratulations!
Jim Franklin, as succinctly put as possible. Nice job....
-
Hey, I am a GD guy too ;D.
-
Opps! Sorry! :)
I just can't believe that statement Fred makes. Just can't believe it. Especially the resistence to scoring part. As if that should ever be a factor at the GREATEST course of them all!
-
Tommy:
To know Fred is to love him...This thread has a life of it's own ;D ;D ;D
Cary
-
Cary,
Therfore he deserves a break, and I'm going to give it to him by withdrawing it from for consdieration for the end of the year Golf Club Atlas awards! :)
When are you getting the hell out of Colorado and coming to California? 8)
-
Tommy:
Under no circumstances do you withdraw him from the end of the year awards. Fred is great materail. Are these similiar to the Darwin Awards?
California, hmmm...good question...our daughter visited us in Aspen last week and we see her again Thanksgiving. So probably Jan or Feb in California
Cary
-
I am very pleased Jim Engh will be doing Carne. He has an affinity with the place - joining the golf club before he was ever to design holes there.
He seems to have built his name without originally being fameous, so there is something about his work that people like. It's his job to build courses that people like, and he's been a big success.