Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jim Franklin on June 14, 2010, 09:37:41 AM
-
We had our member guest this weekend and one of my friends had a guy from Montana as his guest. I told him how much I loved Rock Creek and he said the greens were way too difficult. He said he heard they were redoing all of them because the membership was complaining. I find this very hard to believe so I wanted to see if there was any truth to his assertion that the greens at RCCC are being redone.
-
Sounds like they may not be fair. ;)
-
Excellent reply Mac !!
-
Trust me, the greens are more than fair. If you are on teh wrong side, you are in trouble. Isn't that how it should be??? Aren't the greens the first line of defense on a great golf course?
-
W. He said he heard they were redoing all of them because the membership was complaining.
What, all 50 of them, only 5 of them who live anywhere enough to play even a couple times a year?
Right. Sounds like a lot of talking out one's ass to me.
-
or...... they could just slow them down.... what are they running anyways?
I didn't notice anything that over the top, and I doubt Mr. Iverson would screw ALL 18 GREENS UP!
-
Jim:
Rock Creek are TAME when compared to the likes of Sebonack.
It's laughable -- but I agree w Shivas (my God, did I just say that) -- the issue for such people is a simple one -- hit better approaches to get closer and practice one's putting.
Rock Creek's greens when I was there were just fine.
-
No, this is a legitimate remark, not that I have any inside information on the opinions of club members. But when I dissect Rock Creek with friends who have played the course, a recurring critique is the complexity of the greens. They are not severely tilted, but they are very complex, and reading greens there is hard work.
I doubt they will redo all of the greens, though.
By the way, I think Rock Creek is outstanding, and every time somebody asks me whether they should visit, I enthusiastically encourage them to do so.
-
Hiding this here to avoid potential lambasting... but....
Say one has a life that allows nearly no golf trips.
You can do ONE and ONE only in the next 16 months.
Rock Creek or Old Macdonald?
On topic here, having never been to Rock Creek, I just have to ask also - can't they / won't they keep them at speeds that make them complex and yet not absurd? Think Pasatiempo... 10 or less is complex and fun... faster than that leads to absurdity. Is that the case at Rock Creek?
-
We have heard a fair amount of protest over the greens at Rock Creek.
There is a reasonable amount of slope, and they keep them bullet-fast, paying no attention at all to our recommendations on speed. On top of that, because of the mountainside terrain, people get fooled as to how much slope there is, so good players in particular are likely to complain.
Our client, Mr. Foley, is a member of Oakmont (among other places), and I have not been above asking how Rock Creek's greens compare to those. But it's possible they may insist we rebuild a few of them at some point. It hasn't happened yet, though.
-
Huck:
The greens at Rock Creek are fine. I do agree with you that if green speeds were pushed way too hard then situations would be different. The green contours at Sebonack are more demanding than what you have at Rock Creek.
Those who raise the issue need a few putting lessons or hit their approaches closer to the hole.
Rock Creek is not DUMB DOWN golf -- it's about producing fine golf shots that will be approrpiately rewarded when executed well.
I have not played ld Macdonald yet so I can answer your quetion.
Let me put it this way -- if it's Pac Dunes and Rock Creek -- I'd say make travel plans to MT !
-
Matt - I think Tom D answers the question:
"There is a reasonable amount of slope, and they keep them bullet-fast, paying no attention at all to our recommendations on speed."
SO... it at least can be likened to the Pasatiempo situation. That's too bad.
And thanks, that does say a lot to choose RC over PD for the one trip - maybe even enough.
TH
-
Huck:
If one were to throw forward the nation's most demanding greens -- Oakmont, ANGC and OH/S, to name just three -- Rock Creek is quite competitive but when people bitch and moan about green speeds then frankly some of that has to be a "look in the mirror" situation.
Tom provided plenty of ways to get to the pin location -- it's up the player(s) to know their putting stroke and if in doubt hit better approach shots to compensate for it.
-
I will say this is one case where I wish some magazine would get off their butts and get this course rated ... I think there would be much less protest from the membership about the greens if the course was ranked highly by GOLF or GOLF DIGEST. And I have not heard any protests about the greens from any of those people who have visited, although some may have bitten their tongues.
-
Matt: I get that.
But the man himself said they're keeping it at speeds that he and his people recommended they do not do.
That's all I wanted to know... what the deal was. I make no comments as to quality, etc... I was just wondering what might prompt anyone to complain about the greens. And this explains that.
TH
ps - Tom - get me a plane and/or a plane ticket, make sure I get an overnight stay at least, and I am there.
;D
-
Huck:
People will bitch and moan just for the sake of being heard because saying "they suck" or "can't putt worth a lick" is far too e-z.
-
Huck -
I have not played Old Mac yet, but will do so in August. However, if I ever have the chance to go back to Rock Creek, I will not hesitate. As an example, I have recently been invited to Northern Ireland and I am undecided. Now if that same crew invited me to Rock Creek, I would be on the next flight.
As for the greens, I did not think they were overboard. There are plenty of places to place a pin, but if they try to make the greens SUPER fast, I am sure people will b!tch because even teh pros are not always on the right side of the hole all of the time.
-
Jim - thanks. I guess what I am looking for is which NEEDS to be seen more, either in terms of the rating process, or fun for the rater?
And in terms of the greens, question: can you envision absudity happening there, as it can at Pasatiempo? By that I mean, uphill putts that are missed rolling back to one's feet just due to gravity?
That is justified bitching, as I see things. Lots of 3 and 4 putts due to ball on wrong side of a bad contour, that is not justified... as Matt and you have said.
TH
-
Tom:
Just to be clear, there are no 5% tilts to greens at Rock Creek, as there are at Pasatiempo. We kept the maximum slope for a pin placement area to 3%, just as we've done for most of our other courses the past ten years. The greens would have to get above 15 for a ball to turn around and come back to you on that sort of slope.
There are just a lot of tricky internal contours between the 3% areas, and I will again mention the mountain setting, which makes some people miss the 3% slope and putt way past the hole accordingly.
-
shivas - thanks - that answers it perfectly.
Although I could have bet my house on your answer.
Is there anyone ELSE out there who has either played both, or knows enough about both, to give me a recommendation?
I'll even up the ante further... say one can see ONLY ONE in one's lifetime - what then?
TH
ps - that is not far-fetched for me. Seriously. I may only get to one or the other of these in my life.
-
I have a few non GCA friends who have played it a bunch. To a man, they love it but think a couple of greens are over the top.
I suppose one could say the same thing about a bunch of TD's courses.
-
Tom, if you only get to see one in your lifetime, I think you owe it to yourself to play #4, 7, 8, and 10 through 16 at Rock Creek. I guarantee you that you will view at least 3 of these holes as among the coolest and most unique holes you've ever played...
You have made these guarantees many times before.
I KNOW your answers before you write them.
Can I please get input from someone else?
;D
-
I agree with Shiv. ;D
I will give you a more detailed report the second week of August.
-
I agree with Shiv. ;D
I will give you a more detailed report the second week of August.
You don't count either, but MAYBE you will the 2nd week of August.
;D
-
You sound like my wife ;D.
-
From my sampling of Doak's courses (Ballyneal, Pacific Dunes, Stone Eagle), I think a a stimp reading of about 9.5 is ideal. Do any of his other courses feature less challenging/complex/sloping greens that are reasonably playable at higher speeds? If not, I would suggest that golfers who prefer more their putting surfaces to be flatter and faster stick to course by other design firms. So, assuming that a majority of the members are demanding changes to the greens at Rock Creek, the following questions fill my diminutive mind.
How many members does Rock Creek have?
What is the average distance in miles between the golf course and those members' respective primary residences?
If the answer to both questions is a resonably high number (say a 100 members that live an average of 500 miles away), I would have to wonder why so many would join a club so far from home to putt on greens they don't enjoy.
-
We have heard a fair amount of protest over the greens at Rock Creek.
There is a reasonable amount of slope, and they keep them bullet-fast, paying no attention at all to our recommendations on speed.
seems like as a simple solution........
:o :o :o :o ??? ??? ::) ::) ::)
-
We have heard a fair amount of protest over the greens at Rock Creek.
There is a reasonable amount of slope, and they keep them bullet-fast, paying no attention at all to our recommendations on speed. On top of that, because of the mountainside terrain, people get fooled as to how much slope there is, so good players in particular are likely to complain.
Our client, Mr. Foley, is a member of Oakmont (among other places), and I have not been above asking how Rock Creek's greens compare to those. But it's possible they may insist we rebuild a few of them at some point. It hasn't happened yet, though.
Tom, I'm on the way home from a weekend of very bad weather on the outstanding golf course at Ballyneal.
The greens there are among the most interesting and challenging I've ever seen. There are some wild contours and steep slopes (such as rear of #7!!!) and bowls aplenty that offer many opportunities to putt away from the hole.
The green speed was maybe a hair below optimal. How would you compare the design of the greens to those at Rock Creek?
-
I played Rock Creek on opening day this year, the greens were quite slow due to being so very early in the season. I didn't think the contouring was over the top at all, in fact quite fun. But I'm sure that's heavily due to the speeds they were at.
That said, there were DEFINITELY spots that had been leveled off and regrassed either late last year or early this year. The caddie said Mr. Foley insisted himself. Who knows if that's true, just what we were told.
I didn't 3 putt all day, in fact I noticed I made 17 pars in a row when I got to 18 tee....proceeded to cold shank my 9 iron approach and bogey the last to make sure that streak ended! Enjoyed the course very much, hope to get back someday....a closer airport would be nice if someone can make that happen :)
-
By the way, I regard Rock Creek's greens as being considerably better and more enjoyable than Pasatiempo's greens. Too bad they are maintaining the greens at top speed all the time. It's the difference between tough modern and tough classic greens; the modern ones are better desuigned for modern playing conditions.
Awesome place.
-
John K - that has confused me - please clarify - is your assessment of Pasatiempo v. Rock Creek based on each at optimum speed?
I ask because I would agree that Pasa too fast is no fun for anyone; you're right - those greens were not designed to be modern-fast. But Pasa at the proper speed - which is how they tend to keep them most of the time these days - those are very very great. If Rock Creek's greens are superior to those by any measure when they all are playing as they should, well then that is really saying something.
-
This thread highlights a major Catch 22 for archies. We never know how our courses are going to be maintained. Some have even written maintenace specs to avoid criticism when a super/MC/Owner takes it upon themselves to veer away from the design intent. It would be interesting to know what expectations or directives - preconstruction - were given to Tom by Mr. Foley. I could easily extrapolate him wishing for "greens as hard as Oakmont" and Tom delivering. But, at 9-10. Then, the same guy turns to the super and says, "Oakmonts are 12, I want these 12 too." Presto, the greens are too hard and it the architects fault.
Personally, I think speed is overrated for 99.9% of players. with Poa/Bent greens, lower heights afforded greens that putted TRUE - fast was just a bi-product that was measurable. I would give higher marks to a green that putted true and held the line at 9 than one that needed to get to 11 to achieve the same results.
But, too many knuckleheads are addicted to Stimp #'s and like over-watered/over-fertilized, it's a hard habit to break.
-
I played Rock Creek on opening day this year, the greens were quite slow due to being so very early in the season. I didn't think the contouring was over the top at all, in fact quite fun. But I'm sure that's heavily due to the speeds they were at.
That said, there were DEFINITELY spots that had been leveled off and regrassed either late last year or early this year. The caddie said Mr. Foley insisted himself. Who knows if that's true, just what we were told.
Clint:
We did a bit of work on two greens last fall, at Mr. Foley's request. The work was on #4 and on #9. I understood the request on #4, the green had a bunch of small bumps in it that didn't really fit the scale of the rest of the hole. The area in question on #9 didn't seem like a big deal at all to me, but it didn't bother me to make the change, either. I have not actually seen the changes in person, as they decided it had to be done when I was committed elsewhere, but Eric Iverson did the work and he is the one who did a lot of the original work.
What bothers me about this whole discussion (and why I wish it would end) is it is just adding fuel to the fire. Hardly anyone has even seen or played on these modified greens, so discussing them doesn't make a whole lot of sense right now.
For that matter, neither does it help for the guys who love the course to tell the members they are stupid not to like the greens ... any more than it helps for a couple of members to gripe about the greens to their guests or anyone else who will listen.
I will simply repeat that I think this course is some of my best work and I hope the membership will come to appreciate it.
-
Just for the record, I never expected these greens to be maintained at 9 on the Stimpmeter. They would be fine at 10, and playable (but pretty darned hard) at 11. I am guessing they get them to 11 fairly often, and that's where the griping starts.
[It's the same story at Sebonack, incidentally ... they get the greens up to 13 there as often as they can without killing them.]
Bill McBride: These Rock Creek greens are very different than Ballyneal's. They are not nearly as severe on the big contours within the greens. But, Ballyneal's severity is tempered by the fact that most of the greens sit in bowls, and it's not like you are going to putt off the greens very often, with a couple of exceptions. Because of the steady slope of the property -- 360 feet of elevation change, which is more than Pasatiempo -- it was inevitable that Rock Creek's greens would have some tilt to them, and a downhill putt is rarely "contained" if you let it get away from you.
-
It amazes me on this site how people -- certain ones mind you -- can throw forward some minor point -- and it's very small if that at all. Rock Creek is a joy to play -- getting to Deer Lodge is part of the enjoyment but once there the product speaks for itself. I've had the pleasure in playing plenty of superior golf courses in my day -- Rock Creek easily makes my personal top 50.
For those who have not played it your Doak file is incomplete until you have.
-
John K - that has confused me - please clarify - is your assessment of Pasatiempo v. Rock Creek based on each at optimum speed?
I ask because I would agree that Pasa too fast is no fun for anyone; you're right - those greens were not designed to be modern-fast. But Pasa at the proper speed - which is how they tend to keep them most of the time these days - those are very very great. If Rock Creek's greens are superior to those by any measure when they all are playing as they should, well then that is really saying something.
Tom Huckaby,
Yeah..that's what I think. At proper speed, Rock Creek's greens are decisively more fun. Modern smooth grasses with slopes designed for today's green speeds. They yield a broader spectrum of putts that are more interesting to read, execute and watch.
-
It amazes me on this site how people -- certain ones mind you -- can throw forward some minor point -- and it's very small if that at all. Rock Creek is a joy to play -- getting to Deer Lodge is part of the enjoyment but once there the product speaks for itself. I've had the pleasure in playing plenty of superior golf courses in my day -- Rock Creek easily makes my personal top 50.
For those who have not played it your Doak file is incomplete until you have.
Is your comment a response to my tongue in cheek mentioning of needing a closer airport?
-
Clint:
No -- not at all.
I just find it hard to believe that because the club deals with two greens that that action is then widened into a series of bitch and moans from certain people that the overall green contours at Rock Creek are out-of-bounds. It just amazes me that people can leap off the cliff of extrapolation with such a yarn.
Rock Creek is not as demanding in terms of green speeds and contours like Sebonack. That doesn't mean to say the greens at the MT layout cannot be increased for overall Stimp speed.
What's really shocking is how s-l-o-w the top tier mags have been in placing Rock Creek. In today's nonstop info age the tired excuse of "we have not gotten enough panelists to go there" just doesn't cut it.
For all the ink that Ballyneal and Pacific Dunes rightly create -- Rock Creek is really the stellar course that lies in the shadows -- for now.
-
It is disappointing to hear that there is still talk of taming some of the greens at RCCC; I found them to be great fun and of terrific variety, with plenty of concave and convex green sites to either funnel the ball toward the hole, or away from it (a few greens seem to accomplish both).
I really liked the greens, but I can understand why some find them severe, especially in their receptivity in tough conditions. For example, both the 16th and the 11th greens were great fun, but both were extremely difficult to hold and to putt when firm. Given the difficulty of these holes and others tee to green, it doesn't surprise me that there have been some complaints. The catch is that some of the more severe green sites (like these two) help make for some of the most exciting and interesting holes out there. It would be a shame to see them altered unnecessarily.
That being said, it probably isn't productive to just dismiss the complaints as the whining of incompetent golfers, as Matt Ward (and perhaps a few others) seem to want to do . . .
". . . It's laughable -- the issue for such people is a simple one -- hit better approaches to get closer and practice one's putting.
. . . Those who raise the issue need a few putting lessons or hit their approaches closer to the hole.
. . . Rock Creek is not DUMB DOWN golf -- it's about producing fine golf shots that will be approrpiately rewarded when executed well.
. . . when people bitch and moan about green speeds then frankly some of that has to be a "look in the mirror" situation
. . . Tom provided plenty of ways to get to the pin location -- it's up the player(s) to know their putting stroke and if in doubt hit better approach shots to compensate for it.
. . . People will bitch and moan just for the sake of being heard because saying "they suck" or "can't putt worth a lick" is far too e-z."
This kind of reactionary macho garbage is rarely productive. Telling those complaining to man up because "they suck" and cannot hit it close doesn't add much to the conversation, does it? Plus, as Tom Doak mentioned, it is almost invariably the better golfers who raise this type of complaint, not those (like me) who actually do suck at golf and cannot hit is close.
Based on what I have heard from people in Montana and out, my guess is that Rock Creek is facing the same issues that great courses have been facing for the past century, and it is likely that the problem is the opposite of what Matt sees. Rock Creek has probably forced a small group of very good golfers-- those who usually can hit it close and make their putts-- well outside their comfort zone. Trying to throw it close isn't necessarily the best play, and being close to the pin isn’t a guarantee of a made putt, even for a very good putter. Better golfers tend to expect a certain payoff for quality ball striking, yet quality ball striking might not produce these results at Rock Creek. And, unfortunately, the top golfers generally hold sway over lesser players, on the mistaken assumption that good golfers must have a better understanding of golf courses.
Maybe what the course needs is a strong internal advocate, preferably a very good player, who understands and appreciates what makes the place so special and is willing to take on the voices of those who want to see the same sort of payoff for “shot value” as they see at other courses.
________________________________________________________
Tom H.
As I was playing and loving OM I was wondering which was more fun; OM or RCCC, and I am not sure I have an answer. As for whether anyone should see one over another, I think the answer depends very much upon who is asking. While my answer might be different if I weren't answering "America's Guest," I'd say that you, Mr. Huckaby, should fly to Missoula, Butte, or Helena and play RCCC.
-- OM is a terrific course flowing over the kind of terrific land where one might expect to find a terrific course, even though going in some might have thought that when it came to quality golf land, OM must be suckling mother Bandon's hind tit. Yet it more than holds its own when compared to any of the other Bandon courses. Not only that, but OM's explicit incorporation of the foundational elements of excellent strategic golf holes makes it even more special, and I think you would probably come away from it not only in love with OM, but also with even a greater appreciation (if possible) for the likes of TOC, NGLA, CPC, and maybe even a few relative dog tracks like Rustic Canyon.
-- But even against all that, I still think RCCC would be my recommendation for you, personally, just because it is just so damn different. OM is more in your wheelhouse/comfort zone, while RCCC is flowing down a mountainside which is blanketed by fricken' glacial moraine (think sand dunes where each grain of sand is about the size of a Volkswagen beetle.) RCCC is so much better than any modern mountain course that to my mind it ought to entirely transform our expectations of what a golf course on a tough site can be. In fact it is so good it almost seems silly to think of it is a mountain course at all, and almost insulting to limit it with such a description. It is a hell of a lot of fun, even as much fun as places like Sand Hills, Ballyneal, OM, B Trails, PD, and even some of the old greats.
-- So to you I'd say go play RCCC. But to others I might say go play OM. In fact, if you do go play RCCC you might consider telling everyone you meet at RCCC to go play OM so that they might better understand and appreciate what makes RCCC so god damned good, and so they might think twice about changing it.
Hope this helps.
-
John K - thanks for clarifying re the greens - man they must be something at Rock Creek.
David M - thanks also for all of that - that explains it perfectly. RC it is... "different" makes all the sense in the world to me...Just hope I get to go anywhere again some day.
Tom H.
-
David M:
Glad you can offer a spin on what you think I said that has no real relationship to what I think about the course itself.
Let me help you if I can -- Rock Creek's greens are not, in my experience, truly contoured and pitched to the point that they warrant the comments made. My comments, are not as you so ignorantly blast as "macho garbage" and they were not solely aimed as you erroneously claim just to "incompetent golfers." Often times the people who bitch the most about such greens are the better players who prefer everything to be "fair" and absent anything equating to outside their comfort box.
I'm so happy to see you have not lost your desire to be the spokesperson for all those who are beyond single digit levels.
If one were to examine what Doak and Nicklaus did at Sebonack the nature of the greens there and how they are even more sloped and contoured then the nature of what Rock Creek is about would be seen for what it is. Often times those who complain the loudest have a limited reference point as well.
People, of all handicap levels, just need to get on with the game at Rock Creek. The place works very well -- it just so happens to be a tad more intense than places like Pac Dunes and Ballyneal and Tom's outline of how that came to pass makes perfect sense.
-
Bill McBride: These Rock Creek greens are very different than Ballyneal's. They are not nearly as severe on the big contours within the greens. But, Ballyneal's severity is tempered by the fact that most of the greens sit in bowls, and it's not like you are going to putt off the greens very often, with a couple of exceptions. Because of the steady slope of the property -- 360 feet of elevation change, which is more than Pasatiempo -- it was inevitable that Rock Creek's greens would have some tilt to them, and a downhill putt is rarely "contained" if you let it get away from you.
Tom, I was really blown away by the greens at Ballyneal. The contours, of course, such as those that divide up #12 into those bowls, but also how puttable those bowls and other pin areas are throughout the course. It can take a great deal of imagination to get close to those pins - and occasionally some embarrassment when you miscalculate! But I haven't had as much fun on greens for years!
-
Matt Ward:
you said, "If one were to examine what Doak and Nicklaus did at Sebonack the nature of the greens there and how they are even more sloped and contoured then the nature of what Rock Creek is about would be seen for what it is. Often times those who complain the loudest have a limited reference point as well"
Have you ever heard the term 2 wrongs don't make a right? I mean how does the slope at Sebonack justify less slope on Rock Creek? With this logic, if people complain about Sebonack, we can just build a course with an incredible amount of slope and tell people at Sebonack to suck it up because the greens are not as bad as the new course.
-
Matt,
See the words in italics above? All crap about people bitching and moaning and needing to hit it better and closer and needing to practice more and take lessons, putting lessons, and on and on and on . . . ? I didn't make this garbage up. It is all you. Your words, and from this thread alone. And of course it is the same asinine macho drivel you have been spewing for at least a decade. So let's not pretend you've been misunderstood or misrepresented. Given that you have written the exact same thing thousands of times, it just isn't that difficult to figure out.
The irony, of course, is that you have a lot in common with these strawmen golfers who supposedly suck, need lessons, etc. and yet are still "bitching and moaning" about golf courses. I'll bet you have no idea what.
-----------------------------------
Keith OHalloran
That is a good point, at least generally. The reality may be that some of the role models courses may be above reproach, but perhaps they shouldn't be. As for Sebonac and Oakmont, I haven't had the pleasure and therefor cannot say one way or another.
On the other hand, sometimes seeing and playing an excellent golf course can change the way one views other courses. I know that for me, seeing courses with really outstanding yet a bit crazy greens (NGLA immediately comes to mind) has impacted the way I view all courses. Sometimes a great course with crazy/great greens can really drive home the point that great golf design isn't really about striking the balance on the easy/hard continuum, but rather is about much more.
-
Matt Ward -
What is your handicap?
What are your two lowest eligible tournament scores?
When you hit a 360 yard Wardian blast off the tee, does it always occur on the first attempt, or do you sometimes take a mulligan or two?
Thanks !
-
Perhaps one of the reasons I have trouble with this is that all of my clients love Pacific Dunes, and they never stop to think that the greens at Pacific rarely get anywhere near 11 on the Stimpmeter.
-
Perhaps one of the reasons I have trouble with this is that all of my clients love Pacific Dunes, and they never stop to think that the greens at Pacific rarely get anywhere near 11 on the Stimpmeter.
.....even after you remind them, right? ;)
-
Keith:
I never justified less slope at Rock Creek. I simply said, in the event you missed it, that I didn't find the green speeds / contours Rock Creek to be excessive nor the contours done to such a degree that it would inhibit players from enjoying themselves. Sebonack has even more contours and movements than Rock Creek in my mind. I've heard a similar argument about Sebonack (green contours too intense and speeds too fast) and when comparing the two courses I would say the LI layout has more of a potential issue in that regard than the one in MT.
-
I am kind of sorry I started this thread. I was shocked to hear someone say they were going to redo the greens at the best modern course I have played and that same person thought Tom Fazio was the architect that I thought he had to be wrong. Anyway Huckaby needs to get to Rock Creek as David's description was spot on.
-
Jim, I need to get to a lot of places. I just figure I can sell the home front on maybe one frivolous trip in the next decade. Seriously. So these two contenders came to mind as places that would not only be fun, but need to be seen. I think RC wins in the latter part too... MANY people will get to OM, they sure as hell don't need another rater/tourist like me. But maybe RC does?
Totally outside of the rater crap, another contender has been mentioned to me: Wolf Creek down in Texas. Check the current thread on that. In terms of pure raw golf fun, man that might take the new leader role.
Hell it's all speculation anyway as like I say, golf travel is not a reality for me. Now I am adding in King's Putter at Bandon next year, so that might seal the deal here anyway... hard to believe I can go anywhere else if I do that.
But it is fun to speculate, as frustrating as it may be.
TH
-
I guess I need my head examined.
Basing it only on pictures and descriptions, they look to be very much in the same league to me.
I did not write any of this to get a rise out of anyone. I see three great new golf courses, all of which I'd like to see, none of which I will be able to most likely, but maybe one I can beg for. I guess that's enough to be in the same league, for me anyway.
TH
-
Tom, I have thoroughly reviewed the Wolf Point thread and all the pictures.
And, yes, I am aware that you probably said what you said just to get a rise out of me.
I don't care...I'm taking the bait anyway, knowingly and consciously:
Wolf Point looks like a wonderful golf course and someplace it would be very difficult not to have a great time and a great round...
But, if you think that's even in the same league as Rock Creek, you need you head examined - pronto!
Proving once again that you cannot judge a course or its greens from photos. There are some incredible and bizarrely fun greens at Wolf Point. And huge too.
You can make a statement like "if you think that's even in the same league as Rock Creek, you need you head examined " only if you've played them both.
How do you make that green ink thingy work?
-
You've got to pay Mucci a $5 licensing fee first, then he releases access...
-
Interesting reading all of the opinions here. As the person who spent 2 years growing the course in and being on those greens every day and setting it up, as Tom said, running them at 10-10.5 was plenty fast given the countours. At that speed they 'feel' like they are running 11-11.5. I think within this business, people get caught up in what the stimp reading numbers are without taking into consideration what the countours are. We went out of our way on a daily basis using a laser slope reader keeping all pin positions on slopes less than 2.5% and doing stimp readings in the morning and afternoons to make sure things werent getting out of control. Speed is a relative thing to the countours. People read too much into the numbers and sometimes let their ego's get into the way of playability.
Mat
-
Hey Mat, I was up there in Sept of '08 and you had that place fast, firm, difficult and perfect! Your green speed was just right. Anymore and it would have been scary. I was really blown away that you could have a golf course in it's first season in that pristine condition. We all were.
Where are you now?
-
I too was there in 2008 and second Michael's comments. The course was in terrific condition, especially when one considers that there had been snow on the ground in June.
In this age of instant gratification a talented grow-in superindent is an underappreciated but essential cog in the gca process.
-
Hey Mat, I was up there in Sept of '08 and you had that place fast, firm, difficult and perfect! Your green speed was just right. Anymore and it would have been scary. I was really blown away that you could have a golf course in it's first season in that pristine condition. We all were.
Where are you now?
Michael:
Thank you for the kind words- it was fun maintaing a course like that and the uniqueness of everything involved.
I'm now in the Sacramento Valley at Valley Hi Country Club. The place needs alot of work, but the membership is investing into the infastructure of the course to make it better (new pump station and irrigation heads and wiring). Hopefully we will be doing a bunker project next year so we can actually have some hazards out here.
Mat
-
Hey Mat, I was up there in Sept of '08 and you had that place fast, firm, difficult and perfect! Your green speed was just right. Anymore and it would have been scary. I was really blown away that you could have a golf course in it's first season in that pristine condition. We all were.
Where are you now?
Michael:
Thank you for the kind words- it was fun maintaing a course like that and the uniqueness of everything involved.
I'm now in the Sacramento Valley at Valley Hi Country Club. The place needs alot of work, but the membership is investing into the infastructure of the course to make it better (new pump station and irrigation heads and wiring). Hopefully we will be doing a bunker project next year so we can actually have some hazards out here.
Mat
Mat:
Check your PMs.
I'm a solid driver, PW to valley hi right now.