Sanctuary Revisited

[Matt_Ward]

During my latest visit to the Mountain Time Zone I had the opportunity for a second engagement at Sanctuary GC in Sedalia, CO -- the design of Jim Engh and the course largely responsible for his fanfare as an architect of sanding.

Initially, I found the design at Sanctuary to be rather bold given the demands of the site which falls abruptly from the clubhouse area. No doubt the views of the Front Range and Pike's Peak in the near distance is outstanding.

During my second visit I can to understand the strategic significance of a number of holes at the course but I was taken aback by the tightness and relative one-way oriented style of a few others.

Take for example the 1st at 604 yards. The tee shot plunges 200 feet from the back tees but the fairway area is designed in a somewat awkward way with a platform landing area that ends with a sharp fall-off before you reach the second fairway area that lies beyond. The rest of the hole flows quite nicely but the tee shot requirement makes for some interesing bounces.

The 2nd is even more of the same. The landing areas is quite tight and the slightest push or pull will likely require a possible re-load. The green is set in a nice position with the Front Range in the background but the actual contouring of the green was marginal in its overall presentation from a shotmaking perspective.

There are other holes at Sanctuary where strategic qualities are clearly present. The sharp fall away of the dog-leg right par-5 4th is especially creative by Engh. The trees nea the tee obscure the landing area from the back tees and you have to have a "leap of faith" in terms of how far right you are willing to hit the tee shot. The green is nicely positoined and there is a solitary tree in the "bail-out" are that can come into play should you opt to head in that direction.

Unfortunately, the landing zone element that the 4th provides is not present at the scenic but "tricky" downhill dog-leg right par-5 15th. Here you have a quick turning hole to the right and if you hit your tee shot to cut off the corner you may run out of landing area.

Sanctuary is clearly a successful engineering test. To provide a golf course of that nature on such a demanding and rigorous piece of land takes a greatdeal of imagination. It's a quality that Jim Engh clearly possesses frmthe different layouts of his I have played subsequently.

However, Sanctuary is not the kind of course I could or would want to play everyday. The demanding and excessive shot distortions that come into play introduce a level of shot guessing that can be quite puzzling -- even if you are hitting the ball extremely well.

I'd be interested in the comments of others. I don't see the course as a top 100 layout from a pure strategic / architectural element. How do others see it?

[cary lichtenstein]

Matt:

You and I usually are pretty much in agreement on what is and what is not a good course, but on this one I think we will have to disagree

I think Engh took a mountaineous piece of land that no one else would even touch, and created a masterpiece. It is one thing to go to Nebraska and select 18 holes out of 100 that are already sitting out there, it is another thing to route Sanctuary's irregular piece of property on paper and then pull it off.

Who else do you think could do this?

You and I could take the Sand Hills piece of property and build a halfway decent course from tee to green given the topography and soil. We'd not do so good with the greens.

You and I couldn't do squat with the original Sanctuary property.

The shot distortion is fun and changelling because you not only have to thru extensive math calculations, but then you have to decide the type of shot, height, etc and then execute it.

Granted, the 18 handicap may not appreciate these challanges, or even be aware of them, but so what, isn't all the hype about "this course is playable for every handicap" you read in avout every course a bunch of bullshit that we all get tired of reading?

The point I am trying to make, isn't it wonderful we're given the opportunity to play such a course and so what if we're off our game and hit a few lousy shots, in exchange for the array of unusual challenges presented on a course such as this?

[Gregg Vincent]

I was given a tour of the property by Dave Liniger during the construction. His four wheeling skills were eye opening and I remember hoping we would make it back alive.

I returned a couple of years later to play the course. It is not one of my favorites but it is a special place and I agree with Cary that it is an amazing acheivment given the terrain.

We were looking at it as a potential tournament site and quickly ruled it out due to the extreme condidtions.

[Matt_Ward]

Cary / Gregg:

Are we celebrating the engineering of Sanctuary or the pure architecture for the holes created.

I don't see how a few of the holes there are celebrated simply because of the continuous effect that massive "shot distortions" cause to happen.

No doubt, there are several holes where the strategic implications are there and will be there time after time you play them. I forgot to mention the unique and exciting aspect of the par-5 11th. But, there are others -- like the UP-hill par-4 8th and even the closing holes which are quite abrupt in the terms of the land v shotmaking balancing act.

Sanctuary provides an interesting discussion point because if you see what's there and compare it to future Engh designs I believe you can see where I am coming from in this thread.

[cary lichtenstein]

Matt:

One day we will play Sanctuary together and we can hit shots and beat each other up about this.

I like the shot distortion, so maybe I am odd. I like the math. I like the challenge.

What is the difference between the  ground shot distortion you get on a truly links course than the air shot distortion at Sanctuary?

Is is good architecture, absolutely, good engineering, definitely.

I think it is ground breaking and a top 100 without a shadow of a doubt.

How exciting is Pinehurst#2? Isn't it a test of survival? Exactly how much fun is that? Don't Ross's greens distort finely hit shots, just in a different way?

Finally, who says distortion is bad?

[Matt_Ward]

Cary:

The differences between shot distortion of the Sanctuary kind versus ground game elements you mentioned is a simple one --the shot distortions you encounter at Sanctuary cannot be calculated to any consistent degree.

Keep in mind the "challenge" element needs to be based on some sort of consistent reward / penalty application. When you get massive shot distortions with elevated tees there needs to be some manner by which the architect is especially sensitive to what takes place.

For example -- Sanctuary is too narrow in a number of spots. I illustrated the abrupt upper level / lower level fairway of the 1st hole and the 2nd is another of those narrow type holes. When you calculate the effects of shot distortion through the combo of the elevation and tee drop-ffs to fairway you get plenty of luck being introduced into the mixture.

I don't deny that ground game elements also feature some sort of luck as all golf shots likely do. But the terrain used for such golf as in Sanctuary is extreme. I salute Engh for his ability to bring golf to the location in Sedalia, but there were glaring gaps in the overall routing of Sanctuary that allowed for the creation of some sterling holes but left me scratching my head in bewilderment with quite a few others.

Cary -- you have it backwards -- Sanctuary proves man's wherewithal to overcome the demands of such a difficult
site (engineering wise) -- it does not prove to me that quality golf can be imposed upon such a site that is overly narrow and penal and excessively sloped). Architecture is about understanding how golf is played as a game. Sanctuary has a few holes where the playing of the game is severely distorted (see the 8th and 18th as two examples) because of the natural attributes of the site. I have already mentioned the puzzling par-5 14th as just one example. Anyone trying to go over the corner of the dog-leg simply runs out of run and goes through the fairway.

If you played Pradera -- the new Engh design in Parker -- you would see a course that is considerably better than Sanctuary IMHO. At Pradera, Engh has evolved his style while benefiting from a solid location that is not as abrupt or drastic as Sanctuary is.

At the end of the day the test for any top 100 course in my mind is whether you would want to play it for the rest of your life. Sanctuary for me is a sideshow -- a novelty act that one can have fun with, but it would not sustain my interest as other Engh designs such as Lakota Canyon Ranch and Pradera, to name just two, do.

Yes partner -- we part ways on this one. Such is the joy of differences.

[cary lichtenstein]

Matt:

Re: Sanctuary

Don't cut the dogleg on 14 if you run out of fairway because you hit the ball low, or learn to hit the ball higher like Tiger, accept your limitations :

You only run  out of fairway on 1 as I remember, if you are a bomber, and then you have a 2nd level fairway. It is just a risk reward situation, but let's end this discussion as a draw , and play Sanctuary together, hit the shots, and at the end of the day, I'll ask you one question "Did you, my friend, have a fun day", and I'll bet the ranch the answer will be "yes".

Best,

Cary

Cary

[Matt_Ward]

Cary:

I'll be very much interested in your comments / re: Pradera. Let me point it this way -- if Sanctuary is indeed a top 100 course then Pradera should very shortly be included in such a listing.

Frankly, I see Sanctuary being outside that elite level in the USA.

Pradera is a superb Jim Engh design and encapsulates many of his features and it also demonstrates an evolution in terms of his hole creation, routing and straregic shotmaking options.

If there were 10 rounds to play I'd be at Pradera for no less than eight of them.

[Jim Franklin]

Having just played both of these courses, I may play Pradera 6 and Sanctuary 4 out of ten. Sanctuary was definitely mind game. I remember my playing partners and I trying to calculate the air, wind, and elevation changes on nearly every shot. That can wear on you. I liked the first tee shot, but did not like the tee shot on two. I agree with Matt that the tightness of the course was a bit excessive. I enjoyed playing it, but could not do that everyday.

As for Pradera, I could play it everyday and have fun each time.

[Doug Wright]

I have played Sanctuary four times. Sanctuary is a unique golf course on a uniquely demanding site. It put Jim Engh on the map, and rightly so, as one who could build a golf course anywhere on any site (see Black Rock). That is an accomplishment. I appreciate Sanctuary for its uniqueness; I like some of the holes and dislike others. Likes: 1 (a good opener--only the long-hitting Matt Ward would be worried about hitting the ball off the course--hey Matt hit a 3 wood!); 3 (a solid uphill par 4 to a fun green); 8 (a strategic hole that requires placement for a clear view of the green and with a tiered green you have to see to believe-the best hole on the course IMO); 10 (the best of an otherwise boringly similar set of par 3s); 12 (a solid dogleg right par 4 that is well bunkered off the tee--the only relatively flat hole on the course--and a very well-chosen greensite); 18 (a fittingly tough uphill finisher). Dislikes: All the par 5s except 1 (I totally agree with Matt re the par 5 15th--just a strange hole that makes me think Jim ran out of real estate in that corner of the property); all the par 3s except 10 and the fun green on 14 (one hits about the same clubs to the back to back par 3s 5 and 6--the 6th hole especially could have been much different and better IMO--see eg the back to back 10th and 11th par threes at Pacific Dunes); 9 (just a short par 4 to get back to the clubhouse) and a collection of boringly similar downhill dogleg par 4s: 7, 13 and 17.

A few more general comments.

--Jim Engh was working for a single owner (Dave Liniger, owner of Remax) whom I believe had quite a bit of say in what the final product was. We'd need to ask Jim how much but my guess is it was a contributing factor.

--Sanctuary gets a 10 on the "Wow" meter--it's just a spectacular series of highly photogenic views, especially for flatlanders.

--I don't get Matt's concern about "distortion." There's distortion if it's windy, humid, uphill, downhill, sun in your eyes, nearly dark--whatever it's part of the game and the challenge. I get tired of the repetitiveness of the downhill shots, but I'm not bothered by the challenge of figuring out and adjusting to the downhill nature of the shots. Matt says they "can't be calculated." Well maybe that's a good thing--some indecision rather than "hey it's 165 so it must be an 8 iron."  

--I agree with Matt and Jim that the course is too narrow in spots. If one gets a ball going offline downhill in this altitude, it's adios and reload.

--I'm not a big fan of Sanctuary's cartball, particularly cartball uphill from the previous green to the next tee vista for another downhill tee shot, which Sanctuary is to the max. I think the flat or uphill holes are the best on the course, and I wish Jim had done more of them.

--In case you don't know, Dave Liniger only makes the course available for play for charity benefit tournaments. Although I'm sure he gets paid a fee by the charity to do so, which defrays his costs, this is a terrific benefit to many charities in this area every year. It's a real draw for charities, and the club does a first class job.

--Top 100? It's top 10 in scenery, but not a top 100 golf course. How could it be on that site?

--An interesting discussion would be The Golf Club at Bear Dance/Castle Pines CC/Castle Pines GC vs Sanctuary. Each one of these nearby courses (the Castle Pines courses are right across the road FYI) has somewhat similar topographical challenges. In particular, I think Bear Dance is a better golf course than Sanctuary.

Best,

[George Pazin]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone think that the difficulty in calculating the drops would hold up if one played the course a decent number of times?

My home muni has a drop shot par 3, and even with two sets of tee markers and two alternate greens, it takes me about 5 seconds to realize which ones we're playing and what club I have to hit.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

The issue I have with Sanctuary goes way beyond the "shot distortions" caused by the massive drop-shots you face. It's the incredible tightness in spots and gthe likelihood that reloads will be the norm for the mid-to-high handicaps.

George -- you are one who always mentions the playability aspects on a number of your posts and, if memory serves, you raised that issue in your assessment on Black Mesa. Believe me when  say that Black Mesa is as wide as Kansas compared to Sanctuary.

Doug:

Solid analysis although I disagree with you on certain small points.

The thing about Sanctuary is the wizardry that Jim Engh exhibited in getting the full 18 routed on such a demanding site. From a straightforward engineering perspective one has to give high marks. The element that I find disconcerting is that the architectural side has to have a few compromises as you work your way through the property.

You quite correctly mentioned the cart path issue -- frankly, the next Bond car chase scene could be filmed at Sanctuary given the abruptness of the twists and turns of the paths.

Doug -- no doubt from off-site perspective the scenery encountered at Sanctuary is tough to beat. I stood at the par-3 5th hole and it amazed me the breath of what you see with the Front Range in the nearby distance.

The other thing is that Sanctuary tries to include a number of flowery elements -- the waterfall on #14 is truly a site to see but does it have any real connection to shotmaking / architecture?

Although I share your sentiments about the green at #8 I have an issue with the steep incline you face from tee-to-green. For the average player such holes can be a slog to play.

To Engh's considerable talent few architects in the business today could have even attempted to handle such a site. In my mind, Engh is one of those rare people capable in handling the sheer demands that excessively hilly sites provide.

Doug -- you mention Bear Dance in Larkspur and I frankly agree with you abuot its overall qualities -- I'll even go a step further and easily have ti among the top 10 public courses I have played in The Centennial State.

Bear Dance got an initial bad wrap from some because of the demands of a few putting greens. Candidly, I didn't see much stock in those comments because if those same people were to play some of the greens designed by other architects (Doak at Lost Dunes, Spann at Black Mesa, to name just two) they would see that the layout in Larkspur is not as severe as those would claim.

Bear Dance has solid scenery -- no less than Sanctuary and the overall quality doesn't have to make the sheer compromises that Sanctuary is forced to do because of the extreme land movement.

The tee shot aspect at Bear Dance is given sufficient width and the manner by which you need to work-the-ball in terms of one's overall skill level with your approaches is always on notice.

I also think the uphill holes at Bear Dance are also solid. The long par-4 9th is a gem of a hole. There's enough room off the tee and the climb -- while steady all the way -- is not so abrasive as to thrwart all but the best of golfers.

You also find less repeat items in terms of design quality at Bear Dance. Take for example -- the downhill nature of the 1st there. It plays just over 500 yards from the tips but you have to be really cognizant of where the tee shot is going. There's sufficient width -- clearly more than Sanctuary -- and the green design is neatly done as it moves slightly away from the player.

Candidly, I am not a fan of the Bear's Claw bunkers that dot the landscape at #6 -- one doesn't need a Disney-theme for a course of this quality.

However, you forget about that QUICKLY when you arrive at the long par-3 7th -- one of the best of its types among all the public holes I have played in the state. At 245 yards you have some room to the right to avoid a frontal H20 hazard but there's going to be a time when you have to stand at the plate and deliver -- the 7th is one of those times.

The uphill 8th is also well done -- again -- it's uphill but not that SEVERE as to be a slog of major proportions.

I am also a huge fan of the downhill dog-leg left par-4 11th hole at 508 yards. Here the hole s-l-i-d-e-s downhill and you have to decide how to maneuver your tee shot around the bunkers that protect the ideal landing areas. The green is also a delicious treat -- as it falls away from the player.

Bear Dance has a number of unique and fun holes. I only wish I had the time to return to it during my last Colorado trip. The next time I'm in the area I'll be sure to play it -- I would certainly recommend it to those coming to the state because it's a public course that has very few layouts better than it in the state IMHO.

FYI -- Bear Dance plays 7,661 yards from the back with a 74.0 CR and 141 Slope.

[George Pazin]

Yikes, I better raise my game before I sign up for any of the charity outings! Kudos to the owner for opening up his course in this manner, by the way.

My point wasn't directed at you, Matt, I was simply pointing out to those who like calculating the differences with drop shots that they get easier to figure out the more you play them. I think you're one of the few other people on this site who has a similar disdain for the drop shot as I do. Well, disdain isn't really fair or the right word, I just think they're overused and overrated.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Agreed / re: the drop shot. It's a real estate situation many times that forces their inclusion -- the dreaded par-3 variety is like a re-run of Saturday Night Live -- we have heard all the silly jokes one time toooooooooo many.

The drop shot hole needs new life and like the obligatory car chase scene in many movies / tv shows it needs to be used in the right moment with the right shot values that live beyond the "drop" elements it includes.

Sanctuary is very tight in spots. If someone loses the ability to drive the ball consistently it becomes a re-load situation that can cause massive headaches. What's ironic is that the ownership deserves the highest of marks in renting out the course for charity fundraisers -- it's the nature of the tightness that will have many of these mid-to-high handicappers reaching for their throat for air as they encounter the tightness of a number of the holes there.

George -- I wil forward to you an article I did on dropshot holes offline -- be interested in your comments.

One last thing -- calculating such situations is very demanding because of the cnaging wind patterns that dot the area near Sanctuary -- you can guess with some certainty but don't bet the ranch on it for sure.