Having played the Upper(Fazio) course today, and previously played the Lower (Mickelson's first archie effort), how did the Upper end up ranked higher in Golfweek? Is there a possibility that raters got them mixed up? I would venture that the Upper has the best natural golf terrain in the greater Phoenix area. Unfortunatley, Fazio saw fit to move a tremendous amount of sandy dirt. Mickelson, working with a lesser piece of land moved very little dirt and did a very good job of working with the terrain. The Upper had an opportunity to rival the original desert course a couple miles up the street, but achieved only an upgrade on Estancia and Grayhawk. There's even a lake and non-native tree plantings. And of course, angles and strategy are not a part of the design. So what am I missing that makes the Upper ranked higher than the Lower? Is it too much to judge them against Desert Forrest( a true masterpiece--Carl Olsen has the fairways now shaped to follow the natural contours,--he does an incredible job)? When I play desert golf, this course is my gold standard.