News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Brad Swanson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Fossil Trace Review: Front 9
« on: August 09, 2003, 07:57:26 PM »
I recently played the new city of Golden municipal course Fossil Trace GC designed by Jim Engh.  It has been a topic of some discussion here, so I thought I'd give a hole by hole blow of the course, starting with the front 9.  I'll do the back 9 in a separate thread due to the large # of pictures I am imbedding.

Fossil Trace has been a long time in the making, and its name is fitting due to the archeological finds made during course construction.  A blurb on the course and its basic stats can be found here http://www.fossiltrace.com/printCourseInfo.html

The site is extreme, which is nothing new for Jim Engh, who has also worked on 3 other extreme sites in Colorado: Red Hawk Ridge GC, Sanctuary GC, and Redlands Mesa GC.  In addition to the extreme topography, the back 9 is also shoe-horned into a small area dominiated by an old quarry.  You might consider wearing a hard-hat on the back 9 on several holes, as you'll see in the back-9 post.

We played the blue tees, which are only 6241yards (at a mile high altitude :o).  This course is really short, and it might qualify as a modern quirky course, although not a throwback to older, quirky courses.  I also can't find my scorecard, so yardages are ballpark only.  The course was in really good shape, save for 3 of the greens (all on the back 9).  Fees for those not residents of Jefferson county are $45 during the week.


The first hole is a 520yd par5 with a tee-shot toward the fairway traps seen in the distance.  Snap one left on the teeshot over the ridge with the long grass and you may send someone playing #18 to the hospital!
 

The second shot veers to the left and is downhill to a landing area short and left of the green.


This short pitch as your 3rd shot into the par 5 shows one of the many very deep greenside bunkers found at Fossil Trace.  The greenside traps are on average about 8 feet deep and usually only a few paces wide.  They are penal, but as I have discussed with Doug Wright, the course's only resistance to scoriing will be the green surfaces (when up to speed) and the severity of the greenside bunkering (for a muni  ;)).


#2 is a very short par 4 of around 300 yards where the timid (or, in my case, the rusty) will lay-up with a mid iron off of the tee to leave a dropshot pitch shown here.  It might not be terribly risky to have a crack at this one with the driver, since the area around the green contains everything  around the green.  However, if you do hit it in the fairway traps on the right, or worse yet, hit the rock ourcropping on the left, the hole could become troublesome.


A better view of the green on #2.


#3 is a 150-ish yard uphill par 3 to a blind green that is well-guarded front-left by some deep traps.  The green is one of the better ones on the course, with several plateaus/tiers and a large ridge running roughly front-to-back through its midsection.  The maintenance guy that is barely visible in the shadow is at the leftmost edge of the green and the green opens up a fair bit right of the traps.


The 400-ish yard 4th hole is probably my favorite par 4 on the course.  The tee shot calls for a fade if you've got it, otherwise fitting a straight shot or a draw will limit how far up the fairway you can play.  Just left off of the fairway is a lateral hazard up the entire length on the hole and around the back of the green.


The pin placement on #4 the day we played was on a very small and elevated plateau.  I liked this bunkerless green complex (and I took my share of shots around it to prove it!).


This very short par 3 (100yds) has been the topic of a bit of discussion, and opinions have differed on its merits.  Knowing this, I asked my buddy I was playing with (a fellow post-doc who hails from Scotland and frequents Dornoch, Royal Aberdeen, and Cruden Bay, so I know he's seen some good architecture) what he though of it.  He liked it, and so did I.  Steven said it was a nice change of pace to see a short par 3, compared to the standare fare 150yd, 175 yd, 200 yd, and 250yd par 3.  Maintaining the front slope into the marsh as short grass (a la Augusta #12) might tighten the sphincter a bit, but the greenside traps,  particularly the coffins behind and right make saving par difficult if you can't modulate your gap/sand wedge distance.  The hole has no chance of being lengthened as a road is immediately behind the tee.


The 6th hole is a mid length, slightly uphill par 4 with another interesting green (unfortunately I only got a shot of the tee shot).  Stay to the right of the fairway bunker, and make sure you stay below the hole and try to make sure you are on the right portion of the green, or a 3 putt is very likely.  The green is very wide, and the approach playing uphill with no traps in front makes judging distance tricky.  (Nice powerlines, huh  ???)


The short (350-ish yard) par 4 7th plays severely uphill on the approach.  I don't necessarily like the 90 yard scar fairway/greenside trap in plain view in front of the green, as most likely the only players that will be unfortunate enough to hit into it at its point most distal to the green are high handicappers. As a higher handicap member of our group clearly illustrated, when they enter the bunker at its tip, they will aim at the flag when trying to extricate themselves, hit the ball 10 or 20 yards, rinse-lather-repeat a few more times until they finally reach the green.


The 7th green is steeply pitched from left to right, and the left half of the green is somewhat punchbowl in nature.  Being above the hole here when the green speeds are up will make 2 putting difficult (although I three putted from said location at current green speeds with no problem  ;)).


The 8th hole is another short 380-ish yard par 4 where the longer hitter from the blue tees need not worry about any of the fairway traps.  Playing from the tips (add 60yds or so) will put more pressure on the tee shot.  The green is another well-contoured green with a severely sloped front-right pin placement.  Putting from above that pin and keeping the ball on the green will be tough when/if green speeds get up to where they should be.

#9 is a decent length par 5 that is pretty vanilla, except for the back tier of the long and skinny green that drops several feet.  You can't see this back tier until you are on the green the drop off is so severe.  Unfortunately, I don't have a picture of this feature, but its evil twin brother is on the back 9, which I'll review in the next day or so.

Discuss! ;)

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

Matt_Ward

Re:Fossil Trace Review: Front 9
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2003, 01:31:10 PM »
Brad:

Good stuff -- a few comments. I played Fossil Trace in early July and got a sneak preview.

The first four holes are all good -- the 1st is a dynamite starter no doubt. The bunkering by Jom Engh is also quite good because of the way they are shaped it's very possible you may not get a flat lie and the recovery is not automatic by any stretch.

The 5th is in a simple word a "TURKEY." Just doesn't fit for the length (98 yards) and poses no real architectural elements of note. Probably the lamest par-3 I have seen in recent times.

I also think the remaining holes on the front side are OK but nothing more. The 9th is also just a filler for distance / yardage as it attempts to get back to the clubhouse area although I will say the very back pin placement area is quite neat when used.

Now -- the back nine is another story indeed and I'm sure your upcoming post of photos wil be most interesting to those who have not played the layout.

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fossil Trace Review: Front 9
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2003, 11:10:55 AM »
Brad,

Thanks for the summary and photos. I walked this course during construction and it's quite interesting to see the finished product. The course has grown in well, and the native looks attractive but nasty. The green contours and bunkering appear to be bold as they need to be on this very short course, which plays to the equivalent of just over 6000 sea level yards (6800 yards at 5,675 feet). It gets very windy in this part of the foothills--that will add to the challenge as well.

I like that Engh chose to leave that old kiln remnant smack in the middle of the first fairway, but I wonder how long it will last after a few golfers get smoked by their own balls richocheting off it... :o

The 4th hole was the best front nine hole I saw on my tour. Looks like Engh changed the green surrounds because a bunker was going in greenside right and it's now  bunkerless. Probably a good idea because it's a fairly long and tight second shot for the average player.

The back 9 is WAY different and pretty unique, as we'll see in your next report.

--And Matt, lay off that 5th hole will ya...What is it, too QUIRKY?? Some serious design brainpower went into the green there.  ;) I know, you just don't like holes under 100 yards, it's gotta be a hole with some balls, etc. etc. Just lay off that 5th hole pal, and I'll lay off your QUIRK-o-phobia... ;D

All The Best,
Twitter: @Deneuchre

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fossil Trace Review: Front 9
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2003, 11:32:41 AM »
Restricted to reacting to the pictures, I only like the look off the 6th and 8th tee.  The 4th green looks interesting.   The rest of what is pictured does not blow my skirt up, whatsoever. :-\

It also looks like a maintenance nightmare for a muni... :P
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Matt_Ward

Re:Fossil Trace Review: Front 9
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2003, 12:39:39 PM »
Doug:

There's no quirk with #5 -- it's just plain boring and bad. I like Jim Engh designs and there's much at Fossil Trace (the entire back nine to name just one aspect) that is really fine stuff and well worth the time to go see and play.

But, enough of the defense of #5 -- the lack of length wasn't my main argument -- it really does soooooooooooo little for a hole of that length. Nuff said.

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fossil Trace Review: Front 9
« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2003, 12:45:40 PM »
Matt,

I warned you....

Why do you hate QUIRK so much? ???

Twitter: @Deneuchre

Brad Swanson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fossil Trace Review: Front 9
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2003, 02:44:16 PM »
The back 9 review will be posted later this evening.  It is quite different from the front 9.  Dick, I think you'd like the 4th if you actually had a better look at it.  It really is a good hole.  #1 is a good starting par 5 too.  You are right on about being a maintenance nightmare (at least the bunkers), although the actual square feet area of sand is very small. The steep/upholstered look traps require alot of hand mowing.

Cheers,
Brad

Matt_Ward

Re:Fossil Trace Review: Front 9
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2003, 04:33:19 PM »
Doug:

Where is the quirk in #5 -- how bout the simple fact that it's a lame hole -- the lamest I can imagine and quite surprising and disappointing for someone of Jim Engh's considerable skill / talent IMHO. ;)

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fossil Trace Review: Front 9
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2003, 05:04:44 PM »
Brad, from the tee shot pic of 4, the only good thing I notice is that the obstructing tree is nearly dead.  I hope mother nature is swift in that regard.  I just don't like to have shape of the shot dictated by an aerial 40 foot high nusance.  Then the oddity of the squared piece of land in the field with scrub brush jutting in from the right fore tee makes it feel like the course is fit in and plays along a light industrial park series of back lot lines.  Transmission lines of high voltage and cluttered horizons of mixed use properties seems like a lot to overcome for any architect.  The setting of the 7th seems OK, but I don't like the gash of labbia bunkering leading to the green, and it also appears in the pictures as somewhat repetative to the mons bunkering on approach of #1.  Does that pic of the green on 1 accurately depict the nature of what appears to be a box elder tree semi buried up the trunk by the greens shapers?  Yikes!!!  I can appreciate the willingness for the Golden community to provide a course for recreation of the citizens.  But, it just seems to me that all the upholstery and quirk, and the attendent cost of such design style boosting price to $45 a round, is somewhat a conflict of missions and design concept for a municipal course.  But, I can't wait to see the pix of the hearlded back 9... ;) ;D ::) :P
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fossil Trace Review: Front 9
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2003, 05:32:45 PM »
RJ,

No question this course was a compromised shoehorn job, a real challenge for the architect IMO. There are some really bad sightlines as the pictures show. However, I think the 4th hole is a lot better than Brad's photo indicates.

And Matt, I wasn't even referring to the 5th hole of this course in my reference above to QUIRK. The context is this: On your Ireland  thread, you asked me to "puhleeze" stop bugging you about your dislike of QUIRK. Above I asked you to back off the 5th hole. You didn't, so I have to say it again: You just don't like QUIRK. Too bad. I was hoping you might find some on your trip to Ireland but it appears you're looking for traditional golf. If so, play the front nine of Waterville twice and skip the back nine--you won't like it... ;)

All The Best,
Twitter: @Deneuchre

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fossil Trace Review: Front 9
« Reply #10 on: August 11, 2003, 06:41:30 PM »
Matt, do I remember correctly that you had a lot of praise for Lost Canyons, Sky?  Isn't that a bit quirky?

Doug, I can enjoy quirk when it is there because of a deference to nature and the archie let the natural terrain trump a massive dozer job.  But, to manufacture quirk for quirk's sake is not too often effective, IMHO. :)
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fossil Trace Review: Front 9
« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2003, 07:10:11 PM »
RJ,

I didn't refer to Fossil Trace as a "quirky" course--Brad does in his opening post. My previous references to quirk in this thread were directed not at the golf course in question but at one Matt Ward, who has quirk-o-phobia.

Re Brad's and your comments about quirk, since he and you brought it up I might agree that some of Engh's work there is quirky, like leaving the kiln in the middle of the first fairway. I tend to agree with you that natural quirk is wonderful, manufactured quirk less so. Let me ask you this, is that kiln in the fairway manufactured or natural quirk? And when you see the back nine photos of the holes routed through the quarry, is this quirky or just smart design, natural or manufactured?

All The Best,
« Last Edit: August 11, 2003, 07:13:38 PM by Doug Wright »
Twitter: @Deneuchre

Matt_Ward

Re:Fossil Trace Review: Front 9
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2003, 09:23:43 AM »
RJ:

Do yourself a favor and repeat after me -- the discussion of Fossil Trace's 5th hole has NOTHING to do with quirk. Doug is the guy who introduced the topic for the hole in question -- it doesn't have a remote connection to it -- it's just a major league lame hole -- end of story.

RJ if / when you play Fossial Trace you will see what I mean because the course has so much to be proud about but the 5th sits there like an empty suit. Jim Engh is a very talented fellow and he is to be commended for squeezing in so many fine holes on such a small piece of property this is surrounded by so many other aspects of modern life. A number of holes on the front side are well done (#1 thru #4) and the entire back side is quite good and fun to play.

I'll repeat this AGAIN -- Ward is not opposed to quirk but I am opposed to courses that overdose on that aspect and all of those who wax on about it don't understand that golf is about some connection to the rewarding of good shots and the penalizing of poor shots. When that equation is utterly and completely turned on its head you don't have golf you have a different game called l-u-c-k.

Regarding Lost Canyons please identify for me the aspects there relating to quirk? I know some people can't stand both courses although I do like Sky but I do not like Shadow for reasons previously posted on GCA.

John Foley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fossil Trace Review: Front 9
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2003, 09:29:05 AM »
Matt- What would you do to improve the 5th?
Integrity in the moment of choice

Matt_Ward

Re:Fossil Trace Review: Front 9
« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2003, 09:46:20 AM »
John:

I would have hoped that if the "short par-3" was a necessity at that point in the round why not create a split green that's small and requires pinpoint accuracy with a wedge or other short club. The present green is big enough to handle a doubles match at Wimbledon!

There is also the aspect of a green that is really without any serious challenge -- that's odd, because a number of holes at Fossil Trace DO HAVE contour and do make it a point to tell the player that you have to be a bit precise on where you land your shot. How about different levels for where the pin can be located?

Also, the bunkers (look at the picture) are simply tooooooo wide and apart for a hole of minimal distance. Why not have a frontal bunkers that obscure where the pin is? I perfectly understand this a taxpayer owned course but for a hole of only 98 yards FROM THE TIPS you need just a bit of spice.

After you play the first four hole at Fossil Trace you're so into the round and then you come to this hole and the air goes right out of the bag. It's like having Sinantra open up the show and then all of a sudden they throw me on the stage and I start singing like an alleycat. ;)

John Foley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Fossil Trace Review: Front 9
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2003, 10:57:04 AM »
Matt,

Maybe we should use the term sporty and not quirky?

I LOVE the very-short par three as a hole. Frought w/ danger of relatively benign, the POTENTIAL relief it provides from the slog through the brutal 4's & 5's is a refreshing change. I guarentee you if you shoot for that front pin and come up short and roll back into the muck, the player will find enough of a challenge. Miss a back left pin into that front bunker and your hoping for an up & down. From the looks of it, I don't think those bunkers look easy at all. Maybee a little more sloe in the greens would perk up the challenge factor.

I liked Fazio's short par 3 split green at Pelican Hill, but I don't see the problem w/ this hole. Especially at a small town muni.
Integrity in the moment of choice