[Tony Petersen]

Just played 2 weeks ago, and it's come out of overseed in great shape. Greens were a little fuzzy, but that's typical this time of the year... #9 is a brilliant shorty & one of my favorite of the design. Front pin, if you end up in either the left or right bunkers, you can end up going back & forth & back &... Love it!

 

[Tony Petersen]

Put me with John on the We-Ko-Pa/TSN comparison. 9-1, not even close. (No offense Ryan, you're obviously entitled to disagree).

Really? I've played both on many occasions and I would go WKP Sag 6 v. TS Norte 4. Saguaro is a fun design, and a great addition to the local offerings. Lots of great skyline views, and some of the green surrounds are pretty special. I just don't think it's that much better than TS North...

[Andy Troeger]

Tony,
I would imagine TSN is a course that gets better the more times you play it. There is some interesting architecture and I think Coore and Crenshaw did about as well as one could without moving dirt on a boring flat site. There are some holes of note, generally early on both nines, but I remember a lot of pretty similar long par fours that did very little for me. If you want to play a C & C course on a flat site, I'd go with Warren. Saguaro for me beats TSN in virtually every category...variety, memorability, aesthetics. I suppose TSN might be harder playing as a par 70, but I don't really care about hard. They're both very playable, especially for desert courses.

I don't get the love for #2 at TSN either. I've seen the same strategy on a little 9-hole course called Robin Hood back in Indiana. Challenge the OB to reach the green in two or bail right and likely make a pretty easy five. Its a good hole, but of the par fives I've seen done from Coore/Crenshaw its about in the middle in terms of overall interest. The 10th at Warren and the 16th at Colorado GC would rate higher to me, and all the ones at Saguaro are just as good. The 12th at TSN is a really good little hole that's the most unique on the course IMO.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I think the C & C team are mimicking the Lion's Mouth at St. Andrews Old Course when they are creating the Horseshoe.  They are not the first.  Raynor did not several time, especially at CC of Charleston. 

As far as tie in... wow, those holes look pretty darn good fro the pictures.  There are no steep slopes or weird walls off to the sides.  Of course the blind shots are the result of not forcing the holes.  They do a great job from the courses if seen at really using the land.

Tim

I am talking about the transition from course to desert.  The lines between the two are often stark and obvious.  I see they have created bunkering along many of these transition zones to go a little easy on the eye, but a bit more vegetation covering grasslines, use of slight rises/falls to break up long transition lines etc would help tremendously.  The fairways look to be fairly wide and I am wondering if there are limitations on cut grass areas which C&C didn't want to encroach on by hiding transitions zones - I don't know, but I really dislike the idea of "here is the course and right here is not the course" look. 

Ciao 

[Mike Sweeney]

I am talking about the transition from course to desert.  The lines between the two are often stark and obvious.  I see they have created bunkering along many of these transition zones to go a little easy on the eye, but a bit more vegetation covering grasslines, use of slight rises/falls to break up long transition lines etc would help tremendously. 

Sean,

It is the desert. Isn't it supposed to be "stark"? Would added vegatation and the maintenance of it just be an added expense on a public course? Wouldn't the added grasses need additional water?

There may be lots of water in England but not so much in Arizona. I think you need to balance the need for a Fazio pretty picture versus good affordable architecture that can meet water restrictions in your evaluation.

Sláinte

[Andy Troeger]

I am talking about the transition from course to desert.  The lines between the two are often stark and obvious.  I see they have created bunkering along many of these transition zones to go a little easy on the eye, but a bit more vegetation covering grasslines, use of slight rises/falls to break up long transition lines etc would help tremendously. 

Sean,

It is the desert. Isn't it supposed to be "stark"? Would added vegatation and the maintenance of it just be an added expense on a public course? Wouldn't the added grasses need additional water?

There may be lots of water in England but not so much in Arizona. I think you need to balance the need for a Fazio pretty picture versus good affordable architecture that can meet water restrictions in your evaluation.

Sláinte

Mike,
I think that's well said. You'd sacrifice playability with desert vegetation as well, and I'm not convinced that would look any better to most folks. Sean's ideal aesthetic and desert golf might just not be a good combination. I think the transitions at Saguaro are about as well done as one can hope for in the desert. After all...its the desert.

There are two ways to make it a little easier though depending on the surrounds. Using two courses in NM as examples, the transition at Black Mesa is often not as stark because the fairways are a little browner, hence there's not as much color difference. At Paa-Ko, the desert surrounds are more green due to it being more of a mountain/high desert course than a true desert course, so the surrounds better match the green of the fairways. I don't know of any good examples of that in Phoenix. I really like the transitions at Desert Highlands, but I don't think Sean would.

[Sean_A]

I am talking about the transition from course to desert.  The lines between the two are often stark and obvious.  I see they have created bunkering along many of these transition zones to go a little easy on the eye, but a bit more vegetation covering grasslines, use of slight rises/falls to break up long transition lines etc would help tremendously. 

Sean,

It is the desert. Isn't it supposed to be "stark"? Would added vegatation and the maintenance of it just be an added expense on a public course? Wouldn't the added grasses need additional water?

There may be lots of water in England but not so much in Arizona. I think you need to balance the need for a Fazio pretty picture versus good affordable architecture that can meet water restrictions in your evaluation.

Sláinte

Mike

You could well be right.  The clear division between course and desert may be a necessary evil of desert golf and possibly a reason for the desert being less than ideal for golf.  However, I don't understand why it should cost more money to have the desert overlap the course rather than just a stern line of desert/course.  I can see playability perhaps being sacrificed a bit because only so much land can be committed to short grass.  In any case, its not an issue which a good quality design can't overcome, but it does bother me - no, it irritates me just as most other incidents of lack of detail do.  I think this is the case because I believe the best of the good courses are distinguished by their attention to detail rather than purely on so called "shot values".  In other words, the aesthetic aspect is important to me.  Golf isn't just about hitting shots - well not for me anyway. 

Ciao

[Mike Sweeney]

Sean,

Here are the current rates for out of state residents:

11/7 - 12/24   $145
12/26 - 1/15/09   $180

How much more would you be willing to pay to solve the issue that you cite? I am not asking you if you would pay that rate. I am not asking you if you want to vacation in Arizona during high season. I am asking you what percentage increase would you deem reasonable to solve the issues identified by you? This is of course ignoring any water restrictions for this part of the discussion.

[Andy Troeger]

Sean,
I think you're in the minority with not liking the aesthetics, possibly not amongst this group, but among golfers at large. Aesthetics is a difficult issue because its so subjective--what looks wonderful to one person looks awful to another. Personally, I think the clear division looks cleaner than it would if there wasn't the definition, but to each their own. As you mention, with only so many available acres for turf, there's only so much that can be done. Its certainly not lack of attention to detail IMO, the transition areas are pretty carefully prepared, you just don't like the detail that's there.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Here are the current rates for out of state residents:

11/7 - 12/24   $145
12/26 - 1/15/09   $180

How much more would you be willing to pay to solve the issue that you cite? I am not asking you if you would pay that rate. I am not asking you if you want to vacation in Arizona during high season. I am asking you what percentage increase would you deem reasonable to solve the issues identified by you? This is of course ignoring any water restrictions for this part of the discussion.

Mike

You sound like a car salesman asking me how much I want to spend on a car so I will give you the answer I give them - NOTHING.  It doesn't interest me to travel to AZ to play golf so asking me this question has no value. 

Andy

Sure, aesthetics are a subjective matter and I have no problem with folks liking stuff I don't - its their money.  Besides, I think the course looks good between the transition zones and it wouldn't be any sort of deal breaker - its merely an observation. 

Ciao

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike

You sound like a car salesman asking me how much I want to spend on a car so I will give you the answer I give them - NOTHING.  It doesn't interest me to travel to AZ to play golf so asking me this question has no value. 

Sean,

Thanks, I only wish I had the talent of Lee Iacocca to pull your home state out its current crisis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Iacocca

For the owner of We-Ko-Pa, I assume you understand that your opinion has no value since you have no interest in traveling to Arizona?

[Sean_A]

Mike

You sound like a car salesman asking me how much I want to spend on a car so I will give you the answer I give them - NOTHING.  It doesn't interest me to travel to AZ to play golf so asking me this question has no value. 

For the owner of We-Ko-Pa, I assume you understand that your opinion has no value since you have no interest in traveling to Arizona?

Mike

Thats fair enough.  I don't spose I have this person's ear in any case.  The main thing is to keep the punters happy and it sounds as if C&C are certainly doing this.  If I do make it to AZ the course I want to see is Apache Stronghold.

Ciao

[Ryan Farrow]

I don't get the love for #2 at TSN either. I've seen the same strategy on a little 9-hole course called Robin Hood back in Indiana. Challenge the OB to reach the green in two or bail right and likely make a pretty easy five. Its a good hole, but of the par fives I've seen done from Coore/Crenshaw its about in the middle in terms of overall interest. The 10th at Warren and the 16th at Colorado GC would rate higher to me, and all the ones at Saguaro are just as good. The 12th at TSN is a really good little hole that's the most unique on the course IMO.

IMO, you should be locked up. Sometimes less is more, some times you don't need the most complex golf hole in the world to make a great golf hole. Sometimes one needs to put foot in mouth. 

But seriously, its a great golf hole. And you are nuts if you don't think so, sorry.

[Andy Troeger]

Ryan,
Let me know if you ever join the police force...I'll make sure to stay out of AZ! 

Its a good hole to me, not the other-worldly one that some folks think. While I'm putting my foot in my mouth, I still think its one of the best at TSN 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()