#1

#3

#6

#6 Green

#7 Approach

#7 Green

#12

#13

#13 Green

#14

How long is #13?  And how does it play?  It looks like a unique hole -- but just from the pictures that could be good or bad...

#13 reminds me of #13 at Wolf Creek north of there in Mesquite.

That view of Vegas and The Strip is pretty cool on #12.  I
didn't think you could see Vegas from Lake Las Vegas.  I
guess from up high at certain points....

I dunno, I think tees that are THAT elevated (#13) just look dumb

Matt,
I was left with the same initial feeling while there. This isn't my favorite type of golf terrain, but the course would surely woo the pants off of the Matt Ward crowd--so much, that I refuse to give him any pertinent information what-so-ever. Let him research it himself!

Overall feeling of the course was somewhat of a surprise in the fact that the strategies are there. It does for the most part seem totally manufactured. The routing for the front nine is pretty uninspiring, and I don't know if it was Weiskopf & Company, or just what they had to work with. Either way, the back nine is what they are "gambling" is going to win them much praise here. Many of you want that type of experience, and I'll be the first to say that seeing it in person is beautiful, but its not walkable in any respect, and personally, if you can't walk a golf course--it isn't a golf course IMHO.

HOWEVER.........

The maintanence meld is alive and well at The Falls. Fast & Firm, and some interesting knobs in front of greens to make it interesting to play.

I just wrote about this course recently. The 13th plays 388 from the tips. It's certainly a quirky hole with little margin for error around the green, as that photo illustrates. The terrain is inhospitable, to say the least, but the course is a bit like Weiskopf: not to everyone's taste but hardly dull.

I'm not sure the first fairway bunker was even really needed at all, let alone the second one either. (right side)

From the pictures, it seems like those fairway bunkers do add to the hole visually.  But from Tommy's description, it also seems like they take away from its strategic value, or at least do nothing to add to it.

If that's true, I would support getting rid of them, but I imagine a golf course would be better off if it kept them, in terms of pleasing customers.

#7 looks very similar to #10 at Troon North Monument, with slightly less elevation from fairway to green.

Pete,

Did you skip paying the greenfee and just ride the course under the guise of your website architectural pundit status....It is an unwritten rule of the BBGE that you never tell anyone at a public course that you are "into architecture"...and just want to ride the course..

Scott:

Your memory is much better than the Emperor who seems to have developed the "shoot from the hip" approach rather than realizing what's been posted previously by me on the courses in question.

I didn't care for The Falls -- Weiskopf simply mailed it in with a plethora of "been there / done that" type holes.

In all candor -- the front nine is the better designed course --the back appears visually to be the better half but that's only because the severe terrain paints a better picture -- not a better one in terms of strategic value for a mix bag of golfers.

The opening sequence at The Fall is quite good -- the course moves downhill for the first few and then Weiskopf makes you play back up a slight hill that is nicely done. The back-to-back-to back par-4's on the front -- I believe -- the 4th through 6th holes are all well done and require plenty of thought.

The issue? Weiskopf provides one of the lamest par-3's imagineable with the downhill pro forma 8th. Pedestrian green design with two yawning but out-of-place bunkers.

The back nine starts with a very demanding hole -- the uphill 10th which if memory serves is 460+ yards. Tough driving hole and the second shot must be well struck. The bulk of the back nine is an updated version of "Indiana Jones meets Tarzan."

The holes look good but they play way too severe for the crowd that will come to The Falls. Mind you -- many people who do play there will be "impressed" with the view --especially when you stand ont he rear portion of the par-5 12th.

You also get from Weiskopf a lame "driveable" par-4 -- far from what he has done previously with the downhill 14th at 350 or so yards. It's simply grip and rip and be impressed as you watch your ball hang high in the Nevada airscape.

The finishing hole follows the same line and par as the 9th. Nothing exciting by any means to justify what it costs to play there.

If you want to play a better option -- try Reflection Bay it's one of Jack's better all-around layouts and the consistency of the design there doesn't have to add some "hollywood" extra aspects like The Falls.

Scott: Good call on the 13th at The Falls and Wolf Creek being fairly similar. The issue? The Falls may be a tad too severe as the green is simply too small to handle the length of shots that will come from Joe Sixpack and the rest. Top players will have their work cut out for them to hit the target. The green at Wolf Creek is much more accomodating and fair -- even though it's still a demanding hole. The 13th at The Falls wins points for "view" and "wow" but it's more high eye-candy than high quality all around hole IMHO.

Didn't see Matt Ward's post - I agree Re: #13 - at Wolf Creek vs. Falls.

Falls #13 - More T. Robinson than J. Morrish in that green.

I thought Tom Fazio could not build anything in southern Nevada unless it was for Steve Wynn?

The schedule for Fazio's Rainbow Canyon course at Lake Las Vegas is sometime late in '05, but nothing official as yet.