Matt:

I'm surprised you went back for 8 rounds. I must have missed something. My hands were wringing wet from gripping the steeering wheel and riding the brakes down those dangerous cart paths.

I perfer Black Mesa to Wolf Creek, but maybe I'll give it another go next trip to Vegas.

Cary

Cary:

I'm a sucker for adventure -- cart paths and all !!!

I never said Wolf Creek is better than Black Mesa but if one wants some quirky style modern golf along with a series of fascinating and fun holes -- it's hard to beat the time you can have in Mesquite.

Jim N:

The course conditioning is more than acceptable -- the real issue is that in a number of spots the grass is a bit too lush for my preference.

The teeing areas could be cut a bit tighter but given the intensity of the sunlight and the high temps I can see why the super there would opt for the conservative approach.

In regards to the green speeds -- ditto what I just said. The ball will roll nicely but don't expect to see 10+ readings ont he stimpmeter daily.

Gents:

The fascinating thing about Wolf Creek is the start to the round. The 1st hole is a brawny / nervy long par-5 of roughly 580 yards. The back tee area is eschewed by just about all who play Wolf Creek because it's deep in the perimeter of the property and many might not know it even exists.

The hole plays abruptly downhill and there are a few bunkers to contend with that can be reached from the tee. Generally the prevailing wind is behind the player or assisting from the left with the southwest direction. Long hitters have the option in going for the green in two but the second shot must be hit with utter precision as the green is quite smalland is protected on the right by a cascading man-made stream that becomes a pond before flowing further downhill into the larger body of water that faces the golfer on the tee shot at #9.

The green is well contoured and if the green were at top speed could present a quick three-putt for any player who fails to focus on what they are doing.

I like the 1st hole because it provides a swath of interesting options. You can see someone putting for eagle -- and you can most certainly see people throwing down a quick seven on the scorecard.

The 2nd hole at 445 yards is from all the new courses I have played in say the last 10 years one of the most scenic and vexing in terms of the challenges it provides.

Architect Dennis Rider smartly used an elevated section of the property in order to be multi-level tee box. The 2nd dog-legs left over some of the most unique and wild terrain one can envision. The absolute tip tee box is a full 116 steps from the time you park your cart until you physically walk back to its location.

Most people never opt for the back tee but this is one hole where the thrill of the design comes into play no matter how strong or weak you are. Rider did provide an option for the strong player to systematically cut-off the entire dog-leg but that requires a very deft and strong drive (all-carry) over sheer desert wasteland. When you stand at the extreme back tee (called the Challenger) and see what lies ahead it reminds me of Daniel leaping ahead into the lion's den. I have carried the gamble tee shot on numerous occasions but never once have I not swallowed my saliva hoping that all turns out well.

Best of all, for those who opt to avoid such a bold play the conservative option is not an automatic play because you need to reach the correct position otherwise it's possible you can run through the entire fairway and encounter big time trouble on the far side.

The 2nd also sports a solid green design. The front section falls slightly back to the fairway and Rider also included a separate tier in the far left side for more exacting approaches.

The green can be driven but it takes a herculean blow in order to accomplish that. At 445 yards the 2nd at Wolf Creek provides a thrill ride that would make any adventurous golfer want more and more. In all my public course plays -- I can say the 2nd at Wolf Creek would certainly make the short list for both scenic and daring holes. It never fails to amaze me when I step on the tee box there.

Wolf Creek is definitely worth visiting some time when you go to Vegas, but it's a bit of a drive and I was very disappointed with the conditioning I encountered and the slowness of play.  It is a pretty awesome setting with beautiful driving vistas and huge elevation changes.  Some of the holes are a little strange and there are some blind shots which require a couple of rounds there to figure out. The day I played there took over 6 hours-  there was no marshall anywhere and a couple of calls to the pro shop did not produce any response.  
    Would I go back 8 times to play- probably not. I might go back to Cascata a bunch of times though ( if I could get comped)-  I thought that course was terrific-  and the conditioning and greens were PERFECT!.  

Poor me, I made the choice between The Falls at LLV (About 6 interesting holes) and Wolf Creek (Pure art and life-threatening cart rides, If I am to believe what I am told).

Next time.

I was sure disappointed with the Falls, should have gotten on I-15 East, I guess.  

Paul T:

Hard to say -- I would not want a steady diet of Wolf Creek as I would want with say Black Mesa or a Lakota Canyon or other such modern layouts that are in the general vicinity of Wolf Creek.

I enjoy and accept what Wolf Creek is but for all the posts you hear bitching and moaning about the course the real gist boils down to the cart rides and slow play. You never hear much about the actual holes themselves short of the analysis I have provided.

The course is quirky and the simple fact is that when you hear people wax poetic and fall over themselves with adjectives praising such elements in course across the pond in the UK & Ireland -- it makes me laugh at the flip-flop positions people make when such a layout exists here in the States.

I'd give Wolf Creek no less than a 8. IMHO the pure golf perspectives (land site, routing and shot values) the quality of so many holes is self evident -- for those who do have their eyes open and avoid the side issues that seem to be their dominant complaint. Wolf Creek is not perfect but given all the hype / lack of substance of Shadow Creek, Cascata and Rio Seco -- the course in Mesquite deserves even more acclaim and fanfare.

Adam:

I never said the 3rd was a fine test -- in fact -- the uphill par-3 3rd hole is likely the most ill-conceived holes for the entire layout. An uphill par-3 is a unique feature but not the way the 3rd hole is constituted now. In fact, management has made it clear the 3rd doesn't work well and often causes the slow play problems because of the steep climb presented.

Shadow Creek is a great analogy to what Vegas is about -- pure fantasy and often times little depth. Steve Wynn and Tom Fazio CREATED from nothing a golf course that just happens to be in the desert environment.

If you bother to examine the totality of the design -- the details of the individual holes and the routing / shot values dimensions -- and compare that to Wolf Creek the contest is clearly in favor of the layout from Mesquite IMHO. The boat you are talking about is one you likely missed.

Wayne F:

You are quite correct -- in terms of the slow play factor -- it is clearly unacceptable. What's really funny is that the best time to play Wolf Creek is either the first few tee times in the morning or later in the day -- say after 3:00 PM. Most people don't want to handle the heat and higher wind velocities in the afternoon.

Wayne, with all due respect, Cascata is Vegas eye-candy to the max. You get service with people draped all over you and the turf is no doubt superior to Wolf Creek but where's the beef with the course layout? Cascata is purely one dimensional -- up the hill and down the hill -- the greens are also pedestrian fill-in-the-blank types and I have to wonder if Rees Jones really seized all the possibilities the property provided. If you favor Cascata -- then your tastes in golf design are geared more towards personal comfort than sheer diverity and challenger which lies at the heart of Wolf Creek.

Jason T:

I agree with you in terms of people being unable to handle the demands of the course. Would you like me to add a bunch of other courses where the same thing applies. Have you heard of such courses as Pebble Beach, Whistling Straits (Straits Course), to name just two where the total time frame for playing can easily reach six (6) hours.

Jason, if you fancy Shadow Creek -- please tell me what specific holes or routing elements or totality of shot values -- and the challenges you face are in the same league as Wolf Creek? If you fancy Shadow Creek because of the customer service dimension or because the grass provides a better overall presentation value then I can understand what you are saying.

Let me also point out the handling high winds is considered a talent if the course is in Ireland or Scotland but since we are talking about a modern course in Mesquite, NV then it's considered some sort of "three dimensional Florida course?" Hello.

C'mon -- that's silly. The simply fact is that most people who play Wolf Creek -- you may be in this grouping -- grouse about what they find because they play the course from the wrong set of tee boxes and then piss and moan that they didn't get what they expected.

Handling wind is part and parcel of any course and there's no doubt Wolf Creek elevates this aspect as much as any course discussed here on GCA.

Let me also point out that 18+ handicaps are advised by course personnel -- OVER AND OVER AGAIN I MIGHT ADD -- to play within your own limitations. Unfortunately, too many guys believe in the macho BS that what they get away with over and over again at their regular club will suffice at Wolf Creek -- that is serious delusional thinking.

The management at the facility will permit players to handle the extreme back tees provided they have the skill level to handle it. Jason -- we are talking about a 75+ CR and 154 slope -- one of the highest in the country. Do you suppose it makes sense for the course to have such markers when some huckleberries believe they can play from the tips with pop-gun ability levels?

My drift from your comments is that you expect some version wall-to-wall green carpet and that such a venue as Wolf Creek is a complete puzzle to you. Try to re-read what I said at the outset that those ENAMORED with classic golf would be better served in playing some where else.

I don't doubt that Wolf Creek has a few holes that are ill-conceived (e.g. the 3rd) or just plain boring (e.g. the long par-4 10th and the ho-hum drop shot par-3 11th) but there are plenty of others that really do provide a first rate skill test.

Let me point out that the vexing cart path rides are annoying and even dangerous for those with a lead foot and sheer stupidity in going too fast when caution should be the watch word.

If people only see the cart paths and can't see the merits of the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th holes, to name just a few, then I can clearly see what the priorities / main points are for those less inclined to study the architectural details that have been carefully presented on such a harsh landscape.

Adam:

Go back and RE-READ what I originally posted.

I'll say it again -- in the event you missed it -- for those ENAMORED with classic golf design (and that includes the "must have" provision of walking) the time spent at Wolf Creek will be wasted.

Adam -- I played Shadow Creek last Fall. Please knock yourself out and specify in some detail the "subtle" elements you allude. Shadow Creek is testament to man's desire and ego to create something from nothing. Frankly, Tom Fazio has done much better overall designs such as Glen Wild and Karsten Creek, to name just two.

Adam -- shot values has no meaning to you because you don't consider golf a game of shots. You are ascribing your self absorbed golf as a picture / mosaic concept that only you can define or understand. I see architecture in terms of a duality -- how golf can both look and more importantly, how it plays. You see little, if any, tie-in to the latter.

I've communicated quite clearly what I mean to say. Whether you understand it is unclear to me. Shot values is the manner by which an architect calls upon the player to handle a myriad of challenges in terms of club selection and shot control (the ability to work the ball from side to side and in dictacting certain control of trajectory). If you don't see the value of such an item in judging the merits of a course so be it. I tend to look beyond the surface production values that you seem to embrace.

The 8th hole is a superb hole -- you need to play from a tee box that fits you game.

On my yearly outing with a group of friends we played and it and to a man they all enjoyed it. It is like nothing else we played or have played since. A fun course. Yes some of the cart paths are steep but hey it is a lot of fun to climb up to the top.

For those GCAers who will only walk do not even visit this place no option here.

Is it a classic golf course NO WAY but it is a fun golf course

My test is would I go again or was once enough. I would go again.

Kevin - sounds like you feel that a better architect would haev built a better design

Matt:  do you agree with the above?

Finally someone (thank you Kevin) has provided some greater detail (beyond myself) for Wolf Creek. Adam's touchy feely analysis (shall I call it that) doesn't delve into anything more than just the surface stuff. In addition, Adam's elitist idea that Wolf Creek is not worthy of any "serious GCA discussionist" is simply more drivel from his part.

Allow me to go into depth in some of ther points Kevin made.

First off -- Ward is not part of any course's PR / Mktg campaign. I call then as I see them. If people agree -- so be it. If they don't -- then I would like to read in detail where our paths split.

I agree and have said over and over again -- that the die-hard walk-must type golfers here on GCA need to avoid Wolf Creek. If you ENAMORED with classic golf design then stay away. You have been forewarned so be forearmed.

Even if one does take a cart the path rides can be extremely demanding -- and dangerous for those who are truly intersted in killing themselves. I give architect Dennis Rider credit in not leveling all the elements of Wolf Creek to be another deadly dull version of what you often see in such locales. Wolf Creek provides an experience that transcends meat and potato type golf. If you are a golfer who prefers basic and rudimentary type golf then once again stay away --Wolf Creek is like the Thai or Mexican restaurant with all the spices that many might not appreciate.

Kevin -- you are wrong about the risk / reward elements not being a part of Wolf Creek and for decrying the lack of architectural experience demonstrated by Dennis Rider and his son at Wolf Creek. I know of plenty of "professional" architects operating today who would have dumbed down the entire experience and simply presented vanilla results when a more richer creation could be had.

Did you not appreciate the risk / reward elements at the 1st hole? Good / strong players can go for the green in two blows but the second has to be letter perfect -- in addition -- the green contours are extremely well done with the back tier and the fall off from back to front.

The 2nd is no less a major decision type hole. Likely because you could not play the Challenger tees -- those are the most rear ones you can play -- you failed to appreciate the demands presented. Strong players can opt to take a direct line to the green and the shot needs to be hit with utter precision. Ditto if players opt for the safer play with a shorter hit from the tee.

Did you also not see the unique contours of the 2nd green?

When you say the placement of bunkers and shot demands are not "well thought out" I have to wonder if your one round there really opened your eyes to the myriad of situations that are present.

I've already mentioned the contrived and silly nature of the uphill 3rd. We agree there.

Did you not see the elements of decision making presented with the short uphill par-4 4th ?

What about the swinging right-to-left downhill then uphill par-5 5th -- which incidentally can easily be played as par-4 for the better players. Did you bother to really study the green there?

What of the decision at the 6th tee? Do you cross the creek or lay behind it? And what about the high quality contours the green presents?

Did you not see the risk and reward elements at the very cool short par-4 7th? I mean golfers can go for the green but it has to be well hit and well played. Did you not see the green contours and the small cut-out section Rider provided to give the player with superb control a major benefit?

Let's talk about the 8th -- people need to play the hole from the proper tee. What's so amusing and often predictable is that people fall over each other and gush about the Dell Hole at Lahinch -- a contrived par-3 with high mounds because it happens to be in Ireland -- get something similar in the States and simply because the mailing address is Mesquite, NV then such a hole is deemed a crock.

Most people should play the 8th from a distance of 150 yards -- the shot is entirely reasonable and the challenge fair. Let me point out that the shot from the extreme back is only for the best of players (very low handicap to scratch or better) -- you are talking about nearly 250 yards downhill to a green fronted by water and a green that is deep enough to handle a well played shot.

I don't know where you believe that a 10-handicap should play the hole from 190-200 yards. The 8th is a very demanding hole. Given the prevailing wind into the player's face it's best played from the 150-yard distance I mentioned.

The 9th is the same type of story. It should be played from the appropriate tee box because those who go the tips are simply pissing into the ocean. Too often people who compalin about a course (not you Kevin) will badmouth a layout when the simply story is they don't have the game to handle it -- it's like those a-holes who ski down double diamond type hills and wonder why they landed in the hospital.

I've mentioned that the 10th and 11th are really two filler holes that don't rise to the occasion. The 11th is a simple dropshot type hole that doesn't provide any real juice or design merits.

The downhill par-5 12th is a superb hole. Here the H20 on the left is in play and is a fine addition. Rider molded the right side to provide a rock wall that also need to be avoided. The fairway width cuts to narrow point -- as well it should -- and the golfer needs to decide at the tee how bold / reckless to be. The green is also well done -- three distinct contours and the rear portion is the best part when placed there.

Kevin you are on target with your comparison of the 13th at Wolf Creek with the 13th at The Falls. Similar type holes -- except that at Wolf Creek those daring a shot at the green from the tee can pull it off if so inclined. That's not an option at The Falls. A good short par-4.

The 14th, I believe, is one of the 3-4 best at Wolf Creek. Plays nearly 430 yards and into the prevailing wind. The tee shot must be played to the near (left side) to get the better angle into most of the pin locations. That's far easier said than done. The green is also well placed and neatly bunkered on the left side. Without two well-played and well-positioned holes you are left with bogye or worse.

The 15th is often undervalued but it's a fine short pitch par-3. The issue? The same wind can howl into your face and when the pin is placed back in the narrow area in the rear it takes elephant size balls to tempt fate and fly all the way there. Anything pulled is deader than Elvis and anything hit right presents a very demanding pitch.

The 16th was changed from the original concept -- with the tee nearer to where the 6th tee is located. The existing hole is well done -- you need to decide how far to send a drive down the hill. A draw works best and the green is nicely protected and contoured.

Kevin -- you and I think very differently about the 17th. The water feature does work -- maybe you are pissed because it grabbed one of your Pro V1's! The water is used as a retention basin for usage at the course. The tee shot is challenged by the water on the far left -- you need to snap one off to get there. The water guarding the green is also nicely done. I mean the hole can be reached by strong players unless the wind is howling into the player's face. If you want to badmouth the water at Wolf Creek then you had best say that for other water features found at other desert area type courses. I believe the 17th is the second best par-5 you play at the course with the 12th taking top honors.

I agree with you on the 18th -- don't know if you know this --the existing hole has been shortened from 370 to 299 yards and plays marginally better. I do agree with you that the waterfall feature to the left is simply clutter and serves no real purpose strategically.

Kevin -- help me stop laughing. You played Entrada -- the one with the overly penal finality for the last few holes and you believe it's superior to Wolf Creek -- surely you jest. The best holes at Entrada come before the lava nonsense you have to endure. Entrade is a fine layout with the holes that come BEFORE the lave experience. When held up against the likes of Wolf Creek there's no contest unless the cart ride elements are the number one feature that decides where one plays.

Wolf Creek is not for everyone but I will tell you this. The tee sheet is full everyday. Players can't wait to try their luck at a golf course that eschews the manicured-straight-as-a-razor type look. I said it's not classic design but the idea or belief that the maxim of golf -- the good shot being rewarded and the poor shot being penalized -- is not present is folly on the part of those who believe that.

Wolf Creel is for those who want to experience something out of the ordinary and something that will never leave their memories. If you want a bit of spice to your golf adventures Wolf Creek provides an Indiana Jones type thrill ride that far surpasses the overpriced hype courses 80 miles to the west in Vegas. Boring is not a word one will ever use when mentioning Wolf Creek and I for one enjoy that distinction it provides.

Matt

I'm not going to do an in depth analysis on WC. I played there twice during my annual trip with "the guys" last year. A visual extravaganza with some very good holes. Twice is enough for my tastes. It is a memorable course.

I think Dennis Rider did a new course in Mesquite. Have you played it?

Did you stop by Coyote Springs to see what's going on there?

Steve

Matt, how you doing with that new digital camera?  

I play Wolf Creek usually everytime I visit my outlaws in Vegas.  So I've played it about 4 times now including the following written in Matt Wardian-speak (home to the longest drive of my career)..

"On the par 4 2nd, I climbed the 116 stairs to heaven and decided to play the tiger tees.   I launched a Ruthian blast over the outstretched hand of the desert's rock formation and silenced the beast with a near 360 yard blast.  Leaving nothing but a can of corn 60 yard lob wedge, I took my birdie and surveyed the landscape, master of all my domain"

The 2nd is a unique golf hole and the 1st is also fit wonderfully into the canyon in a totally natural way.  The unique thing about the first is it plays downhill and then subtlely uphill and is reachable--- a nice start to the round.

Here is #1


Otherwise Wolf Creek has not grown on me as much as I thought.  There is a certain zeal in it after the first round but for me it faded.   My father in law loves the views and gets cheap Vegas tee times there and we play for about $50-60 so it is good value.  At Vegas driving speeds up the I-15 it is only 1 hr or so..

I still prefer Paiute to it but don't want to get into a shouting match with Matt.  The course Wolf Creek reminds me most of in Vegas is Badlands, both are vast receptacles for lost balls.  I agree with Matt that WC should be visited although my esprit de corps is not the same as his.