[Thomas_Brown]

Tom Doak has his confidential guide.
I have my covert operation guide.

Date: Nov. 15, 2003
Weather:  70 degrees and sunny.  It rained 2 days before.
Conditions: Greens smooth and 7.5 - 8.0 on the stimp.
Fairways - a little long, not manicured, but acceptable to me for a natural desert course.
Rough - In some places 2 inch uncut high rough, in other places weeds and dirt.  Not great.

Summary: I really like the layout.  I really the use of creeks thoughout for targeting and cross hazards.  Details are below, but I thought at 7500+ yds. w/ some elevation, it could have used another 200-300 yds. in length.  I thought some of the walks from greens to tees were unnecessarily long.

Here's the rundown of what I saw playing the tips as a 3 hcap:
Hole 1: Couldn't find the tips to play here, so I played a 560 yd. par 5 that I came close to in 2 shots.
Hole 2: Wonderful par 4 w/ a creek coming into play on the tee shot and the approach.  Wonderfully shaped double dogleg effect.  Why not put the green closer to the creek?
Why the bunker between the green and creek?
Hole 3: Wonderful. 245 yds.   Despite very little grass surrounding the green, one of the better par 3 holes visually I've played in the desert.  This is the right length par 3.
Hole 4: Short par 4 of 400 yds.  Awkward tee shot in a good way.  Recurring strategy on the right of a dogleg left to be desert you can usually play out.  I should know.  I like a tee shot I'm asked to curve a 3 wood right to left into the fairway like this.
Hole 5: Par 4 of 480 yds.  Sort of cape hole on the tee shot from the tips. I played down the left and hit 9 iron into the green on my 2nd 18 holes.  I would have put the tee back more by the 4th green and made the hole a par 4 of 520 yards from the tips.  I think Hole 15 might be harder for me than this one.  Imaginative green complex - I would hate to see the greens fast.
Hole 6: Par 4 of 320 yds.  Good drive got me on the green both times.  Made a 2 in the 2nd 18.  Nice hole - If the conditions were better, the shaved banks and green speeds would make this more entertaining.
Hole 7: Par 4 of 456.  I would have put the tee back behind and to the right of the hole 6 green and made it 520 yards.
I like the bend on the tee shot and the semi blind aspect to it.
I thought this was the redan signature the first time through.
Hole 8: Par 5 of 552.  Good par 5 that I hit in 2 shots.  Perfect length for fun.  Tee shot reminded me of Thomas at Riviera a bit.
Hole 9: Par 4 of 447.  Again, I would make this longer.
It played too short for what could be an interesting approach to a fun green.  The fairway bunkering on the right was very well done.

Hole 10: Par 4 of 472.  Again, I like this tee shot.  Risk reward for people who can hook the ball.  Punchbowl greens w/ blind approaches - blah.
Hole 11: Wonderful short par 3.  Bunkers, green - perfect.
This par 3 w.r.t. the green and bunkers could qualify for a GB&I course.
Hole 12: Short par 4 of 418.  Boring tee shot. Interesting green and approach.
Hole 13: Par 4 of 480.  I was in the desert right w/ a pack of wild boar (natives-"Javaleena?") of the tee(really true).  I like the wild mound in the green on the left.  Good canyon hole.
Hole 14: Par 3 of 190.  bummer - I had to play the front right pin.  I wish it would have been back left.  I think that would have been something.  For that big of a green, I would rather challenge the tips w/ something more scary like a 280 yd. par 3.
Hole 15: Par 5 of 614 - Excellent par 5.  I wonder why Doak didn't use the wonderful bunkering from 120 yards in more.  I would have put the green 50 yards shorter and more on the right.  I think that would have been more dramatic.  I also wonder why the creek behind the green was ignored.  Is it lower maintenance to keep the creek that far away from the green?  I love the green and how many pin placements are available or not available if the greens were faster.
Hole 16: Par 5 of 510 - Not a fan of this type of hole.  Reminded me of Lost Canyons #9.
Hole 17: Par 3 of 240 - Like hole 3, visually dramatic par 3.  I wonder why Doak didn't bring the cliff/creekbed more into play.  Again, is this more conservative given the low maintenance profile on the course or made easier to the general public?  Armchair architect says this could have been killer!
Hole 18: Par 4 of 458 - Nice view of the casino, but not a great tee shot.  Sort of a let down.  I prefer the Principal's Nose at Rustic Canyon #13 or the original TOC to this one.   I would have moved some dirt and made this 60 yards longer.  I did like the green and the approach to it.  It would have been more interesting w/ a longer iron than a 7 in my hands.

I disagree w/ the GCA review which criticizes a high fade teeball redundancy.  I thought several holes called for a good hook off the tee.  I'm a bit surprised at the holes featured in the GCA review - Not my choices for the standouts.

And yes, I did walk - at least the first 18.
I shot 77 the first 18.  I thought 74.9 was a little high w/ so many reachable par 4 & 5 holes. I rate it 73.5.

Tom

[Tim_Weiman]

Thomas Brown:

I haven't seen Apache Stronghold so I can't comment on the course. However, I will make a few comments about your review:

a) it reads far too much like a report about your round of golf; the best architecture writers avoid falling into that trap; in the future, you should keep in mind that nobody cares how you played - they want to hear about the golf course not about any one person's game

b) it reads far too much like you are a wanna be architect; indeed I've never read any golf course review that has as many examples of how the writer would change the golf course; nobody cares what changes you would make; they are interested in the course as it is - it is unlikely you will be hired to change it

c) hole by hole reviews are tiresome, especially when laced with reports about how you played; take a lesson from Tom Doak and focus on what stands out about a course for better or worse

[Tom_Doak]

Thomas:

Most importantly, what were the conditions like and exactly when did you play?

As you may know, Apache Stronghold is currently "on probation" from GOLFWEEK's rankings because of conditioning problems.  They regrassed all the fairways to bermuda this summer, but you are the first person I know to have played it since.

[A_Clay_Man]

TB- It was explained to me that the expectation is for those creeks to widen. Perhaps that would justify NOT placing them too close to the action, as per your query. But of course I am just speculating.

[RJ_Daley]

What is the elevation there at AS?  Does the ball go something like 15% longer?  Mr Brown, I wonder if I am the only one who is shell shocked at your multiple comments of calling for even more yardage on several already long holes.  I would only say your comments are appropos for about .5% or < of the golfers who would play AS.  I don't know if you aspire to describe the qualities of the golf course for the benefit of the mainstream golfing public, or how it fit your obviously very looooong game.  If I were Hank Kuene I'd pay more attention to what you have to say.  But, I'm sorry, you play and describe a game to which I am not familiar...

[A_Clay_Man]

Dick- It's approx 3300 ft/sea level. So no 15 % maybe 3 ? ?

[RJ_Daley]

You'd think the man was playing in Katmandu or something...

[JohnV]

The USGA has formulas for changes due to altitude in their course rating guide.  

The yardage is reduced by the following formula.  There are 13 non par 3s at Apache.  Therefore the effective playing length is shortened by

250*13*0.07*3000/5000= 136.5 yards for the male golfer.
In effect, they are saying that the ball goes 7% further at 5000 feet and adjust it from there (0.07*altitude/5000)

At 3000 feet elevation, the scratch golfer's tee shots go 261 yards vs 250 and second shots go 229 vs 220 at sea level.  The bogey golfer goes 210 vs 200 and 178 vs 170 at sea level.  All this works out to about a 4 to 5% change at 3000 feet.  This means that a scratch golfer can reach a 490 yard hole in 2 vs a 470 yarder at sea level.

[Matt_Ward]

Thomas:

Thanks for your update. I plan on playing again at AS when I visit AZ in early December. I liked the courser initially but like others have questioned how things have progressed regarding the turf side of the equation.

When you talk about length there's no doubt a few extra back tees can be added at any course -- the question is do the extra tees ADD to the elasticity and greatness of the layout. Sometimes it does -- other times it doesn't.

For what it's worth -- I do agree with Mr. Weiman (one of the few times ) -- worry less about spilling the beans about your game -- focus on the architectural elements and what were the positives / negatives from that perspective.

I'll be most interested in seeing how things are goiong at AS.

P.S. To my good friend redanman -- AZ golf is a mile beyond what you find in Florida. It's not grand by any means but the bar is sooooooooo low in the Sunshine State that the Grand Canyon State does have the edge IMHO.

[Thomas_Brown]

As said by others, at the elevation of 3200 feet I found the ball to go about 10-15 yards longer.

Tom_Doak:  Course conditions were marginal.
I started at 9 am(that's the first allowable tee time!) and finished at 4 pm.  As I said, the greens were mostly good.
Though holes 2 & 15 standout as having divots(don't know techical term for a blight?) in them.  The fairways would have in places 50 sq. ft. spots of dirt and weeds(don't know agronomy).  The rough was very inconsistent.  In places, it was Bethpage, it others it was Rancho Park.  I think they'll be on probation for a while.  I overlooked the conditions, but I guess Golfweek is more retail oriented?

A_Clay_Man: Re: creeks - that was my guess.
IMO - They're the most striking feature out there.

Tim_Weiman & others: I did choose to go into great detail about how I played since I hoped this would give some background for the 8000 yard course movement Mickelson & I advocate.  I like to hit long irons into par 4's.  Few courses allow for longer players to do that since (Pro V1x).  I played college golf not too long ago, so I know where I stand compared to others.  I'm not Hank Kuehne - not even close.
If Tillinghast or Burbeck had designed Bethpage Black in 1990, how long would it have been?

I am a "wanna be architect".
Isn't everybody?
Again, I thought this style of writing and detail appropriate for this forum.  Don't worry, Tommy N. & I are playing on Friday and Sunday.  He'll scold me appropriately.

I agree that this is one of the better courses I've played.
Not great in my mind due to the clubs I used.
I do wish I could have played it under faster conditions.

Tom

[Tom_Doak]

Just curious, Thomas:  what courses are great based on the clubs you hit today?

And what courses are not:  Cypress Point?  Garden City?  Riviera?  Merion?  Pine Valley?

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

You and I agreeing for a change.....I'm going to remember that!


Thomas Brown:

It wasn't that long ago - maybe a year - when someone here protested the suggestion that we are headed towards 8,000 yard golf courses.

Now you come forward and suggest there is a "8,000 yard course movement"!

That has to be one of the dumbest ideas about golf architecture I've ever heard. Why is it so hard for people to understand that when it comes to length, the important thing is relative length, not absolute length? Didn't people like Wethered and Simpson make this clear almost 75 years ago?

Confusion between the virtues of relative length and absolute length is at the heart of what is wrong with the golf technology arms race. The essence of the game is the balance between player skill, the equipment used and the configuration of the playing field.

The key thing is to accomplish this balance for the lowest reasonable cost. Almost all golf - 98-99% - is the casual variety, where everyday people want PLAY MORE NOT PAY MORE. Focusing on absolute length - making the playing field bigger - does nothing to make the game less expensive. It only increases land acquisition costs, construction costs, course maintenance costs, etc. It is the wrong direction to be taking the game.

Absolute length also does nothing for competitive golf, the kind played by the best 1-2% of all golfers. Competitive golf is about trying to identify the most skilled players. In this context, the 300 yard drive is no better than the 250 yard drive if technology "improvements" play a significant role.

The really good golfers can do fine with 1980s era persimmon drivers and balata balls. They don't need titanium, graphite and the latest ProV1: it is supposed to be a contest of player skill, not an engineering competition.

I'll credit you for standing up and signing your name to the idea you apparently believe makes sense, but you need to re-think your position.

We don't need 8,000 yard golf courses. We don't need the added expense such courses will bring for the average weekend golfer. Clearly, competitive golf doesn't need such courses either. All they need to do is opt for more appropriate technology, the kind that doesn't require more money being spent on golf course construction/modification. We can find out if Phil is better than Tiger just by using persimmon and balata. In fact, that might be a better way to find out if these guys are really good.

[Thomas_Brown]

Tom_Doak - Sorry to have possibly affronted you, but there are only a few courses that are "great" based on my harsh standards of clubbing diversity.  I know your point is that I have a bad metric.

But there are a few that really stand out to me:
  RCD - A lot of this due to wind making the par 4's long.
  Bethpage Black - I first played it in the mid 1980's and struggled to reach some of the par 4's in 2 shots.
  Pebble Beach - The cold weather usually keeps the ball down there

Riviera has its length in an unfavorable manner - kikuyu grass fairways where roll is negated.  But, I do have longer irons into par 4's there.  ditto Torrey Pines, but that layout struggles to be "good".

I haven't played the following you listed - someday hopefully:
Cypress Point
Garden City
Merion
Pine Valley

I thought the clubs I had to use from the par 3's & 5's at Apache were interesting and diverse.  Sadly, though I agree w/ Nicklaus that courses are becoming obsolete at an alarmingly quick rate.

I think the back tees and tips should be a exceptional challenge for scratch players on all par 3's, 4's & 5's on an exceptional track like Apache.

Re: Bethpage - hole #5 used to be considered one of the best par 4's in the world.  Who would consider it of that quality now?  Not me - Its strategy is gone.  Other holes at Bethpage are now the exceptional ones.

Tom

[ForkaB]

Tim

I don't think that anybody, not even Mickelson, is advocating 8000 yard courses as a standard, just as one of many "brands" of courses.  I agree with him (and Tom) to the degree that some such length courses ARE needed to provide a certain kind of test to elite golfers as long as the powers that be do nothing to rein in technology.  Perhaps, even, such monsters could become the raison d'etre for the PGA Championship, which seems to have permanently lost its place in the "Major" world.  Let Augusta be Augusta, the (British) Open be the annual linksfest that it is, the (US) Open be the Far HIlls version of the Spanish Inquisition, and the PGA be "bombs Away!"  I think it would work

Tom

I liked your review of AS.  I put it in the top 10% of all course reviews on this site in terms of telling me what lies on the ground, rather than what lies in the head of the reviewer.  Not that the latter is "bad", just nice to get a more pragmatic piece of thinking, from time to time.  I think you are getting stick for not bowing and scraping towards one of GCA's shrines.  Shame on you!  You'll not be getting your secret decoder ring for some time............

[Tim_Weiman]

Thomas Brown:

Golf courses aren't becoming "obsolete".

Instead, inappropriate technology is proliferating, i.e., technology that raises rather than lowers the cost of playing golf.

If we can get people to start thinking more clearly, this problem can be overcome. The key is to hold people like Phil Mickelson accountable when they advocate really dumb ideas like the 8,000 yard golf course.

That’s not the elephant’s nose under the tent. It’s an early warning of a stampede of elephants running wild.


Rich Goodale:

We should not be encouraging anyone to think that expanding golf courses to 8,000 yards is a sensible thing to do. The required balance between player skill, the equipment used and the configuration of the playing field can be accomplished for a far lower cost than starting to build 8,000 yard golf courses.

If people don't understand why relative length not absolute length is the key for either casual or competitive golf, then we need to do much more to drive home the message. Given how bad the situation already is - witness those silly Titleist ads - we don't need even a hint of support for the counterproductive emphasis on absolute length.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

This is my one and only post of the morning. I have too much stuff to do. I intend to click the top right "X" on my browser as soon as I'm done!

Thomas (Tom Brown),
It is going to be a VERY long ride out there on Friday! Expect me to NOT stop lecturing the entire 2:15 trip out to Trilogy.  

The fact of the matter is that Apache Stronghold is a World Class golf experience owned and ran by people who don't know what the term World Class means. On a personal level, Pacific Dunes is my favorite Tom Doak course, but to let you know, I place Apache Stronghold not far behind it, and better then Stonewall, and hopefully that description will tellmany who haven't seen AS, but have experienced PD and Stonewall the difference. Bad conditions and all!

[JohnV]

the (US) Open be the Far HIlls version of the Spanish Inquisition

Rich, one major distinction between the US Open and the Spanish Inquisition.  Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Sorry, I went to Eric Idle's Greedy Bastard Tour last week and I'm stuck in my Monty Python loop.  Nudge, nudge, say no more.

[George Pazin]

Thomas -

If you value almost not reaching par 4s so highly, why not simply view the par 5s as long par 4s? This simple change in outlook will yield much pleasure for you.

[Martin Del Vecchio]

Interesting responses from Thomas Brown:

---
RCD - A lot of this due to wind making the par 4's long.
Bethpage Black - I first played it in the mid 1980's and struggled to reach some of the par 4's in 2 shots.
Pebble Beach - The cold weather usually keeps the ball down there
---

Three courses he liked, and the only comments about each involve length.  My guess is that if he were to design a course now, it would be designed strictly for the long hitter.  There would be forward tees for you and me, of course, but they might not get the same attention to strategy as his tees would...

[ForkaB]

Tim

If the big boys want to build and play courses that can be stretched to 8000 yards, let them.  I don't buy your "trickle down" theory that this is going to affect the vast majority of golfers.  Even an 8000 yard course can be played at 5500, if one wants to, and I would guess that the land acquisition and construction cost of "Tiger" tees is minimal when it comes down to the price one might pay for a round of golf even on one of Mickelson's "ideal" courses.  You're on the right track with your "play more not pay more" mantra, but you're hunting the wrong quail when you say the size matters.

[Thomas_Brown]

Everyone is so focused on my length comments.
Nobody has any comments on the holes I liked or proposed different routing on.  What about the creeks being taken out of play at AS in so many places?

George Pazin - I'm really not depressed here. I just miss par 4's.  I guess Apache only has 2 par 5's.

InterMurph - I addressed length because that was the topic everyone is chewing on.  I could talk about bad bunkering, bad greens, bad hazards, or bad hot dogs reducing courses from the great to good category too.

Tim_Weiman - Golf courses aren't becoming "obsolete".
I disagree!  Golf Arch. is about hazards, recovery, aesthetics, and many more discretionary "thingies".  My ball is airmailing what the architect intended as a hazard.  We do agree(I think) that the USGA or R&A should roll things back to 1980 distance.  I'd like to play the same equipment as the pros too.

I have some college friends/contacts on tour now. Right now, I think my ball is about 30-40 yards short of Mickelson off of the tee.  I've been told Kuehne is 60 by me.  Do they hit 3 wood or 2 iron off of #7 at Apache?  Tom Doak surely didn't intend that - It's a wonderful tee shot, but my driver was 15 yards short of the creek at the end of the fairway.  Is the fairway bunker on #8 decorative for them?  It wasn't for me, but...

Tom

[tonyt]

As I find in my role of organiser of corporate outings;

You can play a 7500 yard course at 5500-6000 yards from forward tees.

But you still have to walk/traverse the 7500 yard course, spend longer out there, and come in feeling beat. Golf is being hurt by how long it takes to play, the erosion of walking as the natural and habitual way to play, and more 7500+ courses will only hurt it more.

I like the idea of long iron and even 3 wood second shot par 4s (they were normal forever until just this last 20 odd years), but with a balance of clever short holes, this can also be achieved on a 6500-7000 yard course quite easily. Also as George alluded to, some of the par 5s and a long par 3 can also add a 2-4 iron in your hands here and there.

[ForkaB]

tonyt

There is a course in Scotland called, the "Old" Course, which will be stretched to about 7400 next time they play a big event there, but which still is about 6000 when you play it most days (even in--especially in--corporate outings), from the tees which are (as originally designed) right next to the greens.  This course is routed over a very constricted piece of land, and yet it seems to work well for both purposes (i.e. golf and tournament golf).  Is it not incompetent (or environmentally/health and safety influenced) routings which give us the long marches which many new golf courses (even some of our darlings on this site....) give us today?

[Dan_Belden]

Thomas:   I am going to go out on a limb here and assume you wouldn't know a good golf course, or good architecture for that matter if it bit you in the behind.  Fortunatley this is not an incurrable problem.  
    For example you talk of hole number 6 as a driver and a nine iron, while completly ignoring the landscape,let alone that green.  I am assuming that your nine iron came after a perfectly placed drive that took advantage of the slope on the left side of the fairway.  
   On number two the creek is not closer to the green because it doesn't need to be .    The angle you take on your tee shot determines how much the creek will come into play on the second shot.  A back pin on that hole will bring the creek into play for all but the perfectly placed tee shot.  
   Also if you were to play number six into the wind with a back pin, I am sure you would have hit more than a 9 iron.   The charm of great holes is that they can play drasticaly different with changing conditions, regardless of the yardage.  I.E any hole at places like Pebble or Shinnecock.  I would imagine that you would find Pine Valley a dreadful bore, as you would  undoutedbly be hitting three woods and irons off the tees all day.  
     I suggest you pay attention to what Tommy has to tell you when you play with him this week.  While he is somewhat misguided about shot values for the better player, he knows his architecture as well as anyone.   Dan

[tonyt]

Agreed Rich,

The 2-3 best examples I've seen of very long course that aren't physically very demanding are the ones that make the Tips player walk back, and the mid-forward tee player travels much less.

But for courses being built now, this isn't always easy to do so without sometimes bringing danger and the previous green into play, and makes the back marker walk even further, because they walk extra distance to the tee that they have to repeat in reverse to walk to the fairway.

The excellent example you cited has had to do so for necessity, and all these brand new 7500-8000 yard courses will, in the main, not do it nearly so well. So my gripe remains.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()