Similarly, the world loves Shadow Creek and I'm here to tell you 99.9% of the world's golfers would choose it in a heartbeat over Rustic Canyon if they had one and only one round only to play.

The problem is the other 0.1% are the regular posters here, led by Tommy.

So please don't ever think Shadow Creek is a bad golf course - it isn't.  It is a hell of a lot of fun to play, and beautiful in its own manufactured, over-the-top Vegas way just as are the showgirls who work in that town.  

So yeah, you don't marry Shadow Creek, you marry a girl/course like Rustic Canyon.

But that's not to say it ain't a hell of a lot of fun to fool around with a showgirl like Shadow Creek.

HOW do the rankings encourage clubs to improve their golf courses ?

Patrick, all I said was that following raters' suggestions does not necessarily result in an improved course.   I dont think you disagree with this, so why argue about it?
Dave, clubs don't listen to individual raters, they listen to the numerical equivalents in each category.

A club that comes up short in one category may attempt to bolster that category, vis a vis improvements, in turn, hoping that the improvement in that category will catapult them into the top 100 or to a better ranking.[/color]

As for the Lido, remember the 'Jump the Shark' thread?  You are preaching to the choir. (Except that Lido did try to look like it was a natural part of its surrounds, while Shadow Creek apparently tried the opposite.)

Why would you want to look like a hostile, barren, arid, flat desert in a flash flood zone ?  Where's the appeal ?[/color]
 
No offense meant, but are you aware that you switch from talking about Lido to talking about NGLA mid-posts?
Both were manufactured, with Lido's being more extensive.[/color]

I wasnt there for construction and grow-in, but I was under the impression that whatever the extent of the manufacturing at NGLA, it was a drop in the bucket compared to the manufacturing that went on at the Lido and Shadow Creek.
You can't compare the sites.
If you want to see the extensive manufacturing at NGLA just walk the golf course backwards.  

If I gave those instructions to TEPaul, he'd start at the first tee and walk from the 1st tee to the 1st green, looking back at the first tee, tripping an falling into the bunkers along the way.

But, that's not what I mean.  Start behind # 18 green and walk back to the tee and so on and so on, and you'll see the extensive manufacturing that took place.

Lido and even Yale were manufactured on a much grander scale.[/color]

You apparently know differently.   Can you point me toward facts which support your conclusion?  

The facts are there, on the golf course, all one has to do is open their eyes, provided they've opened their minds.[/color]

For example, how much dirt was moved at NGLA, compared to the other two?   How much man-made elevation was created at each?   How much did each cost, adjusted for the times?  How closely did the final result of each resemble the previous topography?   Did MacDonald view the Lido and NGLA as on the same scale with regard to the manufacturing.
Dave, these are really dumb questions.

As I stated to you earlier, one must look at the finished product in the context of the original site, and the objective.

One only has to look at the 8th green and 9th tee to see how much man made elevation was created at NGLA.  That's a totally man made complex.

And, what difference does it make ?
If a good hole is created, is it to be devalued because more then 10 feet of elevation was added at the tee or green end ?

A flat golf course built in a flash flood zone would suffer the same fate as Rustic Canyon, frequently.

Was NGLA built on a flash flood plain ?

Shadow Creek was NEVER meant to resemble its previous topography.  To do so would be to court disaster.
You'd have to rebuild the golf course after every substantive rainfall.

Regarding LIDO, you should differentiate between basic pad fill and construction.  Lido was a massive project because of the fill, not the golf course.

Cost adjusted Yale might rival Shadow Creek, understanding that there were line items at Shadow Creek which don't exist at Yale.  The same could be said for Lido.[/color]
____________________

As for Tommy, he apparently agrees with you that Shadow Creek is a good course.  Whatever his approach generally, his detailed post-round post about this course was positive and well-balanced as I recall.

How would you be in a position to make that determination if you've never played Shadow Creek ?[/color]

So why pile on here?

Whatever the supposed "bias" of Tommy et al, It is the hypersensitive Fazio/Rees-Basher-Bashers who stop conversations dead in their tracks.

That's totally untrue.
If you recall, many bashed Rees and Fazio without ever having played the course being discussed.

There is work of Fazio's and Rees's that I don't like, but, it's based on my personal experience with the course/hole/feature in question, and not just piling blindly into the feeding frenzy without ever having seen or played the work in question.[/color]

Not so sure about this.  When they dont make the lists, they want to know why.  Some even sue over it.  If they know a rater they may ask, "Why didnt we make it?  What can we do?" and they may listen to the results.   Plus, they may listen to the mega-raters (Brad Klien and Ron Whitten) and change based upon their written reviews.

Dave, you have to understand the process and the time line.
A given rater only knows about his evaluation.
He's not privy to the others.
The ratings are published long after the rater has left the golf course.

After publication, I believe the numerical equivalent is available to the clubs, on request, assuming that they received the required number of ballots.  I do know that clubs receiving a ranking are given their numerical scores by category, which allows them to reassess their golf course in the context of the composite evaluation.  Clubs can then address their weak points.[/color]

Patrick, I am with you on the Lido.  I see it as direct ancestor of Shadow Creek, with the above exception.  As for Shadow Creek's desert location, I am not questioning their motives.  Rather, I am just noting that they did not build a course which fit into the surrounds.  

Why would anybody want to do that ?
You'd have to see the site to understand the above question ?

And, that wasn't Steve Wynn's intent.
He wanted to build a Shangri-La for golf.
He succeeded.[/color]

Both were manufactured, with Lido's being more extensive.[/b]
   
As for your conclusion that it is hypocritical to like one praise one (NGLA) and not the others (Shadow Creek and Lido) as if they were one and the same;  Poppycock.  They differ in the magnitude of the manufacturing.

With regard to magnitude, Lido and Shadow Creek, you're wrong, and with regard to NGLA and Shadow Creek, it's due solely to the respective sites.[/color]  


You can't compare the sites.

I am not comparing sites.   Except to note that some sites just arent very suitable for golf.   Justifying the manufacturing doesnt change the fact that it was much more extensive at Lido and Shadow Creek.

A hostile site inherently requires more manufacturing.
Lido and Shadow Creek were very hostile sites and as such the manufacturing had to be much greater for both sites.
It's interesting how most bash Shadow Creek but give Lido a pass.[/color]

But, that's not what I mean.  Start behind # 18 green and walk back to the tee and so on and so on, and you'll see the extensive manufacturing that took place.  

While I would prefer to study the course in the more traditional fashion, I'd love to walk the course backwards in your company so that you can show me the manufacturing.   You can even bring TEPaul so long as he promises not to challenge me to a duel.

You wouldn't need me to show you the manufacturing.
From the angle of approach I suggested, it's readily discernable, even to TEPaul and his faithful guidedog Coorshaw.[/color]

My questions are dumb because the magnitude of the manufacturing obviously differs at NGLA versus the other two.
Not when you factor in the respective sites.[/color]  

As far as looking at it in context, that is exactly what I am doing.   Given their original sites, I am of the opinion that Lido and Shadow Creek went too far, at least for my sensibilities.   In other words, I am questioning their objective.
The objective at Lido and Shadow Creek was to create a great golf course where none was feasible.  Both succeeded.
Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have been built ?[/color]

Regarding LIDO, you should differentiate between basic pad fill and construction.  Lido was a massive project because of the fill, not the golf course.

Hmmm, except for the massive fill, there was very little manufacturing . . . .

Isnt that ignoring the proverbial elephant in the room?
No[/color]

Let's see, if you ignore all of her hideous features she is quite attractive. . .

What hideous features ?
Both Lido and Shadow Creek were world class golf courses.    
[/color]

Patrick, it is the enormous amount of fill which distinguishes Lido from NGLA.   Whatever manufacturing went on at NGLA, they did not have to create the entire landscape from scratch.

Only because they had more to start with.
At Lido there was NOTHING and they created a great golf course.  At NGLA they had a far, far better site, a GREAT SITE and still CBM did MAJOR manufacturing.[/color]

If you recall, many bashed Rees and Fazio without ever having played the course being discussed.[/i]

Really?  This is often said but seldom supported.  How about some examples?   Can you give me five specific examples of when this has happened in the past year?

How about last month ?
How about Tommy's and that other fellows bashing of the Rees course in Arizona when neither had ever played it.
Is that good enough ?[/color]