Huck:  I'm surprised that you found Stone Eagle so difficult.  The feedback from the members and clients to date is that it's much more playable than they dreamed -- the client was concerned about that from day one, and we made the grassed areas extra-wide as a result.  I've played it four times (as a 10) and only had to chip out of the desert a couple of times ... but I do know where I'm going and I'm not uncomfortable with any of the shots.

The members do think there are a couple of greens which are over the top (a function of wanting to see something on a significantly uphill approach shot -- they aren't going to change anytime soon), and actually the better players think it's a bit too short.  So I already knew you can't please everybody.

I do want to hear how playable others found the course.  But if all it is, is an "achievement" considering the site -- and not an excellent golf course in its own right -- then I'd say we failed.  So far, though, I'd say you're in the minority.

Tom D:

I will say this:  it is indeed MUCH more playable than the site would indicate.  That is, if one looked at that mountainside pre-golf course, one would have to assume that there's no way a course could ever get built there, let alone that one that ends up as playable as Stone Eagle is.  So it is one hell of an accomplishment, and you ought not to take any negative connotation from that.  I have zero doubt that the members are VERY surprised it's as playable as it is!

One can only do so much on the side of a boulder-strewn mountain, however.

So yes, I did find it pretty darn severe.  And remember, I'm not saying it was on the tee shots - my friend Scott Burroughs proved that some very wild shots can still remain in play - and in fact, off the tee the course is VERY VERY fun, because often a hole that looks tight (like #10) actually isn't... you get up there and realize you have 75 yards or more of fairway room!  I think that's very cool - and thus have no issues with the tee shots whatsoever.

I just did find that every single green is either surrounded by rocks (meaning lost ball or a rock chip out if one gets really lucky), or perhaps a delayed worse fate in those incredible bunkers.  Again, I have no clue how ELSE you could have done it, given the site... I'm just saying that unless one is on with one's irons, he's gonna have a really long day.

So how about this:  the grassed areas off the tee are indeed wide, and as playable as one could expect given the site - or in fact, far more so.  But near the greens... even wedge shots are gonna mean a bad fate on a lot of shots.

Thus I can't see high handicappers having all that much fun there long-term unless they take the attitude that this is part of the game and they just drop and move on...

But again, what the hell can one expect given the site?

Thus my thoughts are geared far more to the site than to what you did.  I'd have to say it's the most playable mountain-side course I've played - I'm with Ryan Simper there - good god compare this to The Ranch at Silver Creek and it's comical - BUT... a mountain-side course it remains.  Perhaps by default it just can't be considered "an excellent golf course in its own right" just due to the site.  That's my feeling anyway... And if I am in the minority, well that won't be the first time.  

In any case, I'd agree that in effect it is too short for the long bombers.  And again, nothing you can do there!

Others will be in to disagree with me, for sure.  As I say, there was LOTS of praise floating around even on Sunday night after the blast-furnace round.

TH


ps - did they get a course rating and slope?  I didn't see one... I'd be very interested what those figures come out as.  I have my guess... neither are going to be low, methinks...

Re: Huck's original post about playing Stone Eagle as the second course:

IMPO you guys were nuts to do a 36-er in that weather.  I decided to opt out, I owuld have had to quit.  90* is topo much for me anymore, I'll take 30* over 90* for golf.  

Congrats just for finishing.

Bill - a few did opt out - and no one thought they were crazy, that's for sure!

I think in the end it's a testament to the course that we had as much fun as we did that first round...

TH

Tom,
Sounds like all had a good time. Let me throw Las Vegas as a neutral site compromise between North and South for next year. I'll be happy to assist here.
Mark

That also sounds great to me, and thanks for the offer!  So here's another willing to assist...

I just do believe the Emperor has another trick up his sleeve... Dammit it just sucks to make him do this again... but let's see what the great one has in mind.

 

Ryan:

I guess we shall have to agree to disagree re the green surrounds. I'm thinking one could find the rocks on every single hole... or if not, a possibly worse fate in a bunker.  Go over it in your mind... Try to think not like good golfer you, but shitty golfer me....

I have to tell you, I had a nice 15-20 yard pull going both days, and I had a very difficult time.  Yes, there are many places where it is not as bad as it looks, and you can find grass... but even then you have impossibly hard pitch shots up or over or around some very extreme slopes.

Again, there's nothing else really that could be done given the site.  And again, there is WAY more room than some other architects would have allowed for.

But still the green surrounds are punishing.  But maybe it is just me...

TH

Huck-
I'll have to re-reply when I get my yardage book in my hands (I'm obviously having a tough time numbering the holes in my head having only played once) but I really found that by and large, my misses got a fate they deserved.

And I was by NO means playing well.

For instance (and again, forgive my lack of precision)

3 of the par 3s received less than good shots from yours truly, and each time I had a little chip and putt (short right on both 7 and 14)

18 was missed long left and I chipped to 2 feet (yanked the putt)

17 was long right and there seemed to be more room even right of where I went.

I can talk about more of them when my brain re-solidifies from it's melted gray matter state, but the balls I lost (2 of em) were from the tee and due to horrific push-slices.

I think if you get really crooked, then yes it can be absolutely punishing...but as a player who does not define himself as either accurate or precise most of the time, I thought there was enough margin for error on a "bad but not awful" swing that it didn't frustrate.

But, I do see how when things go south, it can seem like an awful fate to have - I think of it like 1 at Pacific Dunes - its a short hole and you should be able to make something work out, but if you hit into that right dune, you're screwed beyond belief.  There are definitely places like that at S.E. but I felt them out of the way enough that if I find them, I probably deserved it.

Huck - I had the opposite side of it.
I thought the course was short and scorable.
I jotted down the yardages it played on a sheet of paper and found a 6500 yard course.
Not too short in a Matt Ward type of citing Stone Eagle's 18th hole doesn't require a 3 wood approach, just too many wedges into the short par 4's.

For me to shoot 70 sight unseen and Fortson to shoot 66, we can't really say it's too severe.

I thought the big bunker on #8 was irrelevant.
There is so much room left and it's only 200 yards to carry(I think).  I don't see any benefit to going down the right side there.

I agree than any 15-20 handicap would lose a few balls.

The 2nd day I thought I'd break the current Amateur course record but didn't bring the game.

Interesting that Stone Eagle doesn't really play along ridge lines - only perpendicular to the mountain.

I like Apache Stronghold's variation in par 3's and par 4's.
I think I prefer Stone Eagle's variation in par 5's.

Huck - I had the opposite side of it.
I thought the course was short and scorable.
I jotted down the yardages it played on a sheet of paper and found a 6500 yard course.
Not too short in a Matt Ward type of citing Stone Eagle's 18th hole doesn't require a 3 wood approach, just too many wedges into the short par 4's.

For me to shoot 70 sight unseen and Fortson to shoot 66, we can't really say it's too severe.

I thought the big bunker on #8 was irrelevant.
There is so much room left and it's only 200 yards to carry(I think).  I don't see any benefit to going down the right side there.

I agree than any 15-20 handicap would lose a few balls.

The 2nd day I thought I'd break the current Amateur course record but didn't bring the game.

Interesting that Stone Eagle doesn't really play along ridge lines - only perpendicular to the mountain.

I like Apache Stronghold's variation in par 3's and par 4's.
I think I prefer Stone Eagle's variation in par 5's.

Thomas - again, remember I'm saying it's too severe FOR THE HIGHER HANDICAPPER.  I have no doubt the course can be had by the good player.  Hell I shot 77 on Monday, and I suck compared to you guys.  And Doak is right in saying it's too short for the long bomber, as you prove out.  Re #8 though, remember there is the risk of blowing it too far right.  Ask Ryan how easy that tee shot is.  

In any case, I just can't see the higher handicapper having a good time there in the long term, and for me, it's primarily because of the green surrounds.  Being I WAS a high handicapper on Sunday afternoon, I have a unique perspective this time.  

That is AWESOME!

You're a good sport to allow that, Evan.

Man the best part is the picture shaking as the camera-holder is busting up laughing....

 

I heard the story about the shot heard round the world, now I find out about the video, classic, would have loved to had seen it live. Next year, I am already saving up my $$$.

Here's my question, as a high handicapper:

I'm standing in the middle of the fairway (for once). I pull my 8 iron from the bag, aim for the center of the green and push it 20 yards right or pull it 30 yards left.

Am I faced with a really tough recovery shot, or is my ball pingponging its way to oblivion?

I can live with option 1.

It's ping-ponging 60%, you've got an EXTREMELY difficult recovery (either out of rocks or a very very difficult bunker shot) 25%, it's on grass with a very hard pitch 10%, on grass with a decent shot 4%, it ping-pongs off of the rocks and on the green 1%.

George, you've been to Black Mesa and your feelings about it are well known.  Stone Eagle's green surrounds are more severe, it's tee shots are MUCH more forgiving.

TH

Thanks, Huck.

A 60% PPR (PingPongRate, my new desert index for high handicappers ) is high to me, though I would guess most of the desert courses I've played are more like 85+% with a 20 yard miss.

I can live with a really difficult bunker shot, though the guys playing with me might prefer I be dropping.

I just wanted to say thanks for Tommy for putting on a fun event, and it was great to put some faces with the names.  

Our hosts at the courses could not have been nicer and they really made us feel welcome.

Coming in off an injury and not playing much, plus the loss of my clubs by the airline made it tough, but still the guys were great and the evening get togethers were as good as the golf.  

I did get to play Stone Eagle with some strong players on Monday and I could see how the course could be overpowered, but if the greens were a bit firmer and a lot faster, I think they would be able to defend themselves against the better player.  

Very well said re our hosts at the courses - we couldn't have possibly received warmer welcomes.

Now re Stone Eagle... make that firmer and faster and sure it could defend itself... it would be unplayable.  I'd say it would be neat if the aprons were cut a little closer, but outside of that, we saw it as firm as it ought to get (imo) unless the idea is to prevent the Jeff Fortsons of the world from shooting 66... in which case of course the rest of us never finish the round....