David:

To kick matters off - re: Black Rock v Stone Eagle I have to say right at the beginning that both sites are truly unique locations.

Stone Eagle gives you a total communal feeling with the desert and is a far, far cry from the boring and banal designs that dot the Coachella Valley.

Credit to the club for eschewing housing except at the entrance and the golf elements really take center stage.

At Black Rock I got the distinct impression that the golf dimension would be the dominant factor. The housing is a bit more involved there but never intrusive as to take away from the experiences derived.

I will go into a bit more of a course-by-course discussion -- suffice to say I believe both of them are clearly unique and will provide countless hours of fun for those most fortunate to play either.

More will follow when time allows ...

David:

I will get to the analysis when my schedule allows. Suffice to say I do believe you see the work of Engh at Black Rock to be below that of Stone Eagle. That's a guess on my part but given your already stated views of Black Rock I don't believe I am out on a limb in saying so.

I don't know how much better Black Rock would have been. You are asking me to guess and I can't answer that. What I can answer is that the existing land site and routing developed by Engh does work very well. I've played my share of developmental properties and often the golf course is the item that faces the greater pressure to be compromised. I didn't see that with the land used at Black Rock.

That doesn't mean to say all of the holes are home runs either. Ditto for that of Stone Eagle.

Keep in mind one item here -- Black Rock is a par-72 course with five par-3's and five par-5's -- something Engh favors on a number of his designs. Stone Eagle opted for less on each front -- four par-3's and only three par-5's. Engh adds the extra par-5's to bring a sense of risk and reward to the golfers playing his courses.

No doubt adding that many par-5's and par-3's does put pressure on him to be quite original in his final product. Granted it's self-imposed because he decides to go with such a formula time after time. I've stated previously that Engh gets a huge plus IMHO because his work in those areas -- particularly the par-5's -- is well done.

My time is tight now so I'll write more later.

I don't think it's really worthwhile to compare Black Rock and Stone Eagle.  One is a real estate development course and one is not.  

To think that Black Rock could've been routed more for the benefit of the golf is not realistic, the primary purpose of the golf was to attract interest to the real estate.  At Stone Eagle, it's the other way around, the real estate at the bottom of the hill exists to help finance the golf course.

Matt loves his par-5's because he can hit them in two and demonstrate his superior golf skills, and that helps me understand why he likes some of Engh's courses so much ... I had never thought about it but that explains a lot about why Jim's courses are popular with the low-handicap Golf Digest panelist types.  I, on the other hand, am trying to make it hard for those guys and I guess they don't always like it.

I don't think it's really worthwhile to compare Black Rock and Stone Eagle.  One is a real estate development course and one is not.  

To think that Black Rock could've been routed more for the benefit of the golf is not realistic, the primary purpose of the golf was to attract interest to the real estate.  At Stone Eagle, it's the other way around, the real estate at the bottom of the hill exists to help finance the golf course.

This is exactly my point, and why I made the comparison.  It is also why I asked Matt to focus on the initial land use decision.  A good routing for a real estate development is rarely if ever comparable to a good routing with no such limitation.  It is simply a matter of priorities.

Andy Troeger said:

Tom,
Thinking about it realistically, there's probably some truth to the GD part of your statement...I won't touch the first part. I think the wonderful thing about the rankings is that with three magazines there is room for more than one philosophy. It allows one to see which courses cater to all different types and thus appear high in all three magazines, versus some others that do well with one list but not the others. It also allows there to be room for many different philosophies of design, which is great news for the golfer IMO

The problem is that Golf Digest is not publishing a list called "Best Courses in America for the Long Hitting Low Single Digit Player."  

David,
Please forgive me for thinking that multiple viewpoints could be a good thing for the interested reader.

 

Matt loves his par-5's because he can hit them in two and demonstrate his superior golf skills, and that helps me understand why he likes some of Engh's courses so much ... I had never thought about it but that explains a lot about why Jim's courses are popular with the low-handicap Golf Digest panelist types.  I, on the other hand, am trying to make it hard for those guys and I guess they don't always like it.

More proof that Matt Ward is the Jonathan Crane of his time...

Adam and David,
The post on Wolf Creek was not INTENTIONALLY related...although I think the jist might have been similar having gone back to read it. I appreciate the opportunity to read what Matt writes about some of these courses because he is willing to think outside-the-box on a course like Wolf Creek, and whether or not I'd like it once I played it, I think I'd want to give it a try. Since so much of the discussion here goes back to the same courses, its refreshing when we discuss something different.

My point is better explained in the comment above here...every list from a magazine or post on this board or article written has someone's bias attached to it. Since GD has certain criteria to become a panelist, there you go. To me there's a bias on the all the panels--that's kind of the point of why they want a panel...we've seen what happens with the GD "Places to Play" book when anyone can comment. Its not necessarily a bad thing, but you have to understand who makes the list and why they make it before you just go looking at the numbers.

The only real important point I'm trying to get at is that I think that having three lists (as opposed to any one of them) benefits the golfer because they are compiled in different ways using different criteria from different subsets of golfers. Some prefer one over the other, but they're all there. To me its unfortunate there is no way to combine them, because that might give us a "master list" of sorts that really combines all the viewpoints.

David, I got frustrated with your comment because of the continuous bashing of the GD list on here (in general). My vague comment was (after reading it again this morning) not even really correct in that you were bashing the panel and the specific list...you'd prefer they rename the list to fit the bias...I don't agree that is necessary as the panel certainly must be charged with rating the golf course from a more overall perspective, but so be it...and like I said I think every one of the lists has a certain bias. Apologies for being vague

Curiously, I suspect Stone Eagle will rate highly among Golf Digest panelists.  Matt Ward obviously likes it a lot.  He's paid to analyze and critique courses, and I don't see any scathing criticsms here.  The word from Palm Desert is most panelists have been very impressed.

Golf Digest is the only magazine which specifically ranks courses on resistance to scoring, or course difficulty.  At 72.1/135 from the back tees, the course is not thought to be overly difficult.  However, among many of the local valley members the course will be a second or third membership to impress clients and friends, since the course is considered too difficult to play on a day-to-day basis.

The Quarry at La Quinta is currently ranked #54.  Stone Eagle has a good chance to become a regular fixture in their top 100.  

It amazes me that when I say something about a course that people get all so worked up. I said from the get go that Stone eagle is a real fun course to play and that the site is indeed impressive. If anyone bothers to read what I just wrote and from my past comments you can see I thoroughly enjoyed the course. I did accentuate the fun dimension and I saluted Tom Doak for giving the members what they want there.

With that said -- I was asked to provide additional detailed comments and I have done just that. No course is bulletproof and Stone Eagle certainly has its down moments -- albeit few and in between. I also went beyond just a listing and provided my own rationale behind each comment.

I think it is rather simplistic as Tom Doak has attempted to paint me as just being interested in par-5's that can be described as risk and reward type holes and care little less for what is present. That's far from the case and in my description / analysis of the holes at Stone Eagle I have tried to be utterly fair and candid.

I enjoy Engh courses beyond just the par-5 element. It would be no different than for someone to be classified as a Doak lover simply because of specific particular items (e.g. contouring of the greens, look of the bunkers, etc, etc,). The problem I have with many people on this site when they critique my comments on Engh layouts is how few they have played. It's hard for me to give credence to people when they really have not played a truly representative sample beyond just one or two.

I don't give Jim Engh any more slack than any other architect and I have opined on numerous occasions when his work fails to rise the bar from what he done previously -- see my comments on his overuse of containment mounding around any number of greensites he has created. For example, I did like Blackstone but it's not in the same level as Lakota Canyon Ranch and Pradera, both in Colorado.

David M:

I believe the land sites for both courses is very well done. If I were forced to choose which one is better I'd say Stone Eagle has the edge but it's not that far apart in my book.

You asked me to comment on what type of course could have come from Black Rock if other land were used. I don't know what might have come about -- I only review on the final product and the one at Black Rock is well done in a number of ways. I have opined that there are few holes at Black Rock that could have been improved upon and I don't see Black Rock in the same light as other high terrain courses that Engh has successfully done with the likes of Lakota Canyon and Pradera. If you want a "legitimate benchmark on quality mountain courses" be sure to play the two aforementioned courses and you will see two clear cut examples that are in the same vein as Stone Eagle IMHO.

P.S. Tommy -- As an FYI -- I previously served as both a Digest and Golfweek rater. If there is a pond to build please stock it with trout -- I'll be sure to bring the ball retriever for you.

John K:

I mentioned the 13th as being underrated -- I also have to add the uphill par-4 6th. I think the skylight green is really neat and the player has to force themselves to hit it hard enough to get to a rear pin placement.

Interesting hole that falls between the uphill 5th and the dropshot 7th.

Andy, I'm not sure I can agree with your assertion that the "lists" show biasies. The lists are supposedly made up of the opinions of many different people. I also don't think the criterion for the voting illicits a bias.
Truthfully, the one thing I have learned from my participation on a panel is just how diverse the opinions of panelists are.

It's a tough lesson to learn because you are practically forced to accept that there are those who appreciate the flavor of Kangaroo, ala McDonalds. When all along you thought Filet Mignion was on the menu.

Adam,
I have a hard time disagreeing with anything you say here, and I think my choice of the word "bias" probably was a poor one...although I still haven't thought of a better one so I'm going to forego any further attempt to explain

I do think its important for those people who care about these lists to understand who is on the panel for each one. Like I think I said before, I think that its good that there a lot of different viewpoints...it creates interest. I've learned a lot by reading reviews and posts on GCA, despite my views probably not falling in line with the majority here on some topics.

Brian, I dont think I have shown any favorites when it comes to criticizing magazine ratings.  

Here is what I dont understand.  You think that the different magazines have distinctive points of view on what makes a quality golf course, yet you do not want the magazines to clarify their point-of-view for their readers.  It is too much to expect their casual readers to figure these things out for themselves.  
 
Also, you say that renaming the lists is not necessary because panelists "must be charged with rating the golf course from a more overall perspective."  Yet then you go on to say that they all have a certain point of view.   Isnt it disingenuous of them to claim than they are providing an "overall perspective" when they arent?  

David,
FWIW...I never said you played favorites, I didn't agree with your comment about GD. I never said you "liked" the other lists.  I also never said they shouldn't be clear about their POV...I think GD IS clear, otherwise we wouldn't have the disclosure about their criteria and the panel. The other magazines do the same. How much do you want them to say? I don't think they should rename their list. Also last time I checked my name is still Andy

You also twisted around the rest of what I said, I think there is a MORE overall perspective than calling it "100 Greatest for low handicap (whatever you finished off with)." I did not say that it was a 100% overall perspective. To get that you'd have to poll every golfer in the country. All these lists are selected samples using different criteria and different panels...that's why they're all different. That's why its nice to have multiple view points. That's what I'm trying to get at.

Back to Stone Eagle