[Matt_Ward]

David:

Do yourself a huge favor -- if someone has zero credibility why waste your valuable time and bitch and moan as per your usual MO.

Just ignore people like me and I will do likewise with you.

Enjoy the comforts of your favorite couch -- I do my analysis through playing varied golf courses from different architects who often get little attention on this site. The mountain time zone is one of those areas I see as getting little attention when rightly deserved.

David -- I thought you were above such juvenile name calling and the like -- forgive me to think you were such a classy guy. My error.

[David Kelly]

You might as well be ranking Thruways or Interstate Highways.

Actually I have and here they are (I haven't driven on all of them but the ones I haven't driven I've walked):

1. I-10
2. I-90
3. I-95
4. I-15
5. I-40
6. I-75
7. I-35
8. I-65
9. I-80
10.(tie) I-70, I-81
           

[George Pazin]

DavidKelly -

Any Intersate that goes through Pennsylvania - as I-70, I-80 and I-81 do - is by definition horrendous, so your list and you, by the transitive property, have zero credibility in ranking interstates!

[David Kelly]

DavidKelly -
Any Intersate that goes through Pennsylvania - as I-70, I-80 and I-81 do - is by definition horrendous, so your list and you, by the transitive property, have zero credibility in ranking interstates!

George,

With all due respect. Have you put the time in to walk or drive the ENTIRE Interstate highway system?  I have so if you haven't I can't see how you could question my list!!!

[A_Clay_Man]

They really are doing some wonderful road construction here in the mountain time zone. If you would all
just get out and see it.... Heck, we even have a Mona Lisa in our town (Pinon Hills) but it gets hung upside down.

[John Kirk]

I'm happy to see this thread end on a high(er) note.  Let me put my two cents in for I-5, plus the delightful I-280 in the San Francisco Bay Area.

[Craig Sweet]

Good to see you're getting the hang of this ratings stuff! I have always been fond of the Taconic State Parkway...

[cary lichtenstein]

Bill:

I feel no reason to back down just because the consensus here doesn't agree with me. I'm entilted to my opinion. More importantly, I simply wanted others to enjoy what I enjoyed.

It's like a movie: Batman or War of the Worlds. I liked Batman better, and I thought the original War of the Worlds was way better than the new version.

Some like Blondes, others prefer redheads.

Lakota is what is it, and those who wish to play it, should and those who don't shouldn't. Those who haven't played it have no business pontificating about it. I never make comments about a course I haven't played.

Mountain golf clearly is not for everyone and neither is Jim Engh, that is clear from the posters here at GCA. It's a shame so much negativity exists here.

I will have played Lakota about a dozen times by the end of my stay here, and if I feel different I will post accordingly.

But what pisses me off is a guy like DMoriaty, who I have never met, who makes dergatory comments concerning my credibility. I have yet to make a deragatory about anyone on this webiste, nor will I in the future.

I try to make a legitmate contribution to this website and also add a bit of levity at times. Sorry to be verbose.

[DMoriarty]

But what pisses me off is a guy like DMoriaty, who I have never met, who makes dergatory comments concerning my credibility. I have yet to make a deragatory about anyone on this webiste, nor will I in the future.

I try to make a legitmate contribution to this website and also add a bit of levity at times. Sorry to be verbose.

Cary,

I feel bad that I offended you by questioning your credibility when it comes to evaluating mountain courses.  Unfortunately, after reviewing my posts and yours, I am sticking by my initial assessment.    

Let's put this in perspective.  You've listed two Jim Engh courses on your short list of the World's greatest golf courses.   I have played only one of those courses, Black Rock.  The notion that Black Rock is one of the world's very best-- ahead of courses like Merion and Crystal Downs, is absolutely absurd.  Preposterous. Unbelievable.  Incredible.  It calls into question your ability to soberly evaluate the quality of "mountain golf" courses in an impartial manner.   It is so contrary to my understanding of what is quality architecture that we might completely lack common ground to even discuss the issue.  

As to your tastes, more power to you.  But there is a difference between a person's subjective taste and a person's ability to critically analyze a golf course.   For example, I really like the Cavenaugh Course on Lanai.  I'd rather play it than the Lodge course it borders, and sometimes would rather play it that Manele.  But I would never call it an excellent course, or even a good course.  It is a terrible course, it just fits my quirky tastes.  You seem to have your tastes confused with your evaluation of what is truly great architecture.  

Take your art comparison.  According to his website, Thomas Kinkaid is the most collected living artist in America.    His work obviously appeals to the tastes of many.   Does this make him one of the greatest artists of all time?   While I am sure that those who buy his work think him great, I disagree.

If you claimed that one of Thomas Kinkaid's works belonged on the short list of the greatest works of art in history, then I'd refrain from taking your advice regarding art in the future.  In other words, you'd have no credibility with me.  

It may sound harsh, but comparing Black Rock to Cypress Point is like comparing the latest Kinkaid painting to Monet's Water Lilies.  

By the way, like Matt you have no idea of my likes or dislikes when it comes to so-called mountain courses.  
____________________

Matt, you are correct.  True or not, it was inappropriate and rude of me to call you an arrogant jerk.  I hope you will accept my apology.  

[DMoriarty]

Regarding derogatory comments:  You and Matt have repeatedly accused me and others of being biased because we disagree with your views regarding certain Jim Engh courses.   Not sure the difference in degree of derogation between me calling you incredible and you calling me biased.  

The 15, which does not go anywhere near Pheonix, rules.  

[Tim Bert]

My top 5 Interstates (from a pure golfing perspective):

I-5 (which got me part of the way to Bandon from Portland)
I-74 (which got me most of the way from Greensboro to Pinehurst)
I-43 (which got me to Whistling Straits from Milwaukee)
I-95 (Going to get me most of the way to Bethpage in a couple of weeks)
Canada 1 (which is going to get me to Banff Springs next month)

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

Apology accepted. Let's get back to the discussion at hand OK without the personal invective.

By the way -- my comments on Jim Engh course come from roughly playing ten of his designs. I have not played just one or two and then make leaps on the nature of what he has designed and what elements add to or detract from what he designs. I never stated that Black Rock is his best work -- I see that with Lakota and Pradera -- they are both solid efforts and worthy of play by any interested person. I did acknowledge a number of shortfalls with Black Rock but I also stated there are a number of holes there that are well done. If we don't see eye-to-eye on that one lone course so be it. No people will see everything the same way.

I am also a huge fan of Lakota -- although not to the level that Cary favors. It would still make my personal top 100 though.

David -- hold the phone -- the bias you alledge comes from people who play a very limited portfolio of a designers works and then draw conclusions on the talents / lack thereof concerning the person in question. This has happened with such architects like Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus and Rees Jones, to name the three most prominent who fit the bill in question.

I have indicated that I have played a much greater representative sampling of courses than a number of people who opine on this site. That doesn't make my opinion 100% correct -- but it does allow me to present a wider view of what the designer in question has done and if there are courses within the portfolio that are beyond being redundant or even less so.

Jim Engh is often dismissed on GCA as some sort of "outside the box" architect. I feel that assessment of his work is completely unfair when people play just one or two of his courses. He is extremely talented and while he doesn't follow the pro-forma formula that many on GCA prefer I found it hard to believe that only one particular style is the only way for golf courses to be designed.

Given your knowledge of architecture I would hope you can see what I am saying. If not -- then as I said before -- if you see my credibility of golf course assessment as being in right field then simply ignore it and go your merry way. Simple as that.

[cary lichtenstein]

Personally, I like I-95

[DMoriarty]

Matt, first let me state my agreement with a few things, so you can hopefully stop repeating them endlessly:
--  You've seen a large number of courses.  Many more than most here.  Certainly many more than me.  No doubt your opinions are backed up by your immense experience.
--  People should refrain from specifically commenting on particular courses until they have had sufficient exposure to those courses.  

What you dont seem to understand is that our differences aren't so much about what courses we have seen, but rather the standards by which we evaluate the courses we have seen.

Black Rock highlights our difference in approach.  You see shot values, tests, and chances for the good golfer to excel by hitting it straight and far.    I see an unwalkable slog with fairways sunken deeply into the ground, claustrophobic "Hollywood Bowl greens" (Whitten's term), overdone manmade features which distract from the natural beauty, little strategy or choice except for the herioc type, repititous concepts, houses and the clubhouse on the best land, generally a complete failure to utilize the natural advantages of the blufftop site.  

Not trying to rehash an old argument, just pointing out that none of these things have anything to do with how many courses you've played versus me.  

I agree that it is unfair to judge Jim Engh based on a single course.  One has to wonder though, if I so dislike what many consider to be his best, is there really much chance I will love the others??

[Craig Sweet]

This is just my opinion, I don't think the man made features at Black Rock distract from the natural beauty, I think they are there because of a lack of "natural beauty". I don't find that particular 50 square miles of Idaho very attractive, except for the lake.

[Matt_Ward]

David:

Let me answer your latest comments.

You have -- my belief that is -- a very narrow and very particular sense on what golf architecture should be. So be it. I find such a narrow definition of quality design to be limiting because as Tom Paul is wont to say -- we do live in a big world and there is room for many styles.

I commented that Black Rock is a wonderful course but that it does have some limitations that take away from the sheer qualities it offers. I mentioned the repetitive nature of the back-to-back par-3's on the back nine -- the first one is simply eye-candy and failed to deliver for me. The second one is much better and in some ways compromised by the position of the first. The opening hole is also nothing more than pro forma stuff.

I see why Engh did the back-to-back par-3 holes as a means to get from piece of the property to the other but the net result didn't advance the level of the course for me.

On the flip side -- the totality of the five par-5's is extremely well done IMHO. You have a wide range of strategic options to consider on all the shots and the "fun" element is clearly alive and well in this area. The par-4's at Black Rock don't have the kind of heft you see with later designs Engh has done with the likes of Lakota and most certainly Pradera. There are a few good holes -- I liked the par-4 10th and 11th holes -- and I can recall your comments on what you didn't like about the 11th. So be it -- we see things differently in that regard on that hole.

David -- my course sample size gives me a advantage over plenty of people because I can bring to the table -- through my personal experiences in playing the courses -- a range of comments / re: comparisons & contrasts, that others likely cannot make. You seem to miss my point -- it's not just the amount of courses but the analysis that needs to come with that part as well. I believe I have tried to provide as much when using these two elements together.

I have no issue with people making comments on any course they have played. It is when they extrapolate the findings of one course and then ipsi facto broaden that into some sort of overall assessment on the capacity of the designer in question. This happens all the time with Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus and Rees Jones, as I mentioned previously.

I salute you in saying you have only played one Jim Engh design. You need to play a few of his others if your schedule ever permits -- namely Lakota and Pradera would be two good places if you should ever make it to The Centennial State.

Frankly, the tastes of certain people here on GCA is fairly narrow and candidly quite dogmatic. I take -- my personal view -- a somewhat more pragmatic approach. There are a number of "classic" designed layouts that I enjoy but no less there are a quite a few modern day layouts by a range of people who fly well below the radar screen such as Baxter Spann with his superb efforts at Black Mesa, among others.

David -- when you say the word "standards" I take a much wider view of how such instances can meet the key "standards" you mention. I have often said -- I take into consideration three essential elements -- the land the course occupies, the complexity of the routing and the creativity of the shot values the player faces throughout the round. These three elements provide for me a blueprint on what a superior course should have. How the architect does that is something I give wide license to because of the unique aspects any given site might produce.

You mischaracterized my comments on Black Rock. I never said that simply hitting it straight and far is the reason why I liked it. I indicated in previous threads how strategic elements on particular holes designed by Engh work quite well. Placement -- not simply wacking the ball a country mile -- is a requirement when playing a good number of holes there.

I salute you in being honest enough to admit that forming an opinion off of just one layout is not helpful in the long run. I have seen the evolutionary process of architect's and their work and I can say with some certainty that in playing a wide range of courses you can then better evaluate the progress made or in some cases the retardation that takes place.

[DMoriarty]

Matt,


Perhaps you could indulge me by answering a few specific questions about your "standards." (No need to again tell us what you bring to the table; we've covered that.)

No doubt the following design elements exist at Black Rock:
--  Numerous trough-like fairways, where the ground to the sides is almost always higher than in the fairway.
--  "Hollywood Bowl Greens," where many of the greens are surrounded by high mounds or hillsides.
--  Relegation of the course to the convex portions of the property, while the houses and clubhouse occupy most of the high ground.
--  A virtually unwalkable routing, or at least one that would be very difficult for even avid walkers to walk regularly.

Where do each of these design elements fit into your evaluation of Black Rock, if at all?

Are the above design elements (trough fairways, hollywood bowl greens, unwalkable, etc.) indicative of Jim Engh's architectural style?  

You speak of "creativity of shot values the golfer faces" as being an "essential element" of a quality design.   Tell me what is special, if anything, about the  "shot values" around the greens at Black Rock?  What is special, if anything, about the "shot values" of the recovery shots at Black Rock?  

Thanks Matt.

[fred ruttenberg]

Top 10? Mabey of Colorado courses!
I played Lakota Monday after reading this post and Cary's comments. It was a fine course. While the views were great, there was a simularity about the holes. 4 of the 5 par 3s were downhill where you could bounce the ball off one side of the green (in some cases that was the only way to play the hole. Many holes played downhill with mounding to keep the call in play.

This is a course I am glad I played but would have no desire to return. In Colorado I have played Cherry Hills, Castle Pines and Maroon Creek. Each of these was better than Lakota.

Top 10 in the world? Must be the altitude affecting Cary's judgment.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt and Cary:

While trying not to draw any complete conclusions about Jim Engh's work (he may be quite capable of doing different styles in different places), it seems to me that on all of the four courses I've seen that he's designed, he makes very little attempt to hide the earthwork he's doing and make it look like the golf course was always there.

That is so completely the opposite of my style and belief system, that I find it hard to feel good about his courses, no matter what strategic options the par-5's offer in their totality, or how creative are some of the golf shot options he offers.  (Some of them are undeniably creative beyond what most other architects build.)

Are Lakota Canyon and Pradera different in this respect?  Do they look like they fit on the ground?  Or are you saying that's not important to you?

[Jim Franklin]

While the question was not directed to me and I have not played Lakota, I have played Pradera and felt like the course fit the land nicely. It had a Sand Hills type feel on a few holes and I only worry about the proximity of future homes to the course.

[Kirk Gill]

Isn't there a difference, though, when considering what kind of landscape you're putting a course on? How does one go about making a golf course in a mountain canyon look like it's always been there? Or in the desert? How does one minimize the blatant artificiality of such an endeavor? Are there examples of mountain courses or desert courses that truly look like they are occurring naturally, or is this just a goal to achieve, an ideal to reach for...........?

I have no axe to grind, I'm just asking........

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Kirk,
Yours is a good question, a very good one and its simply one of the reasons why when an architect posts here, regardless of anyone's personal preference--that he or she listens with great interest. You'll see different styles and how a DeVries, Hanse or Coore might do it differently then a Doak--creatively; but more then anything it hilights why many of us favor the work of Doak, C&C, Hanse, DeVries, etc.

I also think that reading plays a big part in this. Reading books like Robert Hunter's The Links; Wethered & Simpson's The Architectural Side of Golf; Captain Geo. Thomas', Golf Architecture in America and many others. It all displays the importance of how and when and where man can be in compliation with Nature to make golf work.

You see, length, slope rating and contact information don't matter in this regard, but seeing how features both natural and artificial are utilized to present interesting and challenging shots while taking advantage of the visual impact (once again, both natural and artificial) is what this is all about. A Seth Raynor works because the natural and artificial features are meant to work with the pre-conceived holes given the locations of the site. Each has its own varying character, while a MacKenzie relied more on the natural features that were further refined to create those very same options. It's a completely different school of thought.

While I have not gone out of my way to experience a Jim Engh course, its because of several things:

1-Cost and time to travel
2-Reason to travel

Why I'll be the first to admit that Engh style of architecture from what I have seen in photographs--is far from what I would want to take the time and precious resources to go and see; I will vouch for him as a character. He certainly is a genuine sort and I've enjoyed his company at the downstairs Bandon pub. Now that was a good time.

[Dan Smoot]

I also played Lakota on Monday and my sentiments echoed that of Fred Ruttenburg.  While I may not be as analytical about GCA as most people on this site.  I tired of the similarity of the holes in which the greens were built in bowls and fairways which funneled shots.  These were my initial feelings I gave to my wife who rode with my that morning.  I hit more shots off the intended line of play that ended up far better than I deserved.  I am not questioning the implementation of the feature but of its frequency and the fact that you see it on both sides.

I don't think I have played two courses (incl Redlands) that had as many elevated tee boxes or as much vertical relief as those two.  It was enjoyable and different from my normal mix but I would rather play Wildhorse or Black Mesa time and again over either of these two.  For a course with good elevation changes, I definitely like Black Mesa better than Lakota.  The location of hazards and the penalty associated with misses both of positioning and execution is much more significant.

I must admit that 18 at Lakota is a great tempting risk/reward par 5 that gets your attention.  It is the most memorable hole on the course.

Fred,

I wonder if I was playing in front of you.  I was playing as a single early in the morning.  I completed the round in 2 hours 20 minutes and had a single pushing me around on the back nine and I thought I was playing at a good pace.

[fred ruttenberg]

Dan: I teed off as a twosome around 11:00. We went thru 2 foresomes and finished in around 4 hours. My partner shot 70 with 2 bogies on the holes where we went thru. He bounced 3 shots off hills surrounding the green for birdies. For example on 9 he hit high on the hill on the left and rolled down next to the pin. I hit the left side of the green and almost roll off the green. It did not make sense that the only way to play some of the shots was to intentionally aim off the green for a favorable bounce. The weather was great.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

I can sit here and write until the cows come home regarding Lakota -- in the final analysis -- you will need to play the course to judge for yourself.

I've played a very fair representation of public courses throughout the USA and in the State of Colorado
specifically -- the qualities of Lakota mesh very well and IMHO have clearly indicated a progression on the evolution of Engh design.

Tom -- you have a very particular sense on what constitutes superior golf design. Fair enough. Engh is not in lockstep with that type of thinking. So what. Does that makes his efforts poor golf courses? For those who march in lockstep unison on this site and who CLEARLY have their own favorite designers I can understand where they draw their thinking from and what courses they would prefer.

I said this before -- I don't take the very narrow -- "this is the only way to design" school philosophy that others seem hellbent on accepting and often time condemning those who don't see things exactly their way.

Jim Engh has designed a number of outstanding holes at Lakota and Pradera. Clearly, his design style is evolving and I have been fortunate to have played a fair representation to see how that style has moved along and to then provide some sort of cogent comments on where he has improved and where he still comes up short.

No doubt the earthmoving aspect is a fair criticism. However, I have seen a clear movement from the more harsh examples of this type to a more muted style. Frankly, I don't know how one can be able to deliver a style that says in loud and clear language that a golf course has always been there.

Your effort at The Rawls Course in Lubbock clearly makes the statement that it is manmade and clearly above and beyond the drab landscape that inhabits what was there previously. Does that fact take away from what you designed there? Not to me it doesn't.

What's so darn funny is that when anyone on GCA takes the tact that others can be talented and that these same "others" may have a different take on what superior golf design is - you get the whiners who claim such a "different style of design" is way out on the fringe of what is permissible.  

I do value strategic considerations when playing any course. Golf is a game of shots and how they are interconnected to each other through a routing that maximizes the greatest elements of a given site. Jim has overcome the demands of sites in some unique settings. I don't think by any stretch that he hit home runs with each of them (e.g. Sanctuary) but he clearly has kept in the forefront the "fun" factor and his evolving style is clearly improving from the courses of his I have played.

You do raise a fair point on how Engh's design philosophy will be impacted upon the different locations he will likely be facing in the years ahead. Engh is now moving beyond the mountain time zone area and his work at Carne and at True North are just two examples on his branching out. It will be most interesting to see the results in those situations.

Tommy N:

You articulated a clear position but I have to say that personal preferences are clearly a guiding point on whether you will or will not play a particular course. I just don't hunt certain architects and leave the others on the side. But, clearly time and $$ are considerations for each person to decide upon for themselves.

The Jim Engh design motif may not be the "cup of tea" for you and others on GCA who favor a very partcular, and dare I say narrow style of design. I said previously that the architects you mentioned are all very gifted -- so is Jim Engh as well as others.

Tommy -- you are right concerning the scarcity of time / resources to travel, however, until you personally sample a few of his designs it's really hard for me to say you can understand the totality of what he does simply through secondhand observations via aerials and the like.

p.s. agree with you take on Jim's personality.

Jim F:

Well said regarding Pradera -- the course is right now away from the inane clutter that dominates the landscape of so many courses of this ilk. If the homes are kept at bay to some degree the totality of what is present at Pradera will only serve to go higher and higher with each play.

Fred:

With all due respect -- Maroon Creek is not in the same zip code as Lakota Canyon Ranch. For the sake of argument (being as kind as I can be), I won't get into full bore discussion regarding the merits of Cherry Hills and Castle Pines but frankly there's more to Lakota than you saw.

You must have missed how delicate the par-3 3rd plays to a wide variety of pin locations. You must have missed the fact that the two other par-3's on the front -- the 7th plays uphill to a well protected and well-contoured green.

The 9th is also quite demanding in getting the ball close to the hole. Each of the holes is angled in a different direction than the other.

On the back side you have superb 15th and 17th. The 15th plays slightly uphill and requires a deft choice of club. Yes, the 17th is a dropshot type hole but again getting close to the pin is not an easy chore -- particuraly with a rear placement.

Fred -- you talk about mounding elements -- where were they on the 1st hole (especially the tee shot or second?), the entire length of the 2nd hole -- the demands presented on the tee shots of the superb back-to-back par-5's at the 4th and 5th holes?

Yes, there is mounding that fires back the ball to the target on the downhill par-4 12th but from the nature of your comments you make it sound like Lakota is some sort of "rebound" course where the ball simply fires back to the fairway with no penalty for wayward shotmaking.

David M:

I've answered all the pertinent questions you have asked. You have played one Jim Engh course and are clearly determined to state a particular case. So be it.

We agree to disagree. Let me know when you play other Engh designs and I'll be glad to continue the discussion with you.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()