Jay,

I'm sure Jim's a great guy, but, when you say "90% of people ride ride , so why cater to the other 10% who walk..." how can that be misinterperted. As the Huckster says actions speak louder than words and his most popular courses cater to riders offering views during the ascent to next perched tee box. Was Jim Engh misquoted in the article?

Tom

Take a look at Fossil Trace in Golden, CO:

18 Hole Fees     Mon-Thurs     Fri-Sun
Golden Resident    $41    $46
Jeffco Resident    $46    $51
Non Jeffco Resident    $51    $56
Golden Senior           $31    $46
Jeffco Senior          $36    $51
Non Jeffco Senior    $41    $56
All Juniors             $28    $46

www.fossiltrace.com

What is that pile of rocks doing on Fossil Trace #15?  Is that the "fossil trace"?  I'll reserve final judgment until I play it, but I don't care for the look of the course at all.  

Jay, I was surprised to see Red Hawk Ridge on your list of recommended Engh courses.  #1 is a par 5 that I've reached with driver, LW (and I'm not that big of a hitter). #18 is a par 5, elevated tee, with a strip of rough bisecting the fairway at about 270-280 yards--right where you can reach it with driver from an elevated tee and at altitude.  Still, it can be reached with a mid to short iron.  In between are several mediocre and sometimes repetitive holes.  With all due respect to Mr. Engh and anyone else affiliated with it, Red Hawk Ridge is one of the few courses anywhere that I've vowed never to play again.  

Tim:

Look behind the rocks!  Jim hid a wide tongeu of fairway that leads straight nto the back of the green!!

Click here to see and read about it:

http://www.golfobserver.com/features/flemma/fossiltrace_011706.html

Jim calls it a hidden staircase and puts alot of them in his designs.  Like all great UK courses, his courses have secret tongues of fairway and hidden thinigs that lead tyo the green or to shortcuts.  Those rocks are an optica

l illyusion.  If you look at the pics in my article, you see their genius!

And BTW-Red hawk is not cart golf. Nowehere near Lakota fpor that.

Jay, I'd say the rocks are more of an eyesore than an optical illusion.  

Re: Red Hawk Ridge, because it can be walked doesn't mean it isn't cartpath golf--see Huckaby's post.  I'm a strident walker and I've taken a cart each time I've played Red Hawk Ridge, as do probably about 99% of golfers there.

Huck:

I have simply said previously on the subject of carts is if the totality of their usage -- the length of rides between shots and holes is so extensive that it utterly dominates the time spent at a given course then clearly it has defeated the essence of what you want to receive when playing.

Some people feel that any mandatory usage of carts is completely wrong and needs to be eliminated. I see such a narrow point of view as being inane because sites that are used today are not devoid of some severe terrain or grade changes. I have mentioned Wolf Creek in Mesquite, NV as a course I thoroughly enjoy. Some have panned it because the role carts have when playing there. I didn't find it so overwhelming. The same can't be said for Santa Luz in SoCal that Rees Jones designed. In that case the cart rides between holes have become treks of Marco Polo dimensions.

I have not find that to be the case with what Engh has designed to date. The issue for me is less so the cart ride but the totality of the routing and the manner by which he varies the holes he creates with certain properties. Sanctuary is a marvelous ability of man to overcome the demands of such a severe site. It is no less an achievement from that perspective than Shadow Creek is with what took place there. I just didn't find the totality of the golf side of the equation to be in the same capacity for completeness and "fun" as you see with Lakota and Pradera.

Carts have to be used on a number of Engh designs in Colorado because the terrain dictated such involvement. If you ever play Hawktree in North Dakota you can walk the layout and clearly see what Engh is capable in delivering from the design side.

It will be interesting to see future Engh layouts that are outside the scope of the Rocky Mountains and for people to have played a good sampling of what he has done. To date -- many people are simply lobbing cheap left field opinions with little, if any, personal direct involvement.

Matt:  I wasn't trying to make my post personal in relation to Jim Engh, that's why I included the names of so many other architects.

But since you made it personal to Jim, okay.  Two years ago you were telling us if we hadn't seen Redlands Mesa or Black Rock we didn't know Jim Engh's work.  I went to see both of those, but now you're telling me I still don't know his work, because of Pradera and Lakota Canyon.  You keep moving the bar for him, and you do so without going back and admitting that your previous opinion of his earlier work must have been a bit high, if you've dismissed those courses now in favor of his later work.

I think Jim is one of the most creative guys out there, although I don't think I can ever become a fan of his earthmoving style.  I'm sure I'll see more of his work over time, but there are a lot of other guys practicing whose work I haven't seen at all yet.

And by the way, Matt, I think you've probably only seen one out of my best 6 or 7 courses.

P.S. to Jim Engh if you're out there -- this is way more about Matt than it is about you.

Matt, I don't know if your references to people who have played only one or two Engh courses and then extrapolated was directed at me or not, but I think I've fully disclosed that I've only played Red Hawk, and don't believe that I can evaluate Mr. Engh's work based only on this course.  But, neither do I think Red Hawk can simply be discounted.  It's a very flawed course and it says something about Engh even if his later works redeem him.  You can't just throw it out (even if one would like to).  

You and Jay have repeatedly said that Engh's layouts are fun.  Red Hawk aside, that may well be true.  My point of departure may relate to the presentation of his courses.  They are a radical departure from tradition.  I look at Fossil Trace and think "goofy."  Others may love it.  There may even be an argument that these types of courses fit in well with the natural environment in Colorado.  Personally, I prefer a more traditional look.  I think looking like a golf course is a good thing.  There's room for creativity, but it seems like Engh is a bit unmoored from classic design.  

 My point of departure may relate to the presentation of his courses.  They are a radical departure from tradition.  I look at Fossil Trace and think "goofy."  Others may love it.  There may even be an argument that these types of courses fit in well with the natural environment in Colorado.  Personally, I prefer a more traditional look.  I think looking like a golf course is a good thing.  There's room for creativity, but it seems like Engh is a bit unmoored from classic design.  

hmmm....I know where you are coming from, but I wonder if any course with a tree on it doesn't depart from "classic design"   ...and is the wall at North Berwick goofy?  Would there not be 10 goofy holes at St. Andrews? Perhaps the tradition we really want to foster is the ability to go out to your local golfing ground and walk your away around and not have to pay a fortune (golf used to be free!). And that may  mean celebrating a little more than we do courses where there hasn't always been the money to make the landscape something that it isn't. That no doubt doesn't apply to Fossil Trace, but from the photographs I still admire the attempt to incorporate references to the nature of this particular landscape, and to the former use of it. The stone wall at North Berwick (or even the lighthouse at Turnberry) resonate in this way.  I'm not sure that importing a "classic" architectural style refined, for example, in England (or New Jersey or Pennsylvania) to  Colorado is always going to be the best idea (though I realise it is often a good starting point).  Just as plopping a Nicklaus or TJ course in Britain and Ireland has often seemed jarring. And any golf course that actually admits there is a social history to the place gets an extra star from me.

Tim P:

Who said the nature of what Engh did at Red Hawk should be thrown out? I didn't.

What I did say is that the work of architect's often can evolve into finer work down the pike. That has happened with Engh and I can personally back that up by the variety of courses I have played in his portfolio.

Tim -- you say Fossil Trace is "goofy" -- please provide for me specifics. I have played the course and opined on it. Given the tight amount of acreage I would say Engh has done well for what the town of Golden was looking to get. I have issue with a few holes on the front -- the par-3 4th is really quite lame and the rest of the holes that follow on the front side are merely Ok at best. On the back nine he was faced with a series of decisions regarding routing and did quite well. I know a few people have questions on the use of the rocks that come into play on the first par-5 on the inner half. Frankly, they only come into play when poor play results.

Tim -- you admit your preference for classic designed. Great -- I can certainly comprehend your desire for such a limited type of design. I prefer my golf to be a bit more diversified. The key to keep in mind with Engh layouts is the maximization of the fun aspect and that with just a few courses he has strived to be congnizant of the role of rewarding solid play while defeating shots that are half-ass or less.


Tom D:

Since we are on the subject of full discloure -- let me point out you were the guy -- along with others here on GCA -- who downplayed (I being very PC in using such a word) the qualities of thw 18th hole at Lakota Canyon Ranch. You had not played the hole but felt obliged to offer an opinion from just a photo. I can tell you quite candidly that you didn't know what you were saying and I can say that with confidence after having played the hole a few times.

The issue is really about credibility. I don't mind people having opinions of courses they have played. I often learn a good bit from what people do say and what they conveniently leave out.

However, the idea that people can "tag" an architect with a label for whatever else comes down the pike in the future -- based simply on a limited sample size from earlier works -- is misguided at best and completely unfair at worst. I would think you would know that given the example I also added of the work of Jack Nicklaus and how it has evolved since his earliest days in design. Those who simply have an opinion from Jack's work of say 10 years or more really don't know or can appreciate what he is doing now. You call it "moving the bar" -- I would define that as being pragmatic given the range of what has since come forward and letting the record reflect that.

Jim Engh has gone beyond the likes of Redlands Mesa and Black Rock. If you are forming a permanent opinion of Engh design from those layouts alone then your assessment IMHO is flawed. Yes, he does move a good bit of earth -- but c'mon please -- how much earth did you move at The Rawls Course? And I thoroughly enjoyed what you created from absolutely nothing from such a hideous site in Lubbock.

I don't doubt that my earliest assessment of his layouts may have been a bit high. I have since added comments to a host of those earlier works -- see Sanctuary and Redlands Mesa as but two examples to provide some context. I don't develop concrete opinions as some here on GCA do. I also didn't "dismiss" his earlier works -- I simply took into account how those courses compare / contrast with a number of his more recent efforts. I call that being fair -- others may define that as they see fit.

Tom -- you are thought of like a "god" on this site by a number of people who have a very fixed and in my way of thinking -- a limited sense on what quality golf can be about. Jim Engh doesn't fit the cup of tea from these type of folks and what galls me is that too many times these same people have either never played one of his layouts (only opined from photos) or based it upon a sample size of one or two at best.

Regarding your courses I still need to play the ones that are overseas (e.g. Kidnappers, Barnbougle Dunes, etc, etc) and some of your most recent work (Sebonack, Stone Eagle & Ballyneal). I hope do that shortly. I have always withheld comments until I have played such layouts. But this thread wasn't about your success as an architect -- it is about Engh and what he has done and what his comments on the subject are.

P.S. I'd curious since you mentioned it -- please list your 6/7 best layouts to date. It would help educate me on where you see your best efforts.

Huck:

Keep this in mind -- you can walk a number of Engh designs. It is only the ones on the most challenging of terrains is the issue then at hand.

If carts were removed tomorrow -- the facilities would simply up the fees to reflect their loss. Clearly, the won't abandon carts because of the sheer number of people who prefer them -- even on flat sites.

Jim Engh is now moving forward with a range of designs in different areas -- I'm just as interested as any other person in seeing how he fares.

Because in the end this is silly - neither affordability nor walkability are criteria in the GD methodology anyway.  The latter was removed for this year's ratings.

TH

Huck,

Are you telling me that as a GD rater you can not score a course with half mile green to tee walks any lower than a course with perfectly short walks..Once again...I don't believe you.  

Huck:

Let me clear one thing up -- I don't want less Lakotas if the finished product is what Lakota Canyon Ranch is now. Lakota doesn't have to apologize for the fact of where it's located.

I don't have an issue with carts as some of the high priests of classic design do here on GCA. I understand the realities a good bit more than they and I have said this before -- the  qualities of the architecture are not lost on Engh. If you ever play Lakota or Pradera you will quickly understand that statement.