[Tom Huckaby]

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.

Matt, you miss the point, as does Jay to a large extent.

Once again, this isn't about the design quality of either course.  It's about them being walkable and affordable.  Can you honestly say that either are such?

So if I played them, are they magically going to cost less and be decent walks?

That's the point.  This isn't about design.  As I've told Jay, I stipulate that the designs are brilliant.  That means I take your guys' word for it, accept it - MOVE ON.

The point is that the golf world needs more affordable walkable courses, less expensive cart-ball tracks - IN PRINCIPLE.

Thus I personally have a very hard time heaping too much praise on such courses - as I've said, in my view they deserve a separate category, and praise them all you want within that category.

You can't see this?

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

You have missed my point.

Lakota is affordable.

Lakota is not walkable for most people -- so what?

If one were to take your point to its logical conclusion -- then courses should only be built on land that is completely walkable and likely devoid of any meaningful qualities to it.

We have such a thing -- it's called Florida. Guess what -- even with dead flat sites that are walkable -- they mandate carts.

I also take issue with the idea that a "separate" category needs to be created. Why? Because carts are used? That's silly. I said before that when the cart usage becomes the end-all be-all in order to play a course then it frankly is not about the golf but about the riding. Lakota and Pradera do not suffer from that.

[Tom Huckaby]

Lakota is affordable?

Not at the prices I read, not relative to the rest of Colorado.  You really believe that?

And again, you ARE missing my point.  I'm not saying carts are to be banned - far from it. And I'm also not saying courses shouldn't be built on difficult sites.  What I am saying is that those courses built on difficult sites invariably end up to be very expensive to play, and horribly difficult to walk.  If they somehow aren't either of those things, than great.  But if they are - and you have to admit most are so - they all I want is a different category for how they are evaluated and praised.  Praise them all you want, but acknowledge that they are on the whole bad for the game of golf.

In any case, re Lakota and Pradera specifically (which isn't what this is about - not for me anyway - my issue is the PRINCIPLE) - well if you can tell me with a straight face that both are affordable and walkable, than case closed re these two.

TH

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Gentlemen:

I suggest a new category : Walkable AND Expensive

Huck can stay with his category: Walkable AND Affordable

To bring in another architect's work, Kelly Blake Moran's Morgan Hill, often discussed here, is Unwalkable for most, certainly not me, AND affordable.

What's the big deal here?

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

The rates are a max of $85 (w cart) in the prime season. You need to see what other area courses -- west of the Rockies actually charge. What do you expect them to charge. $20 for golf and cart? C'mon, please be serious.

I don't see the rates charged by Lakota to be excessive. Pradera is private so it's in a different category. The management at Lakota mandates carts but I can tell you this -- if someone wanted to walk the course you can do it provided they don't chain smoke several packs a day.

If you took your argument to its conclusion -- only sites devoid of any serious topograghical issues would be built. That isn't likely or even necessary. Like I said we have Florida now and carts are mandated on even the flattest of sites.

The "separate" category idea doesn't pertain to Lakota or Pradera. It does with other courses such as Santa Luz which I already mentioned. Just because carts are mandated doesn't mean that such courses are the odd-ball types that need to be segregated in some unique and lone category. I know full well when cart rides become excessive. The two Engh layouts are not in that role whatsoever.

[Kirk Gill]

Fossil Trace does look cool, and your review makes for an excellent read.  You just made no comment on walkability... And furthermore, how can you call that a "steal" at $60 when Riverdale Dunes is never more than $34?  I don't get it.

$60 is a steal for most parts of CA - is it really for Golden, CO?

I've played both of these courses, but comparing them is difficult. Riverdale, when built, was on the outskirts of the Denver Metro area. There's a lot of houses out there now, but I considered it to be a bit of a hoof to get out there when it first came on the scene. That said, it was always worth the trip. It is a fun, open course that, when played from the proper set of tees, is not overly difficult if you can find the wide fairways and stay out of the (knee-high) long stuff and the water. I shot my personal best score there one summer day, crushing the golf spirit of my best friend who took a year off after his humiliating defeat.

But I digress. Fossil Trace is right in the heart of Golden, built in the middle of an existing community. There is no doubt that the shoe-horning shows a bit, but it is, in my estimation, very walkable. Is every single tee box directly adjacent to the previous green? No, there's a bit of a walk between 9 and 10, and between 10 and 11, and the property is hilly, but the walks are negotiable. I'm not a small person, and I had no difficulty walking the course. I'd be interested in the opinion of others.

But as I said, other than being near Denver, the courses are very different in design and execution. FT has a manufactured look, and doesn't lay on the ground like a "found" course. Many of the bunkers have the banked, "muscular" design that many do not like when they opine on Engh's designs (This is the only Engh I have played). On the ground, with my clubs in my hand, I enjoyed the course very much, but I can't disagree with Mr. Pitner's assertion that it is not "classic" design.  It is different. I wouldn't call it "goofy," because that word suggests immaturity. I might suggest "over-wrought," as if ever little hill and edge and bank was tortuously thought-out. I liked the visual appeal of the course, and my friends often suggest having a round there, as there are lots of little things to discover about it, and it is undeniably fun. The rocks don't bother me, as we ARE right up against the beginnings of the Rocky Mountains, and they are perhaps a more appropriate hazard for Colorado than sand OR water. However, for me, it IS a bit pricey, but in line with many other courses in the area like Vista Ridge, Buffalo Run, Deer Creek, etc., though not as expensive as the likes of the Omni Interlocken course (Graham/Panks), which is very expensive ($80-$105), and not worth the money IMHO.

The Dunes is probably my favorite public course in the area, 'though I make no claim to have played them all. There are some manufactured qualities to be found there, to be sure, but it is a more natural looking and playing course than FT, and has the now "classic" railroad-tie look on the water holes  .  I love that after 2:00 p.m. on Weekends it costs $25. I particularly like the 13th (tough 4 with a native-grass-covered bank to the left from which recovery is, uh, challenging) and the par 5 16th, with its rumpled fairway. I also like that next to the Dunes course is the Knolls course, of little interest to most gca types (if there is a "type"), but an easier course that beginners can enjoy without all the opportunities for lost balls on the Dunes.

In short (not my best thing) I can't say that FT is a "steal," perhaps, but it is most enjoyable to play. Perhaps I need to play more "classic designs" to be able to properly put it in its place. I'm looking forward to that.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

$85 in that area does seem expensive to me, especially when you compare it to far-closer in Riverdale Dunes, which is never going to be over $34 (and which of course is a great walk).

As for the rest, you're making an assumption that the logical conclusion is that no courses on difficult terrain get built - why is that necessarily so?  They'd still get their praise, just in a different way.  People would still play them.

Steve Shaffer's on the right track.



Kirk:

Great stuff, thanks for the assessments.  The only one of these I've played is Riverdale Dunes, so perhaps that does bias me as it is pretty damn great and at $34, well, that sets the standard of affordability.

Wouldn't you also say Lakota is pretty far from "affordable", at $85?

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

With all due respect -- you don't know the Denver / Colorado golf market and prices. Courses in and around Denver have to be more price sensitive because of the sheer offerings and the ability of players to pick and choose.

Go west of the front range and the golf options become quite expensive. What Lakota is charging is quite reasonable given the quality of the course (top 100 modern by Golfweek) and the nature of what Engh has designed.

Huck -- you need to see carts and their usage in a more balanced perspective. Go play courses where the ride is central to the experience and you can easily tell how the architecture final product has been badly compromised. That is not the case with Lakota or Pradera.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

With all due respect, I know it far better than you think.  One of my best friends lives just outside of Denver, I have a cousin in Boulder, and I've been there many many times, always to play at least some golf.

So please refrain from telling me what I do and don't know, thank you.

And when Riverdale Dunes is $34, it's very difficult to call Lakota "affordable."

As for the rest, well we're really not all that far off.  You say the ride just not be "central to the experience", I say a course ought to be "walkable."  It's just two degrees of the same principle.

I have just come to be sick and tired of overly expensive golf, and courses that don't give a damn about the walker.  Perhaps neither Lakota nor Pradera are these things - fair enough.  As I've said now countless times, for me this is far less about Engh's courses than his statement, and far less about Engh at all than about the principle.  

You can't deny that too many courses like this are being built, can you?

And if so, if one is concerned with the good of the game, should one not do what he can to try and stem this tide?

TH

[Tim Pitner]

Matt, as you know, I've not played Fossil Trace.  Some of the holes I've seen, namely the standing stones on #12 and the rockpile on #15 strike me as somewhat goofy.  I'm not suggesting that the entire course is goofy--Kirk's term of "overwrought" might be more appropriate.  Trying too hard is something Mr. Engh seems to be guilty of at times.  And, I think he is consciously trying to be different and that's fine--I just happen to prefer more minimalist styles.  

Richard, I was thinking of the stone walls at North Berwick as I criticized the look of the rocks on Fossil Trace #15.  To me, that eccentricity at North Berwick is more authentic and the rocks at Fossil Trace look contrived.  Maybe that will change with time or maybe I need to be more open-minded about incorporating elements like that into a golf course.  

Tom H, I'm going to come to Lakota's defense on price.  At $85, the course would be expensive in the Denver area.  But, in the mountains (it's near Glenwood Springs), because of all the resort courses, most golf courses are priced in the $75-$100+ range so $85 actually isn't too bad.

[Kirk Gill]

Lakota is over 170 miles from where I live. That's a bigger obstacle to me playing it than the fact that it's $85. Really, there's a lot of mountain golf that costs that much or more. Pole Creek is $85, Raven Golf near Copper Mountain is $89+, Sonnenalp Vail is $100+, and even Dave Pelz's "Short Course" at Cordillera is $50-$75, depending on season (the Nicklaus course is $150+). I think you have to compare Lakota's price to the other mountain courses, rather than the courses in Denver.

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

Then don't tell me what is reasonable from a price perspective or what is onerous from a cart one as well. I've been to Colorado well over 25 times in my lifetime and played just about all the key courses there. I have a very good sense on what is charged there and know full well that courses west of the Front Range make it a point to capitalize on the short season. Lakota has chosen to keep itself available to a broader mass of people and the rates when truly analyzed are quite appropriate for what you get back.

The marketplace will sort this out because players have a tendency to influence those in the course business. You see it now with walker-only courses. More will likely follow.

I have no issue with carts (with my exception already stated) but the high priests here on GCA live in a fantasy world. Those that are the worst offenders with carts are ones that should be avoided -- Lakota and Pradera are far from that.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

OK, fair enough, the point is clear that $85 at Lakota isn't out of line.  So mea culpa there.  I still have a hard time calling it "affordable", but well... I'll grant it's not outrageous.  How's that?  Once again, this really isn't about these specific courses, not for me anyway.

As for the "high priests" here, talk to them - that's not my issue at all.

So what would you have against my separate categories for evaluation of courses that actually ARE too expensive and/or are not walkable?

I just find it very distasteful to praise those too much.

Tim/Kirk - thanks for the clarifications.  

[Joe Hancock]

My economic threshold has no geographic boundries. $85 is $85 no matter where I'm at.

Do you guys that travel and play golf around the world get more money to spend when you're somewhere expensive? How does that work? Can I do a currency exchange from Michigan money to California money that makes things equal?

Joe

[John Kavanaugh]

Huck,

How do you determine if a private course is expensive...

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck,

How do you determine if a private course is expensive...

I don't.  I've said several times here that that's a different animal.

Do you read?

 

[Tom Huckaby]

My economic threshold has no geographic boundries. $85 is $85 no matter where I'm at.

Do you guys that travel and play golf around the world get more money to spend when you're somewhere expensive? How does that work? Can I do a currency exchange from Michigan money to California money that makes things equal?

Joe

Joe - that's a very good point.  $85 is $85 no matter where - that's part of my crusade here.  Don't we need more courses that cost less to play no matter what?  Perhaps that's not reality - courses will charge what the market will bear, and I guess $85 is not that much in the Colorado mountains when everywhere else nearby is more than $100.  But that's not the point... which is, should we really praise these courses that cost that much to play, no matter what?  Of course we have to to some extent... but shouldn't we be celebrating MORE those courses that are great and don't cost $85?

You know, like Riverdale Dunes, Rustic Canyon, Black Mesa, etc.?

That's my issue here - the general, not the specific.

TH

[Tim Pitner]

Tom H,

Although I mostly agree with you, it seems like you're defending an increasingly small piece of territory.  Should we generally prefer walkable, less expensive courses to cartball and more expensive courses?--yes.  But, we should also prefer good public courses to good private ones (not that I have anything against private courses per se, but I prefer the Scottish/Irish model where, at some times, the courses are accessible to all).  

To me, price is not the most important factor.  I will gladly pay a premium for a good golf course.  I happen to like my courses walkable and naturalistic.  If it takes $85 to purchase that, fine.  What's probably my favorite course, Pacific Dunes, costs $185.  That's not ideal, but when you compare it to all the mediocre courses out there that charge $150+, it's a bargain.  Now, I recognize that $185 is not affordable for many and we should absolutely recognize those good courses that charge more reasonable fees, but how much a course is praised shouldn't be determined by price.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Tim - see my new topic.  Let's leave this one to Engh, take up the general there.  Sorry we crossed in space.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Tim P:

How do you in good conscious apply any tag ("goofy") to a course you have not played? I mean you are basing your assumptions simply through photography? Really. How much credibility do you suppose I lend to such an armchair quarterback position? Take a guess between zero and less than zero.

Tim -- do yourself a huge favor -- play a course before lobbing such a lazy man's analysis. Pictures don't provide near enough the experience that comes from hitting shots at the course.

How are the rocks at Fossil Trace contrived? Have you played the holes in question? The first par-5 on the back is well done IMHO and the element of skill is tested on such a hole. The likely asumption is that since Fossil Trace is not in Scotland and that Jim Engh is not the poster child clear favoritism as others here on GCA it then behooves people to make unfair assumptions from never having played the hole / course in question. How nice & convenient.

Don't take this personally Tim -- you need to sample -- personally play is how I define that -- the layouts Engh has created. Lakota Canyon is a joy to play and along with Greg Norman's layout at Red Sky Ranch are two of the best public courses one can play in The Centennial State and among the best one can play in the USA as well.


Huck:

Just to further my point on Lakota Canyon -- check out the cost to play all the other modern public courses rated by Golfweek that finished in the top 50. You'd be surprised to find how very reasonable Lakota is -- more bang for the buck.

I said this before -- I don't doubt that carts and the intrusive paths can be mindboggling when they become and end-all in order to play a course. I mentioned the example of Santa Luz in SoCal and while the layout there does have its moments -- it is the sheer nature of being "disconnected" because of the Marco Polo cart trails you must endure.

I've explained my rationale on carts and whether or not a course is then playable because of their overall presence / impact. I would not rate such courses if that were the case. However, I don't go into the process holding against any course that has carts on the agenda -- even if they are mandated.

[James Bennett]

My economic threshold has no geographic boundries. $85 is $85 no matter where I'm at.

Do you guys that travel and play golf around the world get more money to spend when you're somewhere expensive? How does that work? Can I do a currency exchange from Michigan money to California money that makes things equal?

Joe

Joe

you can do a good currency exchange between Michigan dollars and Australian dollars.  It is a few hours in a plane and a fair transaction cost to get to the currency exchange office though.  And the dollars are generally 'warmer', although ours our made of plastic (true), have different colours for different denominations and are different sizes for different denominations (ie $100 is big and gold, $20 is medium and red, $5 is smallest and purple).

James B

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

Please do peruse my new Topic re a new way to dole out praise - maybe you'll buy it, maybe you won't.  But that's what I'm getting at, far more than anything re Engh or any of his courses specifically.

And I still think $85 is a lot to pay for golf.

 

[Tim Pitner]

Matt, I specifically said that I wasn't labeling Fossil Trace as a whole as goofy.  I said that I thought two holes--#12 and #15--"looked" goofy.  I'm not suggesting that I'm in a position to evaluate the course, but I'm not sure what playing #12 and #15 are going to do to change my mind.  It will confirm that, indeed yes, there are massive rocks in #12 fairway.  It will also confirm that there is a rockpile fronting the green on #15.  These are the rocks that I think are contrived--there's no way that's a completely natural feature.  I was criticizing the aesthetics of the course, which is not a criticism of other aspects of the course, like strategy or difficulty or other things which I can't judge because I haven't played it.  I look forward to playing Lakota and Redlands Mesa, but I honestly can't say that I have any plans to play Fossil Trace.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

Get real man -- you are applying a tag -- you can couch it anyway you like -- but you are applying a tag to particular holes you have not played. Do you understand my frustration in dealing with people who opine on courses simply from photographs?

How fair is that to the architect and those connected to the facility?

Tim -- you say you have no plans to play Fossil Trace but are quick to point out how "contrived" a particular hole is. That is absolute rubbish on your part. The only sure fire way to know if it's contrived is to play the said hole / course. At that point -- not any sooner mind you -- do you then have some credibility.

Tim -- you can't begin to understand the aesthetics until you see how functional they are through an actual visit / play of the course. This is just a boneheaded -- forgive me it's not personal -- way of course analysis. The par-5 12th works very well as hole and the rock features are related to what was at the site -- they weren't trucked in from Home Depot.

Please -- apply a good bit more due diligence on your part. Too often the "shoot from the hip" crowd here on GCA doesn't know shit from shinnnola.

[Tim Pitner]

Matt, does one need to play that crazy Desmond Muirhead hole at Stone Harbor to opine that it's goofy?  I submit the answer is no.  Similarly, I think it's fair for me to comment, without playing the holes, that I don't like the look of the boulders on #12 or the rockpile on #15.  I said the rocks and mound (not the entire hole) on #15 look contrived--why do I need to play the hole to say that?  The rockpile is artificial--that's what contrived means--it has nothing to do with how the hole plays.  

Now, I'm going to try to head off any further attempts to mischaracterize my statements.  I'm not saying that Fossil Trace is as visually incongruent as the hole at Stone Harbor, nor am I claiming that I can meaningfully analyze a course without playing it (and haven't attempted to do that).  You can tell me to get real, apply more due diligence, call me bone-headed or my opinions rubbish, but you're really not understanding what I'm saying--from photos, Fossil Trace has a look to it that I don't particularly care for and it's not on my to play list--full stop.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()