[THuckaby2]

I swear I tried to find that state-by-state list... it was lost to me.  I've never been a big fan of the GW web site, for just this reason... things are hard to find.  The CONTENT is great, the organization could just use some work!

But thanks anyway, Scott.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Ben C:

FYI -- the 17th at Sky is a marveloous par-3.

Guest:

I hear what you're saying but consider this. The manner by which Pete Dye designs courses is really "in your face" type golf. If you want or prefer classic type golf you go to Riviera, LACC, BelAir -- even Rustic Canyon.

Pete provides better than just about any one else the INTIMIDATION factor on the tee. He scares the hell out of you and when you get abrasive land that LC is on you really can get into the golfer's head when playing.

You mentioned the clubhouse and driving range -- I hear your comments but I don't assess the non-course issues when evaluating a layout.

The Sky is a better overall test than Shadow and the amount of target golf that's on Sky is very reasonable. There are a number of superior holes such as the 2nd, 8th, 11th, 12th, and 17th, to name just five. I really liked the 12th because you can hit driver, but you must deal with the center bunker in the fairway. Even with a large drive you really have to think carefully about going for the green in two blows. Miss either right or left and it's a donation. I also credit Pete for some of the uphill holes because they do add a major difference than the same downhill types you often get.

I'm not a big fan of the 9th -- Pete's done this type of hole one too many times and I really believe the 18th could have been made a better hole with a further extension of the tee. Right now -- the course ends on a mixed note as the tee shot is really anti-climatic for what a final hole needs to provide.

Lost Canyons / Sky did finish in the top ten for public courses in California two years ago and given the listing that was outlined I can't see how it dropped that much. I can only imagine a good number of anti-Pete Dye types played the course and their numbers made the difference.

I've played a good deal of the "top" public courses in California and having both RC and LC / Sky not included is a rather shallow listing, in my opinion.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Matt,
My apologies, I was referring to the 340-yard 16th hole.

How do you rationalize those three holes in concluding the course is a strong layout?

I really liked some of the holes, I just found the three par fours hurt the overall product.

The land simply could not yield 18 good holes.

[Matt_Ward]

Ben:

Let me say this the 16th is a decent short par-4 that plays uphill. I emphasize the word "decent." The par-3 17th is a superb hole an done of the finest short par-3's you can play. Play to the back left pin placement and when you stand on the tee it appears as if you're hitting an approach into someone's closet -- delicious Pete Dye!

The 18th could have become a better closer -- I do concede to a degree the issue about land because it seems that #18 is kind of squished in. However, I've walked behind the existing championship tee and there are areas in which play can take place from back there -- in fact the hole caneasily be increased another 30-40 yards and this would really be the appropriate place for the top player to play from. Given the elevation drop it's necessary because I've hit driver and a half wedge from the championship tees. Let me also mention that many people who downgrade the closing hole have played from the extreme front third markers and given the slope of the land can really make the hole appear as if it's easier than it really is.

I urge people playing the hole to play one marker BEHIND where they've played the entire day. When you do this the sheer intimidation factor jumps up and can take away your breath and your ball. For those people who've been steering the ball this is one hole that will make you think twice and the ability to "club down" becomes more of an issue.

Let me also mention the approach when played from 150+ yards is no easy deal. When the pin is placed in the rear left or right you have to have brass ones to fire at the flag.

Ben, I don't doubt the closing holes at Lost Canyons / Sky are in the same league as say a Riviera without question -- but you're not going to get a free pass and with many Dye courses it's the ability to rein in the most negative of thoughts that bolster the wonders of Sky in my book.

Hope this helps ...

P.S. Keep in mind I do see significant differences in Sky and Shadow because Shadow is really concocted with so many inane target situations to be nearly unplayable for all but the very best of players. The elasticitiy of routing and strategies is clealy present at Sky. For anyone visiting the area I would recommend comparing / contrasting the elements of Rustic Canyon and Sky -- what a twosome indeed!

[David Wigler]

Huckster,

Is your statement about every GW rater you talked to and Rustic Canyon really accurate  .

Ran - I think that more than enough raters got to Rustic for it to make the top 100 / top 10 in California, etc.  I do not believe it missed due to a bad driving range.  It missed IMO opinion do to a lack of interest off the tee.  It is the finest course I have ever seen built in the last 30 years from 60 yards in but from the tee to 60 yards, it is not a top 500.  I agree that it is a wonderful value and exactly what socal needed, but neither of those are categories to be considered.  

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Matt,
I was referring to 1, 10 and 16, not 16, 17 and 18.

16 might make the bar as decent (I would disagree), but not after the first and 10th holes.

On the other two holes you mentioned, I liked 17, similar to the concept of the 12th at Whistling Straits.

As for my opinions on Dye, I am a huge fan and consider lots of his work among the finest courses in the U.S.  However, that does not mean he gets a free pass from me, which is what I was outlining.

Have you seen such redundant holes as 1 and 10 from Dye? Do you think it hurts the course?

[Matt Kardash]

While i have not played LC Sky, I was looking at the pictures on their website, and i have to say that this looks like one of the all-time scenic courses. The view from the tee on the par 5 12th almost seemed surreal to me.

[Lynn Shackelford]

Matt Ward:
Perhaps you have done some research.  Do you know how much involvement Pete Dye had in the design other than lending his name?  Did he work on the dozer?  How many days was he there?  Did he sign off on every hole and elevation?  We won't discuss Freddy's involvement because I know you are not that naive.  But I wonder about Pete's involvement.  I think there was a guy who has worked with him before who was there everyday.  Pete was there for the media days.  But the course to me does not have the same feel of PGA West, a course which Pete did build.
Actually you need to play the Jacobsen/Hardy designed Moorpark CC.  I give it a C-.  I think it is better than Lost Canyons.  Too bad you don't use the clubhouse in your judgment.  The tri tip sandwich is superb.  As for courses in SoCal, you need to play the public courses Brookside #1 and Recreation Park in Long Beach.  Fine walkable, fun, well routed and with good diversity.

[DMoriarty]

The 18th could have become a better closer . . . in fact the hole caneasily be increased another 30-40 yards and this would really be the appropriate place for the top player to play from. Given the elevation drop it's necessary because I've hit driver and a half wedge from the championship tees.

Matt, I've heard you say this before and I just don't get it. The hole plays so down hill you could sled on it.  If you did and you were lucky, your sled might stop somewhere around a half wedge from the green, where the hole banks to the left.  Frankly I am surprised you didn't hit 5 iron - half wedge from the championship tees.  I can't see where 30 or 40 yards would make much difference.  You'd still hit driver - half wedge, or maybe driver - wedge.

Maybe I am not being open minded enough, but I just cant imagine this being a good hole until man or nature moves a mountain.  

For anyone visiting the area I would recommend comparing / contrasting the elements of Rustic Canyon and Sky -- what a twosome indeed!

Those of us who live in the area have done this comparison.  Of the "twosome,"  we only play Rustic.  

[NChristo]

Kinglsey at #56 is a big disappointment, but it must take time politically to move up.  Courses such as Cog Hill and Arcadia are clearly inferior, yet remain ranked above Kingsley.

There is a period of time in which people must become familiar with a course.  For those who haven't been there, this course's green structures, routing and bunkering are clearly superior and thusly make the course ratings irrelevant.

[Paul Richards]

NChristo:

I cannot agree with your statement.  Kingsley has one of the most spectacular front nines anywhere.  It felt just like you were at Crystal Downs!  However, except for the green complex on the 18th hole, the back side is a big disappointment and huge let-down.

Cog Hill is underrated as it is an excellent classic venue and Arcadia is also underrated, IMHO, as it has hole-after-wonderful-golf-hole.

[David Wigler]

Nchristo,

Do not blame Kingsley's position on politics.  Arcadia is the same age and both Bandon and Pacific opened in the top ten.  In fact, if it was politics, Kingsley would far ahead of Arcadia, as Mike is extremely well liked and very well respected.

My guess is that Kingsley just has not gotten enough raters who truly appreciate that style of architecture to make the trek.  I agree with you that Kingsley will probably keep rising as more people see it.

[THuckaby2]

Huckster,

Is your statement about every GW rater you talked to and Rustic Canyon really accurate  .

No, good catch, Dave.  Once again my penchant for exaggeration causes foot in mouth!  Let's say ALMOST every GW rater raved about it publicly.

In any case GREAT to see you back on here!

TH

[Matt_Ward]

A couple of quick retorts:

The Kingsley Club should move up in the next ratings period because the course is THAT good -- I would say at minimum you would have a good 19th hole discussion on the merits of Arcadia Bluffs and TKC -- I'd take TKC. I also respect what Noel Freeman said about TKC being as good as Crystal Downs -- it may sound hard to believe, however, I believe you can make a very good case.

When all is said and done TKC is one of the very finest new courses to have opened in the States in the last ten years. The flavor and feel of the holes and the integration of the aerial and ground games has been so successfully done. If you don't see greatness in TKC you are truly blind or ignorant or both.

Onto to the discussion for Lost Canyons / Sky ...

Ben:

I hear you loud and clear about the similiarity of the 1st and 10th holes at Sky. I do agree it does take the course a notch lower because of this fact.

Nonetheless, the topography of the Sky and the sheer differences between the remaining holes does give plenty in return for the golfer to enjoy. You say you enjoy Dye courses but don't want to give him a free pass -- I say you're right -- I don't give free passes either. If you think of a number of holes at Sky you see plenty of demands to shape shots off the tee and you must avoid overplaying approaches to the wrong side of the greens. You can be aggressive from the tee but you do so at your own risk. The balance between naked power and utter precision has been incorporated with skill at Sky.

Like I said before -- the 16th is nothing more than a decent hole -- but it does put pressure on you to hit a solid approach given its uphill positioning. The 17th is simply delicious! The 18th, as I said previously can be strengthened depending upon one's preferences.

Lynn S:

The discussion about how much an architect is on site is one that has been raised many times here on GCA. Let's just say you're correct and that Dye was more ceremonial than physical with the work at Lost Canyons. Can't the same be said for others in the field? The way I look at it is this -- if you work as an associate or assistant for someone you work "under their roof." It's no different for what you see with lawyers or other major professions. Clearly, the appropriate credit needs to go to the other "team" members as needed but at the end of the day that person WORKS for the main person who pays them.

Regarding your recommendations for other courses I'll be sure to check them out on my next trip to SoCal. Let's also keep this in mind -- the style and pattern of RC and Lost Canyons is night and day type stuff. I just wonder how many people like both. I may just be one of the very few who does.

David M:

What I said about the 18th is that the design team could have strengthened the ending hole by adding 30-40 yards. I understand full well the nature of the hole sliding downhill. Many people critique the hole because when played from the middle or front markers YOU CAN clubdown and still have a relatively modest yardage for your approach. Like I said previously -- go back one more tee box and see if there is any real difference -- I believe there will be.

David, I've walked the back rear areas behind the championship tee at Lost Canyons and trust me on this -- you can REALLY go back to the point where you feel like Zeus on Olympus looking down on the masses. Hitting driver from that far back, even with the downhill landing area, must be done with utter control and verve. As I said previously, the better player can attempt to clubdown to be secure in the fairway but you will not be able to bounce to the same landing area as you would in hitting driver from the existing championship tee. Playing an approach to the 18th from 150+ yards is much more intense than you care to admit. Let me also add that when you go back the angle becomes slightly different and the positioning of the fairway bunker ont he right also becomes much more of a legitimate obstacle -- now it's nothing more than cosmetic.

I'm not saying the 18th at Sky, even with the suggested extended championship tee, is all-world, however, the initimdation and fear factor goes up big time and for those players who are struggling with control can be the final element that tips the balance to the course and not the player.

Do yourself and myself a favor next time you're at #18 -- play an approach from 150 yards and one say from 175-200 yards. The feel and demands go up noticeably. I did it the last time I played there (before the ranger came by and wanted to know how many people were in my group since seven balls were ont he green) and the green target is quite a different feel / read from the varying distances I've outlined.

Last comment on Sky -- many people do not appreciate Dye because he does throw forward a design style that's "in your face." It is not the classic flowing style you see with RC, but more intense -- clearly more physical, and provides a harshness and finality that makes the hang man look foolish. I enjoy both RC and Sky and have to question how these two so very different and unique layouts failed to make California's top ten. In many ways -- I really believe having these two courses so near each other will only help their future situation on any course evaluations.

[Wildman]

Thanks for the kind words about Wild Horse at #18 .  I am a Gothenburg person and we really enjoy our place to play. If anyone is interested we now have a website, www.playwildhorse.com

[DMoriarty]

I've walked the back rear areas behind the championship tee at Lost Canyons and trust me on this -- you can REALLY go back to the point where you feel like Zeus on Olympus looking down on the masses.

Great description!  That sums up the feeling I get when I stand on an extremely elevated tee and hit down a mountain --  ultimate power with a good measure of confidence thrown in.  It is easy to feel like a big, big man-- maybe even a god-- when you are driving the ball 375 yards, even if it is down a ski slope.   I guess I assume that the wide fairway and the psychological Viagra provided by the Zeus Tee will help most golfers find the "utter control and verve" they need.

I've played the hole from the tips and the next two tee boxes, a couple times each.  When I have hit a solid drive, I've ended in approximately the same spot from each tee shot.  If I can do that from the tips, I am sure you could do it from the Zeus Tee.

Do yourself and myself a favor next time you're at #18 -- play an approach from 150 yards and one say from 175-200 yards. The feel and demands go up noticeably.

I promise I will if I play there, but I might have to take your word for it.  I've played the course only once since Rustic opened and I can't imagine why I would ever play there again.

[DMoriarty]

Matt, sorry, wanted this to go with my last message.

I hear you loud and clear about the similiarity of the 1st and 10th holes at Sky. I do agree it does take the course a notch lower because of this fact.

By my count, Sky has 5 par fours [1, 3, 8, 10, 16] where the approach shot plays straight uphill to a completely blind green.  Four of these approaches are a with a sand wedge or less [1 (325), 3(355), 10(310) 16(340)].  

A little redundant, don't you think?

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

Unlike you -- I do concede points of weakness for Sky. How bout you do the same for RC? If I recall correctly I felt no less a "big man" with flip wedge into any numebr of the so-called long par-4's at RC -- and I didn't need some mountain to do it either.

When you play from an elevated tee you do get a sense of everything and therein lies the issue. Yes, you can hit it a much longer ways but the control and positioning part of the discussion is also included. David, you've played Sky so many times (once) that it amazes me you can belittle the challenges so quickly and contemptously. Are there any Pete Dye courses you like and I have to ask why?

I suggested a re-positioning of the "championship" tee at #18 at Sky because it then would elevate the demands for the extreme low handicap player. The existing hole, I never claimed it was a world beater, is very particular about the shots you can play now. The smart play is to play a fade around the solitary fairway bunker and unfortunately because of Alzheimer's you may not remember with any sense of clarity the details and demand of the closing green. Playing downhill may sound like "macho fun" but it elevates (no pun intended) even more pressure to execute. You feel from such a position that you should be able to do with ease and many times the execution part is more difficult than you might care to admit.

By the way let me know if the club selections you cite for the "short" par'4s you mention are for you or Fred Couples?
The holes playing uphill are not all good (I did concede the part about 1 and 10). #8 is a very good long par-4 and #16 is a decent hole as I've mentioned. Let me also mention that RC has its share of repetitive holes -- how about #3 and #12! How about the same shot values and requirement on #9 and #10? How about the fact that your par-3 length at RC (minus the 6th) is roughly the same -- take the 4th and 15th -- basically the same type of club!

I still hold to my point -- there are those who are "classic" lovers who will prefer RC and I join them in its praise (to an extent). However, I also enjoy the "in your face" style that Pete Dye encapsulates with Sky. Like I said before David -- I'm probably one of the very few people who see true merits in both styles. Adios for now partner ...

matt

[THuckaby2]

Like I said before David -- I'm probably one of the very few people who see true merits in both styles.

Matt - you are not alone in this, believe me.  Most people prefer one style or the other, but I gotta believe quite a few people see true merits in both styles, no matter what is stated in this discussion group.

TH

[Matt Kardash]

Matt,
I love both styles, and I hope others do as well. From my two years on this board it seems to me that many people if not most people trully prefer the "classic minimalist" look. Which is fine, but they have to keep and open mind and realize that there are more than one ways of doing something. Just becuase a course didn't move much earth and has scruffy bunkers doesn't make it better than a course where earth was moved and has deep and steep "Pete Dye" bunkers.

Just my two cents in order to help Matt

We Matt's have to stick together  

[Matt_Ward]

There's one thing I will say that RC is heads and tails beyond that of so many courses being built today -- PRICE! As I said on a previous post I was amazed to find that Brad Klein (of all people) would calculate into the mixture the nature of the clubhouse and driving range. I could frankly care less if RC had a pup tent for a clubhouse. I came from NJ to Moorpark for one reason -- see the course -- nothing more and nothing less. The vision of RC needs to be repeated in so many other locales that simply decide to pump up the volume with so much rubbish tied to the CCFAD baloney.

I just hope that people who did evaluate RC didn't harp on this inconsequential non-course related factors because the course does offer a good deal (with just a few tweaks needed ).

One last thing -- I really believe having RC and Lost Canyons / Sky so close to each other will only add to the benefit of both courses because their styles are so utterly different and with that so clearly fascinating and entertaining.

Matt K:

Completely agree with you -- us Matts need to stick together if for no other reason then variety if the spice of life!

[herrstein]

I may be returning to the original topic, but I was pleased to see Wolf Run moving up the list. It's been in my top 10 since I first played it, and I have now played it 30 times or so, and it never ceases to delight me.
I do understand, however, the criticism that it is too damn hard for a bogey golfer. But given the directions of Jack Leer to Smyers, it is a great realization of the original vision as a player's course. It's under 6800 yards, but take any scratch player's temperature after the round, and they will tell you it's a great test of their game in every respect.

Also, I was very proud that Black Creek appeared on the list this year

[DMoriarty]

Matt, seems like I hit a nerve with this Sky thing.  Dont take it personally, I just don't consider it a very good course.  

David, you've played Sky so many times (once) that it amazes me you can belittle the challenges so quickly and contemptuously.

What gave you that idea?  I said "I've played the course only once since Rustic opened."  I also said "I've played the hole from the tips and the next two tee boxes, a couple times each."  I have, on occasion, dropped a second ball, but 6?  Two on each tee?  Not me.  Fortunately you golf and write better than you read!  

Seriously,  I've played Sky at least 8 times, maybe more.  I have a few friends who view courses more like  you than me.   Does eight plays exempt me from your criticism that I "belittle the challenges so quickly and contemptuously."  Remind me again how many times you have played Rustic?

Are there any Pete Dye courses you like and I have to ask why?

I like PGA West stadium and La Quinta Mountain.  I also like Oak Valley which was billed as a Pete Dye course when it first opened.  (It was later properly attributed to his underlings Curley and Schmidt-- perhaps the same fate awaits Sky down the road.)I dont have a grudge against Dye's style, I just dont like a few particular courses.  I do think that they did the best they possibly could have with the piece of land for the Sky.  But, in my opinion,  Sky and Stadium should have never been built.  The ground is just not suited to golf.  The result is an excessively severe course that has a number of bad and repetitious holes, and a few absurd ones.    

with flip wedge into any numebr of the so-called long par-4's at RC

Did you really have flip wedge into any number of the so called so called long par-4's?  On your second shot?  On your first ball?  You must have one hell of a flip wedge, because I can remember exactly where you were on 2, 11, and 14, and they must have been massive flip wedges.  You did knock it along ways on 18 over the corner, but you cant seriously contend that line had no challenge or interest.  How far do you hit your flip wedge?  130?  I dont remember where you were on 16.  
Matt, my criticisms arent at you or your game.  (I am certainly in no position to critique your game.) They are about the course, and your general perception of what is quality about architecture.  You might not want to take it so personally.  

How about the fact that your par-3 length at RC (minus the 6th) is roughly the same -- take the 4th and 15th -- basically the same type of club!

Yes, 4 and 15 are almost identical, except that 4 plays slightly downhill, straight into the wind to a giant green with no traps close in play,and with a run-up a possible and good play, while 15 plays uphill in a different direction with a cross-wind to a small green surrounded on 3 sides by bunkers. Other than that, I couldnt tell them apart.  And you are correct that both usually require the same type of club -- an iron.  

You also correctly point out that there is no real variety amongst the par 3s, except that their distances are 161, 217, 127, 150, and 189, all play in different directions, to greens that are different in size, shape and orientation, and they all have different elevation changes, wind directions, and shot options/requirements.

By the way let me know if the club selections you cite for the "short" par'4s you mention are for you or Fred Couples?

Does it matter?  What if it is four repetitious 8 irons to a blind green straight up a mountain?  Does this somehow make them better holes or less repetitious?

Matt, the reason I harp on your apology and cure for 18, is that I think it is somehow indicative of the differences in how we view architecture.  To me, 18 is an awkward, forced, manufactured, hokie hole that was probably built as the only option back to the clubhouse, absent a hang glider  It relies on the gimmick of a crows nest tee shot to establish what little merit it claims.  But as a golf hole it is awful, and as a finishing hole at a course you deem worthy of the US Open, it is worse.  If it werent for its sister hole at the Shadows, I'd think it the silliest 18th hole I have played or seen in SoCal.  

Never mind that you defend this abomination, you actually think the hole can be easily cured.  Your cure? More length and an even a more spectacular crows nest drive.  Sure this might make the hole slightly tougher, but tougher isnt necessarily better.  Sometimes holes are just bad, sometimes they are good, and sometimes the difficulty or apparent ease of the tee shot cant change this.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()