[Scott_Burroughs]

Matt asked me to post this pic of the 18th at Lakota Canyon
Ranch (in CO, I believe), and he'll talk about it soon.  The
original pic was muuuuuuuuuuch bigger  , but Mystic CL
shrinks everything down, unfortunately:



I haven't checked the CR and slope of the course, though.  

Talk sooooooooon.

[Matt_Ward]

It's important to have some sort of visual presentation with the 18th at Lakota Canyon Ranch -- the latest design by designer Jim Engh.

The course is located immediately off of I-70 (exit 105) and the course has a number of unique holes. Suffice for time sake I will only speak about the hole pictured.

The 18th is 556 yards long -- plays slightly uphill and the teeing areas are located in line with what appears to be a white structure towards the rear of the photo. The championship tee is actually on an elevated section of prepared ground and is immediately in front of the structure and behind a service road that cuts in front of the teeing area.

From the tee you have to decide how close to the right side you wish to play. The safe option is hit left -- from there you likely will have to lay-up on the other side of the "safe" side of the canyon that simply engulfs the entire hole.

If you play down the right side you must hit it strong enough to bypass a diagonal rise in the fairway which can be seen from the photo. I was able to smash a tee shot and kick ahead of where that diagonal rise takes place.

This is where the fun begins.

I've said this before and I'll say it again -- few modern designers can design par-5's that have as much going on as Jim Engh does. The 18th at Lakota Canyon doesn't surrender after the tee shot is played. It's only getting warmed-up.

If you head the tee shot far enough and in the right position -- the best angle is from the right side (the left side when looking at the picture). The green cannot be seen from the fairway -- it sits down from the fairway and you're lucky to catch a glimpse of the very top of the flagstick. I was far enough down the fairway and within 200 yards -- I was able to hit 7-iron to what I thought was a safe landing zone. It's truly scary when you stand over the shot and have little to lock onto as a target.

The green is banked especially hard as you can see from the photo -- get stuck up on the left side and you simply need to bring the calculator. The lone bunker by the green is really a favor that Engh provides. The green is deliciously wrapped around the canyon and any pin placement on the green invites plenty of fear because there's not much room from side-to-side to maneuver.

I was fortunate to land the ball on the green about 20 feet and two putt but it was far from automatic. The green is sloped severely from left to right and you simply cannot nod for even a second or a three or four jack is possible.

Here's the added dilemma -- for those who bailout to the right on their second shot -- the pitch across the canyon to the green is truly terrifying. You may only have 80 yards or less but the slightest bit fat with the 3rd goes into Elvis territory in the canyon. The canyon is like the roach motel -- you may go in but you NEVER come out.

The picture gives you a sense of the hole but when you actually play it and traverse the territory it is even more powerful.

I've played my share of risk and reward type par-5's but there are very few, if any, I can name in public golf in the States that surpass what the 18th at Lakota Canyon provides. Any number from 3 to 10 is in play on the hole.

Best part -- the clubhouse is set on a higher hill beyond the green and you can watch all the escapades with a cold Coor's in hand!

Scott:

Thanks for posting -- the rating and slope are being adjusted after a temporary posting.  

[Don_Mahaffey]

It would look even better with a swinging bridge across the gorge so you didn't have to walk a mile to cover the last 100 yards.

[Matt_Ward]

Don:

They throw ropes for people who stumble into the canyon and can't get out!

FYI -- the walk around the canyon to the green is actually quite short.

[SPDB]

What is the carry from the end of the fairway to the green?

[Mike Benham]

Matt -

It looks to be a substantial carry to the fairway from the teeing grounds.

Since this is at altitude, what is the effective distance compared to a course at sea level?

Does the faiway play firm?

Mike

[Matt_Ward]

SPDB:

The end of the fairway to the green is no less than 180 yards but to get there would take a herculean hit -- that is both laserlike straight and LONG.

I smashed my drive to get to roughly 195 yards out.

Keep in mind the angle from the tee to get to the preferred right side of the fairway requires some real bravery -- the slighteeeeeeeeeeeest push is adios country!

Mike:

The carry is quite reasonable and appproiate -- Engh created several tee pads that allow for higher handicap players to make the play without straining any muscles.

The altitude is clearly a factor but the hole does play a bit uphill a bit so one thing really washes out the other. The fairway was firm when I played it -- not like something you will find at St. George's but you will get roll.

What's really cool about the hole is that going to the "safe" side with your second doesn't give you an easy play with your 3rd. Engh is not about to let anyone off the hook on this hole and I believe it's as good a strategic par-5 holes as I have played in quite some time.

[Brian_Gracely]

Somebody who enjoys these types of courses (as I image much of the rest of the course is simliar to this hole), please help me resolve some things that immediately come to mind....and I don't care who the architect is (it's irrelevant)

Assuming I'm only a mediocre player (which isn't a stretch for me), here's what I see in this hole:

1) Tee-Shot requires a reasonable carry and anything to the right is dead.  This leads to slower play and lost balls.

2) The 2nd shot is semi-blind (according to Matt), which I normally have no problem with.  But because the green is hit or perish, you either have to have your partner forecaddy or hope that you hit the green....otherwise you potentially lose and ball and then are faced with the "play by the rules" dilemma of how to handle a lost ball.  Again, play is slow and you lost a ball.

3) If the tee-shot was short (short-hitter), the play to the right side is again full of danger and another chance to lose a ball.

4) There is NO chance to bounce the ball into the green from any angle.

Maybe I'm too dedicated to Dr.MacKenzie's (and Ross') principles about moving play along at a reasonable pace, that lots of caliber of players shuld be able to play the hole (within their skill level), and losing a ball is no fun.  But it seems like alot of people like these types of courses, and eventually I;ll get older and retire somewhere and might live in one of the housing communities that has a course like this.  So somebody that likes these courses.......please explain to me how you justify the High Octane thrills with those other principles I mentioned above.  How does someone like me learn to enjoy a course like this?

[Matt_Ward]

Brian:

Where do you come up with all these gloom and doom scenarios? You must be a treat to play with in alternate shot!

Most people -- high handicap types I want to add for emphasis -- play the hole in a reasonable manner. They simply hit a very wide fairway -- no less than 40 to 50 yards across in spots and then play up the safe alleyway to the right. There's plenty of room to the right -- if you have that much negativity in your noodle about the danger then you're likely going to find it.

No doubt the 3rd shot is tough -- I mean let's get real the person is hitting a PW or 9-iron tops. Why should a person who takes the less risky option with their second get a totally free pass on their approach?

When you talk about bouncing the ball in -- explain for me how great the 13th hole at Augusta is and the inability to bounce the ball in on that hole? Ditto the 15th hole there as well. I can name many other examples of this type that are pure risk and reward type holes.

The only real major headache for people playing this hole is those who are low handicap types who hit the ball a good ways off the tee. IT'S THESE FOLKS WHO HAVE THE MAJOR DECISIONS TO HANDLE.

Brian -- if you played the hole you would find much of your angst is really ignorant of what is actually there and more importantly how it plays versus what the pictures illustrates.

The 18th at Lakota Canyon Ranch is a great hole -- the strategic qualities are front and center and the hole has the important elasticity to keep all levels of play interested time after time after time IMHO.

[SPDB]

i don't understand the alternative fairway. it doesn't seem to add much strategically, only the illusion of strategery.

[Matt_Ward]

SPDB:

The alternative fairway is your bail out in the event you decide to play for the green in three -- not two shots.

There is no allusion -- it's a very strategic choice -- but as I said before those who take the "safe" route away from the most immediate danger (on the second shot) still must encounter it on their 3rd -- albeit from a much shorter approach distance.

[Scott_Burroughs]

I think SPDB is alluding to the fact that it appears to be equally distant (or pretty close) to reach the 2nd fairway where it's widest from the first landing area as it is to reach the green.

[SPDB]

Scott's right. As far as a bailout, it looks pretty precarious.
If I find myself too far out, chances are I lay up to the end of the first fairway rather than gamble on a "bailout" that is also a forced carry to what appears to be a fairly skinny LZ. If I'm absolutely forced to lay up   , I like to make certain that I'm not bringing penalty strokes into play, i.e. that the "safe play" is not also a gamble.

See what I'm saying Maaaaaatt? It doesn't looooooook alllll thaaaaat saaaaaafe.

[DMoriarty]

The only real major headache for people playing this hole is those who are low handicap types who hit the ball a good ways off the tee. IT'S THESE FOLKS WHO HAVE THE MAJOR DECISIONS TO HANDLE.  . . .  

The 18th at Lakota Canyon Ranch is a great hole -- the strategic qualities are front and center and the hole has the important elasticity to keep all levels of play interested time after time after time IMHO.

Just what exactly are the strategic qualities for the short hitter?  

I sometimes play with an older gentleman who is definitely a single digit handicap, but rarely drives the ball over 225 yds.   Isnt he going to be faced with a carry of nearly 200 yards just to make it to your 'layup fairway?'

As for your comparison to Augusta No. 13, this gorge is quite a bit larger than Rae's Creek, isnt it?   Also, I was under the impression that there was much more strategy on No. 13 than just to hit it as far as you can so you can get close enough to get home.  Isnt the second shot layup extremely strategic at Augusta, with certain angles and lines resulting in much easier shots?   Does this hole have anything remotely equivalent?

I've noticed that you like to make the third shot hard on those who cannot reach a par 5 in two.  (On the Black Rock thread you gave the designer kudos for making those who lay up face a blind third.)  Could you explain the logic of this?

[cary lichtenstein]

The mistake Matt Ward made here was to say that Jim Engh designed this hole. If he had posted this picture and said Tom Doak designed it, there would have been raves. Sso much for the continuing bias on CGA

[Matt_Ward]

Cary:

The reality is that the small grouping of snobs that exist on GCA do favor only brand "X" when it comes to golf course designs. That's their prerogative. Not mine.

Your point is well taken though.

Scott / SPDB:

The first portion of the fairway still leaves you no less than 180 yards from the green -- you can't really see the target and you're hitting to a very narrow target from that angle.

The bailout area to the right is much wider than the photograph suggests. It also allows you to get much closer to the green for a short 9-iron or wedge approach.

The folks who opt to stay with the first fairway cut will not be hitting 9-iron ot PW from that angle.

Dave S:

Frankly -- you demonstrate your obvious ignorance. I never said my style of play is representative of others -- what I did say is that different handicap levels can play the hole in a wide range of options. Nobody is left out of the equation. That's the mark of a great hole in my book.

Hey Dave -- I'll clue you in -- that's called strategic. Might I remind you you're the same Huckelberry who raves about the unique qualities of the snore / yawn / help wake me Shoreacres.

Dave -- the hole goes slightly uphill -- also let you me remind you the course is in Colorado -- the ball flies a bit further.

The fairway portion to the right is much, much wider than the photo indicates. How would I know? Hey Dave -- I was there and played it. But then -- what do I know when compared to you. Forgive me -- for such a thought!

Dave -- the green is big enough to handle the short approach is was intended to handle. For those who wish to push the pedal and try to go at in two blows you need to hit a very precise and soft landing shot. Nothing wrong with that because too often par-5's that are reachable feature greens that are sooooooooooooo big that anything goes with the second shot. At that point where's the balance for those who opt not to go for it.

The green angle is much more forgiving coming in from the area to the right of the canyon where the bulk of players go. It's not as demanding and narrow by any means as it is for those who try to attack the green head-on from the first portion of fairway.

One last thing -- Dave have you ever played one Jim Engh design? I'd be curious to your comments from actually playing one. We in Jolly Green Giant land have a right to know.

Dave M:

The gentlemen you mention will not have any issue with the hole provided he plays the appropriate tees. The next tee up is 499 yards and the one in front of that is 427. Likely, the play to the right hand fairway will be no more than a 150 yards if that. I'm sorry Dave if thaaaaaaaaaaaat carry is herculean given the thin Colorado air.

The question previously posed to me was what about a ground option. There is no ground option for the 13th hole at Augusta National and it's recognized as one of the finest par-5 holes in the world. The same thing happens on many holes that feature creeks and the like that jut or cross in front of putting surfaces on such holes. The same applies in my mind to Lakota Canyon's 18th. Also -- for those who are ground lovers -- where does it say every hole must have a ground option in order to be deemed a great hole?

Those who opt for a three-shot hole don't get away with a simple as pie approach. Why should they? If I take a risk in two shots and succeed and they opt -- their decision -- to play away from that risk and go at the green with a 3rd they should be forced to deal with what that entails. Nothing wrong with that logic -- maybe there's something faulty with your understanding.

Please refresh my memory on what specific hole I said a blind shot at Black Rock is OK.

Dave I explained the strategic qualities of the hole -- like all things you and I view in golf architecture we see it differently. Amen for that.

[DMoriarty]

Cary,

In my recollection Jim Engh's work has been quite well received on this board, with the exception of a few posters (namely me on the Black Rock thread.)  Is it at all possible that people are simply stating their honest opinions based on Matt's photo?  

Is it possible to criticize anything except Doak work without people screaming 'Doak bias?'  

The gentlemen you mention will not have any issue with the hole provided he plays the appropriate tees. The next tee up is 499 yards and the one in front of that is 427. Likely, the play to the right hand fairway will be no more than a 150 yards if that. I'm sorry Dave if thaaaaaaaaaaaat carry is herculean given the thin Colorado air.

Let's assume the gentleman is a 4-7 index.  Or for that matter, let's assume he is as good or better than you.   What tees would you have him play?  

Those who opt for a three-shot hole don't get away with a simple as pie approach. Why should they? If I take a risk in two shots and succeed and they opt -- their decision -- to play away from that risk and go at the green with a 3rd they should be forced to deal with what that entails. Nothing wrong with that logic -- maybe there's something faulty with your understanding.

I disagree.  If in your opinion disagreement means faulty understanding, then so be it.  

I thought you had praised an approach at Black Rock which was blind or at least partially blind.  If not, my mistake.

Dave I explained the strategic qualities of the hole -- like all things you and I view in golf architecture we see it differently. Amen for that.

You explained the strategic options for the very long hitter, noting that it was this golfer who faces "the major decisions."  What decisions does the short hitter face?  

[Mike Hendren]

Some people will go to great lengths to brag about a 365 yards drive.

Nice picture and nice description, Matt.  We need more of these type of posts as they elicit excellent points both pro and con.
Thanks.

Mike

[Matt Kardash]

I don't think a regular dosage of this kind of hole would be a good thing, but for one hole on a course I think a hole like this would be very fun. Maybe I'm saying this because I'm a pretty good player who can hit it Matt Ward distances but I still think that anyone with a golf soul would trully revel in the challenge of this hole. But then again I believe that most golfers are complete babies, so I'm not surprised by all this complaining.

Ok, so even if the hole is "unfair" or "impossible", what's wrong with that kind of hole every now and again? Trying to please everyone can be such a trap.

[DMoriarty]

I don't think a regular dosage of this kind of hole would be a good thing, but for one hole on a course I think a hole like this would be very fun. Maybe I'm saying this because I'm a pretty good player who can hit it Matt Ward distances but I still think that anyone with a golf soul would trully revel in the challenge of this hole.

While I somehow doubt this is the only hole of this nature on the course, this is otherwise a good point.  Almost everyone likes the challenge of an apparently impossible hole once in a while and it is always a thrill to successfully meet that challenge.   But I do wonder if there aren't better ways to make a hole thrilling for all levels than the kind of certain death which this hole repeatedly presents.   Take the skiddish golfer who survives the severity of a lateral miss on his first and luckily makes the carry to the landing area on his second.  Presenting him with yet another forced carry with a bad angle and a big bunker just long might move beyond thrilling and into pummeling.  

I prefer holes where thrill seekers can find their thrill but the more cautious and less skilled can avoid instant death.

But then again I believe that most golfers are complete babies, so I'm not surprised by all this complaining.

 I dont get comments like this.  Golfers who dont think everyshot should threaten them with a lost ball are complete babies?  Those who offer their opinions on a golf hole are complaining?  The only complaining I have seen is Cary complaining we are all bias and Matt complaining because people dont see it his way.  Why do people have such a problem with open discussion?  

Trying to please everyone can be such a trap.

It certainly can be.  But building a golf course which works for all levels of golfers is the ultimate test of good design.  Do you think that this golf hole could pass this test?

[Matt Kardash]

Dave,

Well I say golfers are babies because they like courses to be fairly easy. I know many will say I am wrong, but I play enough golf to know that many people call greens with above average countour unfair, or deep bunkers goofy. I'm not saying anyone on this site does, but I'm saying in general most people do. Most people are happy with plain old vanilla. It's sad but true.

And I don;t know if this hole can pass 'the test" or not. I mean there are a lot of great holes that probably aren't fair. I mean I can be a real dick and say that any hole with any forced carry of a significant distance can be deemed as unfair. Honeslty, I don't really care about what's fair and what's not fair. I play a hole and I either like it or I don't or it does nothing for me.

I feel like being shot down today, so i will say this. In Leonard Cohen's great novel Beautiful Losers, the character F says "you have to learn to stop bravely at appearances". So basically, at this second, i'm being brave.  

[Doug Siebert]

I agree with the Daves.  Its asking a bit much of the higher handicap players to have them make three forced carries in a row, along with worrying about direction to avoid the instant death offered on one or both sides for these shots.  Comparing it to AGNC #13 is laughable, since there is one piddly little creek down the left side and in front of the green, and so the only forced carry is less than 10 yards, and there is nearly unlimited room safely right of that creek along the way for the poorer player to bail out on his way to deciding where he'll risk that 10 yard carry.  And if he fails, he can drop it 1 yard behind the creek if he wishes, rather than being forced to Tin Cup it from the same place over and over again until he succeeds or gives up.

I mean, I love that hole from the standpoint of on the days when I've brought my game, I'd love the challenge, and on the days I didn't, I could negotiate the layup and approach, but there wouldn't be much strategy involved there, since there's no gain to playing for anywhere on the layup other than the fattest portion of the alternate fairway.

I imagine its fun probably decreases exponentially for every stroke over 10 in a golfer's handicap, since the inability to make three demanding shots in a row is exactly why these guys are carrying double digit handicaps in the first place!  It seems as though some architects (and raters) forget that point.

[DMoriarty]

Matt, I dont care about fairness either, but I do care about golf being enjoyable.   I dont think that many enjoy the golf equivalent of repeatedly getting their teeth kicked in, nor do I think that six hour rounds are enjoyable.

As far 'babies' complaining about contoured greens and deep bunkers, they are probably just parroting their heros on the tours.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

Matt,

The strategy you describe sort of reminds me of the 6th hole at Stone Harbor (Par 5 right before Jaws). The terrain is obviously completely different, but similar playing characteristics ??

[Matt_Ward]

Mike H:

Sorry about the shameless self promotion! But I did hit a good one on the hole!

Mike S:

Let's get real -- you're comparing the likes of what Desmond Muirhead did at Stone Harbor to what Engh has done at Lakota Canyon? Mike -- the 6th at Stone Harbor is a par-4 about 430 yards in length -- it not a par-5.

I am quite familiar with the 6th hole at Stone Harbor. Muirhead may have believed he was including an option to the left but the only play at that hole down by the Jersey Shore is to hit for the "island" fairway and then proceed to the bulkheaded green.

The 18th at Lakota Canyon Ranch does provide clear playable alternatives as opposedto what you see at Stone Harbor's 6th. Let me also metion that the "forced carry" to the green at Stone Harbor is a much longer shot than what the 3rd would beat Lakota Ranch. In sum -- you're talkng night and day differences between the two IMHO.

David M:

I'll say this again if the higher handicap player -- let's use the example of the person you mentioned plays the appropriate tees aed upon his game the options are there for him to execute. Since he only hits the ball a maxof 225 yards the likelihood of him going for the green in two blows even from up front markers will be nill but that's likely the case with just about any par-5 given his lack of length.

I also don't know where you get this silly notion six hour golf at Lakota Canyon is the norm -- rounds there average no more than 4 1/2 hours. That's very good in my book. Also, the idea that the course is some sort of torture chamber is misguided -- clearly such a statement is not based on you playing of the course -- there are a wealth of options when playing the course but then again what do I know I have only played the course as opposed to armchair quarterbacks who have not thus far.

David -- if you seriously believe Lakota is some sort of death march I'd love for you to weigh in -- if you have played -- Betpage Black and The Ocean Course at Kiawah. I guess those two heavyweight courses would be flawed as well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()