[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

Tommy
I think you are way off the mark there.  The one bunker only has 3 little peninsulas flowing into the sand from the left, while the other has 5.  How you could say therefore there is any repetition is beyond me.
 

You did say this didn't you ?

You also said,
"perhaps there is the possibility that maybe there was not a lot of original thought there" (Quintero).

Is that not criticism of the architecture ?
How would you know what was "THERE" ?

You also said,
"The holes must be damn similar ..."
All 18 of them ?  How would you know ?

You also said,
"I can only go by what TOMMY said and what I see.

You blindly accepted all of Tommy's criticisms as valid, even though he's never played the golf course, and therein lies your criticism of the architecture, the golf course, the blind acceptance of what Tommy said, and your interpretation of two pictures, coincidentally angled to put forth his agenda.

You're also willing to totally disregard the opinion of 25 or so people who have played the golf course and found it to be outstanding, choosing instead to rely on the opinion of someone who has admited to a negative predispositon toward Rees Jones and his golf courses, yet, he's never played this one.  And, you don't feel that you've been obtuse ?

Now, let me get this right, you still don't feel that you've been critical of the architecture or the golf course ?

Your own words speak loud and clear.[/color]

[Andy Hughes]

Weak Pat, very weak.
After all that, is that really the best you can do to make it appear that I have been criticizing the architecture of Quintero?

I think you are way off the mark there.  The one bunker only has 3 little peninsulas flowing into the sand from the left, while the other has 5.  How you could say therefore there is any repetition is beyond me.

An obviously joking line about 2 pictures that are damn near identical, so identical-looking that you yourself said they were the same picture?  Did you happen to notice the emoticon at the end??
And the other one is a quote pulled out to stand by itself with no context that has the words 'maybe' and 'possibility', and was said in reference to someone else's conclusions who has been there, not mine?  Oy.

And what was your last piece of 'evidence'? Oh right:

"The holes must be damn similar ..."
All 18 of them ?  How would you know?

You of all people must surely agree that the pictures look 'damn similar' Pat, as you were the analyst who said they were the same hole!  
But for you then to extrapolate from that, which is blindingly obvious and with which you agreed unintentionally be saying that the pictures were of the same hole, that I said all 18 holes are similar is either incredibly misguided,  or, dare I say it, a bit dishonest (modus operandi and all that).

You blindly accepted all of Tommy's criticisms as valid, even though he's never played the golf course, and therein lies your criticism of the architecture, the golf course, the blind acceptance of what Tommy said, and your interpretation of two pictures, coincidentally angled to put forth his agenda.

So your logic is that because I didn't argue with Tommy and Matt and tell them they were wrong even though they have been there/played there and I haven't, I therefore have negatively critiqued the architecture of a course I have never seen and have never actually critiqued either positively or negatively?  That's an incredible leap Pat, and I should be ashamed for not telling Tommy and Matt that they were wrong for the obvious reason that, well, I have no idea.
And because I saw the same pictures that you did, and just like you found them to look incredibly similar, my 'interpretation' is somehow a negative critique of the architecture, while your interpretation, which lets recall was essentially the same as mine, somehow gives you the mind-reading ability to know exactly what architectural details the owner wanted. That's amazing Pat  

Your own words speak loud and clear.

Yes Pat, they do, and if you would be so kind as to actually show the ones where I am critical of the course it might help your cause. But please don't use the ones that are obviously said in jest, and please don't feel the need to take things out of context and then give them meaning you know was not in the original.
Also, I am still awaiting word on how exactly you knew what architectural detailing the owner wanted, other than that ESP thing you got going for you (which is kinda nice, I admit).
PS I also blame you for the incredibly narrow text of this page  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy Hughes,

The tone of your posts from beging to end, speaks for itself.

Knowing Tommy's predisposition toward Rees, that it never dawned on you that perhaps Tommy took those pictures from angles that would make them look similar is puzzling.

Perhaps, in the play of the golf course, the view and impression of the bunkers is quite different from what Tommy depicted.

Inititally, you believed that Tommy had played the golf course, and relied on his opinion.  When it became apparent that he hadn't, you fell back on the "he's been there" position.  Yet, you still don't know the extent of his examination, but, you continue to support his opinion as The Gospel, while ignoring the opinion of 25 or so golfers who actually played the golf course.  

25 or so guys played it, and thought highly of it, but you continue to ignore them and put all your faith in the opinion of someone who's never played it, someone whom you have no idea with respect to the extent of his examination.

How do you explain ignoring 25 or so bona fide opinions of golfers who have played the golf course versus someone who's never played the golf course ?

It's not that you didn't argue with Tommy, it's that you acccepted his every word as The Gospel, while ignoring the word of all of the Golfweek raters who PLAYED the golf course and found it superior.

As to the pictures, I never analyzed them, as you indicate I did.  I barely looked at them because I understand Tommy's agenda.  You don't even know if those two bunkers provide those views and impressions from the golfers eye, do you ?

Why would I provide you with that answer prior to making the bet ?  

As to the narrowness of the posts, Tommy says that it's Rees's mounding at Quintero that caused the text to be pinched in and narrowed.  

[Andy Hughes]

Tsk, tsk Pat.  When it turns out that the sum of my critiques of the course turned out to be a tongue-in-cheek joke (complete with smiley faces) and a throwaway comment that completely agreed with your view of 2 pictures, you then fall back on the 'well, it was your tone'?
I assume there's not really any need for me to comment on the 7 paragraphs of yours that follow that, is there?  If you are reduced to, in essence, saying that I did not actually negatively critique the architecture but perhaps my tone was somehow negative, then I think it is safe to assume that you are now clutching at straws.

Why would I provide you with that answer prior to making the bet ?

'Cause you're a helluva nice guy and you know my baby needs new shoes?

As to the narrowness of the posts, Tommy says that it's Rees's mounding at Quintero that caused the text to be pinched in and narrowed.  

Now, that may be, but what does Golfweek think?
PS Out of deference to your wisdom, I went and checked the Golfweek Top 100 Modern list. I did not see Tobacco Road anywhere on the list. Therefore, that list is worthless and should be utterly cryit down.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy Hughes,

With the abundance of golf courses built since rankings first came on the scene, Golfweek initially addressed that issue by doubling the Top 100, by bifurcating the list into classic and modern.

I would like to see them expand their list such that the second 100 on each list become visible.

Perhaps Tobacco Road is 101 ?

[Andy Hughes]

Perhaps Tobacco Road is 101 ?

Maybe that's it!  
Must be a tough neighborhood if an amazing, unique, fun course like TR can't move in though.
I noticed your Hidden Creek was at 76--does that seem too high, too low, or about right to you?

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

I've been following with some interest, but even more amusement the back and forth volleys taking place here.

Let me weigh in with all this chatter on the meaning of raters and the process that flows from it.

I have always said that consensus-based ratings are not the best of approaches that can be taken.

The reason is simple. You have different people weighing in with different applications of numbers in various categories. I would much rather have one person do an assessment because you have two things then at work -- a better sense of consistency when various rating numbers are applied and a truer sense of cross comparison of different courses from different parts of the country. This then allows for a much more coherent assessment of courses in states, regions and even the nation.

The magazines don't take that approach and simply want to gather an "all volunteer" army of people and send them on their way. In many cases the top tier courses are no brainer selections -- e.g. Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Bethpage Black and others of that ilk.

However, the real issue starts with the second tier of courses that are a bit below bulletproof status.

For me -- I have played everything of note in the greater Las Vegas area. I played Cascata and while I found it fun and a good course -- I didn't see it being worthy of national acclaim for the reasons I previously stated earlier in this thread.

I have no predisposition / bias against Rees Jones or any other architect -- in fact -- I have been a defender of Rees Jones against those who have played only a tiny fraction of his designs. I go by a simple rule -- I look at each course as a separate and individual situation. Clearly, I do weigh in with a thought or two about the general evolution of an architect if I have played a fair sampling of their work -- in the case of Rees Jones I have played no less than 50 of his designs and I believe I am certainly able to weigh in with some total assessment versus others who have played far, far less.

In the final analysis -- it all comes down to a subjective assessment. I liked Cascata -- and if opportunity presents itself the next time I'm in Vegas I would play it. However, if the choice comes down to Cascata and Wolf Creek in Mesquite then I know the latter will be the higher priority for me.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Pat and Andy and Matt, too

I am not a rater. I have played Quintero 3 times. My wife had a hole in one on the 16th hole so it will always be a special place for us.For those out there who have NOT played Quintero, take a visual hole by hole tour of the course at www.quinterogolf.com

The following appears on the Quintero website. While it may be a little overdone, I cannot disagree with its essence... "Enjoyable Desert Golf in the Wilderness." ... "visually striking"..."playable"..."I did think the three downhill par 3's overdid the theme a bit"... I would add similar bunkering on a few holes but even then it's a course that the developer likes, the members enjoy and guests certainly remember. Unfortunately for me, my friend recently resigned his membership there.


A Letter from Ed Gowan Executive Director of the Arizona Golf Association on reflection of his initial visit to Quintero October 20, 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I have been pondering my duty to you for the last three days. "Describe Quintero," you asked.

To begin, the AGA is always indebted to first-quality courses that feel a relationship with the AGA can help create exposure and serve amateur golf. Service to amateur golf is a quickly disappearing factor in the game today. I believe that the events we do jointly will help identify Quintero as one of Arizona's special communities. In my fifteen years, I have not seen many projects that can set a new standard for excellence. Desert Highlands in the 80's did that, followed by Desert Mountain along with The Gallery and Stone Canyon in Tucson; they established a new level of golf residential excellence. Other projects in the country have done their best in the given area, from Sea Island and the Cloister with its new Lodge concept to the estates of the Preserve in Carmel.

Quintero has taken the "path less traveled," or better yet, "the path not-yet traveled" with the Jones and Norman courses. The Jones course is a visually striking and playable desert course in the wilderness. Even with the construction of some housing, the dramatic setting of the holes and their isolation from direct contact with residences will retain the dramatic isolation the player will experience on each and every hole.

The design of bunkering and green sites seems to fit well into the grand vistas. At the same time, with only a few exceptions, the playability of the course remains reasonable for the average player. The bunkering will penalize only the better player for the most part, although visual intimidation will take its toll initially until each player finds his or her "best route" for playing the holes.

My best description, taking in all the above, would be "Enjoyable Desert Golf in the Wilderness." To me, there is a valid criticism for any such course in that the landscape does not allow the "real golf" of walking and carrying one's bag in three hours. On the other hand, I'm not sure the vistas of Kapalua are as engaging as those on several of Quintero's holes, especially those facing west in the early evening. As for others, I was anxiously anticipating a covered wagon turning a corner in front of us as we drove the course. You have the impression civilization is 200 years removed, yet the site is only 20 minutes from Circle Ks.

Hole by hole I found no weakness in the challenge. I did think the three downhill par 3's overdid the theme a bit. The green settings on other holes framed under mountain peaks were extraordinary. So, on the proverbial scale of 1-10, it's a "10" on the modern scale.

[Matt_Ward]

Steve:

A few thoughts from your post ...

1). I don't view Quintero as a "10" as Ed states. There are no less than 10 other courses in AZ that I would easily have above the Rees Jones layout. Frankly, I don't see Quintero making even a 12-15 listing. How it jumps into the high octane level with Desert Forest is beyond me. Candidly, I see Outlaw at Desert Mountain being beyond it and would add Chirichua, also at DM, and Whisper Rock, above it.

2). Keep in mind that Ed spends a bit of time in his analysis on the housing elements when weighing the merits of the course.

3). Ed plays down the downhill par-3's but they are one of the most glaring deficiencies at Quintero. Have we not seen enough of the drop-shot par-3.

4). Ed doesn't mention other Rees Jones courses he has played. I would like to know if he has played others because it would give me a sense if he has seen repeated patterns of design. Frankly, Quintero features much of the same bunkering pattern as other Rees Jones courses I have played (50+ in total).

5). I like Quintero but to include it at that high of a level -- in AZ, forget the USA -- bafflles me.

6). I'd like to see where Ed rates all the other courses in AZ but his role as Exec Director may preclude that.

Be interesting to see where Bill Huffman -- the former star golf guy at the Arizona Republic weighs in on the subject.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Matt

Quintero is certainly not a 10 on the Doak scale. Who knows what scale Ed uses. I think his description of "Enjoyable desert golf in the wilderness" is on point and I'll leave it at that.

Steve

[Matt_Ward]

Steve:

I would love to see knowledgeable people on AZ golf list their best courses from the Grand Canyon State.

How Quintero rates far ahead of others there baffles me.

Outlaw, IMHO, provides the quintessential experience because you have no housing, the views are outstanding and the design by the Nicklaus team is clearly a breed apart from the standard fare one normally associates with the Golden Bear.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()