[Mike Nuzzo]

"Dog pile on the Rabbit!...
Dog pile on the Rabbit!"



*A Hare Grows in Manhatten
Buggs Bunny - 1947

[Matt_Ward]

You know for all you guys bitching and moaning I offer the following -- how bout you get your fat butts off the couch and see what Cary and I are talking about through a firsthand experience.

I'll say this again -- I'm not suggesting it's a top ten layout as my esteemed friend is suggesting. I do insist that it provides a wealth of fun and excitement that few new courses rarely introduce and give to you the player time after time after time.

Part of the problem I have is that the narrow-minded cognoscente only favor one style of course here on GCA -- heaven forbid -- an equally talented and gifted architect provides his own unique vision on what golf design should entail.

Plenty of people here on GCA have NEVER played a Jim Engh course -- these same folks then lob some vague verbal dart about what his courses are like simply through their keen sense of aerials and the likes.

Lakota Canyon Ranch is a fun place to play golf an done that should be seen / played by those here on GCA.

Guess what?

You may actually find what has been said is on target -- although I still hold that it's not top ten in the USA in my book with no disrespect meant for Cary.

[A_Clay_Man]

I think it's great that Cary is so enthusiastically in love with the course he's playing. As the song says, "love the one you're with".

And since Matt acknowledges that Cary is off his rocker, calling it a top ten in da' world, and Cary says;

Geoffrey:

There is significant containment and there needs to be that containment,  and it is not walkable except for a Billygoat.

How could a top ten have either?

Matt, When you say

Lakota Canyon Ranch is a fun place to play golf

Is that similar to the "fun" one has at Wolf Creek?

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

Do we have any pics of Lakota?  I probably missed that thread, I have been away alot lately.

Just finished a great 2 week business trip/golf junket (10 days, 10 states, 3100 miles on the Honda, 4 business meetings, and 15 golf courses) that included some remote travel including True North and Greywalls @  Marquette GC.  I will post some pics when I get some time.

Man I need to rest.

[cary lichtenstein]

Adam:

Lakota is similiar to  Wolf Creek in Nevada, Black Mesa and Paa Ko Ridge in New Mexico.

All are worth playing. Here is my skinny on how they compare:

Wolf Creek was a one time play for Bette and I. A little too shoe horned, with cart paths (just way too steep) that scared us to death. We both liked the course, would highly recommend everyone to play it.

Black Mesa is a better course than Wolf Creek. More natural. Still needs a little more work, some containment as balls can run off into the unknown. Bette and I played it twice and liked it better the 2nd time as we got to know where to hit it. We both liked the course, and would ighly recommend it to everyone.

Paa Ko Ridge is another course  in this category which we liked better than Black Mesa and is also in New Mexico.

Lakota is the crown jewel of the 4.

[Tom_Doak]

Cary:

Just HOW was my post "way out of line"?

I didn't claim to have built any mountain courses better than Jim Engh has ... of course I wouldn't, since I haven't built any mountain courses to date.

Nor have I ever claimed to have built one of the top ten golf courses in the world, or America, or whatever the title of your post implied.  Maybe in twenty years somebody will say one of my courses belongs there, and it will be taken seriously, but saying that about a new course is just overhype in my opinion.  A course has to prove it belongs in that rarefied air ... and, sorry, but proving it means convincing more than two GCA posters.

Did you object to being labeled a Jim Engh-o-phile?  You've praised many of his courses on here, and your reply to my post seemed to confirm that you are a big fan of his work.  I didn't mean to say it disqualifies you from commenting on his newest course, but to place a course in the top ten, I don't think the site's biggest fan of someone's work is really the person to convince us.

Since I asked my question, the only thing you've said in defense of the course is that it has more containment than Black Mesa [which your defender Matt rates higher than Lakota].  I'm just trying to get you to say something about the course which piques my interest enough to actually take a day of my time away from Ballyneal to take you up on a round of golf.

Telling me why it is different and superior to the other Jim Engh courses I've seen (Redlands Mesa, Black Rock, or True North) would be a good start.

[cary lichtenstein]

Tom:

Fair enough, let me see if I can explain why it is different and so good.

First, none of the other Jim Engh courses are built within canyon walls. These canyon walls have a natural flow to them that Engh's routing has utilitized.

Some dogleg left, some dogleg right, some go up, and some go down and some do all 3. For example, the 4th hole is off an elevated tee maybe 150 feet high, if you hit your drive into a slight fade, you have 2 choices, a 258 yard uphill shot over brush and trees, or lay up a 4 iron to the correct part of an uphill landing area and your third shot is way up hill, perhaps 70 feet to the green.

If you're long, you're faced with a very delicate chip shot into a green that runs away from you.

Hole #3 requires you to walk thru a winding path uphill to the tee, that takes you thru the natural terrain, to a green maybe 130 feet below. There are 3 distinst greens within the one green, really a horseshoe around a lake in the center. The back tee is 170 yards, which I used a 9 iron (my sea level 9 is 135 yds), besides the tee shot being spectular, the green is awesome. The putting is a major challenge,, with the green sweeping around the horseshoe, with the most elevated portion at the top of the horseshoe.

#16 is a downhill tee shot, 418 yards with a severe dogleg right into a green bordered by a serpentine elongated bunker and ravines on 3 sides. The stragety is to hit as big a drive as you can on the right side, avoiding the ravine, to leave yourself as short a short into the green, again avoiding the ravines and bunker.

#18 must be played twice to fully understand it, unless you study it from above, and then can carry what you see backwards to the tee. You have seen the pictures and commented on it already, remember, I play with my wife, so I see the hole from her perspective too. She has to play the optional fairway to the right on the 2nd shot as she cannot carry the green directly.

I, on the other hand, if I hit a great drive, can go for the elevated green in 2, all Engh shows is the top of the flag stick if you look carefully. If you bail out left to avoid the ravines, there is a single bunker to a terrifying downhill green, that you must hit correctly or go out sideways.

#17 is an extreme drop shot par 3 into an usually shapped green with a back pin placement that extraordinarlly challenging.

#5 is a par 5 shaped like a boomerrang, this 630 yarder requires a high tee ball along the right ride to get the big left bounce of maybe 35 to 50 yards which puts the green into play onthe 2nd shot. A great risk reward hole. The boomerrang goes downhill the whole way, thus being able to reach a 630 in 2 for a guy like me who hits it only average distance.

#8 requires a walk uphill of 100 stairs, to an elevated tee, with 3 or 4 moon shaped fairway bunkers. The stragety is to hit a hit 3 wood to the right side of the fairway, catch the containment and avoid the bunkering. The 2nd shot is hit into a peninsula 2 level green.

I'm getting tired typing.

Tom.

You could learn alot by seeing and playing what Engh has done. 1st, how far does a ball fly from various elevations, how go create flat landing areas, the importance of containment on these type of courses, otherwise they are not playable.

Engh's greens are a whole other game, just not the usual 2 putts.You did a lot of that very well in Indiana at the Lost Dunes course.

Engh's routing is superb if you can accept that this is a cart course. If you can't, then there would be significant uphill walks, which would not be bad in any respect, but there would be alot of blind shots.

If you play with me and my wife and perhaps bring a 4th with you, you will get to see the course from 4 different perspectives. Bring a box of balls, because if you hit an errant tee ball that does not catch the containment, you need to retee.

Engh hides greens on some holes, confuses you as to whether the green is uphill or downhill on others. Other holes of significance are 1,2,7,9,11,12 and 16.

When you are done playing, you are left with the impression that you have just played a course on one of the greatest sites in the world. There is sooooo much drama, that you want to go back to the first tee and see what you missed.

Perhaps it is more than the normal brain I have to take in, and you having more vision, can analyze more rationally. Riding around on the cart paths and not playing it, does not do it. You can see the terrain, but you have to experience the difficulty of your missed shots that hang up in the side hill containment grass...these are tough puppies to hit.

[ChasLawler]

Cary,
Let me first say that I think your opinions on golf course architecture are important on this board. While your preferences may fall into the minority on this board, I believe your tastes are in line with the majority of the golfing public, and I have the utmost respect for your ability to speak your mind.

With that said, your last post has done nothing to make me believe Lakota Canyon is a top 10 golf course – even in the US…even just daily fee.

I work in construction, and in my business we have a term for when a landscape architect goes over the top… it’s called an FTP (The ‘T’ and ‘P’ stand  for Theme Park… you can guess what the ‘F’ stands for)

….and from your description, I’d call Lakota Canyon an FTP.

[Matt_Ward]

I always enjoy reading the thoughts of others as they tear apart someone's opinions on a golf course from people who have never set foot on the property in question.

Look, let's cut to the chase -- there are certain "preferred" architects here on GCA -- let's really stop all the tap dancing around this FACT and let's also understand that certain other architects are deemed to be outside the box of those limited preferences.

Jim Engh happens to be one of those people who falls "outside that box."

Let me quickly add that I don't fawn or rave about all of Engh's designs. Case in point being Sanctuary in Sedalia, CO and the work he's done at a few of his courses whereby I see the quality of his par-4's being a bit lacking when compared to his stellar work in many par-3's and par-5's.

With that said -- maybe the people who sit in judgement of Cary should do themselves a huge favor -- go out and play the courses in question and stop with the bitch sessions on how wrong someone can be.

I'll also say this again -- yes -- I really enjoy Lakota Canyon and see it among the very best Engh has designed -- I would not rate it among my personal top 100 in the USA but it's one layout that I certainly recommend if anywhere near the I-70 area in western Colorado.

People who comment on the qualities "lacking" in Lakota Canyon need to play it and give a bit more credence / respect to those who have played there and countless other places here in the USA and abroad.

Adam:

To answer your question -- Lakota Canyon Ranch is a better balanced course than Wolf Creek -- the one in Mesquite is a pure quirky "over-the-top" rollarcoaster ride of emotions throughout the round. Could it be played everyday? Yes, but the strains would begin to show. Lakota provides a much more even keel presentation and the fun aspect with the layout in Colorado would strike a more positive chord for all types of players than the one in Nevada.

Nonetheless, I still love both for what they individually provide.

[Brian Cenci]

Matt,
     To follow up regarding what you said of Engh and most people on GCA not being a fan of his, which is true.  I simply say that the first thing I look at with a course is the course itself.  I could care less who designed it until after I played it.  I never got into course architecture until a few years ago and a lot of my personnal top 50 was played before even becoming involved and concerned with course desginers (when I played a lot of amatuer events).  So, that being said...Engh's courses that I have played I always thought were fun and I would play them again.  Were they great...no...but they were fun and different and all good courses.  I am planning on playing a few of his courses at the end of the summer, including Lakota thanks to your recommendation.  I think you take his work for what it is, or at least what I have played of it, fun layout and design with very interesting par 5's and 3's and somewhat pedestrian par 4's....but overall puts out good golf courses, not great.

[cary lichtenstein]

Cabell:

One of the things I do here on GCA is I never make comments, good or bad about something I haven't played.

I try to compare similiar type courses so other CGA guys can get a good handle of comparison.

I am neither a fan or a detractor of minimialism, that's why I ranked Sand Hills and Friar's Head in my top 15, but excluded Pinehurst #2. As I've said before, minimialism works best on a great site, with significiant topography.

I am not from the East Coast, so I never grew up playing all the courses that the majority on this board did. I am from the midwest, Chicago was my home for 50 years.

I have no bias. I call it as I see it and I try to make an important contribution on GCA. I have loved and hated courses by the same individual architect,, e.g., Tom Fazio.

He has done alot of really good work and some real pedestrian overrated work.

I do perfer courses with great topography, blown out bunkering, sand scapes, more of an unkept look, links, but I equally enjoy a perfectly manicured course like Sage Valley.

My art background required us to produce quite an array of different styles, and I learned to appreciate all of those styles when done well.

When I made this post, I never meant to say that Lakota Canyon replaces something in the top 10, and when I came up with my top 10 list, I coulen't narrow it down to 10, so I listed all 15. I hear that Pacific Dunes and Kinlock are great courses, and after I play them, if I think they are, then my top 10 will grow to 17.

Lakota will never replace any of the top 10 courses based on the the criteria that courses are judged. First, it's a mountain course and that automaticaally will exclude it, ditto it is a non walking course, 2 strikes. It has alot of containment, and mostly downhill tee shots, 4 strikes.

You get that at Augusta, Pine Valley, Friar's, Sand Hills, etc...so maybe my criteria are just a little bit different.

There are many on GCA who see and enjoy the very subtle, I am the first to say that it is difficult to recognize those playing a course once and if I have the time, I try to play courses twice, and sometimes I come away with a different respect, but mostly the same.

I went on for much longer than I thought, but maybe this will help.

[Matt_Ward]

Brian:

Well said but I would say that Lakota Canyon Ranch and Engh's new private layout in Parker, CO called Pradera are beyond merely the "fun" limited golf course -- they both have unique aspects that make them a high level 18-hole-round of many strategic decisions from the tee to the green.

I hesitate to toss around the word "great" because it's use in modern sports society is often poorly attributed. I will say this -- the totality of what you have with Lakota and Pradera clearly demonstrate an evolution in what Engh has done from say the likes fo Redlands Mesa or Sanctuary.

Some people will not like Engh courses -- but heaven forbid if any other architect is deemed at the "high exalted" level of the special few here on GCA or even has the potential to be listed among such a listing.

I don't deny Engh does have a repetitive flavor -- the issue of containment mounding -- especially around his greens needs to be lessened because it tends to "democraticize" any type of approach shot played. However, the repetitive aspects that Engh incorporates from one design to the next is no different than what you find from the other more "preferred" modern architects who have such aspects in their design portfolio meet with either total acceptance or muted criticism at best.

Too many people on this site have a very limited and narrow sense of what makes for unique and compelling design. They are often rigidly dogmatic and what's so funny is that the very people who see me as being only for long and demanding courses are completely and utterly clueless on the pragmatic sense, I believe, I try to bring to the table.

[Craig Sweet]

This thread is quite hilarious! Imagine, ranking golf courses!

Thank god no one "ranks" trout streams, or high mountain trout ponds. Is it just me, or are these (sorry) clowns that produce glossy golf and ski magazines the only people that feel compelled to "rank" the recreational experience?

[Mike_Cirba]

Cary,

Frankly, I'm glad you went out on a limb as you did with your assessment of Lakota Canyon.  You did a nice job of stating your preferences, and even if others don't agree with your criteria and judgements I'd rather hear someone lay their opinions on the line and take from it what I can.

In the case of Jim Engh, I've yet to play any of his courses.  From pictures, I think there's a lot going on...lots of earth movement, lots of shaping, lots of containment, lots of conscious attempts at strategy.  I think the thing that intrigues me is that so many of his courses have been so highly rated by the Golf Digest crowd that I'm really curious to see one for myself.  

Doing daring designs can be a tightrope walk between fun, adrenaline inducing stuff (as Mike Strantz did so well) and over-the-top, circus acts, so I'm really interested to see for myself where his work falls upon that continuum.  

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Mike

I agree with your thoughts and will be in Colorado later this month. I will be playing, among others,Engh's  Pradera and Lakota(with Cary) and will report back then.
For those who care about ratings, I think there is a big difference between the GD and GW raters as evidenced by recent results.
My portfolio of top courses is weak,unlike Cary,  so I can't comment on the scheme of ratings other than to offer my personal list of preferences.

Steve

[Matt_Ward]

Steve:

It would be most helpful for you to also play Redlands Mesa in Grand Junction to provide a very full picture ont he evolution of Engh's design success when compared to the likes of Pradera and Lakota Canyon Ranch.

One other note -- since you will be in the area with Lakota you should also attempt to play the Norman Course at Red Sky Ranch -- it is easily on par with the the likes of Doonbeg -his more noted design in Ireland.

[DMoriarty]

Look, let's cut to the chase -- there are certain "preferred" architects here on GCA -- let's really stop all the tap dancing around this FACT and let's also understand that certain other architects are deemed to be outside the box of those limited preferences.

Matt, I've never played Lakota, so I will refrain from commenting on it specifically.  

What I am commenting on is credibility.  Cary puts Engh's Black Rock in his nation's best category, and you too have repeatedly praised Black Rock.  

Well, as you know, I have played Black Rock and it is absolutely awful.  If that is the kind of thing you guys are looking for in a mountain course, then I feel perfectly comfortable dismissing your views on mountain courses entirely.  

In short, based on what I feel are your absurd statements on this board, you and Cary have no credibility with me when it comes to so-called mountain courses.  And Jim Engh courses.  

[Matt_Ward]

David:

That's what makes the world sooooooooooo interesting when people disagree. Glad the "Wizard of Oz" could come out from behind the curtain -- and frankly your raising the issue of credibility is laughable given your zero grade in having seen the wealth of top courses that inhabit a good portion of the mountain time zone area. I guess the opinions of Cary and myself count for next to nothing from the couch potato set. So be it.

I liked Black Rock -- not as much as Cary does -- but there are a number of holes that are well done IMHO. We have had this tired discussion before -- you can take whatever position you want.

My position on new golf courses -- especially those int he region -- is a bit more pragmatic and certainly not as rigid and dogmatic as a number of people here on GCA -- including you. Some here on GCA take the opinion -- that a particular type of design in almost all instances is the ONLY way to go with a design. Nothing like a straightjacket mentality in golf course assesment.

I don't see it that way.

Jim Engh gets dissed off here on GCA by people who have played at best a very tiny fraction of his designs -- in some cases people have only played one at best.

Before blowing me off with your ignorant comments let
me add that you need to play Lakota Canyon Ranch and Pradera -- two of his most recent designs and see the process in his design evolution.

There is plenty of substance, fun and uniqueness in those two courses. Whether you take my opinions seriously or not at all -- I could frankly care less.

redanman:

With all due respect partner -- you keep highlighting about the limitations of the courses in question but you have jettisoned your life to another locale of the USA and have failed to keep pace with what is happening there NOW and in the last few years.

I disagree 100% that someone because courses are located in the mountain time zone that such layouts are freaks of nature and unworthy of any high praise because the essence of their design is severely compromised because of their location.

That is not fair.

To answer you briefly partner -- I see a number of modern designs in the region -- Black Mesa, Norman's Red Sky Ranch and Lakota Canyon Ranch as being no less of the qualities that people wax on about with places like Wild Horse, Lawsonia Links, etc, etc.

They are well done layouts and the design has calculated the aspects of high altitude into the total equation.

This idea that great golf is only the province of one area of the country is nothing less than elitism -- the evolving nature of golf design is branching out in some many locales. Not every one is home run or even a solid double -- but there are clear instances where the alignment of a superb site, quality architect and first rate routing do mesh together.

Bill, I salute you in being fair regarding the totality of what Engh has designed and the maturity you show in not branding a permanent label on him as others are wont to do from such a tiny sampling in his design portfolio. Too bad others on this site cannot heed such a wise course of action.

Gents:

What will be really funny is when Doak finishes his work with the two layouts in Colorado and the one planned for Montana. Then all the "pro" mountain time zone folks will come crawling out of the closest and proclaiming such work is so thrilling and worthy of high praise when compared to any courses that exist not only in the immediate region but throughout the country and the world.

How painfully transparent and preferential.

I have nothing against Tom Doak and his extremely talented skills and that of his team but the idea that "others" in the design business cannot reach a high bar of performance is clearly evident of a desired preference at best and a clear bias at worst.

[George Pazin]

I have nothing against Tom Doak and his extremely talented skills and that of his team but the idea that "others" in the design business cannot reach a high bar of performance is clearly evident of a desired preference at best and a clear bias at worst.

(emphasis added)

I don't know that anyone has said cannot, I think they most have simply said have not.

[DMoriarty]

David:

That's what makes the world sooooooooooo interesting when people disagree. Glad the "Wizard of Oz" could come out from behind the curtain -- and frankly your raising the issue of credibility is laughable given your zero grade in having seen the wealth of top courses that inhabit a good portion of the mountain time zone area. I guess the opinions of Cary and myself count for next to nothing from the couch potato set. So be it.

Matt, you egotistical jerk, you dont know a thing about my knowledge of golf courses in the Mountain Time Zone, or the potential for truly great golf in the region.  So drop the holier-than-thou rhetoric.  

Jim Engh gets dissed off here on GCA by people who have played at best a very tiny fraction of his designs -- in some cases people have only played one at best.

Before blowing me off with your ignorant comments let
me add that you need to play Lakota Canyon Ranch and Pradera -- two of his most recent designs and see the process in his design evolution.

Matt, I've commented on one of Engh's courses and it was terrible, at least relative to the accolades it received.  Playing two more Engh courses isnt going to make that first one any better, is it?

Gents:

What will be really funny is when Doak finishes his work with the two layouts in Colorado and the one planned for Montana. Then all the "pro" mountain time zone folks will come crawling out of the closest and proclaiming such work is so thrilling and worthy of high praise when compared to any courses that exist not only in the immediate region but throughout the country and the world.

How painfully transparent and preferential.

Matt, I've got newwwwwwwws for you, partner, you don't own the Mountain Time Zone, and neither do the few architects who have thus far been marking their territory on every tree they pass.  

The Mountain Time Zone has vast potential for good to great golf.  In fact that is one reason I've been hard on many of the designs I've seen there--  They have failed to tap that great potential, and failed to build courses worthy of their surroundings.   Now perhaps this is changing-- I haven't seen Black Mesa but people I trust (read: not you) have told me it is worth a look; and while Engh miserably botched Black Rock, maybe he got it right elsewhere.  

So if I am ever fortunate enough to see Doak's course in Mt (I get to Colorado much less), or Weiskopf's or Fazio's for that matter, I'll bring my same standard to those courses.  

I have nothing against Tom Doak and his extremely talented skills and that of his team but the idea that "others" in the design business cannot reach a high bar of performance is clearly evident of a desired preference at best and a clear bias at worst.

Geez, Matt dont you think it a bit early to be screaming bias.   How presumptuous of you to start judging Doak's work before it is even built.   This stuff hasnt been built, so not even you have seen them yet!  So how do you know what sort of accolades, if any, the work deserves?  I am really tired of you judging courses with your fat butt securely jammed in your computer chair.  

[Craig Sweet]

There is certainly plenty of potential for great golf courses here in Montana. I am sure, given what I have seen, and know of that piece of land in Deer Lodge, that Tom Doak will build a great golf course. Unless of course he suffers a severe brain cramp  

However, there is currently little in Montana that would be considered a "good" golf course, much less a great golf course. I have high hopes for Brian Curleys Canyon River in East Missoula, and Farbers Phantom Hills in Missoula is growing on me with each play. The Old Works is nice, but the wide fairways, and mounds that move tee shots to the middle of the fairways, are distracting.

So it might be only a matter of time before the Big Sky state is giving Colorado a run for its golf money.

[Mike_Young]

Why does this board use over three pages of post to discuss a topic such as this.  No matter how good the course is, and with all due respect to Cary and his opinion, it just cannot be a top 10 course at this time.  
However, parity has made it where there are many fine courses but top 10 is a HUGE statement. JMO

[cary lichtenstein]

If I can draw a parallel between golf architecture and fine art, at one time all the great artists were landscape and portrait guys trying to capture real life scenes on canvas.

Then came a wave of different types of art, and I am sure that at first, the GCA guys of the 18th century made fun of these new artists, Matisse, Cezannne, Van Gogh, Rembrandt, and then came a newer wave of artists, Picasso, Dali, Roy Lichtenstein (no relation), and these guys were dirt poor at first and sold there paintings for food.

So whaat happened? These guys were just ahead of their time, and over time the world matured and recognized that not everything has to be as it was...that other forms of art can coexist at the same time and be appreciated.

All I ask is that those of you who are intelligent and openminded take a look at somethiing other than Doak, Coore and Crenshaw, etc. They do excellent work to be sure, but not all of it is excellent and to just worship their work and embrace it 100% and ignore the other architects who are cutting new ground and doing fine work is to ignore the Picasso and Van Gogh's....

[Craig Sweet]

Personally, I think the idea of a "top 10" or "top 100" course ranking is absurd. You might as well be ranking Thruways or Interstate Highways.

Certainly, there are features, locations,etc.etc. that might make a course unique,beautiful,fun,challenging....but to me, ranking shows a total lack of respect for "the course". As soon as you rank it, you look for something "better" to rank higher...it is the worst of human nature.

[Michael Dugger]

I think there is a lot of truth in what Mr. Doak said, everyone probably does have a favorite or two that no one else sees the genius in.

He also makes quite an argument in asking do any of the holes at Lakota surpasses those at Cypress Point, Pine Valley, NGLA, etc?

The answer is probably no, they do not, but that's not to disparage them by any means.

Geez, everyone is awfully testy around these parts, partner!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()