Quick questions with Jim Engh

[Jay Flemma]

Tom:  I dont know anything about _____ dunes that you mentioned, but compared to what else charges, $60 fossil is a steal.

Tim:

With great respect, just cause something is new and different doesn't make it goofy.  Jim's "new" ideas are really spit-shined variations of solid design concepts he brought over from scotland and ireland.  Maybe the muscle bunkers are novel, but I like their shape.  They are no more unusual a shape than the baroque trapeziods of Raynor or the "Green Monsters" of Silva.

I would agree with point Matt ward makes...you need to see this course for yourself before just writing it off.  Playignn iot with Jim, I got to hear him explain how he derived alot of the holes from the UK.  Yeah...somethings were a little different like keeping the chimney in the fairway on 1, but lets get real here for a second...and forgive me for shouting in caps, but we are losing the forest for the trees here on fossil trace...

NEWS FLASH PEOPLE.:P  JIM WAS TRYING TO BUILD A NICE MUNI FOR A SMALL TOWN...NOT NGLA.

The course is a) beautiful, b) a solid, fun challenge, c) a historical museum as well!!!! and d) $60...noones clamoringh to have a US Open there, so let Jim try some new ideas out.  Everything he does, he executes well no matter what anyway.

What's not to like???

Lets not over think this...

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

If you expect to have credibility in my eyes -- yes -- you'd better play it in order to have some real standing.

I can lob opinions on a range of subjects. I take much more seriously those opinions based on personal and direct connections.

I could care less whether you ever play Fossil Trace. But how would you like it if someone criticized either you or something you have created and simply did so by the armchair quarterback analysis from photos alone?

Let me also point out that when the word "contrived" as applied it is without question not complimentary in any sense of the word. When something is defined as "contrived" is meant as a negative. You can spin it anyway you like but let's be clear -- this assinine approach of opining from photos is major league BS and only serves to reinforce the opinions of a good number of people that too many people on GCA are more interested in barking one thing or another and fail to do their personal homework.

Tim -- if there'a any "full stop" it should apply to you making comments that you simply don't really understand. End of story.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom:  I dont know anything about _____ dunes that you mentioned, but compared to what else charges, $60 fossil is a steal.

Tim:

You seriously don't know anything about Riverdale Dunes?  That's odd.  It's received quite a lot of accolades.  It's been a few years since I've been there, but unless it's massively deteriorated (which I have no reason to believe) it remains one hell of a great golf course.  And if it's $34 - which it is - it remains hard for me to call any other "muni" a "steal."

Riverdale Dunes is a steal.  Fossil Trace seems to be a decent value.  Read Kirk Gill's post on the previous page - he lives there - he had a tough time calling it a "steal."

See, it is all relative.

TH

ps - oh God am I tempted to throw out the Flemma/Ward doctrine of "go play it and you'll understand, what the hell are you waiting for?".  But see what a nice guy I am?  No mention of it.  

[Kirk Gill]

FT might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it certainly compares favorably with, say, Arrowhead Golf Club, a RTJ Jr. design that winds around some very impressive rock formations that are most decidedly in play. A gorgeous place, but not a great course, imho, and certainly more expensive than FT. Speaking of art, generally, I tend to gravitate towards artists and art that polarize opinion. It seems like that's where the chances are being taken, and where something out of the ordinary can be had.

Fossil Trace is like that. Maybe Jim Engh is like that. I'm going to play Pradera this summer, and can hopefully check in with some photos then.

Mr. Flemma - Riverdale Dunes, mentioned by Mr. Huckaby, is a public-access course designed by Pete and Perry Dye.

[Tim Pitner]

Tom H, Riverdale Dunes is still the best public course in Denver that I've played.  And Matt, I've played it countless times so I guess I'm qualified to render an opinion on it.

Jay, I agree with what you say--new doesn't equate to goofy.  But, as someone who prefers traditional-type courses, I approach attempts at novelty with some skepticism.  Red Hawk made me think that Engh goes overboard at times and certain photos furthered that thought, but I will reserve final judgment until I've played more of his courses.

Matt, your level of invective has gone up, but you still haven't answered my criticism of the rockpile on #15 or my point (citing Stone Harbor) that certain opinions can be legitimately made based on photos.  

Now, I'm going to gently back out of this hornet's nest--I have nothing against Jim Engh; I'm just not sure his designs appeal that much to me.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom H, Riverdale Dunes is still the best public course in Denver that I've played.  And Matt, I've played it countless times so I guess I'm qualified to render an opinion on it.

Tim - thanks.  I sure thought it was pretty damn great.  And at $34, well... we truly do know what's a steal and what's not, don't we?

 

[Aidan Bradley]

Kirk,

Since you mentioned Arrowhead........forgive me for sliding in the back door on this thread!!!!!!

[Tim Pitner]

I haven't played Arrowhead, but . . . (just kidding).  I hike in this area quite a bit; as you can tell, the rock formations are stunning.

[PThomas]

I think we need a GCA Jim Engh outing!

[cary lichtenstein]

How about an Engh Ryder Cup?

Walkers and Minialists

vs.

The rest of us

W and M vs. R and U

[PThomas]

But Cary, if the Rest of Us make the Walkers walk some of ENgh courses, from what I've read here, they will just wear them down!

[Matt_Ward]

Cary:

We should have the match at Lakota Canyon so all these huckleberries will finally be able to appreciate the skills of Jim Engh.

Those who are committed to walking can knock themselves out at will. It should not be that demanding a walk -- save for the climb up to the championship tee at #8 !!!

[Tim Pitner]

Matt, I'd prefer Carne--more natural and walkable (presumably).

[Jay Flemma]

Kirk:  Respectfully, that was a cheap shot to compare FT to Arrowhead.  Arrowhead is just a pretty face with little or no strategic consequence.  FT has a great string of "lines of charm" all over the golf course...just because the stretegy looks a little 21st century on the ground is no reason to not "look closer" at the actual hole strategy.

You should liike Pradera the most...on the ground it has the fewest bells whistles and buzzers and has the best and strongest lines of charm.  My recommendations for best holes are 7, 10, 17 and 18.

I have to say...19 is quite good too.' '  Its one terrific clubhouse.  Its a steal at 33K.  I'm giving serious consideration to becoming a member.

If we are gonna have an Engh party there is no choice in the matter...we have to play Pradera.  We have to...its his highest point to date...all his best strategy, more perpendicular hazards, muscle bunkers (which I like...except when I get on them) and no waterfalls or other bright shiny objects...just EPIC golf.  There's some Irish flavor, (2 and 6) some scottish flavor ( some on the front and 16), some pinehurst flavor (10 and 17) and some mackenzie (7 and 18)

And lets keep it simple, none of this minimalists and walkers crap, cause that will put Jim's detractors and supporters on the same side.

The heck with that!!!: ' '  I like Jim Engh and think he's a great deisgner and will take you all on one at a time or in a bunch to back it up!' '  So lets do this the right way:  Engh-heads vs. haters.
Oh...one last thing...Jim plays for us to!' '

[Tom Huckaby]

Jay - I'm just curious what side you think I would be on in these matches?

I've got zero against Engh and ride all the time.

I just figure others are doing designs that are better for the game.

 

[Jay Flemma]

I know we'll be on the same side in other battles, but on this occasion, you'll have to decide for yourself.  I would imagine that since you seem more eager to defend walking and think others are better for the game, that you'd allow me the opportunity...on the ground in colorado...to show you why Jim is so good for the game...but people dont notice because writers and raters are to often focusing on natural setting and not the subtle strategy.

This thread is a microcosm of the debate...because Jim gets great sites and has some shiny new bunkers and MAY OCCASIONALLY use a little to much water and added a couple waterfalls where told to people miss what really makes him better than the guys that get the other great sites.

He's giving us strategy and solid design concepts form the UK...

You know...Pete dye had the same problem when he canme back from his K trips and he turned out just fine.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jay:

I figured you'd take it this way.  You have me all wrong.  This has nothing to do with subtle strategy, or skill in making fun courses out of severe sites, or any of the things Engh seems to be so good at, or any of the things others find him bad at (too much water as you say, bunkering issues, whatever).

It has to do with building courses that are affordable and walkable.  Again, I can't see how anything I'd see at Lakota in person would make those two things come true.  You - and Matt - keep pointing to issues that to me are beside the point.  I've fleshed this out a little better in the thread I started yesterday - New Way to Prioritize Praise - if you have time, check that out.

So the bottom line is this:  if a match is to be held with Engh supporters v. Engh haters and it's based on design skill, I'd not have a team.  If it's based on doing things that in the end are good for the game, well I suppose I'd have to go on the hater team.  But "hate" is a very strong word, and I sincerely would not want to generalize that about Mr. Engh. My thoughts in this thread are very much more about the general trend than specifically what he's done.  His words do continue to bother me, but again the proof will be in the courses.  But in the end he just seems to be part of a trend and it's the trend I am against, not him specifically.

I guess the bottom line is this:  you and Matt would seem to think a course can be so great in terms of strategy, design, whatever you find important, that affordability and walkability issues won't matter at all - they will be overwhelmed by the greatness in other areas.  I gather some of these Engh courses bear that out for you.

For me, if they're neither affordable nor walkable, they can still be GREAT, but they're just categorized differently.  Check out my other thread.

TH

[Jay Flemma]

Jay:

I figured you'd take it this way.  You have me all wrong.  This has nothing to do with subtle strategy, or skill in making fun courses out of severe sites, or any of the things Engh seems to be so good at, or any of the things others find him bad at (too much water as you say, bunkering issues, whatever).

It has to do with building courses that are affordable and walkable.  Again, I can't see how anything I'd see at Lakota in person would make those two things come true.  You - and Matt - keep pointing to issues that to me are beside the point.  I've fleshed this out a little better in the thread I started yesterday - New Way to Prioritize Praise - if you have time, check that out.


I guess the bottom line is this:  you and Matt would seem to think a course can be so great in terms of strategy, design, whatever you find important, that affordability and walkability issues won't matter at all - they will be overwhelmed by the greatness in other areas.  I gather some of these Engh courses bear that out for you.

Well you guess WRONG.  

Value is one of the three most important factors I look for in a course.  Have you perhaps considered that your criteria may need a tiny bit of broadening instead?  Maybe you over inflate walkability and really need to drop an extra $20 once in a while?

Lakota is an EXTREME example.  It is not indicative of trend in my rankings.

God loves wonderous variety...in people AND in golf courses.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jay:

You obviously didn't take the time to read my thoughts in the other thread.  Please do.

Because again, you have me wrong - every single part of what you just wrote.

BTW, as I've told you before, I KNOW you give value to affordability.  As I've told you before, I KNOW you include that in your rating system.  As I've told you before, I've cited you in examples here trying to explain to others that that does matter.

This isn't a binary thing, Jay.  Please do read the other thread.  It's just a way to categorize and for some who believe in it, a way to prioritize.

Drop another $20?  I'm gonna ignore that in terms of peace.  Too much of that though and I'm gonna start asking how much YOU actually pay to play this game.  

TH

[Kirk Gill]

Kirk:  Respectfully, that was a cheap shot to compare FT to Arrowhead.  Arrowhead is just a pretty face with little or no strategic consequence.

Saying FT "compares favorably" was a poor choice of words on my part. I hoped to convey that while both are right up against the front range and contain some interesting rock formations, FT is a superior course. Arrowhead is high in eye-candy factor (as evidenced by Aidan Bradley's beautiful photos), but little else.

If an Engh event is held at Pradera, all are invited to my house for bbq, as I'm less than 5 miles from the course, although I am not a member of the club.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean - very eloquently stated and I concur completely.  That's the essence of my silly quadrants in that other thread.  Not that cartball golf can't be great fun, or for purpose of this show great design skill if done on a severe site making the carts necessary... but that it just is a different game - a game I play and enjoy all the time, as I am not a militant walker.  But I do so understanding that I am not playing the game as it is meant to be played... and thus prefer to classify courses accordingly.

Of course I also add affordability to the mix, as does Jay when he does his ratings.  I do think that matters, at least in the public realm here in the US.  Again, the cost to play takes nothing away from the design greatness - not directly anyway - it just is another means of classification.

TH

[Tom_Doak]

Tom H:

I understand WHY you want to reward affordability.

But affordability is a product of supply and demand and the going rate in any given market.  There are very few golf courses that don't charge just as much as they think they can get for a round of golf and keep the course reasonably busy -- such as those donated by philanthropists (Ken Kavanaugh's course in Wyoming, The Rawls Course) or courses funded by other outside forces (munis, Old Works which was Superfunded).  Those may deserve special praise, but they're a small subset.

So a really great course is a victim of its own success according to your system.  If it commands higher prices, it loses points.  Again, I understand why you want to do that, but it doesn't have much bearing on the real world of design or of pricing.

[Brent Hutto]

Sean,

Nowadays in the US, the financial justification for building most courses (at least the ones that aren't super high-end) is the real estate development that surrounds the course, not the green fees. Now of course design can impact maintanence cost but basically that "absolute minimum per round" that you mention is more a function of covering operating costs than justifying up-front investment.

I think the area where I live is like most others, there's no way someone is going to build a non-housing dominated golf course because it's market suicide. If a given course sans housing would have to charge $70/round to cover their up-front investment plus operating costs and there are several other courses in town that charge $50/round and offer putatively the same quality golf course (if you ignore the spread-out routing and constant houses in play on one side or the other of most holes) because they don't have to cover the cost of paying down that $5,000,000+ investment...well, I think we can guess how many rounds that $70/round course will get versus the others.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

Cost factors have a lot to do with what golf course developers would LIKE to charge for green fees.  Certainly, the more they spent on design fees, the more they think they ought to be able to charge (and sadly, they often get it on that basis alone).

But it doesn't take much time for the market to sort itself out.  The best course in a given area can charge way more than others because there is a lot of demand, but as soon as you fall back in the pack, the price is determined by your competitors.  Likewise, if a developer raises the price $20 and the course stays full enough, the price will stay there or go higher, regardless of construction costs.

The "absolute minimum" green fee is the nominal maintenance cost per round.  If you can't even operate in the black, the course will close.  If it can operate in the black but never pay off the construction costs, the course may be sold down the food chain, or those costs will eventually get written off.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom D:

Thanks.  My friend Sean has carried on admirably for me here.  As Sean gets at, my issues are primarily regarding new courses being built.  Can't some aspect of classification or evaluation be setup such that the ones that are built at low-cost, and that thus can charge lower green fees, be the ones that receive the highest forms of praise?  Or at least be singled out - ie classified - as such?

I know such a thing does exist now - Golf Digest's "Best New Affordable" is what I have in mind - but my goal would be to extend that type of thinking over the whole of evaluation - first with new courses, then somehow extending it to all.

Isn't a worthy goal to make the game more affordable on better courses for one and all?

Because yes, courses can command prices that the market will bear, and we can't expect them not to.  But what if the praise is given in this manner?  What if cost becomes a very large part of the issue, over time?  As a course starts to charge more, it knows it will FALL in the rankings... So they take their risk...

I know, this is all dreamworld.  But again I refer back to the goal, which I can't see as being anything but very worthy.

TH