Quick questions with Jim Engh

[Brian_Sleeman]

Can we instantly love an architect's work based on his musical tastes?  Like Jim Engh I will travel to see Van, and I listen to his music all the time.

Ditto, though I have yet to see him.  He's #1 on my list of artists yet to see live.

[Tom Huckaby]

I am NOT referring to Golf Digest rankings...and I really have to disagree that lakota and pradera are bad for the game...p[radera is especially good for the game...I thyink its downright epic.

 lakota is solid...redlands maybe more so...from a routing perspective

Understood.  But you do know he got high praise from GD, correct?

As for these courses being good or bad for the game, well...I am basing such on reviews and pictures - the main reviews I've read being from YOU.  So while I do believe they'd each be great fun to play, well... expensive cart-ball golf is just plain bad for the game as I see things.  I have come to believe fairly recently that no course like this really deserves much praise.  This is just my opinion, and you can choose to disagree, and likely will.

We need more Rustic Canyons ($50 in an area where most non-munis go three figures) and less Lakota Canyons ($85 in an area where most are $50 or less).

That's just my take.  As fun as Lakota might be, it's not good for the game, and thus any appraisal should at the very least put it in this different category.

TH

ps - I know zero about Pradera.  Is it cartball?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Tom

Pradera is private. I doubt that they will have a caddie program.I don't know their walking policy for members. As Jay said, it's walkable but difficult to do so. I didn't walk there.

Steve

[Tom Huckaby]

Steve - thanks.  Obviously the equation is a little different for private clubs, as hell they can spend as much as they want... but still the principle of affordable golf v. extravagant expensive golf is meaningful to me, so I'd have an inherent bias against Pradera most likely.  From the website it does look like one hell of a cart-ball track, I must say.  That is more of a compliment than it sounds....

TH

[Jack_Marr]

That is a good one, Jack!

In any case, it is very likely people do hire him for severe sites - he is developing a great reputation for such.

And of course there is nothing wrong with this...

Again my issue is just how his work should be looked at.  I believe it's great for the developers, not so great for golf in general (given it's so purely cartball), thus if anything it should be given it's own category and tolerated at best, praised sparingly if at all.

TH

Tom

I have great confidence in Jim Engh with Carne. I hope it's walkable, even though I've heard it's going to be a rollercoaster ride, and the back nine is hard on the legs at the moment. I've had five operations to reconstruct my two knees due to footballing injuries. I doubt he's designing the course with me in mind, though.

[Jay Flemma]

Huck:

Of course I know how they got the high praise from GD..."duuuuuuhhhhh...da course sure is purr-dee..."
' '

My point is all his Mackenzie-like lines of charm at Pradera go unnoticed by most five handicappers who could define "shot values" from shamrocks.

Let me be quite clear...at $85 Lakota is just as good at being a good value as Rustic.  and no...its not just cart ball...Huck, its simple.  Get on a plane and check it out for yourself.  Go see the lines of charm on 16, 18 and 11.  Go see the inventive routing of the front side.  Go see exactly how the design, natural setting, conditioning and price all interact to require a really solid overrall score.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jay:

Sorry my friend but I doubt if I will ever get to any of these courses, as a I have a rather busy life outside of golf.  But way to use the Wardian defense.    Thus I am just basing this on the words of others, the main one being YOU.

And I will say it again - as great as the individual golf holes might be (and I take your word they are such), if it's cartball, it's in the separate category.   If it's too expensive, that matters as well as it's bad for golf.

And sorry, there's no way it's as good of a value as Rustic Canyon - please.  Relate it to the costs around it.  I don't care if it's Pine Freakin' Valley - it's too expensive.

 

Oh well.  To each his own.  But please do go ahead and rip GD some more, remembering all the while that they agree WITH YOU.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Jack:

That's the worry I'd have re Carne... given Engh's words, well... here's hoping he transcends such and respects the walking game.  I hope he does - he has a great chance to put a lot of this to rest.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Jay - one more thing - please do understand I am not at all saying great golf isn't to be found at these Engh courses.  I fully believe you and Matt and others who sing their praises.  if I lived anywhere near, I'd play them in a heartbeat - I'd likely not feel that great about the cost, but I'd gulp and pay it.

My sole and only point is this:  as overly expensive cart-ball tracks, they are bad for the game, no matter how great the individual golf holes are or how ingeniously they are routed over difficult sites.  Therefore if praise is to be given, it should be tempered by this.  My suggestion is a separate category; there are those more strident than I who would say they aren't even golf courses.  

That's it.

TH

[Jay Flemma]

The "rip on GD" is because they let any chump with a five handicap...or who lies about a five handicap...rate for them...with ZERO training.  I took one GD rater to Tobacco Road and you know what he did?  He shot 85, told everybody he shot 79, took a mulligan on 18 after hitting his approach shot in the woods, (A mulligan on 18!!!)  then he panned it...saying "he'd never seen anything like it" and that it "was the britney spears of golf courses...all glam and no substance."

I also rip them  because the count "shot values"...a term the ASGCA even says has no discernable and agreeable meaning TWO TIMES in their rankings.

If you look at thye witches brew which is their rankings criteria and LITERALLY TRANSLATE the criteria...a) design is nowehere to be found except for "a roughly equal balance of right to left holes and right to left holes and long-short" and b) boils to pure subjectivity, so they can do whatever they "are feelin'" right at that moment.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jay - fair enough, but let's stick to the topic here.  Remember also as I stated, I am a GD panelist and rather proud of it.  So do you REALLY want to get into this?  We can if you like, but it's probably better to take off-line.  This forum has heard more than enough of me defending GD's rating system against the countless detractors in here - and I do firmly believe that in terms of criteria, it is the best and most realistic of all of the magazines.  If you wish we can go over this point for point, as you are pretty much way off in your statements in that last post, but it's probably best to leave it as is, given the MANY battles over this before in this forum and thus the very very tired nature of the subject.  But if you wish to discuss this and perhaps learn how it really works, well please do IM or email.  If not, well I'll just chalk you up to the standard tired rip, I guess.  I just do find it interesting - and pretty damned funny - that you rip a system that came to exactly the same conclusions you did about the courses we are discussing in this thread.

 

So care to state anything more regarding my position on Engh's courses?  I do believe it's rather sound.  But I also do respect your opinions and believe I could learn from them.

TH

[George Pazin]

NEVER TRUST A RATER.

Words to live by....

(Disclaimer: Everyone should know I'm kidding, some of my best friends are raters.)

My hope for Carne is that Engh doesn't just put all the tees perched up high, and preserves some of the quirkiness that Irish golf seems to possess.

As for the comments, Jay, do you think he might have modified what he was saying, knowing whom he was addressing? He might claim to love walking and design with walking in mind, but it sounds more like his comments to the other interviewer about designing for the rider are more reflective of what he actually produces.

Somehow I can't quite wrap my mind around Huck travelling to middle America to play Engh's Colorado courses, when another course is a mere few hours drive away. I'm probably the same way.

[John Kavanaugh]

Somehow I can't quite wrap my mind around Huck travelling to middle America to play Engh's Colorado courses, when another course is a mere few hours drive away. I'm probably the same way.

Then Huck is rating for all the wrong reasons...Like Engh he is more interested in what is good for him and his family than the game of golf.  

[Tom Huckaby]

George - hell I live by those words also.

 

And you have me pretty much pegged - I can play some pretty damn fine cartball tracks at home.  So yes, my priorities if going to Colorado would likely begin with a B and end with an L and have a allynea in the middle... But that being said, in a perfect world with unlimited time and resources (you know, Matt Ward's life) hell yes I'd play these courses.  As cart-ball as they are, they do sound very interesting to me.  And as you also know, I'll play anywhere and I ride all the time.  My issue isn't where I want to play... Just which courses I feel ought to be praised.

And if they're cart-ball, they get no praise, just tolerance.

As much as I would have very guilty pleasure playing them.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

JK:

Well if you take George's words as 100% gospel, than you are correct.

However, I do play LOTS of cartball courses... hell all 4 of the courses I am assigned to do for Best New this year are such without a doubt, and I'm sure as hell not skipping them.  Any ratings I do on top of that would be based on need, as defined by the magazine, or on if I am allowed to get the hell out of the house, which is doubtful save for KP-V.

So with all due respect, you can bite me.  And while you're at it, please do point to where I said all of my own personal actions are for the good of the game.  I fail at this all the time, and know it and pay my penance for it.

 

[Jay Flemma]

OK everybody lets relax here!' '

Are we doing mackenzie proud here or what?!  Discussing GCA as though the fate of British Hegemony were at stake!!!(' ')' '

Huck, I totally respect your opinion and KNOW that you can interpret the GD criteria quite intelligently.  please dont let the fact that I'm writing briskly ovet the net be interpreted any more than in a spirit of collegiality or in a manner I would not use as if we were having dinner together.

Here is the point...perhaps Jim does not have anywhere as medieval an attitude towards walkers as some might have interpreted recently.

Also...for the sake of clarity and as I'm relatively new here:

Please afford us a rough working definition of how you define cartball...that way I have some parameters to discuss.

[John Kavanaugh]

Huck,

People like me sit on this site up to our ears in raters and walkers and then see cart ball courses get praised year after year in the rankings.  Then you come on here and bash a perfectly nice architect because he builds cart ball courses...Not satisfied you indicate you will choose to skip the designs you bash to play a walking only layout that meets your tastes.   Where is the good in this process...who wins but you..I don't have a problem with you playing courses you love..just don't bash those who build or love the courses you don't.  You have the ticket to do something about it....It just gets in the way of your little me, me world..

[Tom Huckaby]

Jay - sounds good to me.  And though it doesn't sound like it in these words, well I've been smiling throughout - even when (and maybe especially when) I told JK to bite me.  

I am having a hard time getting my head around Engh caring about walking when the words from that other interview exist.  And no he is no golf Satan.  But if those words are true, he's closer to that than he is to MacKenzie god-hood.  

In any case, I'd define cartball as a course where it's just far more sensible to take a cart than it is to walk.  That is, sure Pradera CAN be walked, as you did.  Hell there's another one out here called Pasadera (interesting coincidence) that some fools - er I mean regulars here - walked also, but what was the point?  That one has miles of hikes from green to tee, some of which feature hundreds of feet of elevation change traversed only via switch-back cart pathpaths.  It comes down to this:  of course ANY golf course CAN be walked.   A cartball track is one at which one does so only to prove a point.

But if that doesn't work or is far too subjective, then look at it this way - any of these would define a cartball track:

1. Carts required, or paid for whether you use them or not;

2. Green to tee distance greater than a long par three on at least 2-3 holes (I supposed we can forgive one or two if the rest of the course is easily walkable);

3. Elevation changes such that even one in decent shape is huffing and puffing too much.  (Too subjective, I know, but we need something about elevation change).

Maybe this works.

Note under these definitions, there is not a single cartball course in all of the UK or Ireland.  Even the most hilly don't tend to get one huffing that much.   But I bet someone finds an exception.... the answer to which will be, well point to the actual cart use!

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck,

People like me sit on this site up to our ears in raters and walkers and then see cart ball courses get praised year after year in the rankings.  Then you come on here and bash a perfectly nice architect because he builds cart ball courses...Not satisfied you indicate you will choose to skip the designs you bash to play a walking only layout that meets your tastes.   Where is the good in this process...who wins but you..I don't have a problem with you playing courses you love..just don't bash those who build or love the courses you don't.  You have the ticket to do something about it....It just gets in the way of your little me, me world..

JK:

Where did I say I'd skip his designs?  If I lived anywhere near there, likely I'd be assigned to do them, and I'd happily do so.  I also said that I'd love to play his courses, but only that Ballyneal would be a higher priority for me.  I also said there is no doubt I personally would have great fun on his courses - you can take that to mean I'd like them very much.  I also have not bashed his designs, but have been very careful to say I believe Jay (and by extension Matt) that they likely have quite a few great holes and ingenious routings.  And again, as I've stated many times (mostly in the other thread on the subject) it's not his designs I am commenting on... it's his WORDS.  He said he doesn't care about walkers and doesn't design for them, because 90% of golfers don't walk anyway.  As true as that might be and as practical as it might be, those words are NOT keeping the good of the game in mind.  Again, he has his realities I'm sure and can't be faulted for putting food on his family's table.  We just should not praise his designs if this is his philosophy - or at least poase them in the different manner, which I have suggested.

I offered that these courses be put in another category, separate from courses that are good for the game - and in this category, they can and should be praised as much as they deserve.

That's it.  That would be good for the game.  Of course it's not going to happen, but I can lobby and dream.

Outside of that, I do what I can within the system in which I participate.  I see all courses I can, cartball or not.  I give honest assessments based on the criteria I am given.  This is all I can do.

Careful with giving me beliefs I don't have, John.

TH

[John Kavanaugh]

I just do find them bad for the game, thus I don't believe they ought to get the type of praise they are getting.  I offered that they be put in another category, separate from courses that are good for the game - and in this category, they can and should be praised as much as they deserve.

Huck,

How are his courses bad for the game if they are not ranked.  There are thousands of courses out there with zero influence on the game..neither bad nor good.  The bad happens when Golf Digest and Golfweek tells the public they are great courses through their ranking systems.  You my friend are what's bad for the game..Not a stupid mixture of grass, dirt and sand in some mountain 1000 miles from everything.  You and a ton of people on this board have more power than most to dictate what succeeds and what doesn't...use it properly or shut up and take advantage.  Either way is fine by me but having it both ways stinks to high heaven..

[Tom Huckaby]

JK:

Fair enough.  I completely agree that a system that praises courses like Engh's is bad for the game.  I've only said that about 20 times in 25 different ways - glad you finally picked up on it!

So what am I to do, as a GD panelist?  Quit and let it happen?  Or continue to participate and hopefully use my views to make for a change?

I'm choosing the latter.  I'm sorry you don't see this.  Want me to send you a list of all courses I've done ratings for and the numerical assessments I've given?  Outside of that, I'm wondering what the hell you expect me to do, as one voice out of 800.

In any case, yes, praise of these courses is the worst part of this - why the hell do you think I'm spending so much time and effort on this issue?

BUT... building these courses isn't exactly great for the game either.  I do believe that these courses are better than nothing - some don't even agree with that.  But affordable, walkable courses would be so much better.  Those who build these are the ones who deserve the praise.  I'll do whatever I can to see that this takes place.  What the hell more am I supposed to do?  

That's my take.  And it goes for all courses, ranked or not ranked.

TH

[Jay Flemma]

George:

Good and fair question.  In my carefully considered opinion, I really believe some people, in the best intentions, may have completely misinterpreted what Jim said.

I know Jim Engh.  The Jim Engh I know does not disrespect walkers, nor does he design without considering them.  That 90% comment was completely misapplied and blown out of proportion..

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

Good and fair question.  In my carefully considered opinion, I really believe some people, in the best intentions, may have completely misinterpreted what Jim said.

I know Jim Engh.  The Jim Engh I know does not disrespect walkers, nor does he design without considering them.  That 90% comment was completely misapplied and blown out of proportion..

Jay - I can only comment on what was written.  It seemed to me to be a fair summation of his views, confirmed by how his better-known courses are described.

Can you point us to a few affordable, walkable courses he's designed?  That would go a long way toward allowing acceptance that that other writer somehow completely botched Engh's views.

In any case, this need not - and shoudln't be - about Engh personally.  As JK pointed out, it's the system that's the problem, not Engh so much.  Engh is just a very convenient scapegoat given those words plus what his courses seem to show.

We just plain can't keep heaping praise on overly expensive cart-ball courses.

THAT is the point of all of this.

TH

[Jay Flemma]

Huck:

Please, please please understand this point...I keep repeating it and you keep missing it...

The article was not a correct summation of his views.  Moreover, others have overly scrutinized and dissected the "dicta"   i.e. comments in passing as full blown design philosophy.

Some people are overthinking this.

You want courses, I'll give them to you, but until you go play them and see for yourself, perhaps severe criticism might be pre-mature.

Go see Fossil trace, Redlands Mesa, Red Hawk Ridge and Pradera

[Tim Pitner]

As someone who was critical of the comments attributed to Mr. Engh in the magazine article, I was relucant to wade into Round 2 of this debate.  I agree with much of what Tom H. says but I would phrase it a little differently.  I don't know that cart-ball courses need to be analyzed in a separate category.  I do know that, for me, such courses can never rise to a certain level, although I'm not positive what that glass ceiling is.  Certainly, a cart-ball course could never rate a Doak 10; probably not even an 8 or 9.  Maybe a 7 is the maximum.  

As a Coloradoan, I'll have opportunities to play Lakota, Redlands Mesa and Pradera--I haven't yet, but I will.  I hope that Engh employed a softer touch there than he did at Red Hawk Ridge, the only Engh course I've played.  Based on Red Hawk Ridge (and I'm not suggesting that Engh can be judged based on this course, one of his lesser works), it seems that Engh doesn't do subtle and, in trying for originality, sometimes ends up with gimmicky (see also Fossil Trace).  I read a quote from Engh (in an article about his involvement with Carne) in which he said, essentially, that architects come in two varieties--dirt guys and golf guys and he's a dirt guy.  Well, he can move the dirt artfully enough, but I wish he were more of a golf guy.