Quick questions with Jim Engh

[Pete Lavallee]

Jay,

I'm sure Jim's a great guy, but, when you say "90% of people ride ride , so why cater to the other 10% who walk..." how can that be misinterperted. As the Huckster says actions speak louder than words and his most popular courses cater to riders offering views during the ascent to next perched tee box. Was Jim Engh misquoted in the article?

[Tom Huckaby]

Jay:

I'm not missing anything.  I hear what you're saying.  Forgive me though but I am asking for a little bit more.

It is quite unlikely I will ever play those courses.  And before JK goes ballistic against me again, it's not by choice, but by reality.  If I do get to Colorado, I will seek them out.  I just don't see myself getting there any time soon, with any great amount of time.

So telling me to go play them doesn't help at all.  And note I have not offered any criticism of any of them at any point in this.  I am just taking YOUR descriptions of them, coupled with those of Matt and others, plus the pictures that I've seen, as evidence of the affordability or walkability.  Obviously I cannot critique them, having not seen them.  And I have not attempted to do such.

The question isn't their overall quality.  I too have said many times - and you keep missing it - that I take your word for that.

The question is his statement, evidenced by the seeming lack of walkability nor affordability at any of his designs.

So just answer simply:  which of his courses, if any, are NOT cartball as per my previous definition?  Which, if any, are affordable?

You want to make this about quality.  As they say in your profession, that is stipulated.

If he does have a few designs that are affordable and walkable, then great - his words to that other writer could well be taken as just a throwaway comment in the heat of the moment, never intended to be any great overarching philosophy.

BUT... absent some evidence from his designs where affordability and walkability are present, well... hopefully you can understand my position.

TH

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Tom

Take a look at Fossil Trace in Golden, CO:

18 Hole Fees     Mon-Thurs     Fri-Sun
Golden Resident    $41    $46
Jeffco Resident    $46    $51
Non Jeffco Resident    $51    $56
Golden Senior           $31    $46
Jeffco Senior          $36    $51
Non Jeffco Senior    $41    $56
All Juniors             $28    $46

www.fossiltrace.com

[Tom Huckaby]

Steve - fantastic!  Others have posted pictures of that and described it.  Looks to be a decent deal affordability-wise for CO area.  How's the walkability?

It does look really quirky and cool in pics.

 

[Tim Pitner]

What is that pile of rocks doing on Fossil Trace #15?  Is that the "fossil trace"?  I'll reserve final judgment until I play it, but I don't care for the look of the course at all.  

Jay, I was surprised to see Red Hawk Ridge on your list of recommended Engh courses.  #1 is a par 5 that I've reached with driver, LW (and I'm not that big of a hitter). #18 is a par 5, elevated tee, with a strip of rough bisecting the fairway at about 270-280 yards--right where you can reach it with driver from an elevated tee and at altitude.  Still, it can be reached with a mid to short iron.  In between are several mediocre and sometimes repetitive holes.  With all due respect to Mr. Engh and anyone else affiliated with it, Red Hawk Ridge is one of the few courses anywhere that I've vowed never to play again.  

[Tim Pitner]

Oh, and Red Hawk Ridge is cart-ball all the way.

[Jay Flemma]

Tim:

Look behind the rocks!  Jim hid a wide tongeu of fairway that leads straight nto the back of the green!!

Click here to see and read about it:

http://www.golfobserver.com/features/flemma/fossiltrace_011706.html

Jim calls it a hidden staircase and puts alot of them in his designs.  Like all great UK courses, his courses have secret tongues of fairway and hidden thinigs that lead tyo the green or to shortcuts.  Those rocks are an optica

l illyusion.  If you look at the pics in my article, you see their genius!

And BTW-Red hawk is not cart golf. Nowehere near Lakota fpor that.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim P:

Red Hawk Ridge is not vintage Engh. Play Lakota Canyon and Pradera and then let me and others know your thoughts. Red Hawk Ridge is Engh level 101 design. The aforementioned layouts are a good ways beyond that and are easily among the top 100 modern layouts I have played in the USA.

Gents:

I would urge those who don't really comprehend what Jim Engh designs to play his courses instead of taking such a limited perspective that if carts are needed then the qualities of the respective courses are less so in terms of pure architecture.

Engh has had to deal with some of the most demanding sites one can imagine. While I am not a fan of some of his works -- e.g. Sanctuary comes to mind, I applaud his tremendous skill in getting the most out of many of these sites (see Pradera, Lakota Canyon, Fossil Trace, etc, etc) given either elevation or limited acreage sites.

From the 10 layouts I have personally played you will not come away with the feeling that Engh doesn't provide "fun" layouts. They are always that and they make the player eager for the next round -- the next shot -- the next hole.

If having a cart is a major turn-off then so be it. I have already opined on what I feel is the appropriate role of carts and their impact on architecture.

 

Tom D:

Forgive me for not responding sooner to your post.

Allow me to fully flush out my response.

Tom -- you are a contemporary and let's be very clear a competitor in the same field as Jim Engh. I admire particular works both of you have done and I have had the opportunity to sample a good number of the different courses you have both designed. Some are indeed stellar -- some less so.

Tom -- I didn't say people have to see & play EVERYTHING. What I have said and continue to say is that too many people here on GCA go beyond their individual opinion of the limited courses they do play and then make it a point to EXTRAPOLATE some cement like findings on the person in question. This has happened with a broad range of architects -- most notably Tom Fazio, to name just one.

I have played no less than 10 Engh designs. On this site there are likely no more than a mere handful at best who have played more than three (3). Does that make my opinion bulletproof? No -- but it does come from a more representative sampling size than those who simply play one or two.

I would hope that people who provide critical commentary would make it a point to keep their comments limited to the specifics of what they have played and avoid sweeping broad brush condemnations.

Due diligence may be difficult for many but it should not be so quickly discarded or thought less so for those who do the heavy lifting in making personal site visits and play the courses in question. You said, "There are still tons of people on here who haven't seen much of the work of H.S. Colt or Tom Simpson or Bill Langford or any one of 100 other architects." I don't doubt that's true -- but the issue on this particular thread deals with Jim Engh.  

Let me mention that architects do evolve over time. Take the example of Jack Nicklaus. His work has gone through extensive evolution and those who only played / sampled courses of his from the earliest times may be limiting themselves because of not being able / or desiring, to play a number of his one recent efforts.

The idea that an architect is "fixed" on a particular style or expression of their handiwork doesn't always ring true. It's also no less important to keep an open mind on any new efforts that come down the pike. Too many people can form an opinion of earlier work and simply go down the path that if you seen one "X" designed course then you have seen them all.

You say that after three courses people can draw conclusion on whether they like an architect's work or not. I would hope the sample size is a bit more in-depth than that. Too often -- there are opinions of people here on GCA -- I can remember the opinions of people, including yourself, on the posted photo of #18 at Lakota Canyon Ranch. Frankly, people jumped the critical gun without playing the hole. I have played it several times and know full well -- more than just what a photo can provide -- on the merits of that hole.

[Tim Pitner]

Jay, I'd say the rocks are more of an eyesore than an optical illusion.  

Re: Red Hawk Ridge, because it can be walked doesn't mean it isn't cartpath golf--see Huckaby's post.  I'm a strident walker and I've taken a cart each time I've played Red Hawk Ridge, as do probably about 99% of golfers there.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

Forgive me but I forget what you opined about the role of carts - care to repeat?

And my take remains what it is, what's been stated in here many times in this and the previous thread about Engh.  I'm guessing we're not far off.

It's not that taking a cart is a turn-off for me - far from it.  I do so all the time and it effects the experience not - that is if the holes and shots to be played are good enough.

No, my take is expensive cart-ball courses are bad for the game, and thus praise for such ought to be sparingly given - as ingenious as their designs might be.  Disagree?

Jay - Fossil Trace does look cool, and your review makes for an excellent read.  You just made no comment on walkability... And furthermore, how can you call that a "steal" at $60 when Riverdale Dunes is never more than $34?  I don't get it.

$60 is a steal for most parts of CA - is it really for Golden, CO?

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

I have simply said previously on the subject of carts is if the totality of their usage -- the length of rides between shots and holes is so extensive that it utterly dominates the time spent at a given course then clearly it has defeated the essence of what you want to receive when playing.

Some people feel that any mandatory usage of carts is completely wrong and needs to be eliminated. I see such a narrow point of view as being inane because sites that are used today are not devoid of some severe terrain or grade changes. I have mentioned Wolf Creek in Mesquite, NV as a course I thoroughly enjoy. Some have panned it because the role carts have when playing there. I didn't find it so overwhelming. The same can't be said for Santa Luz in SoCal that Rees Jones designed. In that case the cart rides between holes have become treks of Marco Polo dimensions.

I have not find that to be the case with what Engh has designed to date. The issue for me is less so the cart ride but the totality of the routing and the manner by which he varies the holes he creates with certain properties. Sanctuary is a marvelous ability of man to overcome the demands of such a severe site. It is no less an achievement from that perspective than Shadow Creek is with what took place there. I just didn't find the totality of the golf side of the equation to be in the same capacity for completeness and "fun" as you see with Lakota and Pradera.

Carts have to be used on a number of Engh designs in Colorado because the terrain dictated such involvement. If you ever play Hawktree in North Dakota you can walk the layout and clearly see what Engh is capable in delivering from the design side.

It will be interesting to see future Engh layouts that are outside the scope of the Rocky Mountains and for people to have played a good sampling of what he has done. To date -- many people are simply lobbing cheap left field opinions with little, if any, personal direct involvement.

[Jay Flemma]

Tim...we agree to disagree...the rocks are, to me, a stroke of strategic genius...more not less please.  But, in fairness, yes, I am one of a very few stubborn, pig-heads who would rather walk everest and finish tired than take a cart and shoot 79 and yes...few people walk Red Hawk.

Matt ward..,.amen brother.

Tom, thanks for the praise...very kind.  Yes...because its $60 and is worth alot more. it scores high value points.  here are my "Flemma Scores" for it:

Design: Five Stars
Natural Setting:  Five Stars
Conditioning – Six stars
Cost - $60
Value – Six and ½ stars
Overall – Five and ½ stars

Here's some interesting tidbits:

Questions from the test each Fossil Trace employee must pass before receiving playing privileges at the course.  

(Reprinted with permission of PGA Head Pro Jim Hajek and Fossil Trace.)

Q.   Where did the city of Golden get the land to build Fossil Trace Golf Club?

A.   Jeffco Open Space Co., The State of Colorado, Chip Parfet and the Parfet family.

Q.   How much did Fossil Trace cost to build?

A.   $14 million.

Q.   What substance was mined on the property before it became a golf course?

A.   Clay.

Q.   What holes are located where the mine was?

A.   11-15.

Q.   What is the chimney in #1 fairway and when was it used?

A.   A kiln/incinerator used in the mid-1900s

Q.   The boys’ school (Lookout Mountain Youth Service Center detention facility) was originally a farm.  Besides farming, what other activities took place on the land?

A.   Tailor, blacksmith, laundry and plumbing.

Q.   How were the dinosaur prints created?

A.   Sand and clay were piled on top of each other in a layering process and when dinosaurs stepped on the softened sand, they left behind their prints. On top of the prints more clay and sand fell into the prints solidifying them.  When the land shifted and the mountains were created, the sandstone and clay layersshifted from their horizontal position to a vertical position saving the prints and simultaneously making clay mining easy.

Q.   Name the dinosaurs whose prints were found.

A.   Triceratops and hadrosaurs.

Q.   What was the clay that was mined here used for?

A.   Brick making.

Q.   Why is there a path that goes by the fossils on #12 and who created it?

A.   Eagle scouts did it so the public could view the fossils.

Q.   On which holes are the machinery found and when were they purchased?

A.   Yard shovel (#11), Dragline bucket (#14), shovel boom (#14), all purchased in 1954 and 1956.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:  I wasn't trying to make my post personal in relation to Jim Engh, that's why I included the names of so many other architects.

But since you made it personal to Jim, okay.  Two years ago you were telling us if we hadn't seen Redlands Mesa or Black Rock we didn't know Jim Engh's work.  I went to see both of those, but now you're telling me I still don't know his work, because of Pradera and Lakota Canyon.  You keep moving the bar for him, and you do so without going back and admitting that your previous opinion of his earlier work must have been a bit high, if you've dismissed those courses now in favor of his later work.

I think Jim is one of the most creative guys out there, although I don't think I can ever become a fan of his earthmoving style.  I'm sure I'll see more of his work over time, but there are a lot of other guys practicing whose work I haven't seen at all yet.

And by the way, Matt, I think you've probably only seen one out of my best 6 or 7 courses.

P.S. to Jim Engh if you're out there -- this is way more about Matt than it is about you.

[John Kavanaugh]

So what am I to do, as a GD panelist?

Huck,

I don't know how you will get to Ballyneal without going through Colorado...simply skip playing Sand Hills again and schedule a day to play these courses you think are bad for golf and give them a fair score...Who knows, they may even change your mind.

[Tim Pitner]

Matt, I don't know if your references to people who have played only one or two Engh courses and then extrapolated was directed at me or not, but I think I've fully disclosed that I've only played Red Hawk, and don't believe that I can evaluate Mr. Engh's work based only on this course.  But, neither do I think Red Hawk can simply be discounted.  It's a very flawed course and it says something about Engh even if his later works redeem him.  You can't just throw it out (even if one would like to).  

You and Jay have repeatedly said that Engh's layouts are fun.  Red Hawk aside, that may well be true.  My point of departure may relate to the presentation of his courses.  They are a radical departure from tradition.  I look at Fossil Trace and think "goofy."  Others may love it.  There may even be an argument that these types of courses fit in well with the natural environment in Colorado.  Personally, I prefer a more traditional look.  I think looking like a golf course is a good thing.  There's room for creativity, but it seems like Engh is a bit unmoored from classic design.  

[Jack_Marr]

I wonder what Jim Engh wants his legacy to be. I've never played any of his course, so I can't comment how good or otherwise they are, but I do think they look beautiful.

Anyway, does he want to be remembered as a great architect respected by conservative architectural stallworths or does he want to be remembered as someone who built courses that a sizeable proportion of the golf playing public enjoy greatly? Who does he want to judge him?

I think his responsibility is to his employers. Are any of these unhappy with what he produces?

[Richard Phinney]

 My point of departure may relate to the presentation of his courses.  They are a radical departure from tradition.  I look at Fossil Trace and think "goofy."  Others may love it.  There may even be an argument that these types of courses fit in well with the natural environment in Colorado.  Personally, I prefer a more traditional look.  I think looking like a golf course is a good thing.  There's room for creativity, but it seems like Engh is a bit unmoored from classic design.  

hmmm....I know where you are coming from, but I wonder if any course with a tree on it doesn't depart from "classic design"   ...and is the wall at North Berwick goofy?  Would there not be 10 goofy holes at St. Andrews? Perhaps the tradition we really want to foster is the ability to go out to your local golfing ground and walk your away around and not have to pay a fortune (golf used to be free!). And that may  mean celebrating a little more than we do courses where there hasn't always been the money to make the landscape something that it isn't. That no doubt doesn't apply to Fossil Trace, but from the photographs I still admire the attempt to incorporate references to the nature of this particular landscape, and to the former use of it. The stone wall at North Berwick (or even the lighthouse at Turnberry) resonate in this way.  I'm not sure that importing a "classic" architectural style refined, for example, in England (or New Jersey or Pennsylvania) to  Colorado is always going to be the best idea (though I realise it is often a good starting point).  Just as plopping a Nicklaus or TJ course in Britain and Ireland has often seemed jarring. And any golf course that actually admits there is a social history to the place gets an extra star from me.

[Tom Huckaby]

So what am I to do, as a GD panelist?

Huck,

I don't know how you will get to Ballyneal without going through Colorado...simply skip playing Sand Hills again and schedule a day to play these courses you think are bad for golf and give them a fair score...Who knows, they may even change your mind.

And once again John, where did I ever say I WOULD NOT do exactly that?  I'd love to see these courses.  I fully believe they'd be very fun to play, and remember I personally ride all the time. But am I not allowed to prioritize?

And I'm curious why you think my mind needs to be changed.  Remember my issue here is not their quality (I take Jay's and Matt's word for that), but if they are good for golf.  As overly expensive cart-ball tracks, I see them as bad for the game.  You think that opinion would change seeing them in person?  Can I not read a rate sheet, nor take the word of others who have played them as to their walkability?

Because in the end this is silly - neither affordability nor walkability are criteria in the GD methodology anyway.  The latter was removed for this year's ratings.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Tim P:

Who said the nature of what Engh did at Red Hawk should be thrown out? I didn't.

What I did say is that the work of architect's often can evolve into finer work down the pike. That has happened with Engh and I can personally back that up by the variety of courses I have played in his portfolio.

Tim -- you say Fossil Trace is "goofy" -- please provide for me specifics. I have played the course and opined on it. Given the tight amount of acreage I would say Engh has done well for what the town of Golden was looking to get. I have issue with a few holes on the front -- the par-3 4th is really quite lame and the rest of the holes that follow on the front side are merely Ok at best. On the back nine he was faced with a series of decisions regarding routing and did quite well. I know a few people have questions on the use of the rocks that come into play on the first par-5 on the inner half. Frankly, they only come into play when poor play results.

Tim -- you admit your preference for classic designed. Great -- I can certainly comprehend your desire for such a limited type of design. I prefer my golf to be a bit more diversified. The key to keep in mind with Engh layouts is the maximization of the fun aspect and that with just a few courses he has strived to be congnizant of the role of rewarding solid play while defeating shots that are half-ass or less.


Tom D:

Since we are on the subject of full discloure -- let me point out you were the guy -- along with others here on GCA -- who downplayed (I being very PC in using such a word) the qualities of thw 18th hole at Lakota Canyon Ranch. You had not played the hole but felt obliged to offer an opinion from just a photo. I can tell you quite candidly that you didn't know what you were saying and I can say that with confidence after having played the hole a few times.

The issue is really about credibility. I don't mind people having opinions of courses they have played. I often learn a good bit from what people do say and what they conveniently leave out.

However, the idea that people can "tag" an architect with a label for whatever else comes down the pike in the future -- based simply on a limited sample size from earlier works -- is misguided at best and completely unfair at worst. I would think you would know that given the example I also added of the work of Jack Nicklaus and how it has evolved since his earliest days in design. Those who simply have an opinion from Jack's work of say 10 years or more really don't know or can appreciate what he is doing now. You call it "moving the bar" -- I would define that as being pragmatic given the range of what has since come forward and letting the record reflect that.

Jim Engh has gone beyond the likes of Redlands Mesa and Black Rock. If you are forming a permanent opinion of Engh design from those layouts alone then your assessment IMHO is flawed. Yes, he does move a good bit of earth -- but c'mon please -- how much earth did you move at The Rawls Course? And I thoroughly enjoyed what you created from absolutely nothing from such a hideous site in Lubbock.

I don't doubt that my earliest assessment of his layouts may have been a bit high. I have since added comments to a host of those earlier works -- see Sanctuary and Redlands Mesa as but two examples to provide some context. I don't develop concrete opinions as some here on GCA do. I also didn't "dismiss" his earlier works -- I simply took into account how those courses compare / contrast with a number of his more recent efforts. I call that being fair -- others may define that as they see fit.

Tom -- you are thought of like a "god" on this site by a number of people who have a very fixed and in my way of thinking -- a limited sense on what quality golf can be about. Jim Engh doesn't fit the cup of tea from these type of folks and what galls me is that too many times these same people have either never played one of his layouts (only opined from photos) or based it upon a sample size of one or two at best.

Regarding your courses I still need to play the ones that are overseas (e.g. Kidnappers, Barnbougle Dunes, etc, etc) and some of your most recent work (Sebonack, Stone Eagle & Ballyneal). I hope do that shortly. I have always withheld comments until I have played such layouts. But this thread wasn't about your success as an architect -- it is about Engh and what he has done and what his comments on the subject are.

P.S. I'd curious since you mentioned it -- please list your 6/7 best layouts to date. It would help educate me on where you see your best efforts.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

Re your opining on cartball, that's fine.  My contention remains that courses that require carts like that are just tend to be so expensive that when all is weighed, they are bad for the game.  If it's possible, I truly would rather they find more doable land and build affordable courses.  And I don't doubt Engh can do this - as I've tried to say, at least for me this is far less about Engh personally and far more about the principle of building overly expensive cart-ball tracks.  But re Engh, well... as Pete L. summed up, it's just tough to find any leeway with a guy who seems to blatantly say he doesn't care at all about the walker, and whose courses in the vast majority seem to back up the statement.  But here's hoping he does move away from that.

Jack Marr:

Of course Engh's top responsibility is to his employers - n o doubt.  As I say, this is less about him than the principle which seems to pervade all too much of today's architecture.  But I wonder how you can say he is building "courses that a sizeable proportion of the golf playing public enjoy greatly", when the reality is a larger portion of the public can't afford to play them?  That's the point here.  If he were building courses one and all could play and enjoy, I wouldn't utter a peep.  I just don't think he is, not enough anyway.  And neither are far too many architects.  That's my crusade here.  

Jay - great stuff re Fossil Trace.  But you didn't answer my question.  Is it really worth nearly twice as much as Riverdale Dunes?  I'm having a hard time seeing it as affordable, as neat as it does look.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

Keep this in mind -- you can walk a number of Engh designs. It is only the ones on the most challenging of terrains is the issue then at hand.

If carts were removed tomorrow -- the facilities would simply up the fees to reflect their loss. Clearly, the won't abandon carts because of the sheer number of people who prefer them -- even on flat sites.

Jim Engh is now moving forward with a range of designs in different areas -- I'm just as interested as any other person in seeing how he fares.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

Thanks.  I was beginning to wonder if Engh designed on ANY flat sites.  But even at those, well... given his words... well you tell me - is the walker given consideration?

Jay wants us to just disregard Engh's statement, but man that's tough to do the vast majority of what one hears about are these cartball courses on difficult sites.

As for the rest, my point is NOT that carts ought to be removed, far from it.  Again, I have nothing against carts and those who use them, as I do use them often myself.  My issue is against courses that are built PRIMARILY with carts in mind, like these famous and highly-regarded ones of Engh's.  It just seems to me indisputable that such courses cost more to build, and thus cost more to play - and thus in the balance are bad for the game.

Like I say, we need more Rustics and less Lakotas.

Here's hoping Engh produces such.  He would seem to have enormous talent, so I don't doubt he could do so.  The doubt comes about if he wants to bother to try.

TH

[John Kavanaugh]

Because in the end this is silly - neither affordability nor walkability are criteria in the GD methodology anyway.  The latter was removed for this year's ratings.

TH

Huck,

Are you telling me that as a GD rater you can not score a course with half mile green to tee walks any lower than a course with perfectly short walks..Once again...I don't believe you.  

[Tom Huckaby]

JK:

Per the exact terms of our criteria, nope, that doesn't matter a whit any more, sadly as I see things.

Of course I do firmly believe that we are human (aren't we?) and as such, bad moods can affect assessments of other criteria.  Thus horrid green to tee walks could effect the Memorability and Ambience criteria.  But one could also take those very strictly and give zero effect.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

Let me clear one thing up -- I don't want less Lakotas if the finished product is what Lakota Canyon Ranch is now. Lakota doesn't have to apologize for the fact of where it's located.

I don't have an issue with carts as some of the high priests of classic design do here on GCA. I understand the realities a good bit more than they and I have said this before -- the  qualities of the architecture are not lost on Engh. If you ever play Lakota or Pradera you will quickly understand that statement.