Revisiting and Rethinking on Wolf Creek

[Doug Wright]

Matt,

Regarding the topic of this thread, "Revisiting and Rethinking on Wolf Creek." I understand that you revisited Wolf Creek. What are you "rethinking?" We've heard before that you like the course. Is it just that you like it more?

Just trying to learn pardner...

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

Good point.

I have had serious misgivings about certain managerial aspects taking place at Wolf Creek -- handling slow play being at the top of the list. I am one of the few who have played the course from the very beginnings when two trailers were all that was present.

On the course front a few points I revisited ...

The 3rd hole is a case in point. Originally, I thought having an uphill par-3 was fine. I erred completely on this front. It is a silly hole that could / should have been designed with a bit more thought. The average player is simply slaughtered on the hole and those charging into a Medieval castle had better odds.

The same thing applies to the 10th and 11th holes at Wolf Creek. Originally I didn't pay them that much attention. Now I can see they don't fit the manner by which Rider has pushed the envelope with so many of the holes there. They are merely fillers until you get to the dynamic downhill par-5 12th.

One of the more vexing issues still is the anti-climatic 18th hole. I have been told there would be adjustments to the tee boxes used but the club has gone the route to play th ehole at just under 300 yards to encourage more of a risk and reward type hole. It's fine but the waterfall to the left of the target is simply a mindless set decoration more befitting Shadow Creek than the wild adventure Wolf Creek provides.

All in all, Wolf Creek has evolved since I first played it -- I do credit the club in trying to keep first time players -- and even those who return -- to play the course at a level they can handle. Unfortunately, too many golfers are like skiiers and believe they can handle the double diamond hills.

Doug -- Wolf Creek is like exotic Thai or Mexican food. Many people say they want it but should really stick with basic fare like steak & potatos. Wolf Creek won't work for many here -- the classic golf school types because they are dead set in their definition of what golf design can be -- with walkability being front & center.

Wolf Creek is edgy and clearly unique in that regard. I enjoy it and understand what it seeks to provide. For that reason I salute Dennis Rider in taking his dream to fruition on a site that is truly outside the preferred boundaries for many here.

[George Pazin]

Matt's just trying to get those of us who don't gush over WC to rethink our positions. And maybe to revisit the course as well.

No amount of rethinking is going to change my mind. Or revisiting, which will likely never happen.

 

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Management isn't fretting that Pazin & company won't be returning. The tee sheets are doing quite well in fact -- even with the high heat that summer provides.

[Doug Wright]

Doug -- Wolf Creek is like exotic Thai or Mexican food. Many people say they want it but should really stick with basic fare like steak & potatos. Wolf Creek won't work for many here -- the classic golf school types because they are dead set in their definition of what golf design can be -- with walkability being front & center.  

Matt,

Thanks for the clarifications. Regarding your comment above I think many here are waaaaaaay more flexible in their thinking than you allow.

[George Pazin]

George:

Management isn't fretting that Pazin & company won't be returning. The tee sheets are doing quite well in fact -- even with the high heat that summer provides.

I can't imagine they do care. What I don't get is why you care so much about my opinion, Adam's opinion, David Kelly's opinion. Why not actually accept that some people have different tastes? I know you say you do, but your words certainly don't show it.

Your repeated mischaracterization of others who don't share your opinion says it all.

FWIW, my friends - minus the one guy who walked off - loved it. Their tastes are obviously different than mine. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Kevin Edwards]

Kevin:

There are plenty of holes in golf that may not appear to be in complete harmony with their total surroundings. Let's be clear that TOC has The Road Hole and people simply gush about that because of the tradition and all the other spin people apply to the hole because of where it's located. I mean a freakin road is next to the green -- how natural is that?

You are making far too much of the idea that water cannot play a role in a desert situation. Frankly, I see the holes where water comes into play at Wolf Creek -- 1st, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 12th, 17th to be totally appropriate. I concur with you and others who mentioned the out-of-place waterfall is on the 18th.

Kevin allow me to break the news to you when you say the course is "wholly unnatural." No shit sherlock -- it's located in Mesquite, NV and given its location and the specific site in question anything that is golf related will be a bit "wholly unnatural." The bigger question is how the golf works within the site and what Rider did to provide some sort of balance between the harshness on what is there and to the manner by which golf is capable in being played there. On that front --I think he did a fantastic job.

\


Matt- I really dont appreciate you lecturing to me calling me Sherlock nor the use of profanity.  I recently joined this website because I am a lover of great golf and designs.  No other reason.  I relish debate but not when I am going to be ridiculed by condecending fellows.  It really does sound to me as someone who does not know you that you are debating with yourself or truly on the payroll of some club's marketing rolls.  I'm going to report this to the moderator although I am not sure if that will do anything.  And just for the record there are many desert courses that do not have the amount of water that Wolf Creek has and they do just fine.

[A_Clay_Man]

Matt, You are as unrelenting as WC. Yet, you point out weaknesses. And it blows away other nationally ranked courses? You still have not explained this apparent dichotomy.

As for the subtle changes at SC, besides the bunker work, that is now years old, Mark Brennaman has made a whole host of changes to several holes. They include enlarging, or creating, chiping areas. Some green shapes and sizes have had similar subtle alterations. Maintenance meld changes are also part of the ongoing in-house work. If you want specific details, I suggest you do some of that heavy lifting you're world famous for. I'd be happy to give you a phone number.

While George has sumerized most of my sentiments about your attitude, I believe you should apologize to Mr. Edwards for your brutish behavior.

Matt, there isn't enough bandwidth in the whole universe to convince anyone who has palyed WC, and didn't consider it a great course, that it is, or, ever will be.

Please show us all your ability to accept others opinions and also consider the possibility that you are dead wrong?

[Matt_Ward]

Kevin:

Let's get this straight. You are the guy who lectured me with the level of your game and how I am clueless on what it is you mentioned in terms of shots played there. Hey, how about this --If you want respect -- show some.

I've played Wolf Creek enough times ( and have a good enough game to appreciate the type of shots the course calls upon.

Please report it to the moderator -- likely you are the kind of guy who ran to the teacher when someone called your bluff and didn't appreciate your comments. Deal with things man-to-man.

One other thing -- do not go into the gutter and believe that my comments on Wolf Creek are tied to me being on the club payroll. That is BS big time. Maybe I'll report YOU to the moderator because of your desire to malign my personal integrity.

You say you don't like profanity -- I don't appreciate you barking at me with off-the-wall nonsense.

Adam:

You missed the boat on Shadow Creek -- it's more about style than sheer substance. The course is to be celebrated for how it came into being and the long odds it overcame in that regard. That's it period.

Once again -- the real issue of quality shots / holes went over your head.

I have stated the issues of Wolf Creek very directly and with great detail. You simply gloss over the details and spew forward some generalized "Matt is wrong" approach.

How nice.

[A_Clay_Man]

Matt, You have engaged too many people on this site with your beat'em over the head attitude.

Well, I'm too stuborn to give up on the underlying theme of your mis-guided analysis. You miss the fact that a great golf course is better than the sum of it's parts. Wolf creek's individual holes actually works against it's ability to be greater than it's sum. Your superficial selfish analysis is exactly that, and, your relentless adherence to your brutish style is obviously one dimensional. It is All about me, or in this case you.

One premise you clearly have is how accepting you are of new design principles and unaccepting you are of anyone who doesn't agree with you. Those two are lethal in combination and have in their totality alienated you from being a serious source for what constitutes quality. Why do you think several people have opined how your writings smack of marketing? C'mon man, be honest. You are just paying tham back for their hospitality, times 8. And isn't it odd how you never see a bad course. I'm sure the homework and research you do helps weed out the wheat from the chaf, or is that just the course rating and slope?

I'm sure Mr. Edwards is too much a gentleman to tell you, so I will. Go to hell. I hear the slope is in your range of acceptability. And watch that first hole, it's a real beast.

[David Kelly]

Matt,

Keep the reviews coming, you are an asset to GCA.com.  I have disagreed with your opinions on more than a few occasions but I appreciate the fact that you give your OPINION and back it up with details.  You ask no quarter and Lord knows you give none.

And if you want to take peyote up in Wolf Creek while you play and report to us on your findings well thats none of my business.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Matt,
Have you played the Road hole?

[Matt_Ward]

Ben:

Yes and I enjoyed the hole thoroughly and believe the proximity of the road is quite unique and enjoyale as a strategic item when playing there.

My only point was the quirk (and I define the road next to the 17th as that -- ditto the Del Hole at Lahinch -- a course I also adore) is deemed by people to be entirely defensible when it's across the pond but silly / foolish, you catch my drift, when located here in the States and certainly in the desert southwest.

I've admitted that Wolf Creek is NOT for those enamored with classic golf design and that if walking is a must item then people should not go there because of the nature of the cart rides. However, for those seeking a bit of golfing adventure then Wolf Creek may suit their varied golf palet no different than the best spiciest Thai or Mexican food.

David K:

Thanks for the comments.

I would like to see you play the 2nd hole again -- sherbas and all   -- because I believe once you have feel for what's required you'd be able to more fully appreciate the hole. You still may pan it but I think you would see that the concept from architect Dennis Rider has validity.

Adam:

I don't mind if people disagree with me -- just try to provide some depth of details in the process. Kevin did that with his analysis and I was quick to offer my counterpoint / rebuttal.

You, on the other hand, just continue to rant and rave about what I don't know and how badly informed and how bad I play, etc, etc.

Adam -- I see plenty of bad courses and if you have really bothered to read what I have written there are numerous examples where I have offered scathing viewpoints on a rangeof ocurses from private to resort to daily fee to the muni variety. Frankly, you are a bit loco if you believe I am paying back any course for their hospitality. I have been around long enough to keep my integrity intact and I don't sell to any person or facility what I truly believe. We may disagree but behave as an honorable gentleman in what my intentions are -- I don't bemoan your integrity please don't assail mine.

By the way -- there are a numer of people here on GCA that Ihave taken on tours of courses in New Jersey that are away from the likes of Wolf Creek and don't sport anywhere near the course ratings / slope you find there. It's just very easy for people to stereotype me and believe that I am only interested in one style of golf course.

[A_Clay_Man]

Wolf Creek, as I have opined previously, simply blows away such noted "desert" layouts like Shadow Creek (more of a civil engineering wonder than premier golf design IMHO), Cascata, Rio Seco and all the others that dot the immediate landscape.

I have to say this right upfront -- for those of you who prefer -- check that -- for those who are ENAMORED with classic golf the best advice I can give you is to forgo playing Wolf Creek and head for other golf options. Matt, The definition of classic anything is the ability to withstand the test of time. Are you saying that will not happen at WC?

Wolf Creek is a quirky style modern golf design. Not everything there works perfectly -- Matt, This comment seems totaly contradictary from your "blown away" comment above much of it does though IMHO -- and it's quite easy to become distracted / annoyed with the elements encountered there Do you who get annoyed? Who wants to pay to be annoyed? -- for starters the vexing cart paths you must handle throughout the day.

With that said -- I returned to the Mesquite / St. George area this past week and for my 8th round at Wolf Creek. I have played the course enough times to be totally familiar with what it offers. Great courses do not reveal all thier secrets after a paultry 8 rounds, do they?

Wolf Creek is an incredible journey -- think of it as an Indian Jones movie. There's no Oscar coming for what it provides Again, dichotomus from your opening proclaimation but it does give you a wide range of challenges and there is fun because you need to overcome fear from what the land provides and have the courage / smarts to play the appropriate shot when called upon. wonderfully phrased, you deserve a pat on the back, attaboy.      

I don't have all the time to elaborate but I have to say this -- from my first visit to now my 8th round there -- Wolf Creek still is a hoot to play and minus some small issues -- the uphill par-3 3rd is one good example (I will outline in much more detail -- along with the poor 10th and 11th holes) the totality of what you find there is indeed a side of golf that you don't find that often. Contradictory, ambiguous and flat out superficial analysis.

The fascinating thing about Wolf Creek is the start to the round.
This states it is the fascinating thing. One thing. Thats it?

The green can be driven but it takes a herculean blow in order to accomplish that. At 445 yards the 2nd at Wolf Creek provides a thrill ride that would make any adventurous golfer want more and more. In all my public course plays -- I can say the 2nd at Wolf Creek would certainly make the short list for both scenic and daring holes. It never fails to amaze me when I step on the tee box there. Matt, this is not indepth analysis.

Hard to say -- I would not want a steady diet of Wolf Creek as I would want with say Black Mesa or a Lakota Canyon or other such modern layouts that are in the general vicinity of Wolf Creek.
Matt, this comment is either so poorly written or dichotomus to your opening line once again.


The course is quirky and the simple fact is that when you hear people wax poetic and fall over themselves with adjectives praising such elements in course across the pond in the UK & Ireland -- it makes me laugh at the flip-flop positions people make when such a layout exists here in the States. Are you actually trying to equate and saying they are the same quirkiness? or is this a different type of quirky?

I'd give Wolf Creek no less than a 8. IMHO the pure golf perspectives (land site, routing and shot values) the quality of so many holes is self evident Alienable rights and man's equlaity are self-evident. Would we be having this discussion if the quality of the course was?

Shadow Creek is a great analogy to what Vegas is about -- pure fantasy and often times little depth. Steve Wynn and Tom Fazio CREATED from nothing a golf course that just happens to be in the desert environment.

If you bother to examine the totality of the design -- the details of the individual holes and the routing / shot values dimensions -- and compare that to Wolf Creek the contest is clearly in favor of the layout from Mesquite IMHO. The boat you are talking about is one you likely missed.
  Wolf Creek is what Shadow Creek could've been if Tom Fazio didn't convince Steve Wynn the need for restraint.

I have to stop here. I'll try later to pick up on more to prove that you in-depth analysis is nothing more than a description. And, A description totaly self-centered with little or no credible critique.

Matt, I do apologize for my outburst yeterday when I TOLD YOU GO TO HELL. It was not a good example of having a decent dscussion no matter how much it conveyed my true feelings.

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

You apologize in one breath but then say it demonstrated your true feelings anyway. I can see how heartfelt your intentions really are.

Let's go over a few of the points you raised ...

I'm not a crystal ball reader so to say with absolute certainty that Wolf Creek will stand the test of time is hard for me to acknowledge one way or the other. I used the phrase classic golf course to reflect the stated goal of many people here on GCA to play courses that are akin to those that came from the old-time designers. Clearly, they never contemplated golf being on such a vastly different canvass as the one Wolf Creek occupies in Mesquite.

Adam -- I fully analyzed / opined on all the holes at Wolf Creek. It's wonderful of you to only apply the section that dovetails with what you offered but it clearly demonstrates to me how you apply a selective bias to suit your point. Check out the other posts on the thread and you will find my detailed rebuttal to what Kevin offered.

The people who would be annoyed by Wolf Creek are those who don't value desert golf -- and in addition -- prefer if not mandate that courses be walkable. For those folks I warned them upfront OVER AND OVER that Wolf Creek would not be their cup of tea for playing. Re-read it again Adam with a bit more mental comprehension.

Adam -- I opined several times that Wolf Creek has a number of interesting challenges but that the style of the course rests more with a match play perspective -- there's plenty of risk with any number of holes and when the wind conditions are testing the likelihood for stroke play will be pushed to their limits. I also said that when compared to the likes of a Black Mesa or Lakota Canyon Ranch I'd much rather play the aforementioned two on a steady basis.

Shadow Creek offers plenty of style -- little substance IMHO. Everytime people like you Adam mention the course there is never any real in-depth examination of the holes there or how the routing is of such vintage quality. The storyline about Shadow Creek was about its creation -- not its staying power.

When you talk about a credible critique -- Adam look yourself in the mirror. You personify the touchy feely esoteric descriptions to the max. You can find my in-depth review of Wolf Creek as a counter to Kevin's on post #17.

[A_Clay_Man]

Finally someone (thank you Kevin) has provided some greater detail (beyond myself) for Wolf Creek. Adam's touchy feely analysis (shall I call it that) doesn't delve into anything more than just the surface stuff. In addition, Adam's elitist idea that Wolf Creek is not worthy of any "serious GCA discussionist" is simply more drivel from his part.

Allow me to go into depth in some of ther points Kevin made.

First off -- Ward is not part of any course's PR / Mktg campaign. I call then as I see them. If people agree -- so be it. If they don't -- then I would like to read in detail where our paths split.

I agree and have said over and over again -- that the die-hard walk-must type golfers here on GCA need to avoid Wolf Creek. If you ENAMORED with classic golf design then stay away. You have been forewarned so be forearmed.

Even if one does take a cart the path rides can be extremely demanding -- and dangerous for those who are truly intersted in killing themselves. I give architect Dennis Rider credit in not leveling all the elements of Wolf Creek to be another deadly dull version of what you often see in such locales. Wolf Creek provides an experience that transcends meat and potato type golf. If you are a golfer who prefers basic and rudimentary type golf then once again stay away --Wolf Creek is like the Thai or Mexican restaurant with all the spices that many might not appreciate.

Kevin -- you are wrong about the risk / reward elements not being a part of Wolf Creek and for decrying the lack of architectural experience demonstrated by Dennis Rider and his son at Wolf Creek. I know of plenty of "professional" architects operating today who would have dumbed down the entire experience and simply presented vanilla results when a more richer creation could be had.

Did you not appreciate the risk / reward elements at the 1st hole? Good / strong players can go for the green in two blows but the second has to be letter perfect -- in addition -- the green contours are extremely well done with the back tier and the fall off from back to front.

The 2nd is no less a major decision type hole. Likely because you could not play the Challenger tees -- those are the most rear ones you can play -- you failed to appreciate the demands presented. Strong players can opt to take a direct line to the green and the shot needs to be hit with utter precision. Ditto if players opt for the safer play with a shorter hit from the tee.

Did you also not see the unique contours of the 2nd green?

When you say the placement of bunkers and shot demands are not "well thought out" I have to wonder if your one round there really opened your eyes to the myriad of situations that are present.

I've already mentioned the contrived and silly nature of the uphill 3rd. We agree there.

Did you not see the elements of decision making presented with the short uphill par-4 4th ?

What about the swinging right-to-left downhill then uphill par-5 5th -- which incidentally can easily be played as par-4 for the better players. Did you bother to really study the green there?

What of the decision at the 6th tee? Do you cross the creek or lay behind it? And what about the high quality contours the green presents?

Did you not see the risk and reward elements at the very cool short par-4 7th? I mean golfers can go for the green but it has to be well hit and well played. Did you not see the green contours and the small cut-out section Rider provided to give the player with superb control a major benefit?

Let's talk about the 8th -- people need to play the hole from the proper tee. What's so amusing and often predictable is that people fall over each other and gush about the Dell Hole at Lahinch -- a contrived par-3 with high mounds because it happens to be in Ireland -- get something similar in the States and simply because the mailing address is Mesquite, NV then such a hole is deemed a crock.

Most people should play the 8th from a distance of 150 yards -- the shot is entirely reasonable and the challenge fair. Let me point out that the shot from the extreme back is only for the best of players (very low handicap to scratch or better) -- you are talking about nearly 250 yards downhill to a green fronted by water and a green that is deep enough to handle a well played shot.

I don't know where you believe that a 10-handicap should play the hole from 190-200 yards. The 8th is a very demanding hole. Given the prevailing wind into the player's face it's best played from the 150-yard distance I mentioned.

The 9th is the same type of story. It should be played from the appropriate tee box because those who go the tips are simply pissing into the ocean. Too often people who compalin about a course (not you Kevin) will badmouth a layout when the simply story is they don't have the game to handle it -- it's like those a-holes who ski down double diamond type hills and wonder why they landed in the hospital.

I've mentioned that the 10th and 11th are really two filler holes that don't rise to the occasion. The 11th is a simple dropshot type hole that doesn't provide any real juice or design merits.

The downhill par-5 12th is a superb hole. Here the H20 on the left is in play and is a fine addition. Rider molded the right side to provide a rock wall that also need to be avoided. The fairway width cuts to narrow point -- as well it should -- and the golfer needs to decide at the tee how bold / reckless to be. The green is also well done -- three distinct contours and the rear portion is the best part when placed there.

Kevin you are on target with your comparison of the 13th at Wolf Creek with the 13th at The Falls. Similar type holes -- except that at Wolf Creek those daring a shot at the green from the tee can pull it off if so inclined. That's not an option at The Falls. A good short par-4.

The 14th, I believe, is one of the 3-4 best at Wolf Creek. Plays nearly 430 yards and into the prevailing wind. The tee shot must be played to the near (left side) to get the better angle into most of the pin locations. That's far easier said than done. The green is also well placed and neatly bunkered on the left side. Without two well-played and well-positioned holes you are left with bogye or worse.

The 15th is often undervalued but it's a fine short pitch par-3. The issue? The same wind can howl into your face and when the pin is placed back in the narrow area in the rear it takes elephant size balls to tempt fate and fly all the way there. Anything pulled is deader than Elvis and anything hit right presents a very demanding pitch.

The 16th was changed from the original concept -- with the tee nearer to where the 6th tee is located. The existing hole is well done -- you need to decide how far to send a drive down the hill. A draw works best and the green is nicely protected and contoured.

Kevin -- you and I think very differently about the 17th. The water feature does work -- maybe you are pissed because it grabbed one of your Pro V1's! The water is used as a retention basin for usage at the course. The tee shot is challenged by the water on the far left -- you need to snap one off to get there. The water guarding the green is also nicely done. I mean the hole can be reached by strong players unless the wind is howling into the player's face. If you want to badmouth the water at Wolf Creek then you had best say that for other water features found at other desert area type courses. I believe the 17th is the second best par-5 you play at the course with the 12th taking top honors.

I agree with you on the 18th -- don't know if you know this --the existing hole has been shortened from 370 to 299 yards and plays marginally better. I do agree with you that the waterfall feature to the left is simply clutter and serves no real purpose strategically.

Kevin -- help me stop laughing. You played Entrada -- the one with the overly penal finality for the last few holes and you believe it's superior to Wolf Creek -- surely you jest. The best holes at Entrada come before the lava nonsense you have to endure. Entrade is a fine layout with the holes that come BEFORE the lave experience. When held up against the likes of Wolf Creek there's no contest unless the cart ride elements are the number one feature that decides where one plays.

Wolf Creek is not for everyone but I will tell you this. The tee sheet is full everyday. Players can't wait to try their luck at a golf course that eschews the manicured-straight-as-a-razor type look. I said it's not classic design but the idea or belief that the maxim of golf -- the good shot being rewarded and the poor shot being penalized -- is not present is folly on the part of those who believe that.

Wolf Creel is for those who want to experience something out of the ordinary and something that will never leave their memories. If you want a bit of spice to your golf adventures Wolf Creek provides an Indiana Jones type thrill ride that far surpasses the overpriced hype courses 80 miles to the west in Vegas. Boring is not a word one will ever use when mentioning Wolf Creek and I for one enjoy that distinction it provides.

You mean this ? No I didn't read it passed the insults. But now that I have, i'd like to hear from someone impartial who may have never played the course. After reading these pearls of description, do you have a sense of what is is like to be there?

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

You are a piece of work.

First, the non-apoligy apology!

Then when confronted with post #17 you pass the buck and fail to admit upfront that I did provide clear details on the holes at Wolf Creek.

Must be fun eating crow.

[A_Clay_Man]

I agree with you on the 18th -- don't know if you know this --the existing hole has been shortened from 370 to 299 yards and plays marginally better. I do agree with you that the waterfall feature to the left is simply clutter and serves no real purpose strategically.


Matt if this is a complete analysis, I'll eat my next snake.

And thats just one hole.

I tried to describe the hated thrid, all you said was something about a climb decrying it sucks. Indepth indeed.

That is nothing but a waste of bandwith.

But it occurs to me that so is this, so 'ill be off and leave you to yourself.

[Jim Franklin]

Matt -

I will be out in Vegas next month and will be playing Wolf Creek again, but wanted to know if the range was any better. I played there when it first opened with the two trailers and remember the range being nearly useless. As for the course, I loved it. I hated #3, but the vistas were great. It was a PITA to drive the cart though as that wore me out (foot on gas and break at same time as to not lock tires and catapult to your demise). I look forward to visiting again.

Jim

[ed_getka]

Guys,
   This is getting out of hand.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim F:

One of the issues with Wolf Creek -- as it is for a few of the courses in the Mesquite area -- is the lack of quality practice areas.

They still have a short practice area -- no metal clubs allowed -- that is located just as you enter the grounds.

Be interested in your comments after you play there again.

[Jim Franklin]

Thanks Matt for the info and I will let you know what I think. I don't know about you, but I certainly need to hit a few drivers before I play so I know where the Big Dog is hunting. No worries I guess, at least I know I will have fun.

[ed_getka]

Matt,
   If you are not warming up with metal clubs, what are you using, persimmon-headed hickories?

[Matt_Ward]

Jim / Ed:

Yes, it's too bad that Wolf Creek doesn't have a high caliber practice area. The closest one to the facility is what you get with the neighboring Oasis Golf Club -- about 1/2 mile from Wolf Creek.

The build-out of that area of Mesquite is in full swing but you also find no practice area at the nearby Falcon Ridge GC which only permits players to hit into a mesh area.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I played Wolf Creek this past week. It is the poster child for what is wrong with contemporary golf. It is built on land not suited for golf. It is expensive to maintain. In a state that has water problems there is way too much green. The designer tried to make 18 signature holes. There alre some good holes but I couldn't wIt to get off the course. At the first tee I was told to expect a five hour round because of the distance between holes. Anyone who thinks this course is good for golf has rocks in his head. I don't know how Matt Ward could play the course. He wants to hit his driver as far as he can on every hole. He must have lost a week's salary of golf balls.