[Tom Huckaby]

That seems to be the sample.  I'd be curious if any took a whack at it.  But those too are all pretty smart golfers...

I guess there's just a little too much death left of the green, and it's a little too far, to tempt many to drive it.  This green does have a lot of room to the right though... but even past that is more grass, so maybe it's not enough.

It is interesting, anyway.

You know what's also cool about the hole?  The green is so damn good that even if we've eliminated the driving the green temptation, it's still very fun.  Also no layup you choose is gonna be all that easy - you still do have to consult the yardage book, and there are still plenty of places to miss.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean - thanks!

So it would seem it IS at least in the "possible" category, so the temptation is more there than I first thought, for you heep big stud boys...

That makes the hole even better in my book.  Love it.

And I love goading, also.  

[John Kirk]

I didn't realize that raters being tired, or it being the second round of the day, or fourth of the weekend, or it being 90 degrees had anything to do with the architectural merits of a new course.

Maybe we can get Brad Klein to adjust the golfweek ratings accordingly.

Make that 110 degrees.

I am genuinely concerned that any raters playing in the tournament will have a lower opinion of Stone Eagle because of fatigue.  I don't care what you say; one's mood affects perception dramatically.

I am very happy with my decision to join Stone Eagle.  Surprisingly, the somewhat muted response to the course doesn't change my opinion at all.  The back tee distance is just right for me, a low handicap, medium-long 47 year old.  It's beautiful, it's challenging, and the undulating playing surface makes each round a little different.

Walkability is an issue at Stone Eagle.  But not as big an issue as some here perceive.  There are several places where a 200 yard cart ride, plus a 30 yard walk, can be replaced by a simple 40 yard hike to the next tee.  They need to build a little walking bridge over the ravine on both 13 and 14.  This will reduce the walk by at about 400 yards.  They need to build better walking paths in places like 5 green to 6 tee.  You can play 7 as a 260 yard hole from the 6th fairway.

The reactions here highlight how important walkability really is.  I say it's one of the most important considerations in evaluating a course, and since it didn't seem remotely walkable last weekend, it muted the group's opinion of the place.

The severity of the course allow the course to give a near complete examination of the players' skills.  The player must hit shots from uneven lies, judge uphill and downhill distances, and  read putts well.  I think the downhill approaches are particularly tough, as I find more club is required than the elevation change would indicate, on holes like 9 and 11.  The player does not have to judge how deep grass will affect shots.

Anyway, I'm sorry I didn't make it to the party.  I had other plans.  I'm grateful that no one became seriously ill.  I hope David Kelly recovers soon; he and I are scheduled to take a little trip later this month.

[ed_getka]

Some of my views on Stone Eagle. First and foremost I don't think there is a bad hole on the course. The tee shots are interesting, some are intimidating, Tom and team did a great job using the rock mounds to hide width, etc... The approach shots were generally interesting, and some were quite demanding, while at the same time there always seemed to be an avenue available to the high handicapper to get to the green without taking on huge risks. The greens/surrounds were fantastic and I really enjoyed them. Most approach shots into these greens are not simply hit it at the pin for another GIR. Until you really know the course, most times you are wondering how your shot turned out, because there is so much going on up at the greens that there is generally doubt in your mind how well a shot turned out. Keep in mind this is from MY viewpoint which is about a 12 handicap. I played from the tips both times which aren't overly demanding for a golfer of  my ability (limited as they are).
     At the speed we played the course I feel the approach shot aspect was the most demanding. Under fast conditions I would imagine the short game/putting requirements would come to the forefront.
      I really liked #1 as an opener, and #18 as a closer was fantastic IMO. A really tough par 4 to finish, but if you can't hit it far enough there is a way to work your way up the right side safely for a bogey without having a lot of pressure.
    All in all a really excellent course that I would happily drive down to play at the drop of a hat (as long as it was cool enough to enjoy the weather).
    There were a few negatives IMO.
   I absolutely concur with Tiger regarding driving the carts around and being disoriented. I rarely knew where I was on the property. This is partly because the first day we started on the back nine I'm sure, but I usually have a pretty good sense of routing regardless of where I start.
    Some of the walks back up to tees were a bit of a slog, and since you were walking uphill you noticed them that much more.
    Some of the bunkers are like ski runs out there, where your ball can end up a long way from where it went in. In the case of #5 the first bunker on the left next to the water almost funnels you down into the water 20 feet below. This is a minor quibble, since it is a hazard and my drive shouldn't be there anyway. I saw a ball on #18 that plugged in the face of the greenside bunker on a greater than 45 degree slope, which seemed a bit excessive.
    After two rounds I still have trouble remembering most of the holes (this at least partly is because of the back nine start part on Sunday). I do not particularly mind this for myself, as  I think all the holes are really good and fun to play. There just seems to be a fair amount of similarity at first  glance.
    Replace all the rocks out there with water hazards and I wonder what people's opinions would be? Generally it will be the same result for a missed shot.
     I doubt that most 12 or higher handicap golfers can get around SE without an X or an unplayable lie most rounds.

   
     

[Tom Huckaby]

John:

Please don't let rabble-rousing Hammy concern you.  Yes, the Sunday afternoon was exhausting.  But damn near all of us also played Monday morning, and it was just fine.

The walkability of the course was also widedly discussed, and the very cool cut-throughs from green to tee, and neat paths through the rocky areas, were all duly noted.  It was easy to see that Stone Eagle would be a much more walkable course than it would seem given the mountainous site.  The bottom line is that Doak et al have to be given major kudos for going to the lengths they did to try and make it walkable, with all those cut-throughs and paths.  That to me is very important.

So I don't think walkability muted anyone's opinions.  At least such was not the case in the discussions I heard.  If anything it was seen as a plus, for the reasons stated above.

Don't sweat it, my friend.  This thread took a negative tone because some questioned my take on the severity of the green sites, and we argued the point (and may continue to do so).  Just do understand that I truly believe that's one small negative in a sea of other positives - which I've tried to say, but that doesn't seem to get heard.  It is a thrilling course.  Off the tee, it's freakin' brilliant - the most playable severe site I have ever seen, by far.  The tee shots are all very, very fun - something to think about every time, but not too much fear instilled.  That's tough to do.  I think the greens are brilliant.  The views are incredible.  And of course you are right on re the elevation changes making judgment tough, which is also a good thing, it keeps one on one's toes and would maintain interest over the long-haul.

Hey, if I think the greensites are too severe for the high handicapper and thus believe he would have a hard time having fun there in the long term - which I do - well... that's just one slice of the golf world, leaving a lot of room for a lot of golfers to find nothing but fun and brilliance always.

That to me makes for a pretty damn good golf course.  You sure as heck ought to be very proud, and glad, to be a member.

Cheers, my friend.  I know the "reception" here seems somewhat muted so far, but believe me, that's just because we've gotten way too much into arguing minutia.  Bear with us, it's the nature of this site.

And please believe also even at the Sunday night gathering after that blast furnace exhausting round, there was plenty of praise flowing.  Plenty.  

TH

[Brian Noser]

Just from looking at the picture I most likley would have been stupid enough to give it a go, it does not look that tight. Of course that is just my ego taking over, are the any holes where Doak takes Driver out of your hands there!!

[Tom Huckaby]

Just from looking at the picture I most likley would have been stupid enough to give it a go, it does not look that tight. Of course that is just my ego taking over, are the any holes where Doak takes Driver out of your hands there!!

Brian - it is tighter than the picture looks.  But your statement is making me love the hole all the more!

 

Hmmmm... I really don't think there are any holes where even you couldn't hit driver... that being said, relatively long-hitting Steve Pieracci hit plenty of 3 and 5 woods off the tee.  I don't think there's a hole where it's PROHIBITED, anyway... But this is more for the long-knockers to discuss.  As for moi, the only hole I even considered not hitting driver was this #16.

TH

 

[rjsimper]

Just from looking at the picture I most likley would have been stupid enough to give it a go, it does not look that tight. Of course that is just my ego taking over, are the any holes where Doak takes Driver out of your hands there!!

14 is the only one where you have no choice but to lay back - the cross-hazard makes D an impossible play for a longer hitter.

[David Kelly]

John,

I'm still lurking about.  Nothing will keep me away from the Hutchinson, Holyoke, and Mullen trinity.

[Thomas_Brown]

Concerning the fatigue or heat factor, I've felt much worse on the course before.  Walking 36 holes in August US Am. qualifying in the South or East is much worse than the 36 holes of cartball in no humidity we had.  I was prepared for the worst but found it not that bad.

16 is definitely drivable by Tour pros.
But, not me...

[Tom_Doak]

Huck:

Okay, don't tell me where YOU hit it, but tell me which holes you thought the desert was way too close to the green.  Just saying it "in general" doesn't really help me at all, no matter how many times you say it.  Which holes are going to kill your dad?

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck:

Okay, don't tell me where YOU hit it, but tell me which holes you thought the desert was way too close to the green.  Just saying it "in general" doesn't really help me at all, no matter how many times you say it.  Which holes are going to kill your dad?

Tom:

Every single one.  I am not kidding.  And I don't mean to be this negative, I swear.  Go read my post to John Kirk, which gives my overall impressions of the course.

Like I say, it's just the nature of the site.  Man you did better than anyone could - most others would have just punted and made it severely penal and just said screw it, that's how it is.  I can see how you tried.  I can see the banks and the grassy areas.  The problem is, to the sides of those is always more rocks.  Then you combine it with the VERY penal bunkers, and well... the approaches are not for the faint of heart.  16 illustrates this perfectly.... it has to be the least severe site on the course with all that room right, but it's nothing but death left, and even past all the grass on the right lurks more death.  

That's cool though - like I said to John, this just eliminates a small slice of golfers.  Hell, even high handicappers with a better sense of humor or less care about success than my Dad would enjoy the round there, if only for the views and the thrilling tee shots.

TH

[HamiltonBHearst]

Tom D.

it looks like you will have to re-evaluate all eighteen holes. Take solace though as you did not "punt" and did "better than anyone could".

Tom H.

Do you trade 20 rounds of golf at Stone Eagle for 1 round at Sand Hills?

[Tom Huckaby]

Hammy:

That's certainly a long stretch from anything I intended.  The course works perfectly well for a large portion of golfers, I'd have to believe.  It's the site, my friend.

But in answer to your question, no.  Giving me only one round at Sand Hills would be cruel.  If you meant to ask do I find Sand Hills to be a superior golf course, then of course I do.  I've made it clear I believe Sand Hills is the best course on this planet.  

TH

[rjsimper]

Tom:

Every single one.  I am not kidding.  And I don't mean to be this negative, I swear.  Go read my post to John Kirk, which gives my overall impressions of the course.

Like I say, it's just the nature of the site.  Man you did better than anyone could - most others would have just punted and made it severely penal and just said screw it, that's how it is.  I can see how you tried.  I can see the banks and the grassy areas.  The problem is, to the sides of those is always more rocks.  Then you combine it with the VERY penal bunkers, and well... the approaches are not for the faint of heart.  16 illustrates this perfectly.... it has to be the least severe site on the course with all that room right, but it's nothing but death left, and even past all the grass on the right lurks more death.  

Huck - take a look at my pictures again - You mean to tell me that with all of the grass/room short and right on 7, the wide open entry to 9, and the bail-out right and short on 12 (with some shots hitting the mound right actually ending up in good shape on the green) that these are all too severe?

I know we've kicked the horse to death, but now I've got soldiers alongside of me in the "not too severe" camp and I'm ralling for a second charge.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Ryan:

Remember we're talking about how these play for the higher handicapper.

And yes, I believe each of the ones you cite are too severe.  Again, it's the combination of rocks and very penal bunkers.  Even on those you cite, it all still exists.  Again, it's the site.  My Dad would die playing any of those.

TH

[ed_getka]

Tom D,
   I would imagine Huck is going to need his yardage book before he can tell you. I played with him on Monday, and Tom was fighting pull draws with his irons. He certainly could have played safely away from trouble, but normally Tom hits the ball where he aims it. I know Tom lost one on #7 left. On that particular hole there is loads of room short and right to miss.
   Steve Pieracci lost one left in the rocks on #10, and I don't remember there being much room to miss on the right.
   A couple of examples.  Both these guys are good golfers so they don't view an iron shot the way I do. They have no reason to think they aren't going to generally hit it where they want to, and I have no reason to think I am going to hit it where I want to.
   I know that when I was looking at my target I would generally not notice much (except on downhill shots) that would scare me, but then I would hit a shot off line and be suprised at how fast it was heading towards the rocks and out of play. I will not be able to give you specific holes until I get home and look at the yardage book.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom D,
   I would imagine Huck is going to need his yardage book before he can tell you. I played with him on Monday, and Tom was fighting pull draws with his irons. He certainly could have played safely away from trouble, but normally Tom hits the ball where he aims it. I know Tom lost one on #7 left. On that particular hole there is loads of room short and right to miss.
   Steve Pieracci lost one left in the rocks on #10, and I don't remember there being much room to miss on the right.
   A couple of examples.  Both these guys are good golfers so they don't view an iron shot the way I do. They have no reason to think they aren't going to generally hit it where they want to, and I have no reason to think I am going to hit it where I want to.
   I know that when I was looking at my target I would generally not notice much (except on downhill shots) that would scare me, but then I would hit a shot off line and be suprised at how fast it was heading towards the rocks and out of play. I will not be able to give you specific holes until I get home and look at the yardage book.

Ed - please - once again, this is not about me or where I hit it.  Yes, I did lose a ball on 7, but that's it.  In any case, not to toot my own horn but I'm a decent player - or at least I was the round with you - and if I have that much trouble, imagine what a truly bad iron player has?  What I am getting at is exactly what you just posted...Those rocks come up quickly, on every single green.  Believe me, I noticed it all.  I don't think that differently than you!  And like I say, I'm a decent player.  My Dad would be terrified...

The point remains this:  look at the pics Ryan posted.  On each of the holes he cites, yes there is grass, but there are rocks and worse beyond such in each case.  The high handicapper finds these places.  In each case if he's smart - which he rarely is by the way - that's where he's aiming.  A bad miss even there means death.  That's what I mean....

TH

[rjsimper]

Okay new question then - Are ALL mountain-golf courses too severe?

[ed_getka]

I forgot to rate the course up above. Easily a Doak 8 IMO.

[George Pazin]

Speaking of miss-hits,  I've read your percentages of where your ball goes, and I'd have to say that either you are leaving something off or you miss-hit the ball much better than I do.  Direction isnt the main problem with my miss-hits.  Distance is.  My miss-hits are fat or skulled or smother-hooked or topped or chunked.  Occasionally they are "toe-shanked" (my speciality) but those tend to lose most their distance.  If I slice my irons it is generally a pretty weak slice.  I can hook them for distance, but that isnt really my strength.   Sure I can miss 20 or 30 yards off line, but I am just not good enough to consistently hit my 180 yard club 180 yards and 30 yards off line.

Further I think more hacks are like me-- bad contact and a loss of distance.  I am just not good enough to consistantly miss my 180 yard club 30 yards off line.  So I start to get suspicious whenever a lower handicapper (like Huckaby) starts to tell me that a course is wide enough for him but not wide enough for me.  Usually it is only the low handicappers who are good enough to hit it 30 yards off line and full distance.

A couple quick answers while it's fresh, then it's back to reading:

I definitely can hook an 180 yard shot 30 yards off line. I haven't played with enough other people to know whether this is unique to me as a high handicapper or not. I printed thousands of t shirts a year by hand - I guess I have strong wrists and forearms.

As to which is more common, I couldn't say. You probably are right, and I should include that my off line misses are not always pin high, they frequently lose a little distance (or even gain some, if I hook it hard enough). But by and large, my misses are more often way right or waaaay left. I used to chunk more shots, rarely blade them, but for some reason that has changed.

Back to reading.

[Tom Huckaby]

Okay new question then - Are ALL mountain-golf courses too severe?

NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE!!!!

My answer is this:  it's gonna depend on what you mean by "mountain" course. Edgewood Tahoe is at great elevation with great views of mountains, and it's a piece of cake.

All golf courses on sites similar to that of Stone Eagle are too severe for the higher handicapper, yes.  There aren't many of them though, are there?  

Stone Eagle comes as closest as any I know at defeating this principle.  I'm just not sure the principle can be defeated, that's all.

Ed - I'd call it a Doak 8 also.  The way that's worded in the list I was given scream out Stone Eagle.  Here it is:

8:  One of the very best in the region and worth a special trip to see. Could have some drawbacks, but will make up for them with something really special.

The drawback I see is my issue with the greensites and high 'cappers, obviously.  But ues, that is made up for with quite a bit really special.  And it is very clear SE is one of the best in the region - which is saying something given the huge quantity of courses in the Coachella Valley - and it sure as hell is a worth a special trip to see.

I just wouldn't bring my Dad there, that's all.  

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

And we know what he thinks of Rustic Canyon also, don't we! Rustic thumbsdown, Buenaventura Circa 1924 thumbsup!

Tom,
 You can wax on/wax off about the complexities of Stone Eagle for the higher-handicapper, all while saying your not going to speak for them and fully knowing the end all of opinions, yet, did you play it from the upper tees which are perfect for the rabbit and not the tiger?

Also, you fail to describe any of portion of the Tom Doak has asked you where your errant scrub landed.

Also, how much of the hurt of NoCal losing is factored into this?

P.S. I've got the Putter!

[Tom Huckaby]

Tommy:

Slings and arrows, sticks and stones. more untruths about me.  Nice try though.  

I answered all of Tom Doak's questions.  But to put your mind at ease, on Monday I lost exactly one ball, to the left of #7.  You'd have to admit that's a tough shot for all golfers.  Once again though I question why this matters....

As for assessing what it's like for the higher capper, once again, I have been one, I see them play, and I do have eyes and pretty good receptive powers.

The Putter?  Heck, I can live with losing that, I have to.  

Cheers.  

And we're gonna get you next year.

 

TH

ps - it is all in a mouse's night, after all.  I've been meaning to remind you of that.

[George Pazin]

Okay new question then - Are ALL mountain-golf courses too severe?

It depends on whom you are talking about and what they look for in a course.

I'm assuming you mean for mid to high handicappers, as the prevailing view would certainly seem to be the there is no entire category of courses too severe for a low handicapper.

So it comes down to what you look for in a course. If a high handicapper can't stand the thought of finishing a round with one or more X's on his card almost guaranteed (and I'm probably in that group), then I'd say yes, all mountain courses are too severe (of course, I haven't seen many, so this is a flat out guess).

When someone asked awhile ago about whether or not a high handicapper would enjoy Black Mesa, here's a rough summary of what I said: If you don't care about the occasional X, and are looking for some cool (albeit slightly disconnected, imho) holes, it's fine for a high handicapper. If you're like me and can't stand the reload till you get it right approach, you probably won't enjoy it very much.

I'd guess you could extend that to most if not all mountain (and canyon) courses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()