[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Mike, actually I am in the mid group and had no proplems playing the course and scoring pretty well. 76ish each day with a double cap on a hole due to match play. You do have big score situations waiting to grab you, but it is fairly easy to par along as well. I do not think it is an overly hard course, in fact it seems to be a members course to me.

[Tom_Doak]

Tiger:  I didn't answer your question before because I don't understand what you are asking about #7 and about the paths.

[Bob_Huntley]

Mr. Huntley:  The one thing Mr. Huckaby said which is NOT true is that an off-line approach is severely punished on every side of every hole.  It's not even close to that.  The highest handicap player in the field e-mailed me to report that he lost one ball over two rounds.  As for three-putts, they're out there on a lot of greens, if you get yourself more than twenty feet on the wrong side of the hole -- and there are a lot of deceptively large greens there which makes three-putting more common, i.e. you don't get many three-putts on small greens.

Tom,

As Joe Perches will attest, I lost two in the four of the holes I
played, not because of any trickery on your part but because of my own execrable play. Maybe I was the one who should have had the highest handicap. Don't take my carping too seriously, after all, had I been able to hit he ball where I aimed it, my views may well have been different.


Bob

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom D.:

Well, I've said on-line, off-line and with my in-line skates on that the course really is difficult to assess - and one thing's for sure, I've never said it sucks.  It's stunningly beautiful, it seems easy for the sticks to attack, it frustrates some while still being really fun for most.  I still think the green surrounds are too tough for the higher handicappers, but hey, my word against yours and we damn well know whose to trust!  In any case, well... leaving me twisting in the wind is no biggie.  It happens to others here from time to time.  It's sort of the nature of this site.

The course remains one hell of an achievement, and also an excellent golf course in its own right, which just can be quite trying for the tiny minority of golfers who spray their irons too much, as losing golf balls or getting stuck in those very penal bunkers too often is just not much fun.

See, what I think you and others might miss about my point is that the bunkers are often as bad or worse a place to be than the rocks... at least as the bunkers are currently maintained.  Are you aware how often the ball plugs in the faces these days?  You can't have intended that...  But anyway, I include the bunkers in the "severe punishment on both sides of every hole" statement... remembering also that this is ONLY for the high 'capper...


TH

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:  I've sort of ignored the comments about the fluffiness of the bunkers because that was not the case for their opening or for the Renaissance Cup.  I don't know if they have changed maintenance practices or what.  I do realize some of the bunkers are quite severe, but (I think) it's always better than being in the desert.

[Tom Huckaby]

TD - the way the bunkers were last weekend, I swear to you desert was often a better place to be.  LOTS of plugs - and not just me, I saw several others from partners and competitors.  

I've assumed that's not normal maintenance.  But that might be part of my take also re death on both sides... I've tried to factor that out, but it's difficult.

TH

[cary lichtenstein]

My handicap varies during the year from 4 to 7, I'm a 5 right now and I had no problem with your course.

My wife is a 9 and she had no problems either.

I think the short shots around the greens were very fair, the grass was long enough to get a good enough cushion under the ball to flop it or do just about anything you wanted.

I found the greens very receptive to those shots all day because I didn't hit a lot of of greens and still shot 77.

I still think it was the heat and the lesson learned is not to play 36 holes in 111 degree heat, it fries your game, and your brain.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Stone Eagle is as impressive from the fairway as it is from the tee, exposes very bad shots while allowing the chance for memorable recoveries. I've had a lot of them there, as far as my game is concerned, I know.

This talk of on and around the greens being devastatingly hard, well, that is just plain wrong. Most of the putting out there is world class in terms of how the holes work with the strategy. You learn quick what kind of break is consistent throughout the round, yet, there is nary a green that is repeat of another.

I also found it funny that some think that this is a course you wouldn't want to play everyday. I couldn't disagree more. The one unfortunate thing is the walkability. While I can live with that on such an extreme site, the beauty of the place, especially in the evening hours, as well as having an ample supply of ice cold water the trade-off!

Once again, and I've said this to everyone I've talked to about the course since the first day I was out there, that this isn't what I think is a good site for golf. It was obvious that there was going to be a mixed bag of opinions on the course simply because of it's rugged, yet extremely strategic nature in the Land of Lotuses. (the ones that don't like to think, only hit straight and move to the next shot and then one or two putt) Tom has succeeded here simply by finding a great routing as well as utilizing the experience he has garnered for himslf of what works and what doesn't when it comes to golf. Any other designer out there, well you can eliminate absence of creatve thought. Just point and shoot and they'll help you get your par.

[DMoriarty]

Bob,

You asked why Tom H was getting such a hard time about his review and I have been thinking about it and have concluded it comes down to two factors . . .

First, by almost all other accounts (including many accounts of those who are much more familiar with the place than him) the negative portion of his assessment-- that the approaches are too narrow and penal for the higher handicapper (which he is not)--  is innaccurate and misleading.   Whatever problems the course may have, narrow approaches is not really one of them.   In fact many of the approaches are extraordinarily wide, expecially short and at the front of the green, where the higher handicapper is more likely to end up.

Second, Despite the first point above, Tom H is quite adamant that he is correct--  he must have posted over 50 times on this thread alone essentially making that one point.

Surely no one need be nasty to Tom.  But we also ought to disagree with him when we do.  I am not picking on him by disagreeing with him any more than he is picking on me by disagreeing with me.  Unfortunately, it seems that Tom wants to turn this into another situation where he feels like he is being treated unfairly treated or personally attacked.  Aside from some rather gentle ribbing (something that anyone who posts as much as Tom should suspect) I dont see that this is the case.
______________________

Tom H, when I and others asked to you be more specific about where the approaches were too tight and penal, you claimed (incredibly)that every hole on the course suffered from this problem.  I've gone through the course in my head, and this is far from the case.  Perhaps if you went through hole by hole, your recollection would change?  

I dont have wide pictures of every greensite, but here are a few that give some idea of the width of the corridors at the green fronts.  Are these greensites really to tight?  Remember, your father (and many other higher handicappers) are quite able to negotiate their way around bunkers . . .  

[Tom Huckaby]

David:

First things first:  it was never ME who said I was being picked on, and I certainly never wanted "to turn this into another situation where he feels like he is being treated unfairly treated or personally attacked."  Please read back, and you'll see that it was OTHERS, not me, who interpreted it that way.  Others such as Bob Huntley, John Berhnardt, who each posted what they did on their own.  Then Tom Doak said I was left twisting in the wind.  Heck, I understand the ribbing, it's par for the course coming from you and Tommy.  No harm done.  It's just not quite fair to say I created this situation, is it?  Hell I don't even feel it... for me it's a standard thing - I post something you and Tommy disagree with, you guys point it out and have some fun with me. That's how this site ought to be.  No hassles here.

In any case, to the point at hand.  See, I believe the pictures you posted prove mine.  All I ever said - and truly meant it as a small critique - is that COMBINED WITH THE VERY PENAL BUNKERS, PERHAPS MADE SO BY THE CURRENT VERY SOFT CONDITIONS, the presence of rocky desert makes each apprach too severe for the high handicap player.  And none of those pictures make me change that view.  Look to the sides and/or rear of each green pictured Dave, and what do you see?  Either rocks or severe bunkers or both.  Yes, at times you have a good bit of grass as well - which is cool and allows the good player to allow for a safe miss.  But miss too bad, or play away from these safe areas (ie agressively, as most high cappers nearly always do) and the rocks or bunkers are your fate.  And yes, it's true going into every single green, including the ones you pictured. Several you did not picture are obviously far worse in this respect.  For the high handicap player - or hell, the low handicapper spraying his irons - every approach shot is daunting, every approach shot can lead to an X.  And that can occur both in the bunkers and in the rocks.

Look, this really need not be that big of a deal.  We can agree to disagree.  I gather you think the grassy areas on these wide holes are enough to contain the high handicappers' bad shots.  I disagree.  Fair enough.  I just don't believe you can call me "wrong" - this is my opinion, and you can choose to disagree, but I just don't see how either of us can be right or wrong.

I have praised this golf course quite a lot, and will continue to do so. I just will not deny what my eyes see, and my experience tells me, in this very small critique.

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Hey, Don't bring me into this! I'm just stating my opinion that the course is more then playable for the higher-handicapper, as well as more then friendly, yet really fun and challenging around the greens.

Yes, it disagrees with your opinion, but I think given the conditions of last Sunday afternoon, how I felt (freeking hot) and considering the way I played, I had everything coming to me as far as score.

[Bob_Huntley]

What is about you guys that refuses to accept Huckaby's point that certain features of Stone Eagle might not be perfect? Why the reluctance to accept his precis?

From what I am reading I get the impression that we are finding the successor to Cypress Point. Please educate me, what am i missing?

Bob

[DMoriarty]

Tom H.

No hard feelings here either.

I guess it comes down to just how much room a course needs around the greens to be playable for the higher handicapper.  Maybe when you are considering this you should keep a few things in mind . . .
1.  High handicappers very rarely miss long.  The vast majority of their mishits are short, not long, especially on uphill holes.  George Thomas writes about this fairly extensively.
2.  Along the same lines, higher handicappers arent necessarily as directionally challenged as they are often portrayed.  When they miss, the ball often doesnt travel far enough to get really seriously offline and pin high.  This is why, on approaches, most hacks end up short and a little offline.  This is also why your father never met a bunker that he couldnt go around.  In contrast, I'll bet he has met a few he couldnt go over.  
3.  Higher handicappers aren't necessarily idiots and are quite capable of figuring out that they ought to be aiming for the middle of safety, rather than taking dangerous lines to the pin.  
4.  Perhaps most importantly, to a high handicapper rocks aren't necessarily any worse than water, extremely high grass, trees, the ocean, or other hazardous conditions.  Whether it be, hazard, lost ball, or impossible shot all are pretty much dead.  

Undoubtedly, there are some greens at SE narrower than the ones pictured, but there are also quite a few that are as wide or wider.  It seemed that many of these holes had a 50 + yard wide corridor of safety at the front of the greens!  Looking at these photos and thinking back on the course just how wide do the corridors have to be before they are wide enough??

Granted, the greens often have serious trouble on one side . . . but at what great course is this not the case?   Bob mentions CP below . . . CP has very serious trouble in close proximity to the hole on at least one side on many if not most the holes, especially the best ones.  Start at 18 and work your way back and tell me when you get to a hole with the kind of forgiveness you expect at SE.  How about Sand Hills?   Can the hack golfer spray it 30 yards left or right of the green and not be dead?  They cant at Pebble.   Or how about Rustic, the poster child of forgiveness?  Most of the greens have one side that is near or complete death.  

Is it possible that the dimensions and the contrast have tricked you?  Is it at least possible that in your limited exposure the approaches looked much tighter than they actually are?  

Bob Asked:

What is about you guys that refuses to accept Huckaby's point that certain features of Stone Eagle might not be perfect? Why the reluctance to accept his precis?

From what I am reading I get the impression that we are finding the successor to Cypress Point. Please educate me, what am i missing?

I wholeheartedly accept Tom's point that certain features at Stone Eagle might not be perfect.  At the same time, I disagree with him regarding whether the approaches were too tight.  I guess the reason I care enough to discuss it with Tom is that after a half dozen plays I came away with the opposite impression on this particular issue.  

Perhaps if we ever get past this one issue we can have a more productive discussion on some the other provoking features.

[Mike Benham]

As I type this,  I have moved from the dry 110 degree desert heat of the Cochella Valley to the slightly different conditions of Orlando, FL., where it is only 90 degrees and the humidity will be 100% by the end of the day ... and that's is before the tropical depression gets here in a day or two ...

In taking THuck's comments about the challenge of SE for the mid-high handicapper, we must consider that there are various types of mid-highs, guys that hit it straight and short, guys that hit it longish and wild, throw in the variables of chipping and putting and it is a mixed bag.  

I don't agree with THuck's claim of unrecoverable danger for a left or right miss of 10-15 yards on each hole.  With the size of some of the greens, that shot could be 25 yards offline from the intended target !!!  It should be penalized.

I tried to rationalize with him his perceived tightness of SE to a course near and dear his heart, Pasatiempo.  To me Pasa is much tighter, and yes, on some of the holes, you miss the green by 15 yards, you may or may not have a recoverable shot.

I thought that SE was a very fair test of golf, one where the surprises of the courses are evident after a round or two and then your execution of the shots is what will allow you to improve your score.  The bumps and lumps in the fairway do add the additional variable of uneven lies for approach shots, and those golfers not comfortable with this shot, will either get use to it or struggle.

And about those bunkers, they may have been soft for whatever reason, however, the choice to leave the rakes in the bunkers is one that I always disagree with.  I drove into a fairway bunker, it was stopped by the rake and I was left with a lie that required me to stand outside of the bunker with the ball at least 12 inches below my feet.  If the rake was outside of the bunker or placed on the highside, then my ball would have been at the bottom of the bunker.

[Tom Huckaby]

David:

As I see it, the key is this:  at SE you just have VERY penal possibilities on both sides of every green.  They do exist.  And it's quite different than CP or Sand Hills - because on at least one side (or both, at some greens) at SE, you have lost ball possibilities.  That's not the case at CP, or SH.  As bad as things can result score-wise, except on the ocean holes at CP and if you get really unlucky at SH, you're not going to lose your golf ball.  Then you add in the VERY severe bunkers at SE (more severe than those at either CP or SH), and that's the witch's brew I'm trying to describe.

It's there, on every hole, at least to me.  One can see it, one knows it, it makes for fearful play.  Maybe others don't see trouble like I do, stemming from my time as a high handicapper, and from memories of bad shots even recently... if so, cultivate that skill - the game's far more fun that way.

And again anyway, to me it's just a small weakness of the course, one which I am quite happy to move beyond.  It's also fine with me if you disagree.  

I don't believe I ever made the general point that features at SE are imperfect -I just made this one critique.

So let's agree to disagree on this and move on.  It is one very intriguing golf course.  I found nothing else to critique, besides the obvious difficult walk, but even then I give Doak et al great credit for trying there, adding all the cut-throughs and the like.  What else do you see?

TH

ps to Mike - I never said the trouble was within 10-15 yards on every hole - OBVIOUSLY it isn't and I never used those numerical figures.  On some that's true, on quite a few that's not true.  My point was it exists on every hole, which I've tried to explain ad nauseam why that's no fun for some golfers.  Sure 25 yard wayward shots deserve punishment... it just gets trying when that exists, or worse, on every single approach shot - the cumulative effect is what makes for less fun.  Note I also made it very clear this critique applies only for high handicappers (say over 20).  Not sure what you mean by mid-highs.

[Tom_Doak]

Okay, truce, please.

What hole did you guys enjoy most?
What hole did you enjoy least?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

What holes did you enjoy most?
#7 as a par 4
What holes do you enjoy the least?
#7 as a par 3

I birdied #7 from atop, which started my run to what would become [/i]My Greatest Victory Ever.[/i] The next day, I didn't even try to make it two in a row. I convinced everyone in my group we should play the hole from down below. It is a really good golf hole. I also think Tiger, Ran and David would probably agree. It's a fun hole, as it was intended to be.

I also really like #1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, & 18.

[Mike Hendren]

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

On par with the O-Club, Chicago Golf Club, Yale, North Berwick, Carnoustie & TPC Sawgrass?   A notch better than Plainfield, Fishers Island, Pasatiempo, Honors Course and Spyglass?  

Brother Ed, I fear you have contracted that deadly virus that circulates periodically among members of the treehouse:  rectum inhabitum.  

Then again, I've neither seen nor played the golf course.  Looks like a blast and I particularly like the integration of the holes.  I would love to golf my ball there.

Mike

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tom Doak, I found myself being almost lost on the cart paths. I do not recall a course with cart parts going on for what seems like forever from green to tee when it was 20 to 40 years by direct path. Several of us laughed about being disoriented on them. #7 is the good down hill par 3. We played it from just in front of the 6th green and it was a great 265 par 3 from there. there are also some good ideas on a bit longer risk reward drivable par 4. did you loook at that as an option there.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike,
I think something that a lot of guys here aren't talking about is the fun factor.

Granted having fun in 110 degrees is an ardent task, each and everytime I've played the course, it has provided some pretty fun golf shots, as well as dramatic, head-scratching putting-lines to the hole. I think Ed say that, In fact I'm almost sure he did given Ed's pension for sportsmanship.

If people really wanted to be super critical of the nature of the course, it would have to be not just the fact that it's a course that is close to unwalkable, but that to get to the some of the tees, it requires a small amount of walking, that on first look almost seems like mountain-climbing. (In actuality it's a nice stroll in 110 degree heat! ) My guess is that when Bob Huntley played the course starting from #10 tee on, he experienced some of that extreme heat on the start of his second round of the day, thus his more critical view of the course. That I can completely understand and I once again apologize for having to hold a second round in such conditions. But I felt that seeing the course twice was imperative to at least forming the foundation for an opinion.

But the thing missed here by many who've commented both positively and negatively is the fun and challenging nature from those back tees. The course is a kick from back there, especially  when the couse is playing fast & firm and fun.

When looking at it from that angle, I think Ed Getka might be able to back-up his opinion if he was into putting numbers on to  such trivial matters such as golf.  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tommy, You are correct. This is a fun golf course.

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy / Tiger:  I understand that #7 is more fun from down below, but there isn't any room to safely play the hole from there on a day-to-day basis with the sixth coming the other way.  They're almost too close as they are now.  Plus, honestly, I could never have visualized that to begin with ... that first half of the sixth fairway has more cut and fill going on than any hole we've ever built.

I am curious that the couple of guys who played very well have posted pretty much nothing about it, one way or the other.  I'm curious if they thought it was too easy, or whether it was exciting as a match play venue.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tom, I am not one of the better players but still can visualize the shots of one. I think this is a great match play course. In fact I think it will prove to be a real favorite match play venue in the area with the older good player set. I do understand how 7 could not be played from below, but it was a great hole from there.

[rjsimper]

Tom - I enjoyed 6 the most and I enjoyed 14 the least.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom,
Jeff Fortson is currently without internet access since his recent move to Palm Desert.

I will talk to him later and get his thoughts and reconvey them to you, but in talking with Jeff, I'm sure he won't mind me stating from my conversation with him how much he enjoys the course counting it as the best course in the Coachella Valley. (This was the second time he played it, and the 66 he shot featured) But what does he know, he only grew-up there! Jeff also feels much the same way I do about the Palms and the Plantation. Both fit the bill out there nicely.

Tom,
You don't even have to explain to me about the 7th. I just think it is such an excellent, sporting golf hole which John forgot to mention par 3, AND A HALF!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()