Wolf Creek With Pics

[Pete_Pittock]

David,
Capture the flag hole. I hit a open faced driver and held the back of the green.
Matt,
The grasses in the rough are quite robust and killed a number of shots and swings. Two double hits had the grass as a contributing factor.

[Matt_Ward]

Pete:

Thanks ...

Few comments ...

The pro, with all due respect, needs to get a compass. The prevailing wind is out of the south / southwest and therefore the design allows a helping wind as you start the nines but back into one's face with the closing holes on each side.

If played from the 6,200 yards -- I don't see the onerous nature of the course being too narrow or forcing upon you "impossible carres" as you originally stated. No doubt if you or a similar type golfer badly executes a shot then no tee will provide the perfect outcome. I believe, given your detailed answers -- that playing the white tees would have been a much better fit for you.

Wind is daily factor -- WC is no different than any severe wind encountered at a links layout across the pond.
 
In regards to the lack of width -- if you play the 8th from the 150-yd marks the width dimension is not an issue -- the green sits below the elevated tee and you can actually see the entire target from those tees. Pete, in all honesty -- 150 yards is much more negotiable and within your range and most golfers of your handicap level -- then a attempt from the 214 marks. Big time difference without question.

I do agree about the no-go-zones with badly / wildly played shot but the same can be said for courses with high amount of H20 or those with very deep rough / gorse, etc, etc.

The day you played was greatly influenced by the 20+ wind speeds. No doubt it can be demanding but tee location and understanding the angles the course provides is critical when playing the course.

WC is pressure both visually and in THOROUGHLY understanding one's limitations in overall ball striking. Failure to know what you can and cannot do makes all the difference in the world when there.

One final thing -- overall conditioning -- scale of 1-10 with 10 being ANGC-like -- what score would you give.

David Kelly:

The par-3 3rd is doable from the 175 yards marks -- from the 227 yard marks it's a true beast and worthy of your comments in my mind.

David, when you say "long carry" I'd like to know specifics about tees played and the hole(s) in question. As Pete mentioned -- play the wrong boxes and the issues you face are self-created -- not course-created.

Your concluding comment is an interesting one -- about hitting far enough but not too far. Isn't distance control a part of shotmaking / execution ?

Wind clearly influences play but I would need to know concrete specifics beyond fleeting generalities in regards to what a given hole did not have that forced you into an unfair situation. There are options at WC and different playing angles -- the issue is knowing how much of an attack angle you can bite off. Bite off too much and the issue becomes player related -- again not course related.

No doubt your walk / cart issues are part of the dynamic for you -- and likely others. Like I said -- classic course lovers should avoid WC, For those who want a definite different type of golf experience it's worthy of seeing playing to decide for oneself.




In regards to the 13th there is more than sufficient room to land a shot from just about any tee box location.

[David Kelly]

Your concluding comment is an interesting one -- about hitting far enough but not too far. Isn't distance control a part of shotmaking / execution ?

Definitely. But it becomes guesswork when you are making that decision while standing 100 feet above the fairway.

[Matt_Ward]

David K:

Guesswork is part of golf -- isn't it ?

I mean people need to do it across the pond when they play blind holes and the like.

I didn't find the width (claimed lack thereof) to be such an inhibitor or to be so unfair that a well struck shot would not receive the appropriate reward / punishment.

No doubt when heavy wind is blowing it does make things more challenging but that can happen anywhere -- not just in Mesquite.

[David Kelly]

No doubt when heavy wind is blowing it does make things more challenging but that can happen anywhere -- not just in Mesquite.

And before that you said, "Wind is daily factor -- WC is no different than any severe wind encountered at a links layout across the pond."

But obviously on a links course there are far more options to use to counteract the wind. 

When you are on top of a 50 foot tee box and need to drive over a canyon there are no other ways to play the hole.  Combine this with large portions of the course that are staked out as no play zones and your options have dwindled down to nothing.

I'm not saying they should blow the place up, I'm  just saying it is not for me and there is little of interest architecturally for me there .

[John Mayhugh]

Wolf Creek is a fascinating course.  I think there is room in the golf world for it and I'm glad to have had a chance to play it.  I don't think that it's a great course, but it is definitely unique.

The biggest flaw in the course is that every hole is essentially bounded by a hazard.  I don't have the scorecard anywhere handy, but as I remember it pretty much any ball that is hit off the grass has to be treated as if it's in a hazard or environmentally sensitive area and abandoned.  You cannot go retrieve the ball and are not permitted to play from the red sandy area, even if it might be possible to play a really fun recovery shot.  Contrast this with a place like Coral Canyon, where you can go out and try all sorts of weird shots.

This lack of recovery options turns what should be an entertaining, quirky course into one that's not much fun.  Sure there are some wild-looking shots and hair-raising cart rides, but I just found the golf itself to be mostly target golf. 

Wolf Creek is worth seeing, but I don't have any real desire to play it again.

I did love the drive through window at the halfway house, though.   

[Matt_Ward]

John M:

Your analysis of shots that finish off the fairway is not accurate. There is rough areas in which play is permitted. We are talking about people
who really m-i-s-s shots that finish in the areas that are off-limits.

Let me point out that recovery is very much alive and well at WC but we are talking about such an aspect in terms that deal with reality -- I can name plenty of courses where shots that finished that far off-line are no less treated with no recovery -- albeit you may attempt to play a shot the net result is much the same.

Great pic of the halfway house located at the junction of the 6th tee, 14th green and 15th tee.

David K:

I said this from the beginning regarding how people will likely perceive WC. For those enamored and see classic design golf as the be-all / end-all the golf design of a place like WC will likely turn one's stomach. For those who are a bit more elastic in their golf diet WC will likely provide a very fun and entertaining diversion.

David, when you say "on a links course there are far more options to use to counteract the wind." I need real shot / hole specifics where such options are lacking at WC. 

Let me point out that on the elevated tee boxes you find at WC -- there are holes which turn at different stages -- the player has to decide how much to bite off and how aggressive to play. However, WC doesn't concede the lay-up shot for those who don't want to handle the main challenge presented. I like courses where the lay-up aspect is not a simple concession by the designer. Knowing how far you can hit clubs is part and parcel of the game. Being able to flight the ball is also another skill dimension that's also part and parcel of the game. The options are certainly present at WC -- the issue is really can the player make the right call for their specific game and whether they can execute as called upon by the shot / hole encountered.

Again, the "no play" areas are areas that are quite away from the main frame of the course. I would treat them no differently than OB -- frankly those areas just off to the left of the holes on the outward side should be OB. For those holes on the interior of the property it does take a bit of effort to MISS it that far away from the intended line of target. In many cases you have people who moan and groan who are playing tees beyond their level of skill and second they have made poor execution decision relative to what is presented to them on a given shot.

In regards to your final statement -- I agree. WC doesn't suit the eye of the classic course lover -- no doubt about that. Plenty of Pete Dye courses also fit that same bill. Be curious to know what hole(s) you did like when you played there ?

[John Mayhugh]

John M:
Your analysis of shots that finish off the fairway is not accurate. There is rough areas in which play is permitted. We are talking about people
who really m-i-s-s shots that finish in the areas that are off-limits.

Matt,
Before you criticize my "analysis" as inaccurate, you might read what I actually wrote.  I said

The biggest flaw in the course is that every hole is essentially bounded by a hazard.  I don't have the scorecard anywhere handy, but as I remember it pretty much any ball that is hit off the grass has to be treated as if it's in a hazard or environmentally sensitive area and abandoned.

I did not say that shots off the fairway were in the hazard.  I said shots OFF THE GRASS.  I realize that there is rough out there.  But from my memory, the rough and fairway there at WC are both grass. 

WC's holes are much like a cluster of islands.  I don't care for that. 

[Pete_Pittock]

Matt,
Any course that has windy conditions needs to be designed accordingly. Sometimes a course has two prevailing winds in generally opposite conditions (Bandon, Rustic?) and both must be accounted for. As for the pro I talked with for fifteen minutes he never said the wind comes out of the southwest. To paraphrase, he said the wind blows in opposite directions (both upwind and downwind on #1 for example). If the prevailing wind is from the SW and 14 runs in this direction, why is there a 3 yard difference between white and blue tees, where most male golfers would choose to play.

#8 was a side wind situation. I'd like to see a pro hit ten shots in my conditions and see how he fares.  The 155 tees, which I did not stand on, would have been into a quartering wind, which I think is a more difficult shot.

As a general question how many holes with forced carries would suffice to cause one to move up one set of tees, or two?

[Matt_Ward]

John:

Fair enough ... but keep this in mind -- many of the holes at Pine Valley no less -- are "cluster of islands." I guess you would not like Pine Valley either given your aforementioned comments.

Let's dwell for a moment on the idea that "every hole is boudned by a hazard." You do have holes that bracket other holes at WC -- so the idea that "every hole" is that way is not 100% accurate. You do have brown areas where recovery shots can be attempted.

Pete:

Wind is an unpredictable item -- from all the times I have played Wolf Creek (about ten times) I have seen the wind pick up in intensity and there are areas in which the player can bailout to if successfully executed.

Pete, I can tell you this -- I've spoken to more than a few people who are well aware of what WC is about -- in terms of wind conditions. The prevailing wind is from the southwest -- maybe the pro you spoke to needs a compass.

In regards to the set-up of the 14th hole -- tee boxes should have sufficient spacing between them to be really meaningful. If you only have a three-yard differential than the person placing the tee boxes that day needs to be better educated on how to set-up a course for daily play.

Pete, I've played the tip distance on #8 (247 yards) and it is a tough hole. However, you seem to forget the sheer drop from tee to green. We are not talking about a flat hole and that's something you conveniently left off in terms of your comments. I've played the hole from the tips and hit 3-iron as a general club. In some cases it might mean a club more depending upon overall wind velocity when facing a southwest or southerly wind. From the 155-yard tees -- where 90% of the people should tee off -- the hole is more manageable -- no doubt the shot still must be played with proper execution but it's far more easier than either of the two remaining tee boxes.

In regards to your last question -- the overall wind velocity will dictate that answer. Guess what Pete -- I can bring you to Bethpage Black and you would be asking the same questions. I would say for those who can't hit a driver beyond 200 yards total yards the max tees they should play is the whites at 6,200 yards. Unfortunately, too many people -- you might be one of them -- believe they can handle more course than their game can support. WC doesn't handle those who foolishly miscalculate. To borrow Eastwood's immortal line -- "a man's got to know his limitations." Those playing Wolf Creek should be well advised before playing from tees that their game cannot handle.

[John Mayhugh]

John:

Fair enough ... but keep this in mind -- many of the holes at Pine Valley no less -- are "cluster of islands." I guess you would not like Pine Valley either given your aforementioned comments.

Let's dwell for a moment on the idea that "every hole is boudned by a hazard." You do have holes that bracket other holes at WC -- so the idea that "every hole" is that way is not 100% accurate. You do have brown areas where recovery shots can be attempted.

I've never played Pine Valley or seen that course in person, but I'm comfortable with saying your Wolf Creek comparison is ridiculous.  I'm sure you are just saying this to be provocative as I cannot imagine you are actually that obtuse. 

You seem overly focused on other people liking Wolf Creek.  I'll concede it's a unique golf course and fascinating in its own way. I do not think much of the architecture as I do not like target golf and the ever-present hazards on every hole.  The course may not be 18 isolated "islands," but the description is close enough for me.  If you want to post aerials and show how wrong I am, go for it. 

I'll hold off on any further discussion of Wolf Creek until after I've played Pine Valley and can make an informed comparison. How about that?

[Matt_Ward]

John:

Here's what you said AGAIN ... "cluster of islands." PV has them -- in fact the earliest pictures of the place demonstrate that. Please don't blame me for your own sel-imposed ignorance before saying my previous comment is "ridiculous" and "obtuse." You have never seen or played PV but are quick to pronounce my statement with such words.

PV included such "islands" as a way to highlight the need for quality shotmaking. Please don't assume I am linking the qualities fo PV to WC -- just the usage of the term you mentioned and how such holes at the Jersey gem are routed.

John, I'm not "overly fixated" because I said from the get-go -- in the event you missed it -- that classic course lovers would likely find WC to be something not up their alley. Those whose tastes are a bit pragmatic may find the course rather fun and clearly beyond the norm found at so many others. If your elasticity for golf courses is quite narrow so be it -- for you.

Your tagging of WC as "target golf " is also offbase in my mind. WC provides alternate routes to the holes -- there is no ONE winning way to get to the targets -- the issue boils down to what tees one plays and what execution level you can provide.

There are hazards but the issue for many at WC is the overwhelming of the mind with the nature of the property. Once the player's mind wanders the rest speaks for itself.  You also have recovery locations throughout the course -- those who m-i-s-s the fairways / rough by that much should really look into the mirror themselves before using the golf course as a convenient excuse dodge ball.

[Pete_Pittock]

Matt,
This is my last post on Wolf Creek.

1) If someone says a hole can play both upwind and downwind he does not need a compass.

2) On # 14 the blue tee marker is 370, the white tee marker is 367.

3) You know, and I know that #8 is downhill. 

4) Obviously you and I play different games if you can hit a 3 iron from 247 on  #8, even if it is downhill. I don't have a 3 iron. I know my game and play what are the appropriate tees. Ask my weekly groups. My carry distance is deceiving because of a low ball flight.   

[Rob Rigg]

I really wanted to suck it up and play WC if in the vicinity until I saw the cart drive through and ralphed 50 times.

Especially after my comments earlier that we unfounded.

Sorry - Cart drive throughs are wicked f'd up. So so wrong.

[John Mayhugh]

John:

Here's what you said AGAIN ... "cluster of islands." PV has them -- in fact the earliest pictures of the place demonstrate that. Please don't blame me for your own sel-imposed ignorance before saying my previous comment is "ridiculous" and "obtuse." You have never seen or played PV but are quick to pronounce my statement with such words.

PV included such "islands" as a way to highlight the need for quality shotmaking. Please don't assume I am linking the qualities fo PV to WC -- just the usage of the term you mentioned and how such holes at the Jersey gem are routed.

John, I'm not "overly fixated" because I said from the get-go -- in the event you missed it -- that classic course lovers would likely find WC to be something not up their alley. Those whose tastes are a bit pragmatic may find the course rather fun and clearly beyond the norm found at so many others. If your elasticity for golf courses is quite narrow so be it -- for you.

Your tagging of WC as "target golf " is also offbase in my mind. WC provides alternate routes to the holes -- there is no ONE winning way to get to the targets -- the issue boils down to what tees one plays and what execution level you can provide.

There are hazards but the issue for many at WC is the overwhelming of the mind with the nature of the property. Once the player's mind wanders the rest speaks for itself.  You also have recovery locations throughout the course -- those who m-i-s-s the fairways / rough by that much should really look into the mirror themselves before using the golf course as a convenient excuse dodge ball.

Matt,
Wonderful job twisting around the island analogy I made.  Is this truly how your mind works or is it the only way you can continue to make your argument with me?

The problem with Wolf Creek is that pretty much every hole has an area on each side of it that cannot be played from and is treated as a lateral hazard.  This is what I was referring to with the island description. If you want to say I wouldn't like Pine Valley because each of its holes are isolated, then you are not able to understand one significant difference between the courses.  Pine Valley offers recovery options, though they may not be good ones.  Wolf Creek requires you to abandon a ball that may be in plain sight, take a penalty and drop. This happens all over the course. 

That, to me, limits the quality of the course significantly.  Like WC all you want, I don't care.  Just try, if only briefly, to comprehend the fact that some people don't like courses that you do.  Accept that rather than resorting to bizarre arguments like "I guess you would not like Pine Valley either."

I doubt that you can find anyone else on the site that agrees with your Pine Valley logic. 

[Andy Troeger]

The more posts I read the more I'm grateful I played on a calm day--for me that created sufficient width to get around very reasonably. With a 30 mph wind and all of the ESA's I can see how that might not create a great first impression. Of the things I like about the course, recovery options would not be at the top of the list. As some of you have said, once you miss the grass, the ball is often unplayable.

Matt,
Its important that a golf course remain playable in various and likely wind conditions. If Mesquite is anything like New Mexico, there may be a prevailing wind, but its not really that consistent. The wind can blow from any compass point, far different from the Midwest where a wind not out of the west is pretty unusual. I find it hard to believe that Mesquite doesn't get a pretty good variety of winds, and some of these holes aren't really designed with much elasticity to handle it. I'm not sure it could have been designed much better given the likely constraints though.

Where do you rank Wolf Creek? Is it in your top 100? Top 100 Modern? Top 100 Public?

[Pete_Pittock]

 I did not get the curriculum vitae of the person I talked to, or his name, so I should not have used "pro" to describe him. He seemed very knowledeable, but I guess he could have stayed at the Holiday Inn Express the night before we talked.

I only posted this to clear up any misconception based on my innappropriate language.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

If people sense WC as being unplayayble then I would hope the same thing would apply to countless other couses when conditions are severe -- such as The Ocean Course, Bethpage Black and I can add a host of courses from across the pond such as Carnoustie, to name just one.

Wolf Creek though can be played in windy conditions -- there are alternate routes and as I said previously -- the course barely top out above 7,000 yards. When you factor in desert air and ball movement that's not excessively long. No doubt when wind is blowing in one's face it can be demanding -- even more so on cross winds. But you also have various dropshots in a number of places and that can help reduce the overall length needed.

Andy, wind directions certainly do change during the year at WC. I mentioned after talking to a wide variety of people and from having played the course far more than the 1-2 times most people have played who have provided their comments to date. During the spring through summer period and extending into the fall the prevailing wind pattern is out of the southwest direction. That would mean the starting holes usually play downwind. The return holes on both sides generally play into the wind.

Does that mean to say the wind cannot blow differently? Sure. The issue is one of the prevailing wind and the south / southwest direction does that at WC. It's no different than what you find at The Rawls Course in Lubbock, TX. The prevailing wind is also from the south / southwest. I played the course in the rare situation with the wind coming from the exact opposite direction -- the northeast. It was a rare event as 4 out of 5 days the wind is blowing out of the prevailing pattern.

Andy, you keep on mentioning the word "elasticity." Courses can, and should be, adjusted to reflect the wind patterns so that the proper course rating / slope is possible. WC has that sort of elasticity in my mind.

In regards to my personal ratings -- I can see WC making my top 100 modern and public listings. Overall? That's a bit tougher because such a listing would be highly competitive with courses competing from all years -- whether classic or modern. If memory serves -- I do believe Digest  and Golf Mag (#51) have WC listed in their public sections in one manner or the other and Golfweek used to have it rated among their top 100 modern. Given what you asked I turn the same question back to you for your comments on its overall placement of layouts you have played.

Pete:

The spacing of tee boxes to be really meaningful should not be three yards apart. That means absolutely nothing -- and I say that whether it be WC or any other course for that matter. The 14th could have had two boxes at the 400 yard range and another at the 365-yd area.

Also, if a person doesn't know the general prevailing wind at WC -- yes -- they do need a compass. Winds can blow from different directions -- that is quite elementary. The issue was whether there is a prevailing direction for much of the playing season. I found out from others and from my plays at WC that such a wind direction is from the south / southwest.

Pete, in your comments can you tell me where you stated #8 was considerably downhill so that the effective yardage is a bit less than what the scorecard shows. I will point out for accuracy sake -- that the 8th generally plays into the prevailing which can impact clbu selection.

My definitive comment on #8 is that 90% of people who play the game should tackle that hole from the 150-yd marks. I can see those who play it from the 214-yd tees and being concerned about the overall demand intensity being quite high. It's possible don't you think that playing from the 150-yd tees for the 8th would have worked out better for you and the game you have?

John:

Hold the phone -- amigo. You -- repeat after me -- were the one who inserted the words "cluster of islands" into the mix. I mentioned to you Pine Valley has much of the same effect you downplayed at WC. You then tell me -- so let's be a bit more forthcoming shall we -- that my linkage of PV to such a comment is "ridiculous" and likely "obtuse." Hello John -- anybody home?

You browbeat me with such comments -- and then you state that I cannot be remorely accurate even though you admit you have NEVER seen or played PV to date. I have -- on a number of occasions. If anything is "bizarre" John it's telling people what another course is about when you have not played it and then insulting me by saying such an example is "ridiculous" and "obtuse" on my end.

You then opine that PV has recovery options -- really? How did you deduce that? It wasn't from a personal play - you admitted no less to start with. Yu just assume that PV has recovery options of equal merit throughout the round. WC has recovery options -- the course does present a striking scene of intimidation from a mental standpoint and in overall execution. Too many players complicate matters by playing the wrong set of tees and attributing any such personal failure to the course rather than themselves.

If people m-i-s-s shots by t-h-a-t much at WC it's possible they may reach the environmental "no play" areas. I opined that you do have brown areas within the confines of WC that allow for recovery. You say such a limitation at WC "happens all over the course." Again, that is not so. There are adjoining holes in which people can hit wild shots and still play from those positions. You also have a number of holes at WC where fairways widths are more than generous.

John, I never claimed all people should like WC. I understand personal preferences very well and I said those who have a very narrow and clear preference for classic designed courses should avoid going there period. Those who want to experience a different style of golf design may find WC extremely fun to play and certainly beyond the ordinary array of courses they usually encounter. Simple as that. End of story.

[George Pazin]

My definitive comment on #8 is that 90% of people who play the game should tackle that hole from the 150-yd marks. I can see those who play it from the 214-yd tees and being concerned about the overall demand intensity being quite high. It's possible don't you think that playing from the 150-yd tees for the 8th would have worked out better for you and the game you have?

This is probably true, but unfortunately if you stick to one set of tees, that might mean the rest of the course is too short.

Just a thought. Me, if I'm playing alone, I love to hop around and play different tees.

[TEPaul]

I'm not at all familiar with Wolf Creek. Did C.B. Macdonald design that one too or has the club at least given him the credit he deserves for his contribution to it?

That photo that shows that massive concrete bathtub and the tee shot over that and that light brown large mound on the right of the green blinding the green by 7.358% is a damn "Alps" par 3 if I ever saw one!

[Andy Troeger]

In regards to my personal ratings -- I can see WC making my top 100 modern and public listings. Overall? That's a bit tougher because such a listing would be highly competitive with courses competing from all years -- whether classic or modern. If memory serves -- I do believe Digest  and Golf Mag (#51) have WC listed in their public sections in one manner or the other and Golfweek used to have it rated among their top 100 modern. Given what you asked I turn the same question back to you for your comments on its overall placement of layouts you have played.

Matt,
I would put Wolf Creek in the Top 100 Public somewhere in the middle of the list, but definitely not the Top 100 Overall. Borderline for the Modern list but more likely out than in.

[John Mayhugh]

John:

Hold the phone -- amigo. You -- repeat after me -- were the one who inserted the words "cluster of islands" into the mix. I mentioned to you Pine Valley has much of the same effect you downplayed at WC. You then tell me -- so let's be a bit more forthcoming shall we -- that my linkage of PV to such a comment is "ridiculous" and likely "obtuse." Hello John -- anybody home?

You browbeat me with such comments -- and then you state that I cannot be remorely accurate even though you admit you have NEVER seen or played PV to date. I have -- on a number of occasions. If anything is "bizarre" John it's telling people what another course is about when you have not played it and then insulting me by saying such an example is "ridiculous" and "obtuse" on my end.

You then opine that PV has recovery options -- really? How did you deduce that? It wasn't from a personal play - you admitted no less to start with. Yu just assume that PV has recovery options of equal merit throughout the round. WC has recovery options -- the course does present a striking scene of intimidation from a mental standpoint and in overall execution. Too many players complicate matters by playing the wrong set of tees and attributing any such personal failure to the course rather than themselves.

If people m-i-s-s shots by t-h-a-t much at WC it's possible they may reach the environmental "no play" areas. I opined that you do have brown areas within the confines of WC that allow for recovery. You say such a limitation at WC "happens all over the course." Again, that is not so. There are adjoining holes in which people can hit wild shots and still play from those positions. You also have a number of holes at WC where fairways widths are more than generous.

John, I never claimed all people should like WC. I understand personal preferences very well and I said those who have a very narrow and clear preference for classic designed courses should avoid going there period. Those who want to experience a different style of golf design may find WC extremely fun to play and certainly beyond the ordinary array of courses they usually encounter. Simple as that. End of story.

To the "browbeaten" Mr. Ward:

Give me a break.  If my disagreeing with you hurt so much, you really shouldn't be posting.  Disagreeing is not browbeating, but if you prefer to act like a victim of some sort, have at it.

Comparing WC & PV is COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS.  I described WC's holes as like a cluster of islands because pretty much each hole is surrounded by an area that is an unplayable hazard.  The island analogy was used because of the virtual water surrounding each of the holes.  I have no problem with isolated holes and never said that I did.  I have a problem with unplayable hazards everywhere.  That's what makes your Pine Valley comparison COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS.  I don't have to see PV to make this statement.

You have quite the pattern of argument going.  If someone doesn't like one of the courses that you do, you first criticize those that haven't played the course.  Then, if like me, they've played your pet course and didn't like it, you try to twist their criticism around.  

I am certain that if I ever do play Pine Valley, I will see no similarities to Wolf Creek other than the number of holes.  If you can find any one else in the 1500 members of this site that sees the two courses in the same light that you do (and were elite enough to play both), then I will gladly apologize.

I don't have a "very narrow and clear preference for classic design courses," though there is some preference there.  I've played a number of modern courses that I liked very much.  Amongst these were Kingsley, Ballyneal, and Rustic Canyon.  Wolf Creek is nowhere near the quality of these courses.

Sorry for offending you, but silly arguments and thin skin don't go well together.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Agree with you on the public side -- but higher up than the middle. Try to realize that often times many of the architects cited for "great" courses have simply repeated the basic theme / design elements from one course to the next. My listing would favor a more varied differential.

The top 100 overall is a demanding benchmark and likely Wolf Creek would be facing some intense and legitimate first rate competition. However, on the modern side I see it as a worthy inclusion for the reasons I mentioned above. Likely on the modern listing I'd have it somewhere in the middle of the pack.

George:

Agreed. You should hop around to different tees - in fact, many people might gain more insight and a better understanding of different courses by playing markers that suit their games -- especially on days when weather conditions make playing from tees further back a bit more difficult than a given person might wish to handle.


John:

You might want to realize credibility on this site comes from understanding the subject matter at-hand. You made a statement to the effect that Wolf Creek is a "cluster of islands" and I made it a point to provide you an example of a course in which target golf and a "cluster of islands" is a central theme to the course. That example is Pine Valley.

You bark back at me with inane statements to the effect saying that example is "ridiculous" and "obtuse." The most ignorant of your comments comes with refuting my example after freely admitting you have NEVER seen or played Pine Valley. I always appreciate people who weigh in from the deep left field seats with definitive comments on the merits of someone else's statements with no personal homework to show for it.

John, there's a huge difference between legitimate disagreement -- and verbally insulting someone with such terms. I never did that. I simply stayed on-task with the discussion. It is you who decided to hi-jack that discussion with your bombastic retort.

Check out the earliest photos of PV and you will see a similar-related aspect to what PV was then and what you see with elements at Wolf Creek. I am not -- nor did I earlier -- equate PV with WC. Not at all.

John, let me point out AGAIN -- you keep on barking about Wolf Creek being surrounged by unplayable hazards. Really. Do you know the course or is that merely a throw-away line? There is more than sufficient room on nearly all of the holes to handle shots played in a relatively decent manner. I can't help the fact if someone hits a shot 50-60 yards off line and then demands that their be some sort of guaranteed recovery element for their own woeful play. PV treats shots no less the same way than Wolf Creek and was created from the get-go with providing playing areas that were created as lily pads for players to hit from one place to the next. That was the sole connection I drew upon -- not that Wolf Creek is akin to Pine Valley in a total manner. No less than PV -- you do have isolated holes at WC but you also have holes that are situated next to others which allows for wayward shotmaking to still have an opportunity to recover.

John, you mentioned the likes of Ballyneal, Rustic Canyon and Kingsley. All of them are superb courses but each of them lends itself to more classic school designed architecture which is great. The theme of Wolf Creek is being able to handle a very demanding site and to do so with holes that can both fit the terrain and still permit the core elements of good shots being rewarded and poor shots being penalized. I salure architect Dennis Rider for getting the most out of a tough site.

John, there's no "twisting" at all. I simply took YOUR words and countered it with a bit more detail than your shoot from the hip bluster about what is lacking at Wolf Creek. I never said you, or others, have to like the course. I'll say this again in the event you failed to read it -- those who prefer classic designed courses will find the starkness and edginess of Wolf Creek to be something that overwhelms their senses. That's fine. Clearly, the course has a following of some sort -- you might want to check out the varied ratings it has received from the top pubs. I guess all of them must be in serious error or denial.

[John Mayhugh]

Matt,
Your concern about my credibility on GCA is touching.  I would be so honored if you would be willing to be my mentor and help improve my credibility.  It seems only natural that the first lesson would involve a trip to Pine Valley so I could then be qualified to discuss Wolf Creek.   

Reading your posts makes me think I'm in a logic class and my assignment is to identify the fallacy used in your arguments.  I believe that discussion of Pine Valley is known as the "straw man" fallacy though it might also be known as "missing the point."  I don't remember them all. 

I said that "The biggest flaw in the course is that every hole is essentially bounded by a hazard.  I don't have the scorecard anywhere handy, but as I remember it pretty much any ball that is hit off the grass has to be treated as if it's in a hazard or environmentally sensitive area and abandoned."  That's it.  A simple criticism.   First you misinterpreted (intentionally or not, I don't know) my use of the word grass to mean fairway.  Not sure how someone that's so literal as you could make such a mistake, but I guess when you're eager to tell people how wrong they are it can happen.

You then took my use of the "cluster of islands" analogy and said that I wouldn't like Pine Valley.  I love the way you assumed that I had not played Pine Valley: "I guess you would not like Pine Valley either given your aforementioned comments."  This is a nice tool in your argument strategy - disqualify someone's argument because they haven't played the course.  For what it's worth, I place little stock in criticism of a course that no one has seen.  But I'm not criticizing Pine Valley. 

Whether I have played Pine Valley is not relevant to my comment about Wolf Creek.  Was anything I said about PV factually inaccurate?  Are the PV "islands" bordered by hazards that a player is prohibited from entering and playing from?  If so, then you are right - I doubt I would enjoy PV.

I am not sure which of GolfWeeks' modern courses also fit your definition of modern courses.  You rejected my use of Ballyneal, Kingsley, and Rustic Canyon.  I've only played about 16 on their modern list and think WC is a notch below any of those. 

I think you find my disagreement with you more offensive than any of the words I've used, but if characterizing your PV comparison as ridiculous has hurt your feelings, I apologize.

[Matt_Ward]

John:

I have a thick skin partner -- I am in local government as a councilman and have served previously on my city's school board so the differences of opinions expressed here are rather tame. I have a fairly good hide in many ways.

However, please don't be a sarcastic sort with the comments from your first paragraph retort.

Pine Valley was created by George Crump to be a penal course. It was and is ringed by the unkept natural areas of South Jersey. In many ways the isolation of the holes at PV are akin to what you see with Wolf Creek. In addition, PV provides near certain demands for superior target style golf to leap from one patch of land to the next. Wolf Creek has done a somewhat similar thing to mirror your original comments of "cluster of islands."

John, you keep on erroneously harping that shots hit off the grass at WC have to always be treated as being in a hazard or environmentally sensitive area. That's not the case and I will be more than happy to illustrate that. There is room for people to play recovery shots -- however --if people expect a miss of 60-70 yards to get a free pass they are clearly kidding themselves.

I have played courses that far narrower than WC and which provide far worse draconian outcomes. Width is present -- as is different avenues of attack.

I mentioned PV because it too has an "cluster of islands" -- you were the one who stated that you have neither seen nor played PV. Frankly, I don't know how you can then take a major leap of logic and slam me with being "ridiculous" and "obtuse" when frankly there is merit in what I have said given my playing time at both places.

John, playing courses is the ideal way to really understand what they provide -- you agree with that so we have some sort of common reference point of agreement. There are certain people on this site -- maybe you are one of them -- who seem to believe they can have informed opinions through second or third hand accounts or through photos alone. No doubt people can have opinions on anything and if you have opinions on PV from such a limited personal familiarity so be it. I would hold such a view in far less credibility because of the personal experience that trumps all others.

John, I never said you criticized PV -- please don't refute arguments not attributable to me. Your playing of PV is a direct part of this discussion because you weighed in on the emptiness of me linking it to a statement you made.

PV allows people to play from such areas no matter how far they hit the ball off course -- save for the OB near the clubhouse area. WC could easily do likewise -- they choose not to given the pace of play considerations and frankly when someone hits ball 60-70 yards offline there is no real recovery involved. The same thing happens for a number of the top shelf links courses across the pond in which hay-like rough straightjackets the fairways to such a degree that it becomes equivalent to playing on a bowling alley. Those places across the pond are infinitely more harrowing than what you see at Wolf Creek.

You asked about recovery options and that they do not exist at WC -- if you have clear specifics please illuminate them in detail.

No doubt you can diss Wolf Creek if it didn't meet your standards. I just said that if you care to notice -- all of the major pubs have had the course rated -- if memory serves, the Golfweek modern listing was only recently
removed. The others are still current.

Ballyneal, Rustic Canyon and Kingsley are the handiwork of people who favor the classic style of golf -- you have ample width fairways, strategic and well crafted bunkers, wonderful land to showcase the product and a range of compelling greens calling upon the player to improvise as needed. I have great admiration for all of them -- especially Ballyneal and Kingsley and concur they are clearly superior to the likes of WC.

Wolf Creek will not suit certain people -- I have admitted that countless times -- more than likely, in my mind, it will be those who are enthralled with classic designed type golf courses. But, I have also tried to force people go a bit beyond the general comments that really don't hold water once specific holes / shot are thoroughly examined. Wolf Creek does have an array of fascinating and fun holes -- it's national ratings prove that.

John, it's not an apology I want. I don't see disagreement as a bad thing because it's part of what makes this site fun and interesting -- however -- I do find it necessary for people to provide specifics and reasons for their position -- having played course(s) in question and others tied in does help with that overall effort through direct awareness.

Simple as that.