Easthampton / Bill Coore's comments

[Matt_Ward]

Had the pleasure in playing Easthampton for the first time yesterday as selected metro area golf media were in attendance to see the course and have the opportunity to meet co-architect Bill Coore.

Bill gave an illumintaing and most informative presentation. He mentioned how the greens are the hallmark of the course (indeed they are!) and that the course is a throw-back to golf of a different itme where "aggressive play" is not the centerpiece as it is with so many modern designs today.

Bill went on to explain that Easthampton was designed to bring back to golf a game where power is not the center focus on shotmaking. Bill went on to say that a skilled senior player, who may have lost a few yards off the tee ball, may be able to defeat a hot shot young turk who misses the targets to either side. And, boy, if you miss either side you will need to exhibit real up and down ability!

I credit the C&C team with their ability to be different because Easthampton is clearly so. I also marvel at their ability to get a quality design on such a small parcel of land. The front nine rests on, I believe, 47 acres!

A case can be made that the greens at Easthampton can be a bit too much if greens speeds and pin placements are not reconciled in some sort of common sense approach. But, the course does present a different outlook on what golf should be about. Bill Coore outlined that he and Ben always seek to think through their work and not fall into the habits of predictability and boredom. I credit them for such a unique and exciting design.

As a power player I know I would have to certainly adjust my game plan in playing the course. What many might not realize is that the owners originally wanted a semi-private layout and
the town resisted by passing an ordinance that said golf courses on residence land had to be private -- not public.

I wonder what others think of the course. I enjoyed it and believe it gives you a perspective that's refreshing.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Matt,
 I loved the course. I played it on a May day with Jeff Bradley, of C&C and that is a course that is for throwbacks only and I hope that that sales pitch is made when introducing new members. I think because of the greens, shaggy bunkers, compact site, fescue fairways, it gives an atmosphere it take a special kind of member also. They would have to understand that everything isn't going to perfectly edge, 12+ on the stimp, stripes everywhere.....Easthampton is a golf course. Period. No tricks, simple golf where your mental game in creativity are equal to you golfing ability.
  
   Matt, Were you able to play the new green on the 12th hole? Jeff had just done some work there and it was just seeded when I played.

[Matt_Ward]

Tony --

I saw the new green and it's ready to go but their is some leftover business with a next door neighbor who has a hard time with where the existing green is. I was told that once he completes all the necessary details relating to alleviating the issues at hand the new green will open -- but not until then.

The wall that exists now between the properties is truly hideous -- it actually looks like the last vestiges of the Berlin Wall.

The only thing I would offer for the 12th Tony is that the fairway bunkers in the center of the fairway are too close together. I would love to see them split apart and have a gap of say about 20-30 yards between them. This would really keep the long hitter from just busting one now over the cluster of two bunkers.

The par-5 14th has to be, in my opinion, one of the really marvelous mid-range par-5's you can play. And, what about the bunker that guards the right hand side. It is something to behold -- where is Tommy N when you need him?

I also have to add that the 17th hole is no less a vintage hole. How unique is the design of that green. It really makes the power player think long and hard in going for the target in two strokes. I believe a case can be made that both the 14th and 17th are two of the finest par-5 holes you can play on a back nine for any course on Long Island.

Also -- how neat / demanding is the approcah to the short par-3 8th? And the qualities of the 9th hole -- just beckoning you on to be aggressive when caution is the proper reply.

Easthampton is a fun course and Bill Coore & Ben Crenshaw certainly achieved that aspect and it's one thing he said was central when the design was being discussed with all parties. I also credit the ownership with the vision in trying to keep the land as open space instead of having another McMansion on the east end.

I know if I play the course again I will be using a different strategic game plan and I'll certainly have to hone up on all short game situations. My  only critique is that power is really held too much in check but I can understand the motivation of the design team and I salute them for being so creative on such a limited landscape of land. For those who seek a course that is anti-power and anti-grand scale of emptiness I suggest Easthampton -- it will enthrall and seduce you.

I will say this for sure -- if you can handle the demand of the contours at Easthampton there are few courses I've played where the green contours can be much more challenging. If there are such places I'd have to see them to believe it.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Glad you saw Easthampton, and I'm glad you liked it and saw it for what it is. Interesting also about Coore's comments! He seems to be a somewhat reticent and maybe shy man but when he feels the need or wants to his ability to speak words of wisdom with a quiet persuasion and extraordinary commonsense, he surely has done it and can do it!

Welcome to the Coore and Crenshaw fan club. We sometimes get criticized on here for singing their praises but I think you just had a good indication why some of us do!

By the way, with the Easthampton Golf Club, they're very honest! Some think that architects are out to hit a homerun with every project but on that one they would never make such a claim--they only said they did the best they could with what they were up against!

For your info the original owner appealed to them and they went for it without grandiose expectations!

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

I will say this for sure -- there are plenty of other designers who would have sought to try and emulate National / Shinnecock, etc. That didn't happen here and that's a big plus in my book for what it's worth.

Coore & Crenshaw put their stamp on something that is clearly different and different with a purpose. I think one has to be very careful with how the greens are set-up and where the pins go to avoid charges of being silly and over the top. I mean I just marveled at the 16th green -- how neat is that?

When one reflects about the tiny acreage available and how quality golf was produced I tip my hat off to them.

Look, I'm not making Easthampton out to be in the league with the all-time greats on the Island, but the manner it which it presents itself will fascinate you with its array of golf shots. There are clearly unique shotmaking aspects present (how about the driveable 11th and the Strath type bunker that guards the middle of the green like Dick Butkus)! I appreciate architects who take risks because too often one gets lost with the inane "bombs away but have no purpose" layouts you see being done today.

Anyone having the pleasure in speaking to Bill Coore will certainly advance their knowledge and interest in golf. I know I did.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Again, I'm glad you saw and played Easthampton and also heard Bill Coore on the ideas of the company and what they try to do. Again, now you'll see more clearly why they're very popular on this site and elsewhere. There're a number of threads on Easthampton G.C. in the back pages that probably should be pulled up to the front.

It's ironic but if someone was to tell Bill Coore that Easthampton G.C. ranked up with some of the greats he would undoubtably shake his head at such a remark! All they claim to have done there was the best they could with a fairly problematic site and situation!

You did mention most of the high point holes on the golf course too!

I think you also caught the essence of what they were trying to do strategically with the long player against the short player.

However, I think you may have missed their point a bit about how they actually DID handle the long player (vs the shorter player) with the design of that course. The idea there was not to exactly hold the long player in check! Not actually, in any case! The only thing about that golf course and the long player being held in check would be right between the long players ears, not actually! And that basically was their point there!

Eventually you said (in your post) that your only critique is they held the long player (like yourself) too much in check in the design!

But if you think through the course, Matt, you'll see they really did not do that! In that vein (your critique), what you mentioned they should do about the mid-fairway bunkering on #12 is very contradictory to your point (your critique).

Obviously you feel the long player can bust the ball over those bunkers now and that the bunkers should be separated to complicate things for the long player on that drive. What then would hold the long player in check more--they way they did it or what you're recommending?

#17 is, in my opinion too, a truly brilliant hole in the way they conceived and designed it-but in effect that hole is only about the numbers game!

When I first saw the course it was so early they didn't even have pars set for the holes. When I looked at #17 I thought the hole was extremely strange looking and in concept! Basically I was looking at a hole with a great big body and what seemed to be a teeny little "head" (the green). It seemed completely out of proportion to me in every way. But I also, for some reason, assumed it was a long par 4!!

So I asked Bill about it and he said it was a par 5 and everything began to become clear about what they were trying to do on that hole!

Ben and Bill had been thinking about a short par 5 concept that could put real pressure on a long hitter somehow but attempting to do that in design has always been very tricky business as the danger is that the architect might shut down on the "go" option too much somehow and basically kill the entire "go/no go" theme which is basically what all good short par 5s are about!

So what they did there is create something where a long player might be around 200 yards or less from that green and the fact that the hole is a par 5 instead of the same hole and a par 4 is what it's all about. Just the perception of the higher par number is supposed to tempt and frustrate the player at the same time! They want that birdie and they are within range of it on their approach but the narrow green is supposed to "get in their head" as to going for a short par 5 in two and making a mistake and making a worse number.

You can just imagine if that hole really was a par 4 the whole concept would change and definitely not for the better.

Basically Bill Coore said what that hole is supposed to do is put the ridiculous par and numbers game right between the player's ears (where it belongs) and make him struggle with that psychologically!

And I think that hole does it! But the hole does not hold the long player IN CHECK, per se! He's right there probably with an iron in his hand and the point is THE CHOICE is all HIS--and the architect has not exactly taken that choice away from him in any way except for any players quandry with an ultimate number!!

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Just to clarify my comments re: 12th hole. I would space the bunkers apart in the same manner that Tom Doak did with the par-5 3rd there. Having space between them keeps them as a central strategic option no matter the wind direction or strength of the player. I would not space them more than 20-25 yards apart.

Last point -- I've played my share of C&C courses previously. I've played Sand Hills  and it clearly belongs, along with Pac Dunes, as the two finest modern designs I've played in the USA in the last 20-25 years. But, I will piggy back on what you said on another thread about keeping an open mind on what a design / architect (Art Hills) can do. I've always said that and I try to approach each course on a case-by-case basis. There are some people who are big fans of certain designers because of their preceived style. Sometimes that style works and sometimes it can become stale.

I liked Esathampton because the architect duo wasn't going to cave in to uniformity based on what I see opening in golf over the last number of years. It has its own style -- its own purpose. That, in my mind, is originality and worth somehting to me when I review / rate a facility. At the same time that originality must be crowded in sound golf priciples and as I said, even Bill Coore mentioned this that night, the greens at Easthampton are right on the edge of being permissible given green speeds today.

Earlier this year I played Hidden Creek and I posted my review when the subject was discussed. It too is a unique course that clearly has risen the bar in South Jersey. To use a baseball metaphor I said it's not a home run but a solid double. I would rate Easthampton no less and in some ways a bit more because the shape, style and contours of the greens are wonderfully created. And, I believe, as I said before, the two par-5's on the back side are really a treat in making the power player REALLY think about launching for the greens on your second shot.

I appreciate architects who don't get hung up on duplication. I want to see them put forward a different but still productive design that flies in the face of predictability. Easthampton does that because you have a tandem in C&C that are willing to be bold in providing their interpretation in what design should be for the piece of land they had to work with.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

No doubt about it that "difference" or "diversity" from course to course is a big part of Coore & Crenshaw's thinking on architecture.

Some may say their bunkering is somewhat redundant and identifiable from course to course but I really don't buy that critique unless someone says they should steer clear of bunkering that looks natural and may play rugged too from time to time!

And I doubt they will ever do that although the bunker look that they created at Hidden Creek is somewhat of a departure for them but is so only to the extent that they decided to pay tribute to the early "heathland" bunker look!

Just their creation of a concept like #17 Easthampton was a bit risky (to do it that way) and they knew it would be a difficult thing to pull off well, but they did it brilliantly, in my opinion and in yours too apparently.

They do know though that some of the things they do will be controversial with some golfers and even some members. They're aware of that and are concerned too but they do have the guts to try it anyway! On the fairly radical green contours at Easthampton it's no secret that they did recommend a max stimp speed number for those greens--not to be exceeded!

I feel the others we seem to admire on here (some say too much), Doak and Hanse, and maybe DeVries too and also maybe Echenrode and Kelly Blake Moran also have the guts to stretch their architecture in some risky ways sometimes and that is a very good thing!

The thing I suppose that makes that stretching even more interesting to me is how they do it by really concentrating on the land they're using to max out what it can give them on its own and also going back into the past somehow for ideas and concepts although that may not be very apparent to most golfers today!

I believe all those guys and their companies have a real understanding of the past, the history and evolution of architecture and they tap into that in interesting ways! Maybe not so much by actual "copying" (see Doak's recent remark on the "A wonderful Old World golf hole" thread") but more in basic principle!

Maybe some of them, or all of them, might take golf architecture to a place or level it's never been before someday but if they do I think there will always be those valid, solid, interesting fundamentals in it of where golf architecture once was and where it came from!

[Bill Schulz]

I would like to additionally mention that Easthampton is the most walkable golf course I have ever played in my travels (currently played 95 of the Golf Digest Top 100). At 6,400 yards exactly from the back tees, Easthampton is a delightfully enjoyable experience that I played in less than 2 hours with a neat young Irish caddie this past September. The ragged bunkering is what we expect of C&C and shots left above the hall result in demanding putts downhill. Not sure about the giant tree jealously guarding the left front bunker on the 18th hole. Easthampton is one of my personal favorites due to the thoughtful attention to details in the bunkering and green complexes and also the literally 10-15 feet between putting surfaces and the next tee boxes. I love that concept (sort of like the 2nd tee at NGLA at the back of the 1st green, Chicago Golf, Talking Stick, etc.) and obviously with an intended golf of only 150 members (at $300,000 each) the liability issue should be small. A solid 7 on the Doak scale and an 8 in my heart.

[Matt_Ward]

Bill:

I do share your enthusiam and can see how a case can be made for a Doak scale rating of 7. I would give the layout somewhat less of a grade -- likely a 6.5 sems right to me.

Given all the fanfare other courses of limited yardage receive on GCA I think this is one example of a course that packs plenty of punch given its limited acreage and length.

My only question -- can a course be rated that highly with only one long par-4? I think it can but there may be others who believe differently.

I also think you make a good point regarding the tree to the left of the 18th. It's likely the hole, from a visible and strategic point, would be enhanced if the tree were not present.

[Bill Schulz]

Hi Matt! You definitely raise an interesting point with respect to whether a golf course can be considered a great one with only one long par 4. The 10th hole is a 454 slighly downhill dogleg left par 4 and no other par 4 exceeds 429 yards (the 12th and I agree with you a larger gap between the two otherwise wonderfully placed fairway bunkers in the middle of the fairway would create more strategic options). Please consider (all back tee yardages and let's define a long par 4 as a hole exceeding 430 yards) Shoreacres (the 5th hole at 449 yards and the 10th hole at 437 yards), Pasatiempo (the recently changed 1st hole from a par 5 to par 4 at 460 yards and recently Doal restored 10th hole from 444 yards, Maidstone with no par 4 exceeding the 422 yard 12th dogleg left hole, San Francisco Golf Club with no par 4 exceeding the dogleg left 430 yard 17th hole and lastly, Fisher's Island where no par 4 exceeds the dogleg left Cape par 4 425 yard 14th hole. Clearly there are several exemplary courses with only 1 or long par 4s.                                                                                                                                             On the other hand, an argument could be made that there are no great courses that lack at least 1 or 2 great short par 4's. I have long agreed with Ran's observation that perhaps Medinah is overrated. This in part is due to the elimination (hopefully soon to be restored dramatic short iron par 3 1`7th hole over the lake) of a great hole but also the complete lack of even one short par 4. A look at the scorecard indicates the 1st hole at 388 and the 15th hole at 389 are the short 4's at Medinah and they are not very strategic or interesting holes. Colonial is another overrated course with 12 par 4's but only one under 400 yards (the 387 17th hole).                                                 One common characteristic of many of my personal favorites are those courses where the architect follows a long or short par 4 with the converse hole. At Easthampton C&C follow the 281 par 4 9th hole with the previously mentioned 454 10th hole. C&C at Talking Stick South follow the short 327 par 4 4th hole with the 471 5th hole. Played Cuscowilla last week (the ugly Xmas trees behind the 11th green need to go as they not only block the wind off the lake but also ruin the beautful shoreline views of the lake) and the 305 par 4 5th hole is followed by the 465 yard 6th hole. Later in the round the 298 par 4 12th hole is followed by the 466 yard 13th hole. Doak also follows this practice with the 316 yard 6th hole at Pacific Dunes followed by the 464 7th hole and at Apache Stronghold where the 325 yard 6th hole is sandwiched between the 470 yard 5th hole and the 456 yard 7th hole.
Speaking of tough long par 4s, the newly designed 5th hole at Augusta National must be seen to be believed. Playing last Thursday and Friday (opening days for the season), the 5th hole is now 455 yards with the new tee directly behind the 4th green. The difficultly of the hole lies with the 2 cavernous fairway traps guarding the left side of the dogleg left fairway which my caddie indicated were 312 yards to the front of the first bunker and a 330 carry over the second bunker from the back tees (which we did not play). As a 6 handicap it is unlikely I could hit anything more than a sand wedge to escape either bunker due to the extreme depth and high lips of both bunkers. On the 18th hole I could not hit more than a 7 iron from the first fairway bunker which is quite a bit more shallow than the second bunker. The amazing depth of these bunkers indicate to me the scary direction architecture is moving with respect to professional golf. AGN is a solid 9 on the Doak scale for me.
Lastly, Matt, thank you for the tip regarding Pa Ko Ridge in New Mexico (which I believe you placed in your personal top 50). Pa Ko Ridge is clearly the best course in New Mexico with Las Campanas (the softer, gentler Nicklaus design) a somewhat distant second. The holes are dramatic from driveable 4s such as the 6th hole to reachable 5s and the 98 yard green par 3 4th hole. The fairways are generous and the bunkering is bold. Unfortunately my otherwise Doak scale rating of a solid 7 is reduced to 6 due the unwalkable design. In this sense, this course reminds me a lot of the Sanctuary in Colorado. I'm looking forward to your other strong cartball recommendation, Wolf Creek in Nevada. Our 2 best cartball courses in Arizona are the stunning Stone Canyon and its wonderful Jay Morrish green complexes (I'm going to try to walk there next time but the hike from the 9th green to the mountain perched 10th tee may kill me!) and Gary Panks' beautiful and dramatic Chaparrel Pines which is marred by 3 par 5s requiring an iron from the tee box.


.


                                              

[TEPaul]

Never having thought much of ranking and rating I would be interested, however, in understanding how the "Doak Scale" is done.

I think it's somewhat hilarious to hear these courses described on here as a solid 6.5 or a 7, and that kind of thing!

What the hell does that all mean? It would be best, in my opinion, to do one of two things with the Doak scale!  Either post what it is in detail or just leave Doak Scale ratings to Tom Doak himself!

[brad_miller]

Bill, welcome, your point about "the short par 4" is spot on IMO, Merion is maybe one of the best examples of the mixture of the long and the short par 3's and 4's, I'd also include Sand Hills depending on the tees played.

The 14th a Fishers, depending on wind direction can play much longer than its yardage because of the shape of the landing area and location of the greensite.

Bill, which 5 do you have to go? and why GD list and not the better Golf list?

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

The Doak scale is a rating exercise -- to see where a particular course should be included. To help understand this I am including the levels 6,7 and 8 below.

6 -- A very good course, definitely worth a game if you're in townm but not necessarily a special trip to see. It should not disappoint you.

7 -- An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles. You can expect to find soundly designed interesting holes, good course conditioning, and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.

8 -- One of the very best courses in the region (although there are more 8's in some places and none in others), and worth a special trip to see. Could have some drawbacks, but these will be clearly spelled out, and it will make up for them with something really special in addition to the generally excellent layout.

Hope this helps ...

Brad M:

What # on the Doak scale would you give East Hampton and how would you asses its standing among the better LI courses? Thanks!

[TEPaul]

Matt;

Is the Doak Scale number supposed to be on some kind of curve globally or in any particular region?

What might be worth traveling 100 miles to go play for you vs me might be worlds apart so how is that factored in to the Doak scale?

In other words you may have hundreds of 8s or 9s in mind and I may have only a few or even vice versa!

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

My understanding is that there is no curve -- therefore, it's quite likely some areas, in fact -- many areas, will likely not have a course at the higher levels. And, this clearly should be the case since on the reverse side there are areas (i.e. NY/NJ metro areas, Phillie, Boston, etc.) which are stacked with a wide array of vintage courses -- many of which are often overshadowed by a few heavyweights in their particular areas.

To try to explain this further take for example the following -- a course in North Dakota may be an "8" when compared to courses JUST in that state, but when that course is held up against other courses in either the immediate region (northern plains) or even more broader (the entire USA) it's likely it's standing will drop. After reading Mr. Doak's Confidential Guide though there are instances in which courses of quality (i.e. Cherry Hills in Colorado to name one example) get a certain ratings number, but even Doak himself admits, and I agree, that if Cherry Hills were located in the highly competitive region, say Philadelphia, it would not be the standout it is in the Denver area.

Tom, there's no doubt that individuals will likely apply the Doak rating numbers in their own subjective way. I will say this though -- although agreement to specific exact numbers can be difficult I would think that if you and I were to play a course(s) we would be very close in most of the situations. I have to emphasize the word "most" because since there is no absolute quantifiable means to determine "what is better" the ultimate standard is still applied by humans.

Let me give you an example I have had the pleasure in playing a number of rounds this year with Mike Cirba, Geoff Childs, Bill Vostinak and a few others posters on GCA. I would say that in most instances are assessment of courses is close to each other. I do admit this is a very small sampling and can't be relied upon as fool-proof. However, I also agree with Doak when he says it's likely that no two people will likely agree more than 80 percent of the time because there will always be some room for disagreement. However, I also believe that if one applies the standards as Doak has indicated in Confidential Guide, and don't get hung up on what one scored on that particular course or some other non-course related item, you can get to the "bottom line" fairly quickly. I have also added my own "areas of emphasis" that helps me really get to the "gist" of any course. I would be happy to share this with you if you're interested.

I will admit that I see myself as a pragmatic rater / reviewer. I am not a zealot that says all courses designed by the grand masters of years ago is beyond reproach and worthy of all the praise they get -- some clearly are and a quite a few get by because of the pedigree of their original designer. I have many times posted on GCA the works of modern designers, not just the "brand" names, who have really added so much with their efforts.

Tom, the reality is this -- there are VERY, VERY few "8's" and above in my mind. You are talking about the elite of golf course architecture. Unfortunately, you are right in your analysis, that it's possible that certain people will pass on high numbers because they have seen / played such a smaller sampling of courses. That's why I rely upon people who have taken the time to actually do the "field work" in a very broad manner (i.e. played extensively throughout the USA) in order for me to learn from their comments. Ultimately, the only way I can affirm or reject their opinion is for me to go there myself.

That's wht I don't place any real stock in all the assessment that's made by certain posters relating just to aerial or course photography. On site visits trump all of that in my opinion.

Hope this helps ...

[Matt_Ward]

Bill S:

Thanks for you detailed reply.

The question becomes how does one see the total golf experience? I view it from the perspective that a golf course must have a wide variety of holes and that these holes should test the full gambit of clubs in your bag. The long par-4 is part and parcel of that.

I would contest your statement about the bench mark being 430 yards as a long par-4. That was the case -- years ago -- not today. Having only one long par-4 or only two is really a very limited situation. Clearly, one has to realize that the particular site the architect has may not lend itself to such but when I play layouts that fail to incorporate this I believe the F-U-L-L golf experience has been shortsighted. Give you an example -- I really like Lehigh. I believe this William Flynn design is vastly underrated but I will also say that Lehigh fails to elevate itself into the upper echelon of courses because the long par-4 experience I just mentioned is absent. On the Doak scale I would say the course is a 7 but could have been higher.

I spoke with Bill Coore about this issue at East Hampton and he mentioned how he and Ben were of the agreement that a long par-4 was really needed to follow the short par-3 8th and very short par-4 9th and they still wanted to keep the 11th as a driveable short par-4. They were successful in getting the long par-4, but I believe the 10th is just filler and despite having a good contoured putting surface is not in the same league with many of the other holes you play there.

Bill, I see courses that have many high quality attributes but are missing the long par-4 element as a certain breed of layouts that should be assessed with that in mind. Maybe it might be best to have them rated as a separate category. It's too bad that modern design is hung up on par because you could have layouts that are par-69 which instead of offering three or four par-5's could change them into long par-4's instead. But, then you would have the avoidance of par-5's of consequence. Wannamoisett (RI) is a wonderful course but where's the par-5's besides the ho-hum 17th? I also would not want to see any of the par-5's be converted into a long par-4 because there design does not lend itself to that.

As far as your comment on having some sort of short par-4 or short par-3 I do agree that DIVERSITY is the key. You want to have change of pace holes in a round. You want players to change their mindset and not get into a predictable groove in hitting one type of shot. I've only walked Medinah but I do agree that it's standing comes from being a muscular course with plenty of quick turns on the various dog-legs. However, I can just as easily make a case that the standing of Somerset Hills (NJ) is based on wonderful green contours by Tillie but comes up short on the long par-4 argument even though the 1st is the singular exception.

Bill let me mention a few other comments on the other coursers you listed.

1). Glad to hear about your success with Paa Ko Ridge. Superb Ken Dye layout but when I was last there this past September there was way, too much H20 applied to the course. Yes, they have had a drought spell but when the course is running like it was when I first played there in 2000 there are few experience in the greater Southwest that are better. Just a correction -- I would definitely have Paa Ko in my personal top 50 public -- getting into my top overall 50 would be very difficult.

You should keep on your radar screen a new layout which will open just outside of Santa Fe next year called Black Mesa. Designed by Baxter Spann with Finger / Dye the layout will be located on some of the most unique and exciting terrain one can find in the Land of Enchantment. Could be a tad too hard for the inexperienced player but there will be no housing and the golf will not be soiled by all the outside distractions. The course is located in Espanola -- about 30 minutes from downtown Santa Fe.

2). When you get to Vegas I certainly recommend going to Wolf Creek at Paradise Canyon in Mesquite. However, I have to say that conditioning has become an issue since my initial visit to the course back in early '01. When I played the course this past May there were plenty of inattention to several tees and the fairways / tees had become too cushy instead of firm under your feet.

I will still say this though -- when Wolf Creek is on target with conditioning you get an eyeful of scenery and some WILD and different golf. It's not the classic Bel-Air, LACC or some other such layout. Those who go there thinking that will be greatly disappointed. I would have to say that the 8th, 14th and 17th holes are three of the finest par-3, par-4 and par-5 holes you can play. In fact, the 8th from the back tee (sorry it's so ragged when I was there) is easily as difficult as any long par-3 one can play and this includes the 16th at Cypress!

I just hope the conditioning is better because the layout is clearly entertaining. One last point on Wolf Creek -- when you get to the 2nd hole you MUST trek to the back tee and take in the entire landscape as you stand high above the entire course. The hole is also one of the most unique around in terms of strategic choice from the tee. By the way you may want toreach for the oxygen tank when you finally do arrive at the extreme back tee. It's a s-m-a-l-l climb.

When Wolf Creek in Mesquite is at its best the only better layout in the Silver State I've played is Shadow Creek. But, if poor conditioning persists then the vision of architect Dennis Ryder will be severely diminished. FYI -- Ryder is planning on building two new courses near Cascata in Boulder City.

3). I played Stone Canyon last year and I liked it but I also have issues when an architect decides to apply the cut-off fairway tactic to prevent the longer hitter from going deper down the fairway. I believe the 2nd hole / par-5 and one of the longer par-4's on the back (#13 or #14?) does this. Also, what is the design theory relating to the tee shot at the long par-5 16th? I do love the short par-4 17th and the 18th is clearly a fine closer. I thoroughly recommend Chapparal Pines and regarding the par-5's -- play them from the extreme tips if you want to avoid an iron play. By the way if you get back to Payson trek across the street to The Rim. I would have to say from just an esthetic and scenic assessment The Rim has no peer in the Grand Canyon State. The holes are good but most are "self-contained" and not excessive from the demand standpoint -- a quintessential members and real estate layout. I believe you will really like par-5 13th (?) which is one of the best risk and reward type holes you can find in Arizona.

Hope this helps ...

[brad miller]

Matt, haven't played EH yet so I can't say, but I suspect I will enjoy it a lot from comments I have heard.

Question Matt, If NGLA is par 70/71 or its current par of 73, would you give then the same Doak Rating, they are the same golf course aren't they?  Or is the 70/71 version a higher form, because of its long par 4's.

[Matt_Ward]

Brad:

You raise a valid point.

The substance of "par" can sometimes affect how I or others will view a course. Clearly, you still have to play shots -- so what the par is really just reflects a base number.

I mean look at Winged Foot and Baltusrol which routinely change two par-5's on the West and Lower respectively to play as long par-4's. If par were the original 72 instead of the Open 70 I would certainly be influenced by it in terms of making a "score." Would that change my overall assessment of the courses? Possibly, because the demands are upped significantly on the second shot to get to the green in order to make a "par" score. Keep in mind both of those layouts also have long par-4's already without the Open switches.

The same can be said for National. The layout does have long par-4's with the 3rd (Alps), 10th and 11th. You have ample length and that's not counting the wind that can whip up at any moment. Ditto the Road hole at National which can easily play as a long par-4 instead of a par-5.

The issue of diversity is central. That doesn't take away the qualities of those layouts but if you are playing a par-73 instead of a par-71 your game plan and how you approach will be mentally effected because of the "score" issue. Brad, how a hole presents itself is certainly an issue. A hole presenting itself as a three-shot short par-5 is an entirely different hole than a par-4 because the demands on the tee shot and approach have been altered and as result the player will "mentally" approach these holes in a different manner.

On the Doak scale I would probably have to rework my numbers for them, but the differences would not be great -- just a slight modification. I'm sure others can reasonably argue that par is irrelevant and that any rating of that particular course should not be issue since they are all the same holes anyway. What do you think?

P.S. Just remember -- my original post dealt with courses that have either just one long par-4 or none at all. How these courses are assessed when compared to courses with a rich diversity of offerings is really the issue I originally raised.

[TEPaul]

Matt;

Thanks very much for that detailed description of the Doak Scale!

I just had a telephone conversation somewhat about all this with Bill Vostinak and I told him I very much enjoy architectural anyalysis in most all ways but maybe not "comparative" architectural analysis in the form of ratings and rankings or even individual Doak Scale reporting!

But still, I thank you for the description anyway, Matt, and if I get into it, I think the thing I will do is a Doak Scale rating (only in my own mind) on the raters before the golf courses! From what you said about your feelings on consensus between raters and such, I do believe at this point I have a preference (or maybe simpatico) for certain raters over other raters!

[Jeff_Lewis]

Matt,

With all due respect (and you are due quite a bit!), we have had threads on this topic previously, but is it not madness that you would like a course better or worse with nothing about it physically changed other than the scorecard. It is the EXACT same course. Think about it!

[brad miller]

Matt, thanks, to me  Ngla is Ngla regardless of par. Fishers Island  and/or Maidstone might be better examples. I suspect you might think more of Maidstone as a par 70?

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Thanks for the message, but if you read what I said I agree that people can reasonably disagree on this and much of that relates to the importance they ascribe to the meaning application of par to holes.

Just consider this --

Golf is a game of the mind -- when you alter a par on a hole the manner by which you "approach" that hole changes. If I'm playing the 16th at WF / West and it's a par-5 -- I know I can hit an iron off the tee and generally secure a "par" without much strain. Change that equation and make the hole a "par-4" and now the "approach" I take will change. Ergo -- same hole -- but different mental approach for me the player. Now, I "must" hit driver and it had better be well placed so that I can have a go at the green with the second shot.

Jeff, look at Augusta and the 13th is another example. Change the hole into a par-4 and how people "approach" it will be much different than if it's played as a par-5. Ditto the 17th at TOC. No doubt -- same hole -- but different approaches are forced upon the player and the mental challenge does indeed change. Par becomes a leverage point upon the player. Look, I fully understand the other side of the story that says it's the same course, the same hole and whether you call it a 4, 5 or 8 par is meaningless. I understand that argument -- I just don't agree with it.

Hope this helps -- forgive my madness OK?

P.S. If Winged Foot included the 9th and 16th as par-5's and not as par-4's do you not believe that people might have a different perspective? Remember -- I said a "slight modification" not a whole downgrade by any means. Again -- forgive my madness!

[Bill Schulz]

Brad Miller: Brad, the remaining 5 are Kittanset, Congressional, Peachtree, Aronomink and Wilmington. As for the preference for the Golf Digest list, my interest in golf course architecture started as a teenage caddie at San Francisco Golf Club (my parents didn't play golf) when a member gave me a used copy of the World Atlas of Golf (an amazing book that I studied endlessly). With zero travel budget, these famous courses became real in the imagination and in my study of the pages of this book. Therefore, when the Golf Digest list was released (I'm 40 years old so this must have been some 20 plus years ago), I was hooked! I feel the Golf Magazine list is an excellent list and in many ways reflect my personal favorites perhaps more accurately than the Golf  Digest list. Love how Golf Magazine lists Medinah #31 (rather than GD overinflated #14), Colonial at #58 (GD#40), Fisher's Island at #18 (GD#44),Chicago Golf at #19 (GD#42). However, in my opinion Golf Magazine is lacking in recognizing Victoria National and Mauna Kea and also perhaps having an east coast bias particularly with the New York celebrities. The entire rating game is all good and promotes healthy and heated discussions about architecture!

Matt Ward: Sorry I misunderstood that you meant your Top 50 public list not overall. Looking forward to checking out Black Mesa although I believe it's the same design firm that created a rather bland course for the City of Santa Fe a few years ago on a decent piece of property. Thanks for the Bill Coore comments (too bad we can't talk with Raynor, Mackenie,Tillinghast, etc).

[Jeff_Lewis]

Matt,
Golf is actually played on a golf course, against OTHER PEOPLE, not against par. The best score wins the hole or the tournament. The best shot, from a risk/reward standpoint, is always the best shot, regardless of what one lies or what par is.  If I ran Pine Valley and decided that all the par 3s are par 5s, would the course now be terrible.?
Tiger Woods played the Road Hole (which used to be a par 5) as a par 5 strategically during the last Open and it led him to having the best score. Imagine that.