We-Ko-Pa (Coore/Crenshaw) Review by Brad Klein

[redanman]

In the spirit of the "Mission Statement's" opening salvo:

"GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote the frank commentary on the world's finest golf courses."

So read carefully before reading out of context.

It is a very "quiet" layout. Very subtle, except for a few holes on the back. I would describe it as solid C&C — however, nothing here is breakthrough. That does not mean, by any means, that it is at all bad.

Red Lawrence used the same principle at many of his holes at Desert Forest in Carefree, AZ.

I think the course deserves very high marks, especially for a Sonoran Desert layout.

The question I will pose it whether Saguaro will stand above the other desert courses without more holes that are truly unique and one-of-a-kind?

First away this course is built on nice land that sort of spills down a hill in an irregular fashion - a very top-notch piece for the "lay-it-on-the-land" style.  That is a very large plus.

Forrest

Interesting questions and comments.  I had the pleasure of touring 11 holes of We-Ko-Pa Saguaro in November prior to its opening.  The GM was very kind and took me around, allowed me to take photographs which I promised not to use until the course had opened. No time to do so just now.

The bold emphasis on my first selected quote is all mine to raise the question as to when the last "break-through" has occurred for this group?  Given the style of course that C& C build they are a very very consistent winner delivering a constant product in many ways to various parts of the country. They in a way do what Fazio does - build a kind of golf course that is in very high demand - in various markets.  Before the internet and instant information dissemination by this and other media, it might take time for such  word to get around that similar designs exist at Old Sandwich, Hidden Creek, Saguaro and to a lesser degree Friar's Head and yes, the much maligned Easthampton (esp 2nd nine). Can't say about CC of Colorado but I suspect that character will not be sufficiently different to call it break-through.  

Places like Friar's Head and perhaps Bandon Trails (not visited) seem to be much more site dependent. I would like to see this group take more chances such as I think Gil Hanse and Tom Doak and Kelly Blake Moran surely have in the last five years - stretching themselves.

That aside:

I quite honestly was rather impressed with the par 5 "Bottle Hole" par 5  built on the back (14).  The shorter-greater reward line is on the right here shortening the line considerably, providing the correct angle into the green for a larger degree of precision/margin for error given the small, narrow green complex with a large fall-off to the left of it and death awaiting on the right (or coming up the hill for the third if laying up down the left).  To me this is one of the best par 5's I have seen on a modern golf course and built without any real hystrionics. With a smaller green than the namesake at NGLA it is a longer version of the mirror-image with a wash of saguaro-laden Sonoran desert rather than a string of bunkers.

For a completely public access course, now Joe and Jane can to a great degree see what is behind the walls of the privacy gates of the holies.  Hole after hole is out of the repertoire of the last several courses. Are they all to be called 7's and 8's on the Doak?

The comparison to Desert Forest is a strange one to me as I find that course completely determined by its incredible green complexes.  The fairways are as straight cut as Torrey Pines South we saw on TV yesterday but with a crown to them.  The land at We-Ko-Pa seems more interestingly rolling on a partial visit.

 

In the end will find it interesting to see where indeed the superlatives fall for Saguaro - not just as you have stated:  

"The question I will pose it whether Saguaro will stand above the other desert courses without more holes that are truly unique and one-of-a-kind?"

but rather add a similar comment for most of the newest work located anywhere for this very talented duo and their team.  They are on a roll or in a rut or perhaps both to a degree.  

I would like to see greater variety from them overall and take more chances such as this lovely bottle hole.  

The growth into the "random" or "snake-and-egg" greens has started to lose its novelty, certainly to me.  I think that "micro-poof" greens style has very limited application for golfing interest as it just becomes tedious whereas for most golfers exposure to greens such as Friar's #7 will bring great big smiles to faces once over the shock.  Whether in 2007 the public sector is ready for something this old to be "new again" - I do not know.

We-Ko-Pa Saguaro?  Certainly the equal of the Talking Stick courses in overall quality, but completely different in style and given the superior land, I am tempted to say it may very well be notably better, however I have to see the entire course, but I think I may have seen enough to comment.


Architecturally:

Sand Hills




Friar's Head

Kapalua
Saguaro
Old Sandwich
(I suspect BT and Cuscowilla join this group) - are they opined as highly as they are because of quality or a cult-like following rubber stamp?)

(I suspect) Chechessee Creek
TSN
Easthampton (B-9)
TSS
Hidden Creek

I think Saguaro is a fine golf course adding immensely to the choice in the desert arena. Its terrain truly sets it apart.

Will it be as recognized as it might be were it ultra-private and locked away to increase its experiential qualities? Seeing it completed and completely unoccupied was quite an experience I must say!  

[Eric_Terhorst]

Forrest Richardson,

I visited Scottsdale over the weekend and played Saguaro on the same day you did, and Talking Stick North the next day.  Talking Stick is subtle, but I don't understand how you could describe Saguaro as "subtle."

On the front nine, for example, the 631/609/595/494 yd (!) par 5 4th that travels from the tee over a hill large enough to obscure the view of everything in front of you, and then tumbles down from the summit of that hill toward the green over a fairway that's 40-45 yards wide is surely not subtle--this hole struck me as grandly scaled and thrilling to play.  And the par 4 7th, like most of the short holes (all of which I thought were excellent), was a great puzzle, straight up the hill blind and causing even the play-the-back-tees-hit-driver-on-every-hole guys I played with to stop and study it for a minute, and--hurray!--leave the driver in the bag and try harder to keep it in play.  I found that every tee, approach and chip shot required considerable thought to work out my favored option.  That may be true at Talking Stick as well, but there were only a few holes where I FELT there were so many options to consider.  Perhaps that is because as a first-time visitor I missed much of what I should have observed on this much more "subtle" property.

One of the things I liked about Saguaro that I haven't seen many comments on in these threads is the routing.  It starts at the top of property and works its way up and down to the bottom, along about the 12th hole.  It meanders over hill and swale back up to another summit at the spectacular 16th hole's green.  It zigs and zags, going the same direction in only one stretch of holes, 5-6-7-8.  The architects seem to have worked hard to find 18 fascinating holes on this good property AND connect the greens to the tees   Like Doak's Ballyneal?

Saguaro is anything but subtle.  

[Forrest Richardson]

Eric — I described it as subtle, because that is the way I see it. No mystery there. And, just because something is subtle, does not mean it is necessarily bad.

If I had been the client I would have asked for a few more daring holes — so when played, they could only be found at Saugaro — no where else. But — that is my question...is that necessary? Or, is it an overrated desire?

[Ryan Farrow]

Forrest, are you implying that there was an opportunity on the existing property to route some more daring holes? Or could this have been achieved more strategically with the bunkering?


To answer your previous question it all comes down to the way we define a quiet golf course. I guess I will throw some local courses in that category such as TSN and Papago compared to places like ASU Karsten, the Raven at South Mountain, & Phantom Horse, which would have to be placed in the LOUD category.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Forrest,

I agree that "subtle" is not necessarily bad, and I liked Talking Stick even though I felt it was hard-to-know subtle the first time around.  Saguaro wasn't like that for me.  

In the "Dream Golf" book about the construction of Bandon's courses, the description of Mr. Keiser strikes me as a great client for a GCA--he lets his daring-do architects do their thing, then puts in his knowledgeable 2 cents worth as part of the approval process, and then they all go forward from the same page.  Seems like they all were a great team, and they put together some (IMO) daring (#5 BD, #6 PD, #16 BT) and some subtle but brilliant holes (#8 PD).  

But "daring" like "subtle" are in the eye of the beholder.  Both are great to see in "high-end resort" courses.  Which one sells more $200 gate fees?  None of the characteristics that separate these fascinating courses from your average muni are overrated, IMO, they all make the game more enjoyable.

[Forrest Richardson]

Ryan — With that much terrain, the solutions were probably a mixed bag of "can only go here" with "what if we went here". I.E., a site with significant changes in terrain will both lead an architect — and strike up a notion of, perhaps, going against the grain. Aside from the hole being into the sun when we played, I most enjoyed the 16th — the uphill 300-yard "ridge" hole to the pearched green. That was striking.

(I am not sure Phantom Horse would be considered LOUD...but if you say so I will go along.)

Eric — Good comments. But, as for "Daring" to be in the eye of the beholder, I think you would find a great deal of common ground on the definition. Do you think that one aspect of Saguaro, for example, that is daring might be that it is a minimalist design amongst other Scottsdale and target desert designs...that are not minimalist in approach? Is it zigging when others courses are zagging? Is that what makes it daring (plus, of course, the holes you mention and the one I note above)?

[redanman]

The bold emphasis on my first selected quote is all mine to raise the question as to when the last "break-through" has occurred for this group?  
___________________________
 I would like to see this group take more chances such as I think Gil Hanse and Tom Doak and Kelly Blake Moran surely have in the last five years - stretching themselves.
___________________________
I would like to see greater variety from them overall and take more chances such as this lovely bottle hole.  

If I had been the client I would have asked for a few more daring holes — so when played, they could only be found at Saugaro — no where else. But — that is my question...is that necessary?

Or, is it an overrated desire?

No, Forrest, I don't think so

....... and did you like the green complex and last 125 yards of the bottle hole?

W-K-P #16 reminded me a little bit of #16 at Royal Dornoch's execution.

[Forrest Richardson]

Yes...I enjoyed all of the holes. So did the other three guys. There was some frustration on 18 with its massive front landing area, but that is because three of us were short hitters. (I still managed a 5 at 18!)

[redanman]

Forrest

18 is an interesting example of a phenomenon that I have seen before (Applebrook and French Creek in PA, for example) in which a shortish total yardage course has a hole or two or three in which real length *skill* is necessary to play the hole "conventionally".  I was a bit perplexed at the severity of the hit-or-miss nature of the drive at W-K-P Sa #18, but then again one can see it as a bit of "chance-taking". A tee or two "up" negates the severity of impact of that hill in the fairway.

[Tom_Doak]

Bill /Forrest:

I suspect your conversation has sent the rest of the board into shock, hence the lack of response.

However, you're not the only ones.  Yesterday I was meeting with a potential new client and he asked me what other architects' work I really admired ... when I mentioned Bill and Ben he said their work was too subtle for the resort golfer to appreciate ... and I said that was one of the things I admired about them.

[redanman]

TD

Are you saying that C & C ought or ought not take more changes in their architectural designs?

I am not saying that they should abandon what they have built their reputation upon, but rather that a little more chance-taking would be nice.  I am a big believer of taking a chance that fails occasionally to learn, in GCA it's only dirt, not someone's life after all.

Especially at W-K-P Sa they used short-grassed slopes to add challenge disproportionately for the lower handicap player which I whole-heartedly applaud.

I will try to get some of my photos posted to aid illustration.  

[Tom_Doak]

Bill:

I don't know if "taking a chance" is the right phrase, and I'll leave that to Bill Coore to decide for himself ... well, actually, probably one of the reasons they don't take so many chances is that both Bill AND Ben have to be entirely comfortable with every decision, and even when you are on the same page as much as they are, it's tough for two people to simultaneously think outside the box.

I do agree with you that Sand Hills and Friars Head (and on the next rung down, Bandon Trails and Kapalua) are the most memorable of their courses I've seen, because natural features of the site dictate more of the design.  A lot of the other courses you mentioned are built on fairly gentle terrain, and Bill is not the sort to dig out a quarry or build a huge mound to give himself a feature to work with.

The thing that would really get them on a new page would be to take a job on a severe site.

[Peter Pallotta]

Probably a simplistic, but a sincere, question.

Re: subtle designs, isn't that the point?

What I mean is, wouldn't most agree that a big part of a designer's art and craft is to make the most out of what the land naturally provides?

If so, doesn't it follow that the ideal is to move as little earth as possible, and to let the land dictate as much of the design as possible?

And if that's the case, isn't moving the LEAST amount of earth and letting the natural contours of the land MOST dictate the design best of all?

If I can assume all that, then isn't it an understandable -- and good -- thing that when C&C are working on a very subtle piece of property that the resulting course also be that subtle?

(What developers or a certain segment of the golfing public thinks of that result seems to me an important -- but separate -- discussion).

Or am I missing something more basic, i.e. is the suggestion that C&C haven't made the most of the land in this instance?

More than one question, I think. Thanks

Peter
 

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

As I tried to let on in the posts above, I do admire the subtlety of Bill and Ben's work, for all of the reasons you state.  I just find myself wishing they would do something bolder on one of those subtle sites someday to see what they would come up with.

[Mike_Cirba]

Peter,

While I'm all for working with the natural terrain and features where possible and moving as little dirt as is needed, wouldn't the overly-minimalist methodology you describe, practiced to the maximal degree you prescribe, simply ensure that they courses built on more interesting land are always proportionally that much better than the courses built on not so interesting land?

[Ryan Farrow]

Tom and/or Forrest don’t you think a really bold  move at Talking Stick would have disturbed the flow of the course?  

Is this purely a routing issue?

[Eric_Terhorst]

as for "Daring" to be in the eye of the beholder, I think you would find a great deal of common ground on the definition. Do you think that one aspect of Saguaro, for example, that is daring might be that it is a minimalist design amongst other Scottsdale and target desert designs...that are not minimalist in approach? Is it zigging when others courses are zagging? Is that what makes it daring (plus, of course, the holes you mention and the one I note above)?

Forrest, you may be correct that in this community, common ground may be found on "daring."  I was thinking that many less appreciative golfers could interpret "daring" as unfair, twisted, goofy, weird, whatever.  Playing a "daring" design with an unappreciative golfer, you might hear comments like "Why didn't he take a bulldozer to that mound??"

From a marketing standpoint, building a course in Scottsdale like Saguaro does seem to be daring--one of the guys I played with complained, as he got back in his cart, that the tees were so close to the greens that it distracted him on his tee shot  

[Forrest Richardson]

The proximity of the tees, and grass walks, were very nice. Tom D. said it pretty well...I guess that is why I used the word "quiet".

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, Mike

Thanks, I understand your points/thoughts; I'm working my way towards trying to understand my own.  

I think, Mike, that you're right, i.e. that the 'ideal' taken to its logical extreme WOULD mean that courses built on more interesting land will always be proportionally better (or at least more interesting) than courses built on not so interesting land.

But I'm not sure there is anything intrinsically wrong with that; or that, in practice, this would be a bad thing.  What's wrong with one course not being as 'interesting' as another?  Assuming that the routings are good, isn't it exactly this kind of difference that would give BOTH courses that elusive quality called 'character'?

It seems to me that a very subtle course (built on very subtle land) loses its interest/charm/character only when COMPARED to another course, one built on a more dramatic piece of land.  It would be a shame if, despite the best of intentions, our own tendencies to compare/contrast ended up being the very thing that curtails 'ultra-minimalist' designs; especially if the courses in question aren't lacking in strategic options, playability, and challenge.  

All this seems important to me partly because I'm assuming that the less earth that is moved, and the more that designers/developers/players can feel satisfied with subtle designs, the less would be the costs of building and maintaining a course, and THAT has to be a good thing all around.

As I say, these are all just thoughts/beliefs I'm trying to work out for myself; I may well be missing/misunderstanding a great deal.

And, to Tom D's point, I agree: i.e. I don't think any of this precludes the option of occasionally being bolder in one's choices.

Peter

[John Kirk]

bump...to coincide with Steve Shaffer's We-Ko-Pa thread.