Apache Stronghold

[Joe Hancock]

I'm late to this thread, but I would like to make a comment about comment and discussion on conditions at any golf course.  As a superintendent, I ask that people talk TO us, not ABOUT us.  There are always reasons that things are the way they are.  Our work is out there for all to see, the reasons that things may be less than perfect are seldom apparent.  At Black Mesa last fall we had to deal with some big rain runoff events where I lost a few spots of turf.  Good news, turf is a forgiving crop and things are looking great after a nice wet winter here at Black Mesa.

IMHO what you ask is not very realistic. Clearly the vast majority of golfers who play a course never contact or ever think to contact the superintendant about the conditions. However, they do tell their friends about their experience, and there is no stopping that.

I will IM you on my experience as your explanation does not seem to explain my experience.

I think Pat's request is somewhat realistic, but it sure would be convenient to go along with what the norm is on communicating with the course superintendent, as that would actually require some effort from the golfer. And we all know that isn't the way things happen.....

Joe

[mike_malone]

 I think Pat is asking people not to post on a public site like this  about the conditioning before getting some information from the club's greenkeeper. Sounds reasonable to me.

[Garland Bayley]

You're in real trouble now Pat! This is the first time John Kavanough and I have agreed about anything! That must about make it a universal truth!
 

[Garland Bayley]

I think Pat's request is somewhat realistic, but it sure would be convenient to go along with what the norm is on communicating with the course superintendent, as that would actually require some effort from the golfer. And we all know that isn't the way things happen.....

Joe

Sorry Joe, but methinks you contradict yourself.

"is somewhat realistic...we all know that isn't the ways things happen"

 

[Joe Hancock]

Garland,

You're right. What I mean is "communication with the super is an achieveable goal", along with "most people won't put in the effort to communicate with the super".

My comment was a more cynical statement about society than anything else, I suppose.

Carry on....

Joe

[Garland Bayley]

Joe,

I think you have captured it nicely with your revised statement.

[Martin Del Vecchio]

The course looks to be in much better condition here than the discussion would indicate.

[Jonathan Cummings]

One of the things I like most about Pacific Dunes is that it's so easy to become lost in the setting that it is hard to figure out how the holes relate to one another ... personally I think that is a big plus.  In fact it is a really intricate routing to get you to the water in the places it does, and it took several months of effort to figure out how to make it work.  

Tom - you know with an engineer's mind it's hard for me to see beauty and quality in disorder.  It will probably remain one of my failings in the way I assess a golf course.  But I admit, what you say above makes a lot of sense.  I've just never thought of a course routing that way.

JC  

[Pat Brockwell]

Fellas, you're right about golfers not taking the time or effort to get information from the super, so I don't feel I'm at too great a risk in my request.  Every time I do get the chance to address some comment it seems that I get about the same response-"Gee, I didn't think of that."  That is why I like a chance to respond!

[John Kavanaugh]

Fellas, you're right about golfers not taking the time or effort to get information from the super, so I don't feel I'm at too great a risk in my request.  Every time I do get the chance to address some comment it seems that I get about the same response-"Gee, I didn't think of that."  That is why I like a chance to respond!

Pat,

This may surprise you but supers generally talk down to golfers without papers.  The ones with papers they talk about after they leave.

 
 

[George Pazin]

Jax, I think that's a bit of an overgeneralization. What you're referring to is probably more of a reaction to abusive golfers.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland:

Do yourself a huge favor -- simply contact Pat Brockwell -- the superintendent at Black Mesa and he can spell out all the details for you to review as to when, how and the exact duration of what took place.

Pat often has contributed to this site and is well versed in these areas beyond what I can say -- and frankly what you can offer as well. I know what happened after the winter from last year so when you get Pat's take I am sure he can assist you if you think he has credibility on the topic.

For you to say you hit off dirt areas without greater clarification is also an insult to the generally fine turf conditions found at Black Mesa. I'm sure if one were to look under every nook and crannny -- one can find something to bitch about on turf conditions on any course.

The issue you raised initially was to draw some sort of link between the overall poor to inconsistent turf conditions at AS versus a very limited situation that has happened at Black Mesa.

Of course, in your case, when someone makes a one time visit it's possible one may draw conclusions that should be weighed in the narrowest manner.

So much for context.

Just for the record, I had offline discussion with Pat and you have been wrong through this entire discussion. You really need to start working on (edit: reigning in) your pomposity.
 
'Nuf said.

[Matt_Ward]

Garland Bayley:

Hold the phone friend.

You're the guy who blasts Black Mesa with the dirt fairway comment and I simply provided some sort of context to that situation and the one faced at AS.

Big difference and one I made it a point to hold your feet to the fire on that comment. You then do the classic turn around gig and label me for something which was an error on your part.

I also raised the point that having someone like Pat Brockwell weigh in -- who I respect immensely -- would be able to provide the same level of context I originally mentioned.

When you speak of pomposity -- I leave you with a comment my late father used to say, "You can work with ignorance -- you can't help stupidity."

[Garland Bayley]

Matt,

You completely missed it again. You are batting average is 0.000. With an average like that you can't even make the little league team.
edit: Or if the little league rules require that you get to play, it is right field for you baby!

[Jerry Kluger]

With Tom Doak being so highly regarded why hasn't anyone stepped up to do something with AS?  It would seem to me that golfers would go out of their way to play one of his courses at a reasonable rate provided the conditioning was reasonably good. The Phoenix area has a large number of golfers and many like myself regularly vacation there.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jerry,
With it being on the reservation and the Apaches not to keen on outside interference, I  don't see anyone coming to the rescue of the course.
The Apaches just have no interest in operating the course as a business, at least in the manner most of us would consider to be business-like. Maybe its because due to other revenue sources the course doesn't need to turn a profit, or maybe it's because if they did run it well more folks would play, and many in the tribe don't view non-tribal members on the reservation as a plus. The Apaches are not what we on the outside would consider progressive. Of course they think most of the outside world is a lot more screwed up then they are so don't feel pity for them.  

[Tom_Doak]

Jerry:

I think Don put the situation pretty well.  The tribe acts interested in improving the course, and I am sure that the changeover to bermuda was a step in the right direction for them, but in general their follow-through has not been strong.  One of the problems is that the maintenance of the course is kind of a civil-service type job within the tribe ... lots of low-paid workers with little motivation and complete job security.  We had some great workers from the tribe during construction, but they didn't stick around when the pay scale changed for maintenance.

The other thing about Apache Stronghold is that it's in an odd location.  The drive from the Phoenix area isn't bad at all, but the added elevation of the course puts it in an awkward climate ... it's sometimes very cold in January and February which is the high tourist season in Phoenix, and that means the course stays dormant that much longer, which is why they were talked into trying cool-season fairway grass at the beginning.  It's a great setting in the spring and fall (although in spring it will still be dormant), but Arizona is just not a spring-and-fall place.

If you stop and think about it there are very few great golf courses at that elevation ... 3000 feet.  There's nothing else in Arizona at all.

[Jay Flemma]

Tom what do you feel about courses that are a mile high?

Is 3000 ft some kind of "tweener" height that can't work?  Black Mesa is what...4500?  and lots of Denver courses are a mile high.  Sedona GC sits at about 4500 ft too...

Why do you think the height might hurt AS, but not hurt other designs in different regions.

Garland, with respect, I truly think you just had a bad one-off experience at Black Mesa.  Not only do I vouch for the course, but I vouch for the people who run it.  They are good people that want to run a great course the way it should properly be run.  If you are genial to them...reasonable, polite and want to resolve your issue in a proactive way, I think you should politely open a dialogue with them.  I DEFINITELY think you should go and play it again and see if the second time around you like it more.

But railing at them on thread after thread makes it look like you have an axe to grind...not a reasonable request you'd like to see addressed.

[Garland Bayley]

...
But railing at them on thread after thread makes it look like you have an axe to grind...not a reasonable request you'd like to see addressed.

I think it is unfair to say I am railing at them (Black Mesa) on this or any other thread.
It is completely fair to say I am railing at Matt Ward for not learning the lessons of his father.

[Tom_Doak]

Jay:

The point I was making about the elevation is that it's a tough elevation and climate for growing grass, which is bound to hold back the architectural credit for a course, too.  Once you get above 5000 feet, that's going to be cool-season grasses almost anywhere (except Johannesburg), but 3000 feet is almost like the dreaded "transition zone", minus the humidity.

I've built one other course at almost exactly the same elevation as Apache Stronghold ... anyone care to guess which one?

As for elevation's effect on golf course design, despite everything that Matt Ward has said on here for the past 4 years, I really think it's a bit of a drawback to the design of a course.  It just magnifies the distance problem which is already so perplexing ... as with equipment changes, long hitters benefit more, and shotmakers benefit less, so the course has to be stretched out that much more from the back tees.  It works reasonably well if you've got a huge piece of land to work with (as at Ballyneal or Rock Creek, both of which occupy hundreds of acres) but it makes affordable golf less practical.  Most of all, the elevation seems to make players focus on distance that much more in Colorado ... all they can talk about is how far they hit the ball, and for many, how long the course is trumps any other discussion of quality design.

I'm a sea level guy, but there aren't so many sea level jobs nowadays ... our next one may be at 6000 feet!

[Garland Bayley]

I've built one other course at almost exactly the same elevation as Apache Stronghold ... anyone care to guess which one?

I would guess both Ballyneal and Rock Creek would be at a similar elevation.

One at 6000 feet. Are you considering something in the mountain west, perhaps north of ABQ?

[George Pazin]

I've built one other course at almost exactly the same elevation as Apache Stronghold ... anyone care to guess which one?

I thought Ballyneal was around that elevation.

D'oh - should've read Garland's post.

[Jay Flemma]

So it is a "tweener" issue.  That's actually fascinating.

I have to guess Ballyneal as well?

[Kalen Braley]

Jay:

The point I was making about the elevation is that it's a tough elevation and climate for growing grass, which is bound to hold back the architectural credit for a course, too.  Once you get above 5000 feet, that's going to be cool-season grasses almost anywhere (except Johannesburg), but 3000 feet is almost like the dreaded "transition zone", minus the humidity.

I've built one other course at almost exactly the same elevation as Apache Stronghold ... anyone care to guess which one?

As for elevation's effect on golf course design, despite everything that Matt Ward has said on here for the past 4 years, I really think it's a bit of a drawback to the design of a course.  It just magnifies the distance problem which is already so perplexing ... as with equipment changes, long hitters benefit more, and shotmakers benefit less, so the course has to be stretched out that much more from the back tees.  It works reasonably well if you've got a huge piece of land to work with (as at Ballyneal or Rock Creek, both of which occupy hundreds of acres) but it makes affordable golf less practical.  Most of all, the elevation seems to make players focus on distance that much more in Colorado ... all they can talk about is how far they hit the ball, and for many, how long the course is trumps any other discussion of quality design.

I'm a sea level guy, but there aren't so many sea level jobs nowadays ... our next one may be at 6000 feet!

I'll take a swag.  That would be Tumble creek near Cle Elum in Washington state.

[Garland Bayley]

I'll take a swag.  That would be Tumble creek near Cle Elum in Washington state.

I would have to think that and Wicked Pony would have to be about 5000 feet.