[Andy Troeger]

Sean,
You and I aren't ever going to agree on what we like visually on a golf course, so I'm not going to try to persuade you.

Engh's courses are fun to play, that's the biggest reason I like them. #13 is a wonderful hole in terms of playing it, and I don't mind the look that you detest.

More tee times for the rest of us I think

[Matt_Ward]

Tim P:

The issue is less about "appeasing" me but demonstrating that people should withhold sweeping comments until they have personally played such courses. I salute your wherewithal to understand what I have been saying on this particular topic for quite some time. You get it -- others are still wandering in the clueless realm.

P.S. The narrow bunkers that Engh does provide are quite penal depending upon where the ball finishes up. I like the idea that bunkers in the manner he creates them -- especially those that are deep and quite narrow -- can be quite demanding and often times stroke losers for those who don't pay heed.

[Tim Pitner]

Tim P:

The issue is less about "appeasing" me but demonstrating that people should withhold sweeping comments until they have personally played such courses. I salute your wherewithal to understand what I have been saying on this particular topic for quite some time. You get it -- others are still wandering in the clueless realm.

P.S. The narrow bunkers that Engh does provide are quite penal depending upon where the ball finishes up. I like the idea that bunkers in the manner he creates them -- especially those that are deep and quite narrow -- can be quite demanding and often times stroke losers for those who don't pay heed.

Matt,

I believe it's perfectly valid for Sean or me to comment on the look of bunkers or other golf course features without playing the courses in question.  That doesn't mean that we would be in a position to opine about the overall merits of those features or about the quality of the courses in general.  

[Matt_Ward]

Commenting upon "looks" is surface level left field analysis at best. Hey, if that floats your boat then knock yourself out with such thoughts.

Engh is like Thai food -- some people love it and others want more of a meat'n potato selection.

So be it.

[Kalen Braley]

Commenting upon "looks" is surface level left field analysis at best. Hey, if that floats your boat then knock yourself out with such thoughts.

Engh is like Thai food -- some people love it and others want more of a meat'n potato selection.

So be it.

Just to give some perspective on Lakota Canyon.  I looked at lots of pics before I went out there, but it was a different experience when I was actually out there.

I'd like to think that the pics I posted give a good feel for what the golfer "sees", but even then, I'm just a hack photographer.  The place really was a different from what I was expecting after looking at pics prior to going..some for the worse like the housing, but most for the better, like the grand scale of the place

[Tim Pitner]

Commenting upon "looks" is surface level left field analysis at best. Hey, if that floats your boat then knock yourself out with such thoughts.

Matt,

Aesthetics are part of an analysis of a golf course--it isn't all about yardages and "shot values."  As Sean said, obviously relying on photos is a second-best alternative.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim P:

How it "plays" is of primary importance to me -- how it "looks" is more of a secondary consideration. If a course is centered on "looks" but has little "play" aspect to it -- then you are focusing on a course with really little core ingredients to hold the attention of real golfers.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()