[Mark Smolens]

Just got back to the office after spending some time with clients -- a hung jury in a police case.  We weren't happy, so alcohol was definitely involved.

I would love to have an opportunity to read the Confidential Guide to render an educated opinon as to  what constitutes a Doak 9 or 10.  My question right now, however, is if Ballyneal is considered to fall into that category?

Certainly the drive into the facility doesn't lead one to anticipate greatness -- which, IMHO, one certainly finds once one gets there.  If that's not a Doak 9 or 10, my goodness I can't wait to play one.  But I don't think there's any reasonable debate that a similar course could not be created in a desert.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

John,
Sadly I haven't come across some interesting pictures of the dunes near 111 between Washington and Jefferson. They are now all gone. Rolled over by an army of bulldozers to create the development known as Rancho La Quinta.

But I did come across a few of these paintings from an artist named Dillie Thomas. I think they are pretty damn close!




To really get to the idea of the flow of what was once a rather large stretch of dunes that stretched from Desert Hot Springs to La Quinta, it has all but been erased. Just got to Google Earth and you'll see the path.

There is an area that is protected and it's some very marvelous property. Fortunately it will remain nature, and I do think that is a very good thing. Man has bungled enough out there.

Here is that area:

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, if a really great golf course could be done to tie into the desert completely naturally somehow it would probably take the art form to the next level.

[rchesnut]

Does Shadow Creek qualify as a desert course?  Arguably, if you have an unlimited budget (as Tom Fazio had there), it's possible to transform a desert into just about whatever you want it to be.  But for me, a great golf course has to be a natural part of the land, not forced on the land.  

I played SC for the first time yesterday, and like the Strip itself, the course left me with a sense of awe about the scale of what had been accomplished there in the middle of the desert, but left me cold emotionally.  No soul.  Fake waterfalls.  Caddies that didn't carry bags, but rode on the back of your golf cart.  Pine trees that looked like they belonged in North Carolina.  But I know I'm probably in the minority on this one...the course seems to show up near the top of a lot of Top 100 lists.

Rob

[Andy Troeger]

The way the title of the phrase is written I would say yes, although even living out here I'm not sure exactly what is considered the desert.

For example in New Mexico, is Paa-Ko Ridge really a desert course? I would say no and would guess that at 6,500 feet it probably gets enough precipitation that it might not qualify. Its got some desert characteristics, but a lot more pine scrub.

How about Black Mesa? Certainly much more desert like than Paa-Ko Ridge, but is it really a desert course? The mesas and canyons are more applicable words than "desert" to the way the golf course plays in my opinion, but I wouldn't fault anyone for calling it a desert course.

Are either or both world class? Even loving both courses that depends on how picky you want to be. How many courses in the world are truly world class? If you mean a Doak 9 then I'd be stretching for either course, but at a Doak 8 I'd be very comfortable with either course receiving that mark. Others who have played may agree or disagree with that obviously.

I don't think I'd give anything I've seen in Phoenix more than a 7, which is obviously still very good, but likely not world class.

[Jim Nugent]

Water usage on desert golf courses not a problem? Does anyone have actual numbers and can source them?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_resources:

It has been estimated that a single average mid-western US golf course is equivalent to a population of 50,000 residents in water usage. (Thus, in areas where there are 20 golf courses the load is that of one million residents, as found in tourist areas such as Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona, and the famed 100 courses of Palm Springs and Desert Hot Springs, California use the equivalent of 5,000,000 resident consumers' water.)

Ulrich

Wikipedia is not always reliable -- anyone at all can post the information.  And while the quote you gave us makes a very strong claim, it gives no reference of any kind.  Who did that estimate?  What did they base it on?  

I ran some numbers on this.  They come from "U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2005-3051."  

To jump to the bottom line, by my calculation each golf course on average uses 8 million gallons of water every day.  That's if Wikipedia is right, and each one uses as much water as 50,000 residents.  

Which means each golf course on average uses just short of 3 billion gallons per year.  (365 times 8 million.)  The U.S. has around 16,000 golf courses.  If Wiki is right, they are using around 48 trillion gallons of water per year.  (16,000 x 3 billion.)  That is nearly one third of all water used in the United States.  

Sounds way way high to me.  I suggest someone's numbers are off, by a whole lot.  Maybe I left something out, or made a mistake, though it seems pretty straightforward.  I'll be glad to show you how I came up with mine, Ulrich.  Can you show me how you came up with yours?

My initial reaction is that the statement in Wiki sounds about as plausible as that eco-hysteria movie, "The Day After Tomorrow."  

[Jim Nugent]

Couldn't the original version of Pine Valley have been built in a desert?

No. Not even close.

Why not?

Ditto.  

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

How do you presume to set aside a base number of only 30 courses that can possibly get to the level of a 9? That's your presumption and limit -- not mine and likely others as well.

I don't set aside a quota number and say that's the max that can be at a given level.

Keep in mind, I'm not advocating just about any course can get to the highest of high levels that easily.

One other thing -- Tom you said, "The award of a 9 to Desert Forest is ridiculous." Really? When's the last time you played the course? Let's also be a bit more forthcoming -- your own presumption about desert golf rings loud and clear
in "Confidential Guide."

No doubt -- from your own writings -- you have a different view on how desert golf likely stacks up against courses located in other settings. Fair enough. But, when the assignment of numbers is given there's little doubt im ny mind at least that the persons doing the numbers allocation will have preferred tastes on what and where great golf can occur. You're no different than anyone else.

One final item -- how much golf do you really play now? And, how much traveling do you do now to different corners when your work isn't involved. I understand the time limitations people are under but even you yourself have stated the findings in "Confidential Guide" are dated from a certain snapshot in time.

Andy:

Black Mesa is located in the high desert given the altitude it is located. There are courses in the SW of the USA which occupy different elevations -- but are still by sheer definition in the greater desert areas.

rchesnut:

I concur in part with your take on SC. However, I am not in agreement with a number of leading figures who seem to believe that SC has added so much on the architectural side of the equation. It's a desert course because of its immediate zip code -- but the wholesale transformation of a blank canvass into a golf course speaks more to man's determination to impose his will rather than some sort of stellar design The story of SC was how it came into beginning -- not the final product of its collective 18 holes.

To be totally candid -- it's an insult to TF that people place the course as his best work. He has done better -- much better from the others I have sampled from his portfolio.

Being in Vegas has allowed the marketing spotlight to shine brightly on that layout -- credit Steve Wynn as much for that as anyone else. Showmanship -- is the story there.

Gents:

Desert golf has evolved and there are way too many people who simply throw the tag line -- play one desert course and likely you have played them all in terms of what they offer.

The evolution of desert golf is there for eyes willing to see it. Those who come to the table with concrete beliefs on what is lacking will likely forever see it that way. So be it -- but for those articulating such a narrow band of acceptance let's be a bit more forthcoming in one's own personal acceptance before expanding those preferences to a broader stage and forever categorizing desert golf as something less than what others are capable in achieving.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
High desert is probably the best way to describe much of New Mexico, and you probably went further with what I was thinking by saying that not all desert terrain is even remotely similar just as is the case with other types of areas around the country. The variance between places like Black Mesa, TSN, etc is very varied and dramatic.

Personally I still don't get the love for Desert Forest either. The green complexes are very good but I've asked more than once how one can defend the narrowness of the fairways thinking I missed something and never get an answer. There's certainly some nice architecture but when it came down to it the course would be no fun for me to play frequently. Where's the width?

[Philippe Binette]

I've never been to Shadow Creek, but I would never consider a course (designed by anybody) that negates the surrounding landscape as a great course...

Even if somebody would truck in thousands of tons of sand to create a Pine Valley looking course on a clay field and it still really cool from the inside, it would be terrible from the outside, therefore it can't go higher than an 8 on the scale.  

All the great courses are unique design answers to unique landscape...
Oakmont is great partly because of weird features like the drainage ditches necessary to its drainage.

Whistling Straits (never been there) could be and is probably a great golf experience but hell, might as well go to scotland or Ireland to see the real deal...

It's like the italian looking village in Vegas, just go to Italy if you want to see the real deal, and the real deal is definitely better than any imitations:
- the food is better in Italy
- the soft and silky italian language all around
- the italian women are definitely better looking

[Philippe Binette]

as for the question:

It possible to built a great course in the desert, it would just have to look and play and have features and concepts that nobody has ever seen and answer to the specific issues of the site.

[Mike Lacey]

Real Numbers for those clamoring for them...

A typical golf course constructed under the Post-1980 turf restrictions in the Phoenix and Tucson areas use roughly 450 acre-feet per year.  

A typical subdivision tract home uses somewhere around 0.4 acre-feet per year.  A golf course uses the equivalent of 1125 homes.  Assuming 3 persons per dwelling unit, that equates to 3375 people.

Peak water use for such a golf course is approximately 1.0 million gallons per day and occurs during fairly short windows in the hottest and dryest part of the summer before the "monsoon" starts and during the establishment of the overseeded rye grass in September or October.  

Big Picture Water Management Issues

Both the Phoenix and Tucson areas are governed by rules that require achivement of "Safe Yield," a long-term balance between the amount of water pumped from and replenished to aquifers.  New subdivisions, including their golf courses, must demonstrate water availability for 100 years and compliance with Safe Yield.  

In order to comply with these rules, most new golf courses end up relying on renewable water supplies, such as reclaimed effluent or surface water like Colorado River supplies delivered through the Central Arizona Project.  If courses don't have direct access to these supplies, their groundwater use is offset by aquifer replenishment with these renewable supplies.  

There ultimately will be the determination of a fixed volume of water that will be available for use in Central Arizona.  Every golf course will displace 3-4000 people that may otherwise move here.  I am personally willing to accept the trade of open space, cleaner air, and less traffic that comes along with more golf courses.  However, I think economics will largely goven how much golf will be developed as the area builds out.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

some more numbers from a study done in 2005 about the econmic impact, and other issues, of golf courses inAZ.

The 338 facilities use a total of 47,590,132,000 gals. per yr. for irrigation purposes.

20,078,666,000 gals. are ground water

18,263,172,000 gals. are reclaimed

7,540,054,000 gals are from the Colorado River

1,708,566,000 gals. are surface water.


Removing the reclaimed and rain waters from the totals and dividing that by an average use of 20,000 gals per person/per yr.(55gals/day) yields 1,380,000, the equivalent number of people who could be served if there were no golf courses in AZ.

[Ken Moum]

I ran some numbers on this.  They come from "U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2005-3051."  

To jump to the bottom line, by my calculation each golf course on average uses 8 million gallons of water every day.  That's if Wikipedia is right, and each one uses as much water as 50,000 residents.  

Which means each golf course on average uses just short of 3 billion gallons per year.  (365 times 8 million.)  The U.S. has around 16,000 golf courses.  If Wiki is right, they are using around 48 trillion gallons of water per year.  (16,000 x 3 billion.)  That is nearly one third of all water used in the United States.

I found this http://ucrturf.ucr.edu/topics/trends_in_golf_course_water_use.pdf, and if I read Table 1 correctly, they're saying much less than 500 acre feet is adequate in So Calif, and that's less than 160 million gallons a year.

GCSAA has been conducting an environmental profile of golf courses that includes a water use and conservation, but the results aren't available yet. Here's the announcement of the survey http://www.gcsaa.org/cm/contentm/modules/display_dynamic.ahtml?params=MSwxMTI0LDAwMjg4

Ken

[J_ Crisham]

Wouldn't everyone rather have more golf courses than people if only for the 3 hour round?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Kmoum,
Or you could put all that water into a 10' deep, 49 acre lake.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Why must greatness only be applied when certain pre-set formulas (width) are held as a main constant.

Desert Forest provides sufficient room. What often happens is that the juxtaposition with the desert can make people feel the course is narrower than it actually plays.

I also have to ask how many times you have played the course because as with Pinehurst #2 and TOC -- it does take a few rounds in order for many to see what is truly present.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
I've only played the course once, but to me the course overwhelmingly does NOT provide enough room on certain holes especially. Narrowness can be used effectively, but in the case of Desert Forest the fairways themselves need more width in my opinion due to extremity of the penalty should one fail to find them. There's never anyplace to miss off the tee except straight or else reloading is often the best/only option.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

For what it's worth -- multiple rounds could prove to be a major benefit in terms of your initial thoughts.

I've heard relatively the same thing from certain people here on GCA concerning the lack of playability of Black Mesa and I know that to be nothing more than a one-time analysis coming forward.

I don't doubt the course is narrow in spots -- but there are options in order to counter that situation and so long as options are available to the player the sum total of the course does speak for itself.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
I wouldn't dispute that, multiple rounds are always better to judge a course than one round.

Of the two courses which do you think is more playable? I can play Black Mesa with one ball sometimes with it being rare to lose more than a couple for me. I think its got more width (although holes like #16 are narrow) and less penalty for misses. Can you say any of that for Desert Forest? Did I just miss those elements there? Every shot I hit off the fairway there was either lost or in a cactus or other desert vegetation and unplayable.

[PThomas]

I side with Matt here re the width at DF.....what's wrong with having to hit the ball straight?

[Andy Troeger]

Paul,
I don't see the whole thing as taking sides. The problem is not requiring accuracy, many courses do that to score well. The problem I have is the lack of recovery options on pretty much every hole should one miss.

[Doug Ralston]

I've never been to Shadow Creek, but I would never consider a course (designed by anybody) that negates the surrounding landscape as a great course...

So a course in a forested area must use lots of trees or never be considered a great course? Correct!

Doug

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I don't know why I bother to answer your questions, but here goes:

I don't know how you can imply that I am not entitled to rate courses on the Doak scale any way I want.  (I do have a copyright on the thing, you know.)  You also constantly make a point that I rated many courses back then without playing them, which is true -- and in spite of that, the book is somehow held in high regard anyway.  Go figure.

I have played Desert Forest 2-3 times and walked it a couple more ... but the last time I was there was 5-6 years ago.  Has your rating of it improved by two or three points on the Doak scale in that time frame?  If not, then I'm guessing mine wouldn't have, either.  It was a high 6 or a low 7 on my scale the last time I was out there.

There is no "arbitrary limit" of 30 courses that can receive a 9 on the Doak scale; I was only pointing out approximately how many courses actually received that grade in the book so everyone would understand it's a VERY high standard.  At least a half-dozen courses have been built since my book which I would rate that highly; I think they are all superior to Desert Forest.

As to how much golf I play every year, probably only 25-30 rounds a year.  I wish it were more, but there are three inches of snow out my window right now.  My handicap has certainly gone up as a result, but my eye for detail is still pretty good.  Or are you one of those people who think I don't know what a golf shot is?  

[Ulrich Mayring]

The 338 facilities use a total of 47,590,132,000 gals. per yr. for irrigation purposes.

20,078,666,000 gals. are ground water

18,263,172,000 gals. are reclaimed

7,540,054,000 gals are from the Colorado River

1,708,566,000 gals. are surface water.

Removing the reclaimed and rain waters from the totals and dividing that by an average use of 20,000 gals per person/per yr.(55gals/day) yields 1,380,000, the equivalent number of people who could be served if there were no golf courses in AZ.

Ok, assuming these numbers are correct, then they are actually saying that one golf course in AZ uses ca. 140 million gallons of water per year for irrigation. A golf course in a "traditional" setting uses about 9-10 million gallons (numbers from German golf association). In other words, a golf course in the desert uses 15 times as much water as a course elsewhere and that is a considerable waste.

Then your calculation assumes that one person would use 55 gallons of water per day. According to http://www.worldwater.org/data20062007/Table%202.pdf this number is actually (some examples) 31 for the United Kingdom, 40 for Germany and 150 for the United States. I have double-checked the last figure, as it seemed exceedingly high to me, but http://www.wbcsd.org/includes/getTarget.asp?type=d&id=MTYyNTA agrees.

Therefore, if all AZ golf were abolished this would amount to 4 million Tommies, 3.2 million Krauts or 845000 Yankees that could be served additionally. Plus, imagine the savings when all AZ golfers move out of the desert

Ulrich

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()