Why can't Golfweek get over Shadow Creek?

[John Kavanaugh]

To me Shadow Creek is Studio 54 architecture.  Golf Digest has been pushing it down like Warhol on the head of a nubile waiter.  I have never played the course, have no desire to, and ask the question...What is there that equates this course with other top 10's?  Why does it continue to fit the Golfweek model of greatness?

[Jon Spaulding]

I am playing there tomorrow, so if you could define the Golfweek model I'd be glad to see if it can be found out there.

What I might equate to some other top clubs would be risk/reward nature of the holes, conditioning, and a decent experience.

[Jerry Kluger]

JK: 1. Why do you care about GW ratings?  2. Shadow Creek is the rare creation of a golf course from a blank canvas - totally flat piece of property that was stripped of everything and then created -  it is significant for that reason and is recognized for that - knowing that the next question is: is it well done, obviously there are a significant number of GW raters that feel that it is. 3. I would be willing to bet that if a survey was taken, far more golfers would be familiar with Shadow Creek versus Sand Hills. 

[Brent Hutto]

2. Shadow Creek is the rare creation of a golf course from a blank canvas - totally flat piece of property that was stripped of everything and then created -  it is significant for that reason and is recognized for that - knowing that the next question is: is it well done, obviously there are a significant number of GW raters that feel that it is.

Hopefully it will not be viewed in 20 years as the Robin Hood Gardens of high-end exclusive golf courses. Seems that justification boils down to giving brownie points for how hard it was to build, regardless of the resulting quality. If so I don't buy it.

Or maybe Shadow Creek really is one of the greatest golf courses in the world...it does make you wonder how it would be viewed if our favorite short-fingered vulgarian whipping boy Donald Trump had been behind it it rather than Steve Wynn.

[Doug Ralston]

John;

It seems to me that Eagle Eye in Michigan is a 'slightly lesser' variation. It is a very manufactured course. It is also a very challenging, fun layout that has to rate, just for quality of play, with some of the best in Michigan. Perhaps you could try that one 1st, and if your stomach can still function, move on to Shadow Creek.

On the other hand, I perhaps should not be recommending EE to you. I think you read my recommendations carefully to make certain you avoid them. 

Try Olde Stone too! Why would you take the words of a member there over rumors I repeat?

Doug

[John Kavanaugh]

I am playing there tomorrow, so if you could define the Golfweek model I'd be glad to see if it can be found out there.

What I might equate to some other top clubs would be risk/reward nature of the holes, conditioning, and a decent experience.

Jon,

Are you in Vegas for Con Expo?  The golfweek model is simply put as: "America's Best" rating criteria included ease and intimacy of routing, integrity of original design, natural setting and overall land plan, interest of greens and surrounding contours, variety and memorability of par 3s, 4s and 5s; landscape and tree management and other considerations.  You give each catagory a ranking and then without consideration of the individual numbers pick an overall rank.  What I am curious about is if the greens and surrounding contours are world class and if the memorability of par 3s, 4s and 5s really is up to standards.  Of all the people I know that have played the course I have never been told of an individual hole in the context of greatness.

[Matt_Ward]

If people are celebrating the "creation" angle for Shadow Creek then there's plenty of story in that regard.

If people are attempting to substitute the "creation" angle instead of the actual architecture produced then I don't see the continued need for Shadow Creek to be rated that high.

In all the comments I have ever heard about Shadow Creek there's little if any dicussion on specific holes but always on how the course can into existence.

Frankly, the "creation" story has become THE story about the overall course. I would think that raters, especially those from Golfweek, would be able to tell the difference between the "creation" angle and the architecture aspect that is really simply above average but nothing so stellar as to command such a lofty position.

[Steve Lapper]

To me Shadow Creek is Studio 54 architecture.  Golf Digest has been pushing it down like Warhol on the head of a nubile waiter. 

John:

  That is CLASSIC!!!  

  Having frequented Studio 54 in the late 70's and early 80's (I was on their bouncer's softball team) and witnessed things I'll never quite forget (inc. Liza M delivering the same as above), your description was perfect!


PS....Matt Ward...you are 100% spot on!!

[Michael Robin]

Gotta be the first time Liza M. has been mentioned on GCA. An image I'm not so thrilled to have in my head the rest of the day. 

[John Kirk]

Having toured The Madison Club, a similar project from a Fazio team with 15 extra years of experience, I think The Madison Club may eventually surpass Shadow Creek as the poster child for desert fantasy golf.  It's big and bold.  I could be wrong.  I'm only right 52% of the time.

I did read recently here how Fazio used deception nicely on a couple holes at Shadow Creek, using bunker size and distance between bunker and green (holes 11 and 12?).  I do not recall any examples of that type of deception at Madison Club during my one short tour. 

[Adam Clayman]

The fifth hole has received some ink in these halls. I felt it the best hole out there.
As to why panelists rate it so highly.. I can only speculate that many of the votes might be older votes stemming from it's early splash on the GCA landscape. There is nothing bad at the golf course. I don't think there's a bad hole out there and the EXPERIENCE is top-notch.
 In a memorable Limo ride with the mad Armenian and the Emperor, we felt the course was worthy of top 100 status, just not upper tier.
 

[John Kavanaugh]

The fifth hole has received some ink in these halls. I felt it the best hole out there.
As to why panelists rate it so highly.. I can only speculate that many of the votes might be older votes stemming from it's early splash on the GCA landscape. There is nothing bad at the golf course. I don't think there's a bad hole out there and the EXPERIENCE is top-notch.
 In a memorable Limo ride with the mad Armenian and the Emperor, we felt the course was worthy of top 100 status, just not upper tier.
 

Where else can you riffle through a private locker and pretend it is not robbery.  linger longer.

[Adam Clayman]

BTW, Limo rides are the only way to get there. Plus, you must stay at one of the groups hotels.

[Tom_Doak]

People love to hate Shadow Creek, for innumberable reasons:  wretched excess, Las Vegas, purported "favors" for panelists, etc.  I still think it's Tom Fazio's best work, and by far the best example of creating a golf course out of nothing -- and that is why it's ranked so high.

There are a number of excellent holes -- 4, 5, 9, 15, and 18 -- but, admittedly, not as many as on any of the top 20 Golden Age courses.  However, for it to place in the top ten of modern courses is not much of a stretch at all.

Matt, lots of famous courses have a "story" that helps make the course more than the sum of the parts.  You could say as much for Seminole, Augusta, or Pine Valley.  That doesn't mean they aren't great courses, too -- just that lots of great courses are marketed to some degree, whether anyone is paying for it or not.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

C'mon -- let's get real shall we ?

Tell me any course which has more ink tied to its creation in modern times more than Shadow Creek? The place is the poster child for the "creation" school of golf courses. The architecture side has produced a few holes of note -- the ones you mentioned I will concede for the sake of argument, but on the whole Shadow Creek is not in the same league with Karsten Creek, or Glenwild or Galloway National, to name just three. When I say not in the same league I am not denigrating what TF and SW did there. I am just saluting other TF courses I have played as better overall architectural contributions.

Tom, I enjoy our back and forth but please don't throw into the picture the story lines of Seminole, Augusta or Pine Valley. Each was rather unique in their overall creation but the sum total of what is THERE and what has MAINTAINED their overall high position is the totality of the architecture.

One other point -- your elevation of the Golden Age courses argument also falls on the floor to me. Candidly, there are a number of modern courses open to the public which have more unique and varied holes than Shadow Creek but are rated less so. I'll say this again -- the "creation" story has been well branded and marketed and has kept a long term hold on many.

Have to say -- you too were hooked on the "creation" angle of Shadow Creek in your assessment of the layout. Check out your comments again in "Confidential Guide" and you will see where much of your focus begins and ends with that in mind.

Golfweek deserves high marks for the bump down of Augusta but loses a few with the continued high placement of Shadow Creek IMHO. I'm not trashing the course -- I still agree there are holes of note in spots, but when anyone elevates the course to the top of any modern listing without any real detailing of the "what's there" analysis then it's clear to me plenty of people have been snookered into believing there's more there when there really isn't.

Shadow Creek proves that sustained hype can work wonders in combo with the Vegas motif. Hats off to Steve Wynn in creating mirages and making them real.

[Mike McGuire]

.  What I am curious about is if the greens and surrounding contours are world class and if the memorability of par 3s, 4s and 5s really is up to standards.  Of all the people I know that have played the course I have never been told of an individual hole in the context of greatness.

John -

Played there today.  The greens have a lot of overall pitch but not a huge amount of contour. The surrounds have a lot of interest. Missed shots could funnel toward the target - or race away from it. Lots of memorable holes. Might be there again tomorrow. Will report back with more detail. The rough was dormant and a lot of the bunkers collected wayward shots.

Overall a super FUN course. Add in the architectural and construction achievements, world class service and its a must play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jaka B,

I don't think you can eliminate what Shadow Creek stands for in the context of its "history" or "place in golf", when you attempt to "rate it"

Some clubs have their storied traditions and/or history.

Shadow Creek has its "revolutionary" history.

Shadow Creek was a marvel on the magnitude of Lido.

When I first played it years ago, I appreciated what Wynn had done and what Shadow Creek represented.  When I last played it in 2003, the bunkers had been modified ala Merion and the trees had grown to the point where a tree management program was in dire need.

And, the area around Shadow Creek had transformed from strictly desert to a semi-commercial setting.

When Shadow Creek first sat in the middle of the desert, it was a marvel, an oasis and a very good golf course.

It's hard to seperate Shadow Creek the golf course from Shadow Creek the revolutionary design in golf course architecture.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

For an example of a course with more ink tied to its creation in modern times:  how about Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes?  Who hasn't heard their back story?  There's a whole book about them.  How about Sebonack?  Or the story of those two brothers from Colorado who wanted to build something cool?  And how about Sand Hills, for Christ's sake?  Who hasn't heard a million times how it was all there waiting to be discovered and they didn't do anything to build it?  It's precisely the flip side of the Shadow Creek story, and it has been told to DEATH -- people talk about that way more than they talk about the many great individual holes at Sand Hills.

Indeed, you would have a hard time naming many top ten layouts from EITHER the classic list or the modern list that don't have a prominent back story.  You don't think the Pete Dye Golf Club being named after Pete Dye contributes to people's impression of it just a little bit, even if the golf holes are outstanding?  You don't think Muirfield Village being Jack's first course is the reason it's still his highest-rated venue? 

Yes, Shadow Creek deliberately tried to create a mystique by being "private," and they were accused of all sorts of things when they showed up in the GOLF DIGEST top ten, but mostly what they showed was how easy it was to influence panelists' judgment by making them feel special.  I always got a kick out of the president of Seminole being the one to complain so loudly to DIGEST about the unfairness of it all.  You don't think Seminole being Ben Hogan's personal practice ground is a part of its mystique?  You don't think they've played off that mystique for years, and made every panelist who ever set foot there (as a guest of a member) feel like they were privileged to be there?  Shadow Creek is hardly unique in this respect.  Its back story is different, but it's not the only one out there.

Matt, I will freely admit that while I have seen probably 30 Tom Fazio designs, I haven't gone to see any of the three you just named as superior to Shadow Creek.  I was on the ground in Stillwater years ago trying to get that job, and it was a great piece of property, but my travels have never taken me back; and when I asked the pro at Atlantic City how to get to Galloway, he forbade me to go see it, because he said that was what our client DIDN'T want for ACCC.

Just to refresh your memory, I didn't say that I thought Seminole or Augusta or Pine Valley were overrated.  They are all great courses, great architecture, 9's or 10's on the Doak scale.  But I don't think Shadow Creek is way overrated, either.  I think there are a lot of excellent holes there.  It's a bit repetitious because they were so focused on having every hole a thing unto itself ... but any course created from scratch will always suffer from being compared to perfection.  I just have never seen a better course created from nothing, and when I do, I'll be glad to say so.

Do you need any more reality than that?


P.S.  I wish to God you would stop using the phrase "the totality of the architecture".  It's essentially meaningless and your over-use of it draws attention to your light use of specific examples.  I named five holes at Shadow Creek that I thought were really outstanding holes.  If there are five holes at Galloway that would match them, we would all love to hear about them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Ward,

I don't know about the others, but, you lost me on Galloway surpassing Shadow Creek.

[Patrick Hodgdon]

Does anyone have any pictures of SC? I've heard a few people compare a few holes at Calusa Pines to Shadow Creek but never seen any of it besides the few photos on the website that show too much background and not enough architecture. Just curious very interesting discussion so far.

[Mark Bourgeois]

If people are looking for "miraculous" creation stories, what's so miraculous about Shadow Creek? They had an unlimited budget I thought.

Isn't Ailsa a better example?

Mark

[Jonathan Cummings]

Over the years I've played Shadow Creek five times including once with Wynn's brother (what a trip that was!).  I was initially wowed by the place but have since grown to appreciate the character of the place and holes.  SC, if anything, is growing on me.

Nice post Tom.

Matt - I'm sorry but I'd play SC 10-0 over Galloway Nat (which I like!)

Patrick H - good call as Calusa may be the second best manufactured course in the US (waiting to see if Bayonne is in the same league).

JC

[Jerry Kluger]

Gentlemen:

How about a discussion of Bayonne vs. Shadow Creek.  As I understand it, Bayonne was started from a blank sheet as well.  The contrasts are dramatic so clearly, one might prefer a links style over what is viewed as a North Carolina type course or vice versa.  My question is which has better holes, better long par 4s, better short par 4s, different par 3s, risk/reward par 5s, etc.  I haven't played Bayonne and I only played SC once about 7 years ago so I don't have much recollection of it.

[JSPayne]

I find it amusing that Matt seems to despise the "totality of the architecture" of Shadow Creek, but has yet to make any specific examples of the poor architecture he claims the course to possess. The focus seems to be more on the media hype and story of the place.

I'm confused.....is there an architecture related dislike you have Matt, or do you just hate the very IDEA of the place?

Seems like posts from those that have played (or visited) the course claim that is there is some good architecture to be had there....

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Over the years I've played Shadow Creek five times including once with Wynn's brother (what a trip that was!).  I was initially wowed by the place but have since grown to appreciate the character of the place and holes.  SC, if anything, is growing on me.

Nice post Tom.

Matt - I'm sorry but I'd play SC 10-0 over Galloway Nat (which I like!)

Patrick H - good call as Calusa may be the second best manufactured course in the US (waiting to see if Bayonne is in the same league).

JC

If we're going to add the discussion of best manufactured courses, where does Chambers Bay fit into the mold?  Or is it more likely best manufacturers golf course with other quarries and reclaimed sites?

Calusa, Shadow Creek, Chambers Bay, Spanish Bay, and what others?