The next great course

[TEPaul]

David Wigler:

I hope when you say, "the subtelty of Talking Stick would be lost on them" you're speaking of the high rollers, not Wynn and Fazio!

It's pretty damn clear to me that Wynn understands the mentality of his clientele far far better than any of us do and it's also fairly clear to me that Tom Fazio is probably capable of building any kind of golf course you ask him to!

[A_Clay_Man]

David- Thats the first time I've ever heard AnGC described as a marginal site.

I was always under the impression that Jones scoured the east coast for the perfect site before picking Augusta Ga.

What makes it so marginal in your view?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

David,
I think you just revealed exactly the point of all of this, and that is the ability of what is Great, what is Good, what is Mediocre, and what exactly is Bad.

I have never been to Augusta, and it is close to impossible to actually see the details or natural features that make-up ANGC, but knowing MacKenzie a bit, I would have to say that allof the key ingredients are, or at least once were, there. It maybe things no one can even see from outside the ropes, only from the fairways of certain shots. Natural and deceptive
features and placements of greens that can only be really accurately seen in person, but still can be appreciated in photographs. (i.e. how a certain green hugs a hill in a certain way that looks death-defying from the fairway or how a bunker may look so perfectly-placed, adding an allure of deception that totally makes the golf hole. It can involve tie-ins with other bunkers or even tie-ins with certain shapes and slopes of the site itself, creating an illusion of distance both long and short.) While these features may not be clear for some, what then makes Augusta National so special to begin with? I would hope that there is more substance to the course then just the flowers and emaculate conditioning.

You say that a GREAT golf course can be made without the use of exisiting features, well, I have yet to see one that is great, that hasn't relied on natural features. Do you think that some of us are actually making this stuff up on our own? David, how long has it been since you read one of the GREAT golf books from the GREAT architects of the Golden Age? Even with their immense ego's, these men knew they had to take a back seat to nature.

Its funny, but the whole time I'm playing Pacific Dunes, I never once looked at the body of water next to it. For me, it has nothing to do with the ocean other then the climate that it provides and the rough ground it created. Thats what makes it a special course. The rough-edged natural features that could never be emulated anywhere but there, and that WILL CHANGE or EVOLVE over a period of time.

Trust me Pat, You could never build anything close to St. Andrews in Las Vegas, no matter how close you could get wind conditions and the like. Just as you should never be able to build Shadow Creek in St. Andrews, nor should every think of wanting to. More then anything, all of this has shown me that it has to be all black and white for many, forgetting that there is a grey scale in between that defines the features, gives the depth, height, width of it all.

Tom Paul, I tire of hearing how the client gets what he wants from Fazio or any other architect who gives the customer what he wants, especially when the client doesn't really understand golf architecture to begin with and the whole purpose of him going to a professional is to have him be taught what GOLF really is. (Definition lost somewhere between a Great Depression and World War II) This is further seen when an architect runs through the project as fast as he can so he can spend more time shaking hands and selling his services.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You're confusing external and internal features.
You're going outside of the boundaries of the golf course.
Stay inside the property line of the golf course.
TOC duplicated exactly as it is, forget the buildings, streets, sea angle of the sun, STAY on the Golf course.
Are the architectual and strategic merits diminished due to the location.

Tom Macwood,

You're avoiding the question.

Topo or contours can be duplicated to within 1/2 and inch, so all those little humps and bumps will be exactly where they belong and exactly the same.

You to are bringing in external factors that don't apply.
What difference does it make if the town has a University or a Casino ?   We are strictly talking about internal factors within the golf course confines.

Let me repeat, Fazio builds for Wynn, at great expense, an IDENTICAL replica of TOC.

Are the architectual and strategic merits diminished due to the location ??

Or are the architectual and strategic merits IDENTICAL ?

Why doesn't anybody let the addressee answer the question, or do they fear the answer.  

And why doesn't everybody stick to the facts of the hypothesis and question at hand ?

Answer the question within the context of the stated facts.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat, Steve Wynn fronts the money to Advance Human Resources and creates a clone of one Patrick Mucci. It has all of the same hair color, height, weight, even balance. The only difference is he lives in Las Vegas, Nevada in a house that is set in the same postioning as the one you live in New Jersey. Do you think that the clone would have the same personality as the REAL/ORIGINAL Patrick Mucci?

Now, which one of the two do you think I'm going to want to spend anytime arguing points of naturalness with?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I'm glad to see you've been into the holiday hooch.  

This devil's advocacy business must take a stong constitiution, that and a short memory. Even you can't buy half of what you write, as you've pointed out before - 'you only know what write, you have no idea what I believe or think' - or something along that line.

Let's get back to reality and not waste our limited brain cells on such a fruitless lines of discussion. Next subject.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You just can't address and answer the question, so you want to change the subject.

This is about architecture.

Wynn builds an IDENTICAL replica of TOC in Las Vegas.
Are the architectual and strategic merits diminished due to its location, yes or no ?

Tommy Naccarato,

My missing twin..... in Las Vegas of all places  
What's really incredible is:  With our appetites, how did he live to be sixty in that environment ?

Now, back to golf architecture.
Let's not divert or deflect the question that noone wants to address.  Wynn does indeed dupllicate, IDENTICALLY, your beloved ST Andrews, only a short hop away from you.
Are the architectual and strategic merits diminished due to its location, yes or no ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Actually I'm not CONFUSING external and internal features at all! You apparently think I am and apparently because you have absolutely no idea what I or some of the others like Tom MacW and TommyN are talking about when we talk about "natural aspects" of a golf course or conforming in some way to what's "site natural".

You appear to have no idea what we're talking about--zero--and it's possible you never will! What you apparently think is that anything can be made and built anywhere no matter whether it conforms to what a site is all about before a golf course is built there or not! And of course that's technically true as we've seen many times, certainly including Shadow Creek!

But to answer your question ("Would the architectural and strategic merits of the course be diminished due to the location?") specifically, if something like TOC was REPICATED EXACTLY anywhere.

Well, commonsense would tell us that no it really shouldn't matter! But of course we know that's really not so--it would matter--but as to why it would matter is an interesting answer or I should say interesting answers.

On one end of the spectrum some might say because it might lack the overall ambiance of TOC because it's not in a place where TOC and all that its about belongs! I might even agree with that although clearly you probably think I'm not into ambiance. I'm not but I'm not into it for other reasons! I am into ambiance if it's natural, if the course and its architecture belongs where it is.

I'm not really into ambiance if it seems like and smells like a wholly created and manmade fantasy or fake to me--no matter how good the architecture and strategy is and no matter how exactly the thing is replicated from something that is natural. But would it specifically diminish the architectural and strategic merit due to the location? Probably not.

Which would I prefer to play, the real Old course or some exact replica? That's a no brainer! But could the architecture and strategy be exact? Sure it could. Frankly, Pat, if Wynn or someone like him had enough money and inspiration he could probably build an exact replica of TOC in the middle of Manhattan if they'd let him. Even if the architecture and strategy was an exact replica of TOC would it's location diminish it? Well, why don't you answer that for us because I believe I just did!

If you can even remotely wrap your mind around what we're talking about here I'll offer you something that may explain the fundamental reasons why we say what we do. It's from Max Behr, and admittedly is fairly cerebral but happens to be something I totally believe in!

As a hint to what he says and what his point is, it's that golfers fundamentally and instinctively react to what they perceive as nature and what they perceive as being man-made in vastly different ways! He says they accept nature when it's presented to them in a golf context and what the problems and solutions of even playing shots are in the context of nature or what's naturally created (by God I suppose)!

On the other hand they instinctively react differently--negatively, in fact, to what they perceive as man-made although that may actually be an exact replica of nature!

Of course you will ask why that would be or why he would say that. He says it because he believed that man or a golfer will instinctively be more accepting of nature and what it may ask of him than he will of what some person may have dreamed up or even recreated to ask of him! You may not understand that at all or agree with it Pat, but I do and I do very much!

I'll even cite you an example you'd understand. Clearly "the Alps" hill on #3 at NGLA is a natural formation--MacD did not make that. But suppose Fazio recreated that hole in the Nevada desert exactly complete with the very same "Alps" hill.

Would the architecture and strategy be the same? Sure it would! Would the location of the Nevada desert diminish it somehow?

It may not for you Pat but it would for me and the reason it would for me is for the exact reasons that were Max Behr's point about why golfers react differently to what they perceive to be nature vs what they perceive to be wholly man-made.

This is not a small point to me and one that can also be fundamentally understood in the essence of the word FAKE! Does fake mean that the re-creation or replica is not exact? Not to me! It can be exact in minute detail. Nevertheless if I perceive it to be not natural it means to me it's not REAL--not natural--a fake!  

If you can start to get a glimmer of what this is about you will then begin to understand why the best of architects look for sites with interesting natural aspects to use for golf and its concepts and you will see why when they may not have found enough of them to accomplish their specific purposes they enhanced those natural aspects with what they could make! But when the best do that they strive so hard to make what they made indistinguishable from what they found and used that's natural! This is all the essence of "disguising the hand of man" in architecture which the best try so hard to do!

Why do they do that? It all goes right back to Behr's point that instinctively a golfer will be more accepting of what he perceives to be natural---real--not manmade and not a fake!

I can't see why you wouldn't understand all this, Pat! So I'm not confusing what's inside or outside a golf course. Technically the architecture and strategy can be the same but is it natural--is it real? Unfortunately whether inside or outside the golf course that is something a golfer can very easily perceive!

This is all about what's natural, Pat, and how well any architect can meld and blend what he does with what's natural!

You may not agree with that but at least you should be able to understand what we mean by it!

And if you'd like I will direct you to Max Behr's article--it's basically what this is all about! If you really love architecture, and I know you do, this is something you really must understand--it's just so fundamental--it goes from architecture itself directly to what's instinctual in many golfers or even people generally!

I would even go so far as to say that many golfers may not even realize this consciously but nevertheless--perceive it, even it instinctively, they do!!

The real problem is so few of them are seeing it today, there's so little of it--but it's coming back--Thank God!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Since you answered the question, YES and NO

I'll have to repeat it for you again.

If an IDENTICAL St Andrews is built, will the strategic values of the golf course be diminished due to its location.

Since I'm so dense, tell me how the shot values differ at TOC and The IDENTICAL OC ?

Tell me how the strategic values differ on an IDENTICAL courses.

Tell me how the architecture differs on IDENTICAL courses.

It's you THAT DOESN'T GET IT.

It is you, and others, that are in denial.

With regard to your Alps at NGLA duplication, I'll answer your question.  The architecture, the strategic values and the shot values would be IDENTICAL.

If you think otherwise, and I don't know that a prudent  person could, describe how the shot values, strategy and architecture differ on IDENTICAL holes.

HEY, you're not smoking that funny stuff, are you

[Dave_Miller]

When talking in the context of the desert courses I had the chance to play Talking Stick - North last February.  I enjoyed it very much and feel it is a very good desert course.

TEPaul:
I'm not sure who David W. was referring when he said the subtleties would be lost but there are lots of subtleties at Talking Stick.  I recommend anyone who has the chance should take advantage.
Best
Dave

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
You can hamper on about shot values all you want. Can you actually tell me that you are going to have as much love and respect for the unique features of the Old Course of St. Andrews as you would the New Course of Las Vegas? I can tell you from my limited time on a golf course construction project that it would be close to impossible to EXACTLY recreate those features.

They moved the London Bridge, piece by piece from London, England to Lake Havasu, Arizona. For some unknown reason I have as much respect for it as I do the Queen Mary sitting docked in Long Beach, California. Crossing the London Bridge makes me feel like I'm in Lake Havasu, Arizona, NOT London, England. And, its made-up of parts of the REAL London Bridge!

You see, the London bridge may look like it did when it was in London, but the foundation and steel work isn't the same. Just the bricks and other asthetic hardware that makes it look like the London Bridge from the outside.  Meanwhile the Queen Mary isn't really a ship anymore. Not since they permanently cemented into place and created a sort of building on the water out of it.

I would more then likely avoid a Old Course replica, especially if it was created by Tom Fazio, like a bad case of rickets. I have already seen Tom Fazio's attempts at restoring Riviera #7 & 8, and it isn't even close....And that is on the Riviera property!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I don't get what? Your endlessly didactic questions? Maybe I don't! You're beginning to sound more to me like some cantankerous judge bellowing; "Just answer the question yes or no, I don't want to hear one word of discussion or opinion!"

Would the shot values differ between TOC and an IDENTICAL OC?

No, they obviously wouldn't! But for my feeling on building an IDENTICAL OC in the Nevada desert, go back and read my post again.

On second thought don't bother. I don't think you're particularly interested in what any of us think about that!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Let me ask you a very simple question. How do you feel about the architecture of a golf course conforming to the site it's on and the area it's in naturally? Does that matter to you at all?

Since your so big on yes or no answers why don't you start with one or the other and then if you feel the need to explain yourself by all means do it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

The "feel", or "atmosphere" you allude to are unique, but,
my question was confined to a field of play, a golf hole, and the replication of strategy and shot values on those IDENTICAL holes.

I think we would both prefer to play TOC rather than its IDENTICAL twin in Las Vegas, but, that wasn't the issue.

TEPaul,

Thank you for finally answering the question.

When a simple YES or NO answer will suffice,
volumes of irrelevant rhetoric don't address the issue and the question at hand.

Some forget that GOLF is a game, conducted upon a field of play, usually divided into 18 seperate sub-fields (holes) of play.  Each hole has its unique configuration.

Football is a GAME, conducted upon a standardized field of play.

In the play of the GAME, conditions outside of the field of play are irrelevant, window dressing if you will.

If a hole exists in Scotland, and is exactly duplicated in Southhampton, NY, Bandon, OR, or Las Vegas, NV, what difference does it make in the strategic play of the GAME ?
If the shot values and architecture are identical, then the hole, in the context of the play of that hole, is IDENTICAL.

Somehow, if FAZIO or others create duplicate holes, it and they get criticized, yet, CBMacDonald, Raynor and others built a career on duplicating holes, and many on this site revere them and the holes that they duplicated.

If CBMacDonald and Raynor can duplicate holes from other locations, why is it so bad when FAZIO does it.

To preempt an invalid response, you're going to tell me because it's natural, it fits the natural lay of the land.
But you know at NGLA and other locations that that's not true, and you also know that nothing could be built in the arid, barren desert that is natural.

So give the man his due, when it is deserved and fair to do so.

To answer your question, you know as well as I do that NO natural course could be constructed in an arid, barren, featureless, desert flash flood zone.

You're so hung up on theory, that you overlook reality.  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You ask why is it so bad when Fazio duplicates a hole? You ask why does he get criticized for it when MacDonald doesn't?

He gets criticized for that? What holes has Fazio duplicated? I'm not aware of any great European holes Fazio has duplicated as MacDonald did in part or in concept? Maybe Fazio should start doing something like that!

Listen Pat, I'm sorry if you think my answers are volumes of irrelevant rhetoric. This is a very good architectural discussion site and I'm really not very interested in your questions that are constantly only demanding of yes or no answers and I doubt anyone else is either. Somehow I think most would agree this site should be a bit more interesting than that!!

The volumes of rhetoric of mine you refer to in my last post is just a glimpse of some of the ideas and writing of Max Behr. I find his ideas and writing completely fascinating--they're anything but black and white (as you appear to constantly be), they're extremely thoughtful and some of the best writing ever on aspects of nature in golf and golf architecture. It seems to be apparent that you simply can't stand the entire subject of nature in golf and golf architecture!

Read again what you said to me in your post of 6/6/1:23pm about golf as just a game and your analogies to football and a standardized field of play!

And then consider this from Max Behr for a moment;

"Golf is a sport, not a game; and this distinction is fundamental if one is to attain a correct perspective of it, for both are endowed with principles of a different character. A game is enclosed in principles, strictly speaking, because everything about it is man-made. He levels the ground according to a predetermined scheme, marks it off, and superimposes a logical idea upon it. He is every way master of the situation, and, to him, the surface of the earth is merely one of exact tools of the pastime he creates."
Max Behr, 1923

This is just the first paragraph of a great article by Behr in 1923 entitled "Principles in Golf Architecture". It's spooky isn't it as it sounds like it's almost completely directed at an attitude about golf and its architecture such as yours?

You should read it and if you don't have it I'll copy it and send it to you. If you do read it and deem it to be volumes of irrelevant rhetoric too then it will give me a clearer idea of just how differently we look at golf and its architecture!

[TEPaul]

By the way, Pat, I noticed you punctuated your last post by telling me I'm so hung up on theory I overlook reality.

I'm beginning to feel you're so hung up on "formulaics" and "standardization" in golf architecture you tend to overlook both theory and reality--certainly the essential reality of nature in architecture! You seem to have gotten yourself to the point where it doesn't exist or doesn't need to! Certainly not a good place to be, in my opinion!

This is not the first time you've analogized golf architecture to football or a football field! Next you'll probably be analogizing necessary golf architecture to a tennis court!

But don't be forlorn, even the imaginative and freethinking Max Behr mentioned former day Pat Muccis who thought that way and indicated how corrupting they were to the spirit and essence of what golf is all about and why it's such a unique sport!

We can save you--but you have to open your mind and cooperate--and you probably have to start to read and comprehend to!

It's really pretty odd how you can quote MacDonald as the final word but you deem Behr's words to be irrelevant rhetoric! They thought very much alike--both of them believed firmly in using all the nature they could find in architecture. And neither one of them seemed the slightest bit interested in a football field as any kind of analogy to a golf hole!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I was looking at your last post again and you really do kill me the way you discuss and respond to things!

You said:
"To preempt an invalid response (presumably on my part), you're going to tell me because it's natural, it fits the natural lay of the land. But you know at NGLA and other locations that's not true, and you also know in an arid, barren desert that nothing could be built that's natural."

I do? Does that mean an arid, barren desert is fake?

First of all your remark to "preempt an invalid response" is just classic Pat Mucci! Anything that might disagree with your opinion is invalid? I really don't think so Pat! Are you really the final truth in golf course architecture? If someone has an opinion other than yours do you really think it's invalid?

I don't think some of your opinions are invalid, as "formulaic" and "standardized" as they sometimes are. I think they're plenty valid--but they're valid to me as an indication of some pretty strange and man-made architectural ideas devoid of much consideration for how nature can conform with what's man-made!

But anyway, as much as I feel that way about some of your opinions, I don't need to preempt your response, just disagree with it and explain to you exactly why I am.

But as to NGLA and its manufactured look--that's another story we discussed not long ago on another thread which you apparently didn't understand either.

Does NGLA have a "manufactured" look? Yes, parts of it do to me. Do those manufactured parts completely fail to conform to the natural aspects of the site of NGLA to me? No they don't! If you want to know why I feel that way I'd be glad to discuss it with you.

And, also, if by this overall line of logic on your part you're trying somehow to analogize NGLA to a course like Shadow Creek, I'd be happy to discuss with you why I think that's a very poor analogy on your part!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I know so little about golf course architecture compared to the experts on this site, so I always appreciate any information that will allow me to learn more about the subject

I've described the Shadow Creek site as an arid, barren, flash flood zone void of features.

Could you describe the type of golf course you would build on that site, while retaining the natural setting ?

Or is it impossible to do ?

If it's impossible, then what would you construct.

And while you're thinking about the exercise, don't forget that your boss is paying you a $ 2,000,000 fee to design something different, something unique, that everyone will want to play.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Now there's no reason to get hurt feelings and think me or any of us said you know so little about architecture--nobody said that. We're just questioning some of your opinions because you certainly are questioning ours.

Be glad to talk about another kind of golf course in the Nevada desert although I'm very clear what Wynn asked for  what he got--which was obviously one and the same--but that doesn't mean that's the only kind of course that can be built out there!

Could you tell me why MacD didn't build a Biarritz at NGLA and Fazio didn't build a replica of #5 at PVGC's short course?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

My feelings aren't hurt.

I'm just intrigued by the conclusions drawn by people who have never been to the site.

What kind of natural golf course could be built on that site, an arid, barren, flash flood zone, void of features ??

I believe CBM felt he couldn't "fit" a biarritz into the sequence of holes he did design.

Since you asked for a guess at PV # 5, I would say because it would have been too expensive to design a hole with an elevated tee, over a gorge, with water running below, to an elevated green on the other side of the gorge, which is basically a description of the current 5th hole.

That topography didn't exist on the 10 hole course, and the cost to duplicate it couldn't be justified.

[David Wigler]

Tommy,

Pat is right about Shadow Creek.  Fazio built a "Great" golf course on a marginal site.  If he tried to maximize the site, he could not have built a great golf course.  As for your book question, I finished "Some Essays on Golf Architecture" by Captain Alison last week.  I think they only produced 1,700 copies.  I took me forever to find.  

Dave Miller,

I think Talking Stick has many subtleties.  I have played it 3 times with nine different people who were not GCA'ers.  I will admit that nine is not a huge sampling, but most missed every subtlety on the course and all commented (Including me) on why C&C didn't hide the fence line.  Talking Stick is a good gold course but it is not in Shadow Creeks league.  If Talking Stick is the best that could be hoped for by utilizing existing features, than Fazio made the right decision to create.

[David Wigler]

Tom Paul,

Sorry for the ambiguity.  I definitely meant the High Rollers.  I agree with you about Wynn and Fazio.

[Gib_Papazian]

Whew! I just read through this post from start to finish - quite a slog through a bunch of argumentative diatribes. . . . . but quite a fun read nonetheless.

It just so happens that (name removed at request of panelist), Adam and a wayward Armenian are going to venture to Steve Wynn's oasis in a couple of weeks.

I've seen pictures of what the site looked like before, and it resembled an abandoned lettuce field in the Imperial Valley. i.e. a big square, flat waste bunker.

The argument as to whether it "fits" into the environment depends on your definition of what constitutes the "environment."

Las Vegas is like what I imagine Arthur C. Clarke envisioned when he wrote the last three books of the Rendevous With Rama series. A completely artificial creation, completely segmented from the rest of human existence. Clarke conjured up a self-contained biosphere, constructed by aliens as an experiment in social evolution with humans as the subject.  Las Vegas is almost the same idea if you think about it.      

Is the "environment" a hideous, flat, angry desert? Or is the "environment" a series of faux creations from an entirely blank slate, intended to parrot to look, feel and scents of another place?

What is the "real" Las Vegas? Go to Caesar's Palace and walk down the promenade. They dim the lights that illuminate the domed ceiling to match the sunset and sunrise outside. "They - whoever the puppet masters are -  even blend in the smell of Mediterranean air as part of the atmosphere. . . . it is very spooky.      

The entire place is one big stage, so it follows that Shadow Creek would be also. I agree with David in principle. A Talking Stick North would be lost on the "Whales" who come to Vegas to have their asses rubbed.

I have a tremendous respect and friendship with David, Tommy, Patrick, Tom, etc. All of them have vastly different opinions about Shadow Creek, which makes me wonder if this golf course isn't unique.

Maybe because Las Vegas is unique and perhaps we ought not hold Shadow Creek to the same standard of course evaluation. This is not to say we cannot rate the course as we would any other - and there is a danger to falling for the hypnotic appeal of limosines and perfect conditions - but let's just take a gander at what is there on its own merits and forget about whether it would be just as good or bad if reconstructed in St. Andrews.

The New Course at Grand Cypress tried it and although it parrots the feel pretty well - I played it in a frosty wind - it is kind of like trying to bake sourdough bread. It has been tried in other places and never seems to come out like it does in San Francisco.

I have not idea what I am going to think about Shadow Creek and don't give a whit about the clubhouse or amenities except as a completely separate evaluation of the "experience."

There is no point in speculating, because every time I go down that road, I often feel stupid (and guilty) later on for having prejudged.

Nicklaus courses do not appeal, yet Mayacama is excellent. I have issues with Weiskopf's work, but love Lahontan. MPCC is Rees . . . . enough said.

All this stated, in all the arguing on this thread, I did not see much reference to the individual holes and their strategic elements at Shadow Creek.

Is this because the discussion became overheated beyond the ability to scrutinize the architecture, or does the whole thing sort of blend together like a generic Fazio course with lots of flashy amenities?

I'll let you know.

[Mike_Cirba]

Gib,

As much as I want to hear your take on Shadow Creek, I'm intruiged to hear Tommy's and Adam's, as well.  

It should be an interesting analysis.    

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Two things that strike me about Shadow Creek. I don't recall reading a single negative review of the course from those who have played it and there is very little discussion of the course's golfing attributes.