Rock Creek Cattle Company

[Craig Sweet]

Shivas...we played 18 from a lower tee...certainly lower than the view in the picture.....the creek was definitely in play and offered the player a challenge to cut off as much as they desired....the second shot, if I recall, was  somewhat uphill and as you said, the green "melts" into the fairway...

[Ryan Farrow]

Matt, I find it strange that you have a problem with the par 3's Rock Creek, then list Oakmont as a 10!!!!

That has to be the most contradictory sentence I have ever read. Ever!

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

It's "contradictory" to you Ryan -- not I.

Help me out -- please elaborate how the par-3 holes at Oakmont are deficient? Take the 8th hole versus the 13th at Rock Creek. Advantage Oakmont without doubt. The 16th is also well done at Oakmont -- more than just length it has one of the more vexing greens at the course.

The 6th is also a gem -- easily beyond the likes of either the 8th or 17th at Rock Creek.

Please don't misunderstand me I thoroughly enjoyed Rock Creek but the overall element of Oakmont -- have been vetted numerous times through the highest levels of competition and from the superb job the club did in bringing back to life the nature of what was there from the get-go.

[Mat Dunmyer]

Well I've arrived at Rock Creek and I cannot stay here without calling out Mat Dunmeyer the superintendent.  I was here three months ago this week, and I can't believe how far the course has come in three months.  My associates are all going to be floored when they get here on Saturday and see how quickly the course has matured.  It is in EXCELLENT shape, and it's really tricky to get the ball in the hole with the greens up to speed.

MikeC:  Don't mean to jump in front of the guys you asked, but I think Rock Creek is at least an 8 on the Doak scale.  And it IS my scale.

P.S.  You guys must be very spoiled if the 12th at Rock Creek rates only 4/10.    I guess you would prefer if I built a small green surrounded by bunkers ... but what you have to understand is that you can't just do that and let wild shots wind up in the boulders ... that's why #12 green and the area around it is so wide.

Thank you for the kind words, Tom- but my staff and Mother Nature are the ones to be recognized!!!

Mat

[Ryan Farrow]

Matt, if you could pick one weakness at Okamont, it would be the par 3's right? At least here, the par 3's have not been entirely vetted.


Sorry, I just had to pick on you here because I just happened to work at both courses. But at least to me, par 3's are very tough to debate, how much strategy and thought can an architect really put into them? To me it comes down to interesting recovery options, variety, and  setting. Rock Creek obviously comes out way on top for their setting. All uniquely placed and vastly different. Can you say the same for Oakmont? Oakmont's 3's certainly offer tough/interesting recovery options but they are going to be from the rough or a bunker 90% of the time. To me, #6 and #13 are too similar at Oakmont, You can't say two Par 3's at RC are remotely similar.

Not to take anything away from Oakmont. To produce that kind of golf course with that amount of variety, on a less than spectacular piece of ground is truly remarkable.

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

Before going into depth with a response -- here's the long and short of it -- do you see Rock Creek as the better overall course than Oakmont.

In my mind -- no.

Yes, I would think if there is any weakness at Oakmont it's on the par-3 side. No doubt some will not be happy campers because Oakmont has two very difficult and long par-3's. Some just don't see the point on the excessive length of the "new" 8th and I can understand that. I still see the hole as worthy because the "new" length was meant to bring the hole into modern times given the improved clubs and balls.

Ryan, the think to keep in mind is how much better Oakmont has become since the sheer number of trees were removed. The last US Open only added to the considerable lore Oakmont has. Frankly, I can make a very solid argument that Oakmont is the best parksland course among our championship courses.

Ryan, you make a good point about the on-course and off-course scenery that Rock Creek brings to the table. No doubt it's very impressive and something anyone has to include when assessing the overall qualities of the course. Oakmont can't have such mountains but the desire to "open" up the total property only made Oakmont even more beautiful than what is was before.

You state Rock Creek doesn't have similar par-3's. Well, how about the fact that three of them feature drop shots of some type. The 8th goes downhill -- ditto the 12th and also the 17th. I'm not saying any of them is a truly bad hole but if that shot element has been tested once might it have been possible to do something a bit different. That is makes the par-3 13th a unique hole although I don't see it as being so unique -- as on par with the rest of the par-4 holes you find at Rock Creek.

At the end of the day -- to have Rock Creek even in a discussion with Oakmont speaks highly of what Doak and team did there. I love the layout and as I said before the superintendent and his talented crew deserve plaudits for the impeccable turf conditions. The course is so young but the turf is thaaaaaat good.

[Jim Nugent]

Just what is a drop shot, anyway?

I think that's getting to be a hackneyed term.  Just because a shot is downhill does not make it a drop shot in my eyes.  To me a drop shot is a straightball short iron shot, usually some sort of three-quarter controlled shot. 

And it certainly isn't a ground game shot, where you carve and run it in.  It's an aerial shot.  A fairly rudimentary one.

The term also sortof implies in my mind that judging the trajectory and drop is the primary challenge to the hole.

That's certainly not true on 8 or 17 at RC.  I curved it into both of those holes every time - a cut off the hill on 8 and a draw on 17.

They may be downhill, but I wouldn't dismiss them as drop-shots.  I watched a lot of guys play a lot of shots into these holes, and I didn't see a single swing that screamed "drop shot" to me...       

Dave, where do you place Rock Creek among the nation's courses?  Top 10?  Top 25?  50? 

If it's as good as or better than Sand Hills, must be in a very rarified atmosphere. 

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

Wherever Shivas places it, everyone else will probably think it's a bit high, or they'll think HE's high.  But, hardly anyone else here has seen it yet.

That is changing this weekend.  I've got 80 people here from all over golf, including people that were intimately involved with Ballyneal and Barnbougle -- plus all of my own team and we are our own toughest critics.  So far, everyone is just beaming, so I think the results are going to be pretty good, but we'll probably hear a handful of new opinions in a couple of days.

[Gene Greco]

I guess that makes me the Jeff Spicoli of golf:  All I need is some cool Buds and some tasty [ground contours] ... and I'm fine.

 

A respun mantra for the hardcore golfer.

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

Three of the four par-3 holes at Tetherow play downhill -- some a good bit more than the others. Whether one wants to call it a dropshot or not is a secondary issue -- my point was a simple one -- the basic design element is repeated in these instances. Like I said before, I don't see that in and of itself as a fatal flaw but I don't see the rich variety and differentiation that you get cumulatively from all of the par-4's encountered at Rock Creek.

Tom D:

Be very much interested to hear what people have to say following your Renaissance Cup event there.

[Ryan Farrow]

Ryan:

Before going into depth with a response -- here's the long and short of it -- do you see Rock Creek as the better overall course than Oakmont.

In my mind -- no.

Yes, I would think if there is any weakness at Oakmont it's on the par-3 side. No doubt some will not be happy campers because Oakmont has two very difficult and long par-3's. Some just don't see the point on the excessive length of the "new" 8th and I can understand that. I still see the hole as worthy because the "new" length was meant to bring the hole into modern times given the improved clubs and balls.

Ryan, the think to keep in mind is how much better Oakmont has become since the sheer number of trees were removed. The last US Open only added to the considerable lore Oakmont has. Frankly, I can make a very solid argument that Oakmont is the best parksland course among our championship courses.

Ryan, you make a good point about the on-course and off-course scenery that Rock Creek brings to the table. No doubt it's very impressive and something anyone has to include when assessing the overall qualities of the course. Oakmont can't have such mountains but the desire to "open" up the total property only made Oakmont even more beautiful than what is was before.

You state Rock Creek doesn't have similar par-3's. Well, how about the fact that three of them feature drop shots of some type. The 8th goes downhill -- ditto the 12th and also the 17th. I'm not saying any of them is a truly bad hole but if that shot element has been tested once might it have been possible to do something a bit different. That is makes the par-3 13th a unique hole although I don't see it as being so unique -- as on par with the rest of the par-4 holes you find at Rock Creek.

At the end of the day -- to have Rock Creek even in a discussion with Oakmont speaks highly of what Doak and team did there. I love the layout and as I said before the superintendent and his talented crew deserve plaudits for the impeccable turf conditions. The course is so young but the turf is thaaaaaat good.

Matt, I can understand your new-found appreciation for Oakmont. It really is a beautiful look, but I have never seen the course before the tree removal, except for pictures and have not had a before and after moment. I could very well see how someone could give it an 8 or 9 before, then see the course it is today and say, well its certainly a 10 now.

So you have convinced me of you logic there, but 3 out of 4 of Oakmonts par 3's are slightly downhill: 6, 8, and 16.  But I wouldn't say they require the same shot, just like I wouldn't say Rock Creeks 8, 12, and 17, require the same shot ( I never played 17 so I will rely of Shivas previous comment).

With that said, all of this "talk" is the result of a one of a kind piece of property. I think Tom would be truly disappointed if he could not produce a golf course on this land that would get people talking crazy. Balyneal was on a great piece of land, but that land extends for mile upon mile and already had one of the best golf courses in the world on it. I don't think you will ever find another Rock Creek.

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

C'mon please -- you are stretching yourself a good bit with your memory of the par-3 holes at Oakmont The 8th and 16th move the slightest amount downhill and I mean slight. The ones I mentioned at Rock Creek do so much more -- it's quite noticeable.

Ryan, you harp on the fact to me that one "will never find another Rock Creek. You're preaching to the choir on that point. My issue was to point out how much better Oakmont has become -- keep in mind, the course has been thoroughly vetted against a laundry list of greats over many years.

Rock Creek is a first rate layout and I enjoyed my time there. My only point was that Oakmont is a bonafide 10 and one of the super elite courses in all the world. Rock Creek is equally impressive in its own right and its coming out party has only just begun. I really loved the place and look forward to a return engagement. In regards to its comparison w Ballyneal -- like I said the CO layout is a bit ahead for me when Rock Creek is placed side by side. The margin is quite small but it's there for me.

 

[Yancey_Beamer]

This course makes a loop uphill and then downhill around Rock Creek with holes one through fifteen and then another loop with holes sixteen through eighteen which reminded me of Cruden Bay and it's "walk about the property".The holes are quite original and challenging.Enjoy the photos.
It is an 8.



http://picasaweb.google.com/clairebeamer/RockCreekCattleCompanyDeerLodgeMontanaTomDoakArchitect#

[Ryan Farrow]

Matt, repeat after me:

Ryan, you spent more days at Oakmont than I could ever image, therefore you know much more about the course than I do. Numbers 6, 8, and 16 all play slightly downhill.


Ok, now I don't know the exact numbers here but I do know #8 and #17 are not remotely close to drop shot par 3's. And I would be willing to bet, the elevation varies a lot more between the said par 3's at Rock Creek Vs. those at Oakmont. Not to mention, if you did not play from the back tees, these shots would be a lot less downhill. You need to keep in mind not everyone plays a course exactly the same as you do!


Sorry, I tried to keep a civil argument here but you came off as kind of jerk on that last post.

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

Please -- hold the phone amigo.

You're the guy who tries to sell the thought that Rock Creek and Oakmont are on the same page in terms of overall greatness.

I said in clear terms - which you conveniently ignored that the PA layout was great before the tree clearing and now only improved that much more.

I've played Oakmont on several occasions over the years and been to all the major events held there since the '73 US Open. My knowledge of the course is not at the member level but it's far more than the occasional guest who simply wanders in for the one time play.

Oakmont is world class golf -- got it. It's a clear ten without any reservations on my part. I love Rock Creek and think it's absolutely no less than an 8.5 but there are a few shortcomings I mentioned. They are not fatal -- I said that previously in the event you missed it -- but they are there in my mind.

Now -- since you asked me to repeat after you -- I offer the same suggestion to you now.


Shivas:

Let me clue you in -- I've played countless par-3 holes where architects have overdosed the downhill dimension -- it's fine for a hole or two at most -- but repeating it that many times doesn't add much to the ultimate variety aspects that I'd like to see. It's more about creating the expansive "view" which developers have fallen in love with and with which architects throw in to capture that sense of euphoria. That's the design element I mentioned previously. The downhill par-3 / dropshot hole has been overdone way too many times and when has four par-3 holes that should each reflect a good bit in overall differentiation.

You know Shivas -- I've come to respect #13 more now because of your comments. The other three collectively, are not fatally flawed -- otherwise I would not have the course at 8.5 -- but they are not uniquely different for me.

And, most of all, when you provide a course with a 9 on the Doak scale that means nearly all the holes are as close to bulletproof as one can be.

I don't see the totality of the par-3 holes at Rock Creek to be at the highest of levels. I salute Doak for inserting a long par-3 (the 13th) right after a short hole like the 12th. That's quite interesting and refreshing.

However, the 8th is a nice looking hole but it's downhill from the back tee. Ditto the 12th and ditto again with the 17th. Each is a fine hole -- but really c'mon enough of the blatant fan booster cheerleading routine. I really liked Rock Creek a lot -- maybe a tad below your unbidled enthusiasm.

How bout an uphill par-3 hole?

Such holes are event more demanding to gauge for club selection. How bout a very short par-3 beyond the 12th which I don't see as being that great anyhow?

The idea that you are championing that a flat par-3 is somehow easier than a downhill shot really depends upon specific case examples. My point, which you conveniently missed, is that repeating a general flavor of hole layouts doesn't add much to the overall diversity of shotmaking requirements needed.

Nothing more than that.

[Ryan Farrow]

Matt, you have got me on the brink of not responding.....




wait.............













there it is.

[Matt_Ward]

So be it ...

[DMoriarty]

Matt and Shivas,
Yes the 12th is a short par 3, but that itself is not a knock, is it?  While the hole may seem simple to a scratch on a calm day, the green is a bit tricky so hitting the green will be no guarantee of a par.   Also, keep in mind that this hole will often play in a very strong crossing or quartering wind, so hitting the green will not always be a simple matter even for the better players.

One positive of this hole over other similar holes I have seen is that it is challenging while still providing chance for recovery for those of us who don't always hit the green.   
_______________________
Matt,

As for the downhill nature of these holes, I understand what you are saying but don't think your comments are as applicable if one considers the hole from all of the tees and not just the back tee.    On the 8th especially, a few of these holes may be better from the forward tees, in part because the shots might be  a bit more interesting and deceptive without the elevation. 

[Matt_Ward]

David:

I never said the issues I have with the par-3 holes at Rock Creek is a fatal one BUT it is something that would cause me to see the overall layout be diminished - albeit slightly, when you HOLD UP the unique other holes at the course (save for the par-5 side which I see as so-so -- the lone exception being the 10th.

I do agree that playing the hole from the other tees might have proven to be a bit more informative for me. Ditto those who played from the up markers who may need to see what I am saying when judging things from the tips.

Let me repeat again -- I have nothing against short par-3 holes -- I just don't see the 12th at Rock Creek at the highest of high levels you see from so many other holes at the facility.

Shivas:

No point going on with this -- you see the par-3's as being bulletproof -- I don't. End of story.

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

Look, you ga-ga about the place -- I can understand your position but I don't see the par-3's as a group being remotely as good as the cumulative nature of the par-4's at RC. The par-5's are also abit empty -- save for the elegant and challenging par-5 10th.

I don't see the sheer diversity of holes, either from their general nature to their shotmaking differentiation on the par-3 side (I did mention how the 13th is a good bit better than the others) and with the lone exception noted on the par-5 side. They are not bad holes per se -- but they are not exceptional and when courses start being looked upon as Doak scale 8 and higher -- then the total sum of all elements must be hitting home runs across the board. Hitting doubles is good but not in that rare high air of supreme greatness.

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

That's rubbish -- did you spend a good bit of time to think that story up?

Try to realize you are M-E-G-A ga-ga about the place. I really liked it too.

I've tried in all good faith to spell out my reasoning -- you don't seem to understand it -- that's fine -- sometimes people who are ga-ga about sports teams, golf courses, babes, whatever, have little to gain, in their mind, from hearing from a different point of view.

I'll repeat it again -- I don't see the elements I mentioned as fatal flaws. I just don't see the holes in question operating at the same home run level as the others. You see it differently and I could be the Lord Jesus in my rationale and you would see fit to take the contrary view because of your ga-ga nature about the place.

This has been batted back and forth to no real satisfaction accept for tired fingers typing the same point. You see it one way -- I see it otherwise. You won't convince and I know I won't convince you. End of story.

[Craig Sweet]

Rock Creek is a really, really good course....

I can not imagine their being too many course in North America that can come close to Rock Creek....

Play it! Now!!!!!

[DMoriarty]

I tried to post these above but messed up.   Here are two photos of the 12th, one from the top tee and one from a bottom tee. 





I like the hole. 

I do agree that playing the hole from the other tees might have proven to be a bit more informative for me. Ditto those who played from the up markers who may need to see what I am saying when judging things from the tips.

Let me repeat again -- I have nothing against short par-3 holes -- I just don't see the 12th at Rock Creek at the highest of high levels you see from so many other holes at the facility.

I've played the par 3s in question from the back tee boxes.  I like them better from a lower elevation.  My guess is that the vast majority of golfers will be playing other than the back box, so I am not sure it makes sense to critique the course based on the back box at all.   My guess is that the third and fourth tees up will each get more play than the back tees. 

Personally, I am not a fan of the back tees being elevated much above the others.  To my mind the advantage of better visibility counteracts any increased distance requirement.   But realistically, on undulating terrain it will often be unavoidable that the tip tee will be higher.    If this is the case, unless the course is being built primarily for top tournament play, it seems the designer really ought to place the tee(s) most in use at the ideal height, even if it means that the back tee will be a bit higher than ideal.    At RCCC this applies to the 8th, where the back tee is quite a bit higher than the next tee up.

[Tom_Doak]

The Cup ended yesterday right about the time our friend Tim Wood (an Aussie playing the Canadian Tour) broke the course record with a 69 from all the way back ... he and his partner Michael Robin posted 72-66 to win by three.  Wow we had fun.

I would agree with Matt that the par-3 holes and the par-5 holes are not as good as the par-4's, but that's true of more than one great course.  (Ballybunion for one.)

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Interesting observation / re: Ballybunion.

Have to wonder if designing truly challenging par-5 holes is probably the most vexing of issues. In one way you need to challenge the better player and at the same time provide alternate routes for them to get to the putting surface.

Quick question -- is the 13th at Rock Creek the longest par-3 hole you have created to date? Would you include them on future designs as well?

One last item -- was the par-5 closer your idea or was it suggested by ownership similar to what Michael P suggested to you and Jack at Sebonack?