Mtn Time Zone -- Best Private & Best Public ...

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

You left out Raven at Three Peaks in Silvethorne. Might it be worthy of an honorable mention for your list ? I remember when we played it together you expressed a real like for it.

Doug, Sand Hills is included because it's technically in the mtn time zone period. The line has to be somewhere but I can understand where you are coming from with you leaving it out.

Just another layout to consider although you have not played it -- Haymaker in Steamboat Springs.

Gents:

My posting was for mountain time zone courses only in the USA. You can certainly add another thread to include just Canadian ones.

Garland:

Rochelle Ranch and The Hideout are two fine layouts and I've been to both of them -- the issues for each, to some extent, is in having consistent turf that permits all the design features to shine brightly. They are both excellent in terms of what they charge -- RR is extremely easy to access - it's literally right off I-80.

[Garland Bayley]

... Black Hawk (Rod Whitten with the able assistance if Jeff Mingay).

The Black Hawk comment was due to your spelling above.

We have a little snow left over still here. Most snow on Chrismas ever, but mostly gone now.

[Tim Pitner]

p.s. You say you part ways with my last post -- I said Riverdale Dunes would be fortunate to grab a top ten position -- it's possible my depth of public courses played is just deeper than yours.

Which is why, Matt, I asked you for your top 10 among Colorado publics . . .

Off the top of my head, my list of top Colorado publics that I've played would look something like this (in no particular order):

Riverdale Dunes
Bear Dance
Keystone Ranch
Raven at Three Peaks
Breckenridge
Haymaker
Heritage at Westmoor
Buffalo Run
Murphy Creek
River Valley Ranch

I'm probably forgetting a course or two that might belong in my list.  I haven't played Broadmoor East, the Red Sky courses, Lakota Canyon or Redlands Mesa.  I have played Fossil Trace and deem it unworthy.  I also haven't yet played Highland Meadows (I'd like to), Vista Ridge or Devil's Thumb. 

Now, what say you for your top 10 Colorado publics? 

[Doug Wright]

Doug:

You left out Raven at Three Peaks in Silvethorne. Might it be worthy of an honorable mention for your list ? I remember when we played it together you expressed a real like for it.

Matt,

I don't recall being that enamored with Raven at Three Peaks. Yes it's a big improvement over the abomination that preceded it and there are a few good holes on the back nine but the front nine is really lacking IMO.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

Thanks for your response.

I've provided my top ten but I have also broken them down in subgroups -- the first three, second three and remaining four.

Your comments, along with any others, is most welcomed.


FIRST - THREE

* Red Sky Ranch (Norman Course), Wolcott
Colorado mountain golf at its finest. Ample driving corridors but you need to find the appropriate angle into the tough greens. Like the shaved fringe areas because shots failing will funnel away. Sufficient length for those who want the maximum test but more than playable for those looking for something less intense. The long par-3 16th is one of the best long par-3 holes I have played in the state -- tough and mesmermizing all at once. Ditto the closing holes on both nines.

* Four Mile Ranch, Canon City
Salute to Jim Engh in not providing for ANY bunkers at this rousing fun layout. The site works you into the round and Engh has been especially careful to avoid repetitive items from earlier public courses in the state -- you won't find the predictable self-enclosed mounding that produces bowl-shaped greens with high mounds flanking all sides. The green sites are what makes Four Mile Ranch work so well. They are well crafted and call upon pinpoint accuracy to get near them. Plenty of holes to rave about -- among the noteworthy I enjoyed the par-3 12th (160 yards) with its reverse Biaritz green and the 14th -- another par-3 at roughly 220 yards which features completely blind tee shot to a artfully positioned green. Challenge, fun and playability all together in one grand production.

*Golf Club at Bear Dance, Larkspur
I have the layout among my first three public courses in the state but I have to preface that my last visit there was a few years back (roughly four). Since that time it's been indicated to me that various changes were made to a number of the greens and clearly that is one of the strong points when playing there. Great driving layout and the scenery is an added bonus.

SECOND - THREE

Lakota Canyon Ranch, New Castle
Broadmoor (East), Colorado Springs
Haymaker, Steamboat Springs

THIRD - FOUR

Highland Meadows, Windsor
Breckenridge (Bear & Elk), Breckenridge
Dunes Course at Riverdale, Brighton
Vista Ridge, Erie & Green Valley Ranch (tie for last spot)

Plenty of honorable mentions ... Antler Creek, Redlands Mesa, Devil's Thumb, Highland Meadow, Grandote Peaks, The Ridge at Castle Pines North, Raven at Three Peaks, River Valley Ranch, Fossil Trace, etc, etc.

[Tim Pitner]

Thanks for your list, Matt.

Haymaker over Riverdale Dunes?  Perhaps I need to play Haymaker again (I played it in the fall when conditions were so-so).  It made my top 10 list, but I would reverse the order, putting Riverdale ahead of Haymaker. 

I haven't read or heard much about Four Mile Ranch.  I would be interested in playing an Engh course that departs from his trademark features, although I don't know when I'll be in Canon City anytime soon. 

Pole Creek in the Winter Park area might make my list if I were to do it again, although I recall one par 5 there that was really awful. 

I gave some consideration to the Ridge at Castle Pines North as well.  The problem there is that the front nine is really hemmed in by homes and it's the epitome of an overpriced CCFAD. 

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

I might consider Cougar Canyon -- in Trinidad for at least an honorable mention -- possibly could even slide into the first ten if certain items they are doing turn our well.

Vista Ridge does have a few weaknesses -- the circular pattern of its routing is meant to add as many homes as possible. A number of good holes but a few so-so ones.

I've always liked Green Valley Ranch but I may be elevating it just a tad higher than it should.

A few sleepers -- Antler Creek in Falcon is well done -- no doubt, there's a major housing attachment but credit architect Rick Phelps with some of the most skilled and challenging set of par-4's you will find in public golf in all of Colorado. The par-4 4th and the par-4 11th would make my list of top public holes in the state.

I don't know - given your last comment -- if you find any of Jim Engh's courses appealing. It's generally rare for someone who favors Doak design (Riverdale / Dunes is not pure Doak but his hand is there) and then an Engh course. They are two uniquely different design styles. Four Mile Ranch benefits from not being blatant in the overly shaped and mundane mounding style that sometimes Engh overdoses. Arguably, some of the most unique and compelling green shapes and contours can be found at the layout in Canon City. For a layout just over 7,000 yards Four Mile Ranch maxes out the fun meter and has playability clearly focused.

I have played Pole Creek in Winter Park but I'd rather play Raven at Three Peaks if I really needed a high mountain location site.

I agree w you on Ridge at Castle Pines North. The real sleeper among my top ten is Highland Meadows. Art Schaupeter -- a former Keith Foster associated -- did a marvelous job -- plenty of really well done holes and again the playability element is front and center while still challenging those who want to play the tips.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

Put me in that rare category, because I am one who likes all of what I've seen so far from each Engh and Doak.  While I would agree thier styles are very different, the one common bond they both share is building fun to play courses.  And fun is near the top of my list when it comes to courses that I seek to tee it up at.

[Jay Flemma]

Nice sentiments, Kalen.  Glad to hear Jim getting some props.  Can't wait to see Common ground, FMR, and harmony club later this year.

[Andy Troeger]

As much as I hate to agree with Kalen, put me in the group that likes both Engh and Doak's work as well. I'll even agree with his rationale. 

[Sean Leary]

How is Maroon Creek in Aspen? Typical Fazio?

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

I don't know if your last post was directed to me -- I can't recall using the word "typical" in regards to Maroon Creek but let me just say this. I liked what TF did there but it's nothing really special when compared to what TF has done with some of his other top shelf designs -- see a mountain alternative like Glenwild in Park City, UT for an apples to apples comparison.

In the UT course I just mentioned -- you have a marriage between the eye-candy elements that Fazio and his talented associates are skillful in creating but the strategic dimensions are just as rich and sophisticated too.

Jkinney pointed out Eagle Springs in Wolcott and he's quite right on the distinct elements tied to the front and back sides. I think if you were to hold those two courses against one another the Weiskopf design would prevail..

That doesn't mean Maroon Creek doesn't have some good holes. If my memory allows, I can remember an uphill long par-4 -- possibly the 11th or 12th, which is nicely done and a few other holes on the other side of the road use the sweeping up and down terrain to great visual effect. The issue of strategic challenge is a limited one though -- I also see the holes on the other side of the street more as filler -- not terrible but more eye-candy and man created situations with really little in terms of compelling architecture. I define "compelling architecture" as something not found in and around the immediate area and necessitating a special trip to see firsthand.

Just realize when Maroon Creek entered the scene the bar for Colorado golf was riising quite fast. Now you have a number of top designs in and around the area where Maroon Creek is located.

[Bill Satterfield]

For the Mountain Time Zone, these would be my rankings (of what I've played):

PRIVATE:
1.  Castle Pines
2.  Sanctuary
3.  Snake River Sporting Club
4.  The Club at Spanish Peaks (Big Sky, MT)
5.  Ironbridge
6.  Headwaters at Teton Springs
7.  Cherry Hills
8.  Pradera
9.  Glenwild
10.  Iron Horse (Whitefish, MT)
 
PUBLIC:
1.  Wolf Creek
2.  Osprey Meadows at Tamarack
3.  Lakota Canyon
4.  Red Sky (Norman)
5.  Redlands Mesa
6.  Thanksgiving Point
7.  Jug Mountain
8.  Falcon Crest (Kuna, ID)
9.  Red Sky (Fazio)
10.  Sun Valley Resort

[Kirk Gill]

I was cruising down to Colorado Springs today for a New Year's get-together, and drove past Wild Horse, the new Weiskopf design. Is it open, and has anyone played it? Colorado Golf Club, Pradera, and Wild Horse are all along that same road........

[Matt_Ward]

Bill S:

Looked at you rlist.

Few questions / comments ...

Hats off for also including Snake River in the Jackson, Wy area. First rate Weiskopf course that gets nearly no attention. I have to ask why you would rate Sanctuary over Pradera? I've played The Club at Spanish Peaks -- at least 10 holes others were nearing completion so I walked the rest -- be curious to your comments on why such a high placement? I don't see it being that much better, if at all, then Yellowstone Club, also in Big Sky.

I've played Headwater at Teton Springs and it's a good layout -- top ten in the time zone and ahead of a place like Glenwild?

Need to know if you have played Rock Creek, Sand Hills or Ballyneal? All three are in the mountain time zone. Ditto if you have played any unique or compelling private courses in AZ.

In regards to the public -- Wolf Creek, I assume you are meaning the Mesquite-NV layout -- is in the Pac time zone, as others have mentioned to me.

Osprey Meadows at Tamarack? Have not played and you have it as #2. Curious to hear your comments on why.

You have it above both Red Sky / Norman and Lakota Canyon Ranch.

Don't know if you didn't have any AZ courses to add -- curious to know if you have played Vista Verde or We-ko-pa (Saguaro). Or in CO with Four Mile Ranch? Or Black Mesa in NM?

Kind of perplexed with Tom Fazio's Red Sky being included -- I simply thought the course was akin to what he did with the Vallet Course at Cordillera which is nearby and really not very special.

Thanks for sharing the info ...

[Bill Satterfield]

Yeah, Snake River Sporting Club is a fantastic course and I'm sad to hear they are in such financial difficulty right now.  It is my favorite Weiskopf course that I've played.

I have Sanctuary rated over Pradera because I enjoyed playing it better.  When I do my personal rankings I factor in a variety of considerations, but in the end I ask myself, "Which course would you rather play if given the opportunity to play just one?"  A variety of things can go into that decision, but it mostly boils down to which course I enjoy playing the most.  I've always got a thrill from playing more "extreme" courses that feature forced carries off the tee, elevated tee boxes, deep bunkers, and even the the occasional island green.  I know a lot of people on this site don't like holes like the floating green at Coeur d'Alene Resort, but I personally love those do-or-die holes; especially ones as pretty as that.  Some of that may stem from the fact that I rarely play any tournament golf so my score is secondary to my enjoyment of the course.  So in the end, I just get a bigger thrill when playing courses with those types of features.  With that in mind, you can probably see why I would prefer Sanctuary to Pradera.  Sanctuary is chuck full of elevated tee shot, non-traditional bunkering, extreme terrain, etc.  However, #7 at Pradera is one of my all-time favorite holes.  I think I played close to a dozen different balls on that hole as I shot to the alternate fairways and experimented with laying up versus going for it in two and trying various shots around the green.  I also really enjoyed the 18th hole at Pradera.  Engh certainly did a better job at Pradera of utilizing more variety in the design, but the extreme setting at Sanctuary is more enjoyable for me.  I do need to play Pradera again sometime though because it was my third round of an all-Jim Engh day (Fossil Trace, Red Hawk Ridge, then Pradera) and I was struggling with focus by that time of the day.

I've never played the Yellowstone Club so I can't compare Spanish Peaks to it, but I thought Spanish Peaks was fantastic.  The boring par three 8th hole was the only hole I didn't think was very good.  The par five 2nd hole was the best par five I saw this year, the driveable 17th hole is always a fun feature for me, and the setting and views are exceptional.  Some architects do a really nice job of utilizing the views and vistas in the distance while other don't.  I thought Weiskopf did a great job of "framing" a ton of holes with impressive views of the peaks in the distance which actually provided a good aiming point a lot of the time.  The long par three 3rd that features a big forced carry and plays downhill is exactly the kind of par three that I really enjoy.  It is just fun for me to hit a big, high shot and watch it go toward the green with the fear and excitement of not knowing if it will avoid all the trouble and potentially get close to the hole.  I also really liked the 5th hole that featured a semi-blind tee shot followed by a forced carry approach to the green; those two elements are really fun for me.  There were a lot of elements at that course that struck a chord with me.

I've played Headwaters probably 5 or 6 times and even I get surprised how much I like it each time.  I've played Glenwild twice (in fact I aced the 227 yard 11th hole with a 4 iron) and like it quite a bit but I actually think it has a handful of forgettable holes.  At Headwaters I like how strong of a test of golf it is.  It really tests everything about your game and they keep the greens really fast which is a nice challenge for your short game.  I like all the water on the course and I like the variation of hole lengths.  The par 3s feature a gorgeous, but fairly easy, par three like the 170 yard 10th but also features a bruiser like the slightly uphill, into the prevailing wind, 240 yard 7th.  With the par fours you have a couple of beasts like the 503 yard 3rd hole (water up the entire right side) and the 519 yard uphill dogleg left 8th hole; but then you get the driveable 15th hole (water all over the place) and a couple of other sub-400 yard holes that are easier to score on.  The 9th hole is a fantastic par 5 that requires a big carry off the tee and then boasts a series of waterfalling ponds up the left side of the hole to the green.  It and #12 are both reachable in two, but then you have the 600+ yard 5th hole with water up the left side and a prevailing wind in your face and the 600+ yard 17th hole that are both very difficult to reach in two.  The course doesn't feature much elevation change which I generally really like, but everytime I get done playing there I just think of how "solid" of a course it is.  At Glenwild I really like holes 2-4, 10-11, and 16-18 (#17 is flat out stunning and fantastic) but a handful of the other holes I don't find near as interesting.

I haven't played Rock Creek yet (but it looks great in the pics) and I haven't had the opportunity to play Sand Hills.  I can hardly wait to play Sand Hills though because you can hardly find a person that doesn't love it.  I did play Ballyneal a couple of year ago, in fact I played Sanctuary in the morning and Ballyneal in the afternoon; talk about a pair of contrasting courses!  I enjoyed Ballyneal but I didn't fall in love with it.  In general, links style courses don't appeal to me as much as other styles of courses.  I'll be very interested to see what my impressions of St. Andrews are once I make a trip there.  In fact, it seems that everybody that makes a trip over to Scotland, Ireland, England, etc. comes back with a much greater appreciation and love for that style of golf.  I liked the 3rd hole and thought that the 15th - 18th holes was one of Doak's better stretches of holes he has designed, but in general Ballyneal isn't a style I have gained a great appreciation for yet.  Some of that I'm sure is because I've never learned or tried to play a bump-and-run style game much and I hate to play in high winds.  I need to learn that game better though because I hit a very high ball and playing in the wind puts my game into a tailspin pretty quick.  This past year was the first time I've experimented much with bump-and-run style shots and low trajectory wedge shots.  So, I think if I continue to try and develop that aspect of playing golf I will gain a greater appreciation for a course like Ballyneal.  But for now, Ballyneal becomes a very difficult course for me to compute in my head; meaning the setting, views, and bunkering style is so similar throughout the course that I have a tough time keeping one hole straight from the other and nothing "special" stands out to me.  In general I like courses that are more difficult and more demanding than Ballyneal offers.  For me, it is more exciting playing a tough course and conquering different aspects of it.  At Ballyneal I felt like I could swing as hard as I wanted at every tee because the fairways were miles wide and there weren't many hazards I was worried about.  The greens had some nice undulations, but with the green speeds so slow it wasn't as challenging as I would have liked it to be.  The flip side of that is that I feel Doak ALWAYS make a course very playable which is fantastic for the majority of golfers out there, I just happen to prefer tougher courses that are less playable by most people's standards.  Maybe that is why I like so many Nicklaus courses.

Yes, I was referring to Wolf Creek in Mesquite.  I'm not sure why I threw that in but remembered not to throw in any other Nevada courses.

Osprey Meadows at Tamarack has taken a beating by a lot of people on this website, but I still really, really like it.  The 4th and 18th holes (both par 5s) have taken a ton of criticism but those are two of my favorite holes.  #4 has a split fairway and people contend that the fairway on the right is too small (the one that offers you a chance to reach the green in two).  I've played it twice and hit the fairway each time.  Of course, I blew it on my approach shot but it delivered exactly on what it was trying to do; give a risk/reward for reaching the green in two.  #18 requires you to pop a nice drive up the left side of the fairway in order to get home in two, otherwise you have to layup to an area that will likely leave you about 175 yards to the green.  I guess people feel like if they have to layup on a par 5 it should always be a nice safe distance like 100 yards.  But I enjoy the reverse strategy of this hole.  All of the par 3s at Tamarack are solid and the views and setting of the course is very enjoyable.  I also really like the par five 9th hole which features a large tree in the middle of the fairway to contend with.  From the back tees it offers an interesting visual challenge due to the angle as well and the elevation drop to the fairway.  That challenging view with the tree in the fairway makes it more "interesting" for me and more intriguing each time around.  Tamarack also features two elements I really like; a 5-8-5 par setup (rather than the traditional 4-10-4) and a front nine that doesn't come back to the clubhouse.  It just seems like whenever an architect isn't contricted to having to get back to the clubhouse after nine holes they end up with a great overall routing.  Have to come back after the first nine holes really limits the possibilities you are able to offer.  For example, there are several courses that features doglegs one direction on the front nine and doglegs the other direction on the back nine because they are having to make a loop to get back to the clubhouse each time.  At Tamarack you are faced with a different challenge each hole:
#1 goes downhill and bends left (tons of bunkers in play)
#2 is a long par four that goes uphill and bends right with water right of the green
#3 is a downhill par three over water with great views every direction
#4 plays downhill to alternate fairways and bends right with water protecting the green if going for it in two
#5 places a bunker in the middle of the fairway and bends left
#6 is a longish bunkerless par 3 that is flat and out in the open away from trees
#7 is pretty much straight away and plays uphill
#8 is a par three that has a forced carry back into a green tucked into the trees
#9 is a downhill par five with a large tree in the middle of the fairway and the hole bends right and gets to a green on a bluff above the lake.  Pretty good variety for a front nine if you ask me.  The back nine doesn't let up on its variety. 
#10 is a sharp dogleg left with water on the interior of the dogleg which offers a nice variety of lines to pick from the tee
#11 is medium length par four that bends back left and requires a forced carry to the green
#12 is a par five that turns hard left and features a massive bunker on the inside of the dogleg before requiring a high shot to the green
#13 is a par three that plays straight away to a green with four bunkers on the right.  A couple of trees near the tee boxes get into your head more then they get in the way of your tee shot
#14 is a tough 450 yard par four that plays way uphill on the tee shot and flatens out on the approach
#15 is a nice dogleg left with a semi-blind tee shot and a forced carry to a downhill green with fantastic views of the lake
#16 is a driveable par four that doglegs right and features 10 bunkers on the interior of the dogleg
#17 is a long downhill par three that plays to a shallow green with limited tree cover
#18 is the most notorius par five in the state that may require you to "layup" to 200 yards for your green-in-regulation approach shot.

You probably weren't looking for a complete hole-by-hole breakdown, but I wanted to do that to try and give a feel for the great variety that the course offers.  It is a very challenging layout with tons of trouble outside virtually every fairway and the setting is beautiful.  Is it a bunch better than Red Sky Norman or Lakota Canyon Ranch?  No at all.  In fact, I believe I had Red Sky Norman ranked above it previously but I mess around with my rankings quite a bit.  They are all very close for me.  Red Sky and Lakota are both more dramatic, but the variety as Tamarack is probably superior.

I haven't played much in Arizona and I haven't played anything in New Mexico so I can't comment there.

You are correct, Red Sky Fazio isn't very special and it is down my list quite a bit compared to the courses I have rated above it but I don't have a ton of other stellar public courses in that time zone to consider.  The other public course I have in that same relm are Old Works and Teton Pines.  Old Works is the best priced course of that grouping by a long shot, but they are all in that "above average but nothing spectacular" grouping for me.  Entrada is pretty good as well but went private about a year ago.

[Matt_Ward]

Bill:

It seems to me your general focus is on the "eye" value for what you get when playing and far less on the strategic dimensions of the holes in question. No doubt you did mention the playing characteristics of a few holes -- the 7th at Pradera you highlighted and I too think of it as a grand hole. There's plenty to decide and for those who take aim at the right side fairway you really have to block out the slightest thought of negativity and trust your swing.

The same holds true for the 18th -- clearly a different type of hole but no less in terms of overall challenge that forces the player to think very carefully before pulling the trigger.

Few other comments ...

1). For anyone who is a Weiskopf fan I would certainly concur with your thoughts on Snake River. It's a first rate layout that is set in some of the most jaw-dropping terrain one can possibly envision. For what it's worth I would also add Silverleaf -- different motif as it's set in the Scottsdale area but loaded with plenty of fun and challenging design ingredients.

2). I see Yellowstone and Spanish Peaks as a wash. I would not include either among my top ten in the mountain time zone. To be fair - I only walked 8 or so holes at SP -- they were being seeded on my last visit. Both use the off-site mountain scenery to full effect but SP is not in the same vein as what Weiskopf did with the two I mentioned above. More surface level stuff but little real depth and variety.

3). Like you I enjoyed Headwaters in Idaho but it's more conventional in its overall design. The land is also more pasture oriented and while the golf can be challenging at times the details and variety component are mainly above average but not so compelling as to make me say I would need to hop on a plane from Jersey for a return engagement.

I feel a good bit differently with Glenwild. I see it as one of TF's finest layouts from the grouping of his courses (75+) that I have played. There's much more than eye-candy on hand and the pace and variety of holes is a constant item. You never get bored because far too often it's the shaping and other strategic-less items that often times you find present at TF courses. Not at Glenwild.

4). In regards to Ballyneal -- you say the layout is not as "difficult and more demanding" as those you would prefer. I can't speak to when you played the course but no doubt if the wind was mild on the day you were present that would make for a huge difference. I don't doubt Doak does emphasize the playability component but I didn't find Ballyneal to be easy -- it's not as tough as say Rock Creek but there are sides of holes where tee shots need to be to provide maximum leverage for your approahces. We agree to disagree on that one.

One other thing -- be curious to know if you have played other Doak courses and how you would assess them when held against Ballyneal.

5). Thanks for the detailed stuff on Osprey. I have heard a range of comments but I do sincerely appreciate the loads of info you have written. I do have to say that Norman at Red Sky and Lakota Canyon have set the bar quite high - if Osprey can even be in the same ballpark would be a feather in its cap for me.

Bill, be sure to head to NM when time allows -- ditto AZ. You have a quite interesting listing of courses and admire and respect the fact that you have not simply thrown forward the usual list of courses that always get mentioned. While I may not agree totally with you -- I salute your combination of layouts. Clearly, the mountain time zone is progressing on a range of fronts. One final item - since you like Engh you will need to play both Blackstone in AZ and Black Rock in ID.

Thanks ...

[Andy Troeger]

Bill,

Interesting to see you place Ironbridge so highly. I really enjoyed my round there, even though I have a hard time rating it that highly from a critical perspective just because the routing is so bizarre. I usually don't mind cartball, especially at places where the terrain really forces the issue, but Ironbridge has such HUGE gaps between the areas of the course that I felt like I was playing a collection of holes instead of a course at times.

That said, there are some fantastic holes, incredible views, and as I mentioned it was a fun round. I'd certainly like to go back.

[Bill Satterfield]

Matt -

There is no doubt that I value the visual aspect of golf holes, but your statement that I place "far less on the strategic dimensions of holes" is a bit of a premature statement considering how little I've discussed my overall thoughts.  For example, from a visual perspective I think Spanish Peaks has a leg up on Castle Pines, but I believe Castle Pines is by far the superior golf course.  In fact, the thing I love most about Castle Pines is the grouping of par fours.  In general, the elements involved in most par 3s and 5s have greater appeal to me than most par 4s, but Castle Pines' grouping of Par 4s was just fantastic to me.  The type of shots you needed to hit and the variety of design among those holes is excellent. 

I'm happy to discuss the strategic elements of any hole I mentioned or others that I've played and help you better understand where I'm coming from with my opinions.  For example, the 2nd hole at Spanish Peaks I think is fantastic from a strategic element much more than a visual element.  You tee off from an elevated box down to a fairway that features water on the right.  The hole wraps uphill to the right and the green is tucked back in some rocks in such a fashion that the green is mostly blind from the right side of the fairway.  If you take the chance of going for the green in two, the right side of the fairway is exactly where you want to be so that the approach is shorter and the ball flight is higher to hold that angle into the green.  From the left you can see much more of the hole but it is much more difficult to reach the green from there.  It is really a great hole and while the visual aspect is above average, it is the strategic element that vaults it up to one of my favorite par fives.  Same thing with #7 at Pradera.  From a visual perspective it is nice, but from a strategic perspective it is spectacular.  At Osprey Meadows (Tamarack) I mentioned a variety of points about each hole.  Whether it is a split fairway, fantastic bunkering, a tree in the middle of a fairway, or strategic water hazards, I like them all.  In general, the more that is going on at a hole the more I like it.  There needs to be factors that make a hole interesting and fun to play.  There is nothing more boring for me than a course that features a bunch of long, featureless holes that run straight back and forth (Like Firestone - although I've only played it on the computer).

For me, a great hole is a combination of a strategic appeal, visual appeal, and thrill/fun appeal.  Why is the 16th at Cypress Point such a highly regarded hole?  If it weren't for the visual appeal of the ocean and the thrill of hitting over the water I don't think it would be nearly as popular if all it offered was a nice "strategic" layup area to the left and the often windy conditions to factor in.  From a strategic perspective, the only thing to factor in a #7 at Pebble Beach is the wind.  Beyond that it is just a gorgeous hole with some thrill hitting downhill to a green resting out in the ocean.  The 17th hole at my home course is very similar to #18 at Pebble Beach except for one thing; instead of the ocean protecting the inside of the dogleg it is OB with a bunch of houses.  No one talks about how great #17 at my home course is, but people can't stop talking about #18 at Pebble Beach and I think that has a lot more to do with the history of the course and the appeal of the ocean then it does with the strategic elements of that hole.  Should the fact that the Pacific Ocean is on the inside of the dogleg rather than a bunch of homes matter in how much you like a hole?  From a strategic stand point it shouldn't, but from an overall appeal stand point in most certainly does.

Another hole I mentioned is the floating green at Coeur d'Alene.  It is more visually appealing than strategically appealing, but I enjoy the do-or-die nature of an island green.  Whether it is Coeur d'Alene, Paiute Wolf Course (which seems quite out of place really), Sunbrook in St. George (Woodbridge 9), the back-to-back island greens (17 and 18) at Augusta Pines in Houston, or a dry island green like the 2nd hole at TPC Canyons in Las Vegas, I enjoy the "thrill" aspect of holes like that more than anything.  I completely acknowledge that there is less strategy involved with an island hole like those I mentioned versus other styles of par 3s, but for me they are more thrilling to play due to the risky nature of them.  Half of those island green holes I mentioned don't offer much "eye candy" like you accussed me of being so highly focused on; but they certainly are thrilling holes to play.  Now, if you want to accuse me of being a thrill junky when it comes to golf holes then I'll agree with you 100% on that.  For me, it is a lot more thrilling to hit a high towering shot to an island green than it is to hit a bump and run shot to a receptive green.  Hitting tee shots from elevated tees to tough targets (like at Sanctuary) is a lot of fun for me and demands control of your shots.  Why do I like that style of golf so much?  I don't know.  Why don't I like chocolate but I love caramel?  I don't know, it is simply a matter of what I enjoy. 

When I submit ratings to Golf Digest I rate each category they require purely on the elements they value and it gets put into a formula they have determined.  Is their way of ranking a course the same way I rank rank courses for my personal list?  No.  For example, in my personal rankings don't give as much value to elements like ambiance or walkability as Golf Digest does.  So while a course like San Francisco Golf Club scores very high in those two categories for the numbers I would submit to Golf Digest, in my personal rankings it means very little.

Here are some examples of where my personal rankings vary from those found on Golf Digest's list:

OVERRATED:
San Francisco Golf Club (The bunkering is spectacular but beyond that I have failed to see the huge appeal that course has.  There are no water hazards, the course is relatively easy to score well on, and the terrain is average at best considering the area.  Olympic Club is much more demanding from a shot shaping perspective and hence more interesting to me.)

Sahalee (It fails to separate itself from a "greatness" perspective for me versus so many of the other course in the area that are simply cut through the heavy trees.  I would take Eugene CC over Sahalee all day long)

Rustic Canyon (For all the hype I had read on this website and in other writings I was pretty underwhelmed and felt the course was pretty easy.  Doak often seems to pursue the same option Rustic Canyon did which was very short par 4s or very long par 4s but nothing interesting inbetween)

Colonial CC (I've failed to see the greatness in its design to warrant a Top 100 ranking.  Nice enough course with some solid holes, but I would take Lochinvar over Colonial for two similarly flat courses in Texas)

UNDERRATED:
Sherwood Country Club (After playing it last February I was shocked it had dropped out of Golf Digest's Top 100 list.)

Whispering Pines in Trinity, TX  (Fantastic variety throughout the course and natural bunkering to boot.  A real hidden gem that balances strategy, beauty, and difficulty)

Wente Vineyards (Lots of exciting elevation changes, attractive bunkering, good variety of hole lengths and strategies.  #18 could have been better since the split fairway doesn't offer much advantage to going right which should have been the "reward" portion of the "risk")

Lochinvar (Houston, TX - Another Nicklaus course that I enjoyed with a solid balance of difficulty and fairness.  Personally rates very high for me considering how flat the terrain is there and in general I LOVE elevation changes)

Creek at Qualchan (Spokane muni that I fell in love with.  A lot of fun holes and a steal for $25)

Other comments:
1.  What depth and variety do you feel Spanish Peaks is missing?
2.  I agree with your Headwaters comment.  Conventional, solid, and an overall good design and one that I think offers a number of good elements.  It is hardly the course you would tour the country telling other about or drive hundreds of miles to get there, but other than Snake River Sporting Club it is the best course within a couple hundred miles).
3.  Help me appreciate Glenwild more.  For me, holes 5-9 and 12-16 are nothing to write home about.  What do those holes offer that I am missing?
4.  I played Ballyneal on a virtually dead calm day and the conditions were far from firm-and-fast (In fact it had rained earlier in the day).  I played it very early on its creation and the course probably wasn't ready for much serious play at that point.  I can see many cool undulations throughout the course and neat features, but it wasn't "amazing" for me.  I seem to appreciate courses with more hazards and more "thrilling" shots than what Ballyneal offered.  But I would love to go back and play it.  Whenever I leave a course with less appreciation than the hype I usually figure that I missed some things and need to go back and play it again.  There aren't many firm-and-fast style courses I've played so giving Ballyneal another look would be nice.  Sometimes missing something at a course it is as simple as playing lousy one day.  If you are off in the junk looking for your ball all day it is more difficult to appreciate the design elements of a course.
5.  I need to get down to AZ and NM, but I have played Engh Blackrock course.  It is one of my favorites.  I know that a lot of people on this site would be appauled by the man-made elements in the course but for me it is just flat out fun to play there.  Hole #11 is one of my favority par fours.  Having to hit an approach over the water inbetween two waterfalls to an elevated green is a pretty exciting shot to execute.

[Bill Satterfield]

Andy -

I totally agree with you on Ironbridge.  Wasn't it like a 2 or 3 minute drive in the golf cart to get to #10?  That was crazy.  The course doesn't "flow" well together at all, but there are a bunch of really fun holes there.  The start to the back nine is excellent and #12 is one of my favorite par fours.  The finishing holes are a bit of a downer, but overall I really enjoyed playing there and how fun a course is to play is a big deal to me.  The rating I gave it through Golf Digest isn't as high and I regard the course personally because of the screwed up layout, but individually many of the holes are a hoot.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy -

I totally agree with you on Ironbridge.  Wasn't it like a 2 or 3 minute drive in the golf cart to get to #10?  That was crazy.  The course doesn't "flow" well together at all, but there are a bunch of really fun holes there.  The start to the back nine is excellent and #12 is one of my favorite par fours.  The finishing holes are a bit of a downer, but overall I really enjoyed playing there and how fun a course is to play is a big deal to me.  The rating I gave it through Golf Digest isn't as high and I regard the course personally because of the screwed up layout, but individually many of the holes are a hoot.

I was thinking it was more like 5 minutes minimum, if you consider the drive from #9 to the clubhouse is at least 500 yards, then its forever up that windy cart path up the mountain to get to #10. Plus you drive through a couple neighborhoods to get from #8 to 9. I thought I was lost going from #1 to 2.

#13 is a pretty cool par five, it has enough width to be playable and there's lots of things that can happen there. At pushing 600 yards way downhill I hit driver and a 4-iron and made birdie, but if you don't hit a good drive you have to really do some thinking as to where to go next. I think it ended up playing about the same yardage as #10 up the hill at 430 yards.

[Matt_Ward]

Bill:

Forgive me -- but I drew my initial conclusion based upon what you provided and what you left out. Often times -- when people provide course assessments I'm always fascinated where they start with their particular emphasis.

Let me address some of your follow-up comments -- I don't see how you can list Spanish Peaks among the ten best in the mountain time zone because it's core emphasis is simply having a wonderful rolling piece of land but clogged with simply mediocre holes that benefit from the locale but don't really add much of a compelling story line from the design side of things. If you played the next door layout of Yellowstone Club -- you'd see Weiskopf's skill hand of emphasizing playability without much attention on anything of merit -- especially when hooked up against other works like Snake River and Silverleaf.

I was fascinated by your comments on being intiqued by your statement, "the more that is going on at a hole the more I like it." Try to realize that a Doak style is not going to tie itself so easily to that last comment. Often times, the visceral elements -- either tied to the land or to the added extras an architect throws into the picture can also serve to do two things on a down note ...

1). Overkill

2). Clutter

You mentioned a dislike for Firestone -- but the South layout is not weak because of a diversity of holes and movement -- but from a silly notion that overly narrow fairways choked with high grass is compelling architecture -- it is not.

Let me also say you and I split company on the 7th at PB. Try to hit it close when the pin is far right -- it takes elephant size b*lls to get near that location. Throw in any type of wind -- especially a crosswind which happens frequently on that hole and you are really in a bind unless the execution is flawless.

I have played Coeur d'Alene and frankly it's a waste of time. The whole deal is the floating green and really all it needs is more carnival type holes to complete the picture. You say there's a thrill -- I simply see a tired and predictable copy cat syndrome that neither advances architecture nor indicates an architect looking to incorporate a bit of their own imagination into the overall process. The island green at Wolf at Paiute is another sad example of let's do the same thing again and again. The island concept is completely foreign to the desert terrain one finds there and in my mind actually subtracts from the quality holes found there in a number of instances.

Bill, make no mistake in thinking that I completely devalue "thrill holes" or even "thrill courses." We have a joint fondness for Wolf Creek although it falls outside the scope of this thread. No doubt Wolf Creek is not the cup of tea for classic school architecture junkies and I have opined on that numerous times. But, the course does offer numerous Indiana Jones adventure holes that you won't find in many spots and the spirit of the game is enhanced -- not subtracted from -- in those particular cases.

Bill, I have to say this -- you almost sound like me with your emphasis on the difficult elements -- see your feeling for Olympice Lake over SFGC -- Olympic Lake is choked with too many trees and the samness element of so many of the holes becomes weary and frankly tiresome from a design standpoint for me. Is it tough? Sure, But so are many steaks I eat.

I don't want the thread to carjack itself to a wider discussion of other courses outside the mountain time zone. Another thread can be started with that in mind.

Headwater is a solid course but solid is not enough to drive the meter for me to rate the course remotely among the top ten in the mountain time zone. No doubt I would recommend it for those in the area but if forced to choose between Snake River and Headwaters I would advise anyone to stay on the Wyoming side for multiple rounds there.

Glenwild has few really weak holes -- that's rare thing to say for any TF design -- I have played roughly 75+. The 5th is a demanding par-4 because you need to slide the tee shot with a draw and still watch for any overplay to the left side. It helps to have the Wasatch Mountains in the backdrop to add a visual dimension.  Now, I'll be the first to admit that after the first few holes the 5th seems almost pedestrian but it doesn't yield on the score front.

The 6th is a tough as nails long par-4 -- the bunker dimension that flanks the fairway is a repetitive item from Fazio but the hole is made by the fantastic green. The approach to the target needs to be with plenty of club even with the altitude. The fall offs are especially noticeable to the far right and you can't bail too far left otherwise the probability of a par-4 is remote.

The 7th should be an easy birdie -- but you need to watch out for a fairway that can easily run out should you not work the ball from left-to-right. One other thing -- Fazio made sure to really neck the green in so that any 2nd shot really needs to be first rate -- this balances out for those not going for the green in two but still leaves a tough approach from say 50-75 yards.

The real weak hole on the front for me is the pedestrian par-3 8th. Not much from an approach standpoint but the green is good with a back left to front right tilt.

The 9th is a sleeper because of the grade which is often undervalued. You need to hit the extra club to get to the target and most will not. Again, it's not a hole that would excite people given the lack of eye-candy elements that TF is often associated with - but you need to shape a right-to-left tee shot and the green is well served by the solitary bunker that cuts in on the right.

The 12th plays slightly uphill and too many players take the risk in hitting it too far here. Yet, the more you layback the green forces you to take into account the spine ribs that cut through. Not a great short par-4 but more than just routine.

The 13th is another well done uphill par-4 hole -- plays longer than many originally think. You also have a fairway that tightens up considerably -- I also like the way the green slides diagonally with two bunkers serving well in a defense role.

The 14th is all about one thing -- the green - anything above the hole is bogey or worse. It's also important to get your tee shot as far down the hill as possible but the left fairway bunker is pure hell -- the slope of the fairway is also something you need to account for as it pushes all shots further to the right and into the waiting rough.

The 15th again calls for a slight fade off the tee but again TF excels with a green that is well contoured and requires an approach that can find a location no more than 30 feet away or beware the quick three jack.

Like the 8th -- the par-5 16th is a bit of a letdown. Now generally the hole plays into the prevailing wind so it play longer -- much longer than the distance indicates. I would have loved to have seen a center-placed bunker that would reak havoc with one's second shots.

I have to mention that though the 16th disappoints -- the concluding two holes are world class. The par-3 17th is a visual thrill ride and shotmaking challenge of tour de force caliber -- especially when the pin is flush left. The 18th is more than just avoiding the water left -- the narrow green, well done again here by TF -- also demands a well executed approach to conclude the round.

All in all, Glenwild combines visual scenery and tough as nails total shotmaking. No matter how far one hits the ball off the tee you need a jeweler's touch with your approach play and nearly all shots around the green. One final item -- the terrain of the property never gives you an easy play as many shots will be in different positions for your stance.

In regards to Ballyneal -- you likely played it too early. I was there also early in the process. It seems you need plenty of added elements to create some sort of meaningful connection to the course. Ballyneal has plenty of natural movement to the terrain -- when combined with a fast and firm surface the shaping of shots will be accentuated. Ditto on the greens side --with faster surfaces than what you experienced the first go round -- the emphasis for more precise approaches would appear.

We have played Black Rock and you and I share a genuine fondness for the course -- I liked the 11th -- but the real downer for me was the back-to-back par-3's on the inner half -- both are fairly similar from a shot value perspective -- though the second one is far better because it doesn't need the clutter of a waterfall. One of the more underrated Engh holes is the par-5 16th there -- just a superb do-or-die hole. The concluding hole is also, like the finale at Sanctuary, just a straight uphill hole with little real character.

Thanks again for your detailed comments ...

[Bill Satterfield]

Matt -

One other thing I failed to mention.  You asked what Doak courses I've played.  Sadly I've only played three; Pacific Dunes, Ballyneal, and Tumble Creek.  Pacific Dunes is in my Top 10 favorite courses.  There is something almost magical about that place that is hard to explain but easy to feel.  The coastline par fours (#4 and #13) are a pair of wonderful holes to play and the course offers a variety of interesting elements around the greens.  I like Bandon Dunes quite a bit as well but find it a touch less compelling.  If I was playing in a tournament I would rather play at Bandon Dunes because the driving zones are easier and I think the course plays in a more predictable fashion.  If I was just out to play a fun round of golf I would play Pacific due to the variety of shots it presents and some of the less conventional aspects it offers.

Tumble Creek was just OK for me.  I found myself hitting a bunch of driver-wedges or driver-9 irons on the par fours.  Even the longer holes presented ways to really cut down on the distance by either cutting a corner or hitting it on the side of the fairway that would generate lots of extra roll.  Hence, I didn't feel like I needed "every shot in my bag" to play the course well and thought it could benefit from a little more demanding shot making.  Where I did get in trouble was around the greens where I had a difficult time getting up and down if I blew my approach shot.  Doak seems to always do a nice job on his green complexes and puts a higher emphasis on the approach shots and short game shots than he does the tee shot.  In my personal rankings I have Tumble Creek in the same relm as Half Moon Bay (Ocean), Suncadia's Prospector course, and CordeValle.

In regards to Glenwild, I have it rated as the #1 course in Utah in my personal rankings but Thanksgiving Point is a really close 2nd for me.  Have you played the other courses in Park City (Promontory Dye, Promontory Nicklaus, Tuhaye, Park Meadows, The Jeremy, or any of the 5 courses in Midway)?  How do you feel they stack up in the Mountain Time Zone?

[Matt_Ward]

Bill:

Time is short for me to reply in total detail ...

I have played a good number of the more noted UT courses -- I don't see Glenwild being challenged by TP or any other course I have played thus far. That's not to say the state doesn't have other good layouts -- unfortunately, too much of this site's time is devoted to the same cast of characters over and over again.

Generally, this happens because the people weighing in with such comments have not played other courses and a few of them still seem to believe that mountain time zone is really deficient.

I've played Promontory Dye, Park Meadows and The Jeremy Ranch. Have not played the new O'Meara or Nicklaus / Promontory courses yet. I like what Pete did at Promontory - the front nine there is really very good and it makes you play even at the altitude. The long par-3 8th is mindboggling for what it requires when played from the tips. The long par-4 2nd is also quite good -- the risk / reward tee shot is quite fun to play.

I have not played Tumble Creek but as I said I'd prefer this thread really go back on task with the mountain time zone.

You have mentioned a few courses that RARELY, if ever, get mentioned here. Snake River is a superb layout -- a tremendous site with a wide array of different holes. I much prefer whent he course escapes the holes that are tree-bound in the mid section of the front nine but the course is well done -- I would urge you when going to AZ to keep Silervleaf on your radar screen as Weiskopf did really well there too.

I'll follow-up when I return home later ...

Suffice to say I think you need a return visit to Ballyneal because I think you missed a number of items -- likely because of the early age of the course.

[Andy Troeger]

I would be curious to see where Cornerstone in Colorado might fit in the discussion. I don't think anybody here seems to have played it yet.

Matt,
You like the front at Promontory Dye better than the back? I'd have said the other way around. The trip through the canyon on the back was very cool, especially the 14th down the hill and the last couple holes. I thought the back tee at #8 was borderline silly for an a tee that's actually used for play, its got to be a 265 yard carry just to get to "land" on a 300 yard par three. I imagine its fun for someone of your length, but in 40 degree weather with some wind it was unplayable.