[Matt_Ward]

David:

I understand the English language very well thank you.

Black Rock for most Doak devotees will not be their type of course. I like what Engh does -- your narrow sampling of Engh courses clearly has you looking at his work in a different light. So be it -- for you and others like you. I said this before there are people who can appreciate what both men attempt to do with their designs.

I'm more than happy and frankly very eager to highlight the qualities of any of the par-5 holes at BR when compared to the final hole at Rock Creek.

As I said before -- I also made it a point -- in the event you missed it -- to say clearly that Black Rock for me is not the 27th best course in the USA as listed by Digest. I'd place Rock Creek, however, among my personal top 50. It is clearly a layout of distinction and one that any golf course architecture "nut" needs to play if the opportunity presents itself.

[DMoriarty]

Matt,

I never questioned whether you understood English, but maybe I should have since you apparently thought I did.

You can dismiss me as a "Doak devotee" or as having an axe to grind against Engh (as others have) but labeling and name calling do not make for much of a discussion.  My perspective has always been much broader than the worshiping or vilifying of one particular architect or another. I just care about much different things than you.  

If my view is narrow because I care about how well a course fits in with the surrounds and how well the course uses the natural terrain, then so be it.   Same goes for looking at how well the holes fit together. and the interaction between holes.  Likewise for my knocking overly manufactured courses where virtually every fairway is built in a containment trough, and most every green is built in a man made bowl.  And if my view is flawed because I am repulsed by the very notion that an architect would build a golf course to maximize views from the cart paths then call me a fuddy-duddy all you like.  Same goes for courses built to maximize views of the surrounding real estate.  But to me these things fly in the face of what great golf architecture should be.

There is a fundamental difference between Engh's approach at Black Rock and Doak's at Rock Creek, and the difference is much deeper that just aesthetic or stylistic.  It goes to the heart of what makes for a great golf course and what is the proper role of a golf architect.    As far as I am concerned, to ignore Black Rock's many overwhelming flaws and simply praise it as "enjoyable" (as some have) and as presenting good "shot-testing" represents a much narrower perspective on golf architecture than I am willing to accept.  

You don't think Black Rock should be 27th modern, but I am not sure your basis disagreeing with the ranking.   After all, if we don't care how these designers deface the site and our main criteria is whether the shots pucker our butts, then Black Rock is probably as good as any course.   Maybe they all should tie for 27th.

[Michael Dugger]

-- your narrow sampling of Engh courses clearly has you looking at his work in a different light. So be it -- for you and others like you. I said this before there are people who can appreciate what both men attempt to do with their designs.

Narrow sampling???  Looks to me like he does more template building than CB Macdonald!!!

Thus how can any sampling of Engh's work be broad, they are the same golf holes, just different pieces of property!!!

[Andy Troeger]

David,
Given your preferences and your love for Rustic Canyon its not hard to see why a place like Black Rock would turn you off. To be honest, you and I look at golf course architecture from a fundamentally different position so we're never going to come to any agreement--we've both stated our positions. Personally I'd much rather play Black Rock than Rustic Canyon, which you'd obviously disagree with. I like to think I'm not totally out of line with that given that Black Rock is rated higher by all three major publications, so obviously somebody else out there agrees with me. That doesn't make it right, however, or invalidate your opinion. It does perhaps explain why so many different styles exist out there.

The quibble I have with your posts is that you're so interested in the things at Black Rock that you dislike that I have to wonder if you're ignoring aspects that you might enjoy. I don't think I've ever played a course where I couldn't find something positive to say, but your impression is so negative that for me it makes it rather hard to believe that you gave the course a fair shake in the first place.

[John Kirk]

I started a thread complimenting and defending the 18th at Rock Creek a year or so ago:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,36513.0/

I thought I would add the link, though the discussion is less compelling than the current thread.  I do like my analysis of the hole, though.

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

We do agree about one thing -- we don't see eye-to-eye on Black Rock and likely any number of Engh designs.

In regards to the item of language here's what you said, "... I would take the 18th at Rock Creek over any single hole at Black Rock by a long shot.  Anyone who wouldn't is speaking a language I don't understand.

My language on Black Rock is English -- you see the course vastly different and I stand by what I said -- pure and simple.

You further stated that the 18th at Rock Creek is better than just about any hole at BR. Really? Happy to discuss the collective par-5 holes at BR and have them stack up against the closing hole at Rock Creek. I concur with Andy that there's enough juice at BR to merit attention -- clearly it has received that from a range of outlets for whatever the reasons may be.

Another error -- I never dismiss you or anyone else for that matter -- clearly, from where I sit you are Doak devotee. Fair enough. Nothing wrong with that if you see such a narrow band of courses as the only acceptable ways to design a course. Engh is very talented and has done plenty of first rate efforts I have played. Those who are "pure classic types" likely will not find his work to their liking. Tastes can vary and Doak said so himself when discussion of BR can into focus.

David -- I never said you have an "axe to grind" against Engh -- although I'd be curious to know how many of his designs you have played and if in your mind there is any compelling architecture coming from his efforts. You make quick assumptions that Engh always falls for the containment fairway effort or that every one of his efforts is so blatantly overdone by man's hands. If you ever have the opportunity play Four Mile Ranch which Engh did for a small amount and which is a great example of an architect who has seen fit to temper his previous styles -- which, I might add, I have stated as such in the case of Sanctuary, to name just one example.

No doubt you likely care about different things than I. Fair enough. But I too share a desire for courses to blend in as best as can be with their natural surroundings. I also want to see how adaptable any architect is in building a portfolio of courses that go beyond the previous styles already opened.

Let me point out my analysis of courses provides no quarter to any person. I have liked certain courses of different architects and found others to be wanting on a number of fronts. I look at each course for what it is and go from there.

Please you don't have to add names like "fuddy duddy" to the mix -- I never called you that and it's amusing for you to throw such a straw man into the discussion so as to illuminate your position when no such thing happened from my side.

Let me stand to correct you -- the 27th position for BR came from Golf Digest -- not from Golfweek and it's modern listing of layouts. David, my basis for disagreement with that rating stems from the wider sample size of layouts I have personally played. I believe Engh has done better work than Black Rock and I have stated the names of such courses and the reasons behind that. Forgive me for not wanting to retype that info again and again. My position on Engh and on golf courses is a bit more nuanced than you believe. Since you don't care to be stereotyped in some form or fashion -- please realize my tastes in golf course design is equally, if not more so, quite wide ranging in terms of styles and emphasis points and does not lend itself to being pegged in one way all the time.

Last item -- we are likely splitting hairs here as I found Rock Creek to be truly a fun and entertaining design as one can imagine. I have said the collective par-4 holes there are the best I have played from the hands of Tom Doak and the broad array of layouts of his handiwork I have personally played. Although I do not walk in total lockstep with you -- the differences I have cited in regards to that course is quite small.

Many thanks for sharing your views ...

Michael Dugger:

Jim Engh's range of courses is a good bit more wide ranging than many might imagine. I have no idea how many Engh designs you have played -- if you personally believe his style is limited I'd like to know which courses of his you have played. Have you played Blackstone in Peoria, AZ -- or Four Mile Ranch in CO -- or Harmony or Pradera also both in CO? Shall I name a few others. If you have played any of these or others please provide some of your own specifics and I and likely others will certainly read them with much interest.

FYI -- What's amusing on this site is how Seth Raynor mailed in the same template of holes over and over again and people here on GCA are often falling over themselves with gushing praise.

[DMoriarty]

Matt we've covered it before.  Go back to the old threads if you care to read my response.

__________________________________

Andy,

You have said a few times that you and I are looking at golf course architecture differently, and I have set out my take on the architecture at Black Rock in great detail in the past, but for the life of me I have no idea what it is that you are looking at when you say you are looking at the golf course architecture.  You said you liked what Mr. Engh did with the rocks on 11, and that it the course was FUN.  You also said that you'd rather play there than Rustic, but that doesn't add much.  Is your criteria of excellent golf course architecture that your round was fun?  

As for Black Rock being rated higher than Rustic it doesn't surprise me, but you won't be surprised that it doesn't move me either.   Rather, Black Rock's high rating is pretty convincing evidence that these panelist ratings are a pathetic joke, and those doing the rating wouldn't know a great golf course if NGLA fell out of the sky and hit them on the head.   I looked at the Golf Digest rating and I had it wrong.  Golf Digest has Black Rock as the 27th Best Golf Course in the United States.  In the United States.  So if we look to Golf Digest as our guide, Black Rock is better than Riviera, LACC North, Bethpage Black, Bandon Dunes, Bandon Trails, San Francisco Golf Club, Garden City, Maidstone, MPCC Shore, MPCC Dunes, Spyglass, Kapalua Plantation, Pasatiempo, Fryar's Head and the couple of hundred other courses that have at least some architectural merit.

And I am not listing them all, I left off courses like Pinehurst No. 2 and Southern Hills because I only listed course with which I am somewhat familiar.  If GD had a modern list Black Rock would the the 7th best course in the Country!  Even if you like the course, its rating is an absolute joke.  A fraud.  A insurmountable indictment of the Golf Digest system.  

And that is really my point here, but not about Golf Digest (I could not care less about Golf Digest.)   There is more to a great golf course than a fun day with friends at a fancy golf club.  Or red carpet treatment for raters (this according to a member.)  There is more to a great golf course than providing a certain type of shot test to a certain type of golfer.  There is more to a great golf course than nice views from the cart paths.   My neighborhood course, Rancho Park, is a fun golf course and it used to challenge the best in the world, it even has a few holes that are architecturally interesting, and a few nice views of the Century City skyline.  Yet it would be a joke to say it was the 27th best course in California, much less the United States.  Yet it has many attributes over Black Rock.  Better Par 3s for one thing.   Better use of the existing landscape, for another.  One can walk it, for another.   I'm not saying Rancho Park is better than Black Rock, but if it weren't for the 6 hour rounds, I'd take Rancho for a regular game any day.  And I haven't played Rancho in 4 or 5 years.

 

The quibble I have with your posts is that you're so interested in the things at Black Rock that you dislike that I have to wonder if you're ignoring aspects that you might enjoy. I don't think I've ever played a course where I couldn't find something positive to say, but your impression is so negative that for me it makes it rather hard to believe that you gave the course a fair shake in the first place.

I don't think this is a fair assessment.  I would have loved to love Black Rock.  I have friends who are members and find myself in the area fairly regularly, and it would have been great to have a good course on which to play up there once in a while.  

What do you think I am ignoring?  Whether you value the same things I do or not, I hope you can recognize that I am not making up my criticisms of the course.   Are there any of my criticisms that are not factually accurate?  Whether you agree with it or not, do they not justify or support my low opinion of the course?

While I am not sure it is relevant here, there were a few things I didn't mind about the golf course.  After all, as CBM wrote, "any kind of golf is better than no golf at all . . .."   But he followed that up with "so we must strive to get the best possible."  And given the site and the resources, Black Rock is nowhere close to the best possible.    

[Andy Troeger]

David,
The point about "FUN" is that the course presents interesting holes that make the golfer consider options and think AND execute shots. Personally having played eight of his courses I don't buy that you see the same holes on each course--there are some similarities, but I've seen similar features on all four Coore/Crenshaw courses I've played but if its a good feature I don't mind.

Take the 16th hole. The option is certainly there for the better player to reach the green in two shots, and there's significant risk that must be taken to do so, both by trying to drive down to the end of the fairway and then hitting a second shot over the water. Almost every Engh par five I've played offers some kind of choice. I actually think the little cove of grass in the rocks on #11 makes for an interesting shot, even though I dunked two in the pond.

I think most of Engh's greens are wonderful, although the big slopes behind them get repetitive. They have significant internal contour and just finding the putting surface is not nearly enough. You can say that about Doak's greens too, even if the two build very different looking greens.

The part where we disagreemost , and I disagree with probably at least half this DG on this point, is the whole bit about the natural look. That seems to be what this comes down to for many people who think Engh's courses look contrived. Half the comments about the golf course come from people who have never even been there and whose comments are totally concerned with the look of the place. Engh could have built the most strategically interesting course on the planet and some folks wouldn't like it if it had a fake waterfall and some big mounds. I suppose its nice if a course looks natural and all that, but if its well done that's MUCH more important to me.  If it takes some earth moving and creativity to build something out of nothing then that's good by me if its well done. I do wish the golf course was more walkable, but unfortunately that's a losing battle on most courses in the mountain time zone.

[Andy Troeger]

Back to Rock Creek for a moment--

I found quite a bit of similarity in strategy between the 18th at Rock Creek and the 2nd at Talking Stick North. The ironic difference is that because the 18th at Rock Creek is admittedly one of the tamer holes on the course it gets panned by some, but because the 2nd at TSN is perhaps the most interesting hole on the course it gets a fair bit of acclaim. I prefer the Rock Creek version because the hazard is a creek instead of OB and because its much more visually attractive due to the elevation on the tee. Both greens are interesting enough and both have a bunker short right and a green that runs away from it if I am remembering TSN correctly.

[DMoriarty]

David,
The point about "FUN" is that the course presents interesting holes that make the golfer consider options and think AND execute shots. Personally having played eight of his courses I don't buy that you see the same holes on each course--there are some similarities, but I've seen similar features on all four Coore/Crenshaw courses I've played but if its a good feature I don't mind.

I never said his courses were all the same.   I've only played Black Rock and I think I have only commented on Black Rock.   If that is one of his best I don't have any interest in seeking out any more, although I'd probably play one if I happened to be close to one and had some time to kill. 

But there are repetitive features even on Black Rock. . . .

Take the 16th hole. The option is certainly there for the better player to reach the green in two shots, and there's significant risk that must be taken to do so, both by trying to drive down to the end of the fairway and then hitting a second shot over the water. Almost every Engh par five I've played offers some kind of choice. I actually think the little cove of grass in the rocks on #11 makes for an interesting shot, even though I dunked two in the pond.

You talk about the 16th below but you just as easily could have been talking about the 8th or even the 5th(?).   All three of these par fives present the same basic option for the big hitter, go for a green around a corner to the left over trouble.  For that matter you could throw the 12th in there as well, except it has a bunker front right.  And 15 is similar as well, but a long par four.   I don't think a good hole is defined by giving the bomber a chance to be a hero, at least not repetitively.

And to call this course strategic otherwise is a huge stretch.  I just don't see it.  Execution matters, but all the choices are defined by the ability to hit it a long straight shot.

I think most of Engh's greens are wonderful, although the big slopes behind them get repetitive. They have significant internal contour and just finding the putting surface is not nearly enough. You can say that about Doak's greens too, even if the two build very different looking greens.

To me the green contours ought to be the key to the strategy of the hole, but I recall very little coherence between what he was doing on the greens and what he was doing on the hole.   Some were definitely fun to putt, but that is not enough for me.   Nor is just making the target small by subdividing your green into a number of separate and incoherent tiers. 

The part where we disagreemost , and I disagree with probably at least half this DG on this point, is the whole bit about the natural look. That seems to be what this comes down to for many people who think Engh's courses look contrived. Half the comments about the golf course come from people who have never even been there and whose comments are totally concerned with the look of the place. Engh could have built the most strategically interesting course on the planet and some folks wouldn't like it if it had a fake waterfall and some big mounds. I suppose its nice if a course looks natural and all that, but if its well done that's MUCH more important to me.  If it takes some earth moving and creativity to build something out of nothing then that's good by me if its well done. I do wish the golf course was more walkable, but unfortunately that's a losing battle on most courses in the mountain time zone.

For me it is not about a certain superficial aesthetic, but more fundamental.  It is not as if Engh just moved some dirt here or there where needed for the hole.  He moved dirt everywhere, regardless of what the site had to offer.  He essentially cored out troughs for many of the holes and greens. You are playing golf in this beatiful surrounds, yet you are golfing in the bottom of a half-pipe over and over again.  It not only impacts the views and the feel of the place, it also impacts the golf and keeps the golfer insulated from the surrounds.   It also impacts the contours of the course because it no longer has anything to do with the flow of the land.   And frankly, it produces some pretty boring golf from my perspective.  Everything is concave.  The ball has nowhere interesting to go except in the bottom of the trough or on the side of one of the hills.  The swing thought is put it in the middle of the trough.   Compare it to Rock Creek in this regard and there is no comparison.   Rock Creek has more interesting contour on its flatest holes than Black Rock does on the entire course!   

As for walkability, there is no no excuse for that course not being walkable.  It is not that severe a sight.  Again compare it to Rock Creek in this regard and there is no comparison.

[Andy Troeger]

Actually thinking back to walking at Black Rock--other than a couple spots the green-to-tee transitions aren't that bad. I remember the 3rd to 4th being steeply uphill and the 13th to the 14th being the same, but most of the other walks are pretty reasonable. It wouldn't be easy, but if you could walk Rock Creek with its significant elevation changes then I don't think Black Rock would be that much more difficult. And Rock Creek is about as walkable as anything on that site could possibly be.

David,
I didn't mean for the entire post to be about your comments--I kind of got off on a rant a couple of times in my previous post. You've played the course and don't care for it--I have no real issue with that even if I don't agree with you. Black Rock and Rock Creek are VERY different designs with different priorities and most likely audiences. I agree with you that Rock Creek is better--but I think Black Rock deserves more credit than you give it. We'll agree to disagree on that.

[DMoriarty]

Andy, 

Black Rock may deserve more credit than I give it, because I don't give it much at all, and there are many many courses that I would put in its same category.  These courses are probably not the end of the world, but when one of them receives the hype that Black Rock has received, it becomes an issue for me.  Anyway, if I get the chance I maybe I will try it again, but that won't happen this season.

Have you played some of the courses in the list above?   

Do you really think that Black Rock belongs in the same breath as other courses like Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Crystal Downs, Prairie Dunes, or even Rock Creek?  Does anyone buy this?

By what standard is Black Rock a better course than the likes of Riviera, Pinehurst No. 2, and Bandon Trails, Ballyneal, LA North, and San Francisco Golf Club?

As for walking, when I was there walking was not an option.  Did you walk?  I don't think it would be walkable because of the distance between holes.  Plus just climbing in and out of the halfpipes would be a hike.  Obviously there was no thought of it being walkable.  In contrast I could (and did) walk at Rock Creek all day long, and I am not he-man like Matt Ward, although we do have similar tastes in circa 1980 short and tight shorts.  If Rock Creek implimented a 90 degree rule it might be faster to walk Rock Creek than to ride it.

[Andy Troeger]

David,
Despite being a Digest rater on my personal listing I tend to go by "which course would I rather play tomorrow?" on that type of question and by that standard then yes I think Black Rock stacks up fairly well with other Top 100 courses that I've played which includes a few of the layouts you mentioned. Perhaps the par fives and bowls are repetitive, but at least for me its repetition of features that I happen to like. I don't expect everyone on here to agree with that, but I can always go talk to other Digest guys if all else fails 

I don't know if Black Rock allows walking--but in looking again at the routing on the yardage book there are really only a couple hikes between holes and those are more about altitude than distance. It certainly could be done IMO. We played Circling Raven that morning so we didn't even consider attempting to walk.

We also rode at Rock Creek--you may have seen the photo of one of our carts on the other thread    I wouldn't have minded walking one of the two rounds there, but it didn't happen.

[Tim Gavrich]

To whomever can answer:

Was the sand in the bunkers at RCCC imported or did it come from nearby?  It might be a trick of the light in some photos, but the sand is rather bright.  It doesn't turn me off to the look of the place at all, but I know that some bemoan overly white sand on golf courses in similar environments.

[DMoriarty]

I don't know where they get the sand, but it is fairly brown and not glaring in person.  It is just such intense light that it is tough to get photographic representation.   This photo was very late in the day but look how the sky has to be completely washed out just to get the visibility of the course.  A better photographer than me would probably be better able to capture the correct colors of everything, but this one is at least closer to correct.

[Tom_Doak]

David:

That's the best picture I've ever seen of that hole.  [For everyone else, it's the long par-4 14th, from behind.  The tees are the flat spots on the ridge just below the horizon, just to the left of straight above the flag and proceeding back to the left from there.]

Tim:

The sand is certainly from off-site -- I think it's river sand from somewhere near Missoula.  It's a bit whiter than we would have chosen, but we have to defer to our clients on stuff like that.  It hasn't discolored much, because all of the bunkers at Rock Creek are lined with some of those new geo-textiles to prevent washouts and contamination.

[Craig Sweet]

David:

That's the best picture I've ever seen of that hole./quote]

DITTO!

The 14th is one of the finest par 4's I have ever played...the tee is up around and behind that ridge on the left of the picture...and there is quite a bit of fairway behind the right side ridge...

The photo also does a pretty good ob showing the movement around the green...

[George Pazin]

There is more meat in the discussion on this 3rd page than most threads I've seen on here - thanks Dave M and Andy.

[Matt_Ward]

Dave:

Appreciate the putdown -- I don't parrot what others want said. The 18th at RC may float your boat -- but for me it was far less than what I was hoping for given what comes before it.

I truly enjoyed Rock Creek and believe it has the goods to be held at the highest of levels of any Doak design I have played. I would have a truly tough time deciding where to play more -- if the contest were between the likes of RC and Ballyneal.

Gents:

There needs to be some sort of middle-ground -- Black Rock is not the 27th best course in the USA. I've said that a number of times already -- but the idea that Jim Engh is unable or unwilling to design different design styles is also a bit much -- often it comes from those who have played a very tiny sample of his work. If one has played Four Mile Ranch, to name just one layout -- ditto his work at Harmony -- also in Colorado -- you can see what I am talking about firsthand.

In regards to Black Rock I find it laughable for any person to throw the entire courser under the bus and proclaim it has nothing worthy of attention. There are a number of fine holes there and I do like the risk-and-reward elements Engh has included on all the par-5 holes.

In comparison to Rock Creek -- Black Rock will certainly pale behind what is there. Likely if enough panelists and key people play the course I can see it being rated very highly -- in fact -- it might get as high or higher than 27th !

[DMoriarty]

There is more meat in the discussion on this 3rd page than most threads I've seen on here - thanks Dave M and Andy.

Thanks George.   I appreciate Andy humoring me.   The discussion got a bit off topic and I meant no offense to Andy or anyone else.  I am very critical of Black Rock but I view the point as a much broader one.   For a long time many have assumed that so called mountain courses had to fight the land with holes spooned out or terraced into the landscape.   Beautiful and brilliant surroundings made up for courses that had little to do with the land and were often insulated from the beautiful surrounds by giant grass berms.  This has always been ironic to me; our courses in the most beautiful, pristine, unique and natural settings were often the most manufactured, with dime a dozen prefab holes that would fit in anywhere regardless of the surrounds.

But a course like Rock Creek really ought to raise the bar and explode our past expectations by demonstrating that such sacrifices are not only unnecessary, they are antithetical to what golf architecture at its best can be.  Crazy rolls and wild mountain settings may present difficult challenges, but they also offer tremendous opportunities for a talented design team to do something incredible by creating a golf course where the golfer is engaged with the surrounds rather than just hurried and distant spectator glancing at the landscape while zipping by on a cart path as if it were a interstate highway.

[George Pazin]

The discussion got a bit off topic and I meant no offense to Andy or anyone else.  I am very critical of Black Rock but I view the point as a much broader one.   For a long time many have assumed that so called mountain courses had to fight the land with holes spooned out or terraced into the landscape.   Beautiful and brilliant surroundings made up for courses that had little to do with the land and were often insulated from the beautiful surrounds by giant grass berms.  This has always been ironic to me; our courses in the most beautiful, pristine, unique and natural settings were often the most manufactured, with dime a dozen prefab holes that would fit in anywhere regardless of the surrounds.

But a course like Rock Creek really ought to raise the bar and explode our past expectations by demonstrating that such sacrifices are not only unnecessary, they are antithetical to what golf architecture at its best can be.  Crazy rolls and wild mountain settings may present difficult challenges, but they also offer tremendous opportunities for a talented design team to do something incredible by creating a golf course where the golfer is engaged with the surrounds rather than just hurried and distant spectator glancing at the landscape while zipping by on a cart path as if it were a interstate highway.

Most thoughtful post I've seen on here in awhile.

Shiv -

You should be aware that Matt is a member of the "Cypress Point is the greatest 17 hole course in the world" club.

[Matt_Ward]

Dave S:

Try next time to include a smiley face to avoid any confusion.

Dave, let me say this again OK -- the 18th at Rock Creek is not at the same level -- or even remotely close -- to what you get prior to that point. It's a decent hole but when you have stellar tour de force type holes I don't think it's asking too much to get a finishing hole that can really cement the time one spends at such a marvelous course.

In regards to CP -- I love the place but the 18th is no less than what Jimmy Demaret said long ago. If you have issue with me -- be sure to include the famed Texan too.

p.s. Dave, be curious to know if you have ever played an Engh course and if so your impressions ?

[Jeff Doerr]

Just played Rock Creek...

Count me in among those that put it at the very top group of my list. It is hard to compare a mountain to a seaside, etc., but during the round I turned to my son and said, "This may be the best course I've ever played."

[Jim Franklin]

Not that this is the best way to determine which is the better course, but I did a match play between Rock Creek and Sand Hills and RC won 3&2 (SH won 17 and 18 though). The interesting thing about the match is holes #4 and 7 on each course are among my favorites so it was VERY close. Just to make sure I wasn't still in my euphoric state from the trip, I did a match play against Pine Valley and PV won.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Friends of mine just returned from an extended golf trip which included Rock Creek.

They thought the golf course was terrific.

I'll get more details when I see them this weekend.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()