Jim Engh par three amphitheater template?

[Michael Moore]

Instead of going to bed this evening I have been studying the Lakota Canyon threads, past and present. The depth of analysis regarding the crucial topic of playability shows again what a great site we have here.

Having never left Maine (supposedly), of course I have never played a Jim Engh course. I am fascinated by these courses because they look so very different from what I am used to. So I have a couple of questions.

1. Are the Jim Engh courses generally designed for and around golf carts?

2. Are an extreme majority of the Engh par threes designed as bowls with the cart path running around the rim?

[DMoriarty]

Instead of going to bed this evening I have been studying the Lakota Canyon threads, past and present. The depth of analysis regarding the crucial topic of playability shows again what a great site we have here.

Having never left Maine (supposedly), of course I have never played a Jim Engh course. I am fascinated by these courses because they look so very different from what I am used to. So I have a couple of questions.

1. Are the Jim Engh courses generally designed for and around golf carts?

According to one report he does.  His approach is apparently called the "Golf Cart-Path Experience."

I can't find a copy of the article (I thought I had one somewhere) but here is a thread about it.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,22429.0/

Here is an excerpt, taken from the above thread:

Jim Engh is profiled in the March 10th edition of Goldweek's SuperNews.

An excerpt:

"He figures that because 90 perent of all golfers use a cart, there is no reason to design a golf course for the few who do not.  He's more interested in crafting good holes, each with its own identity, than making a golf course walkable.  Along the way, he's sure to highlight views of the course.  It's what he calls 'the golf cart-path experience.'"
. . .
Mike

2. Are an extreme majority of the Engh par threes designed as bowls with the cart path running around the rim?

I certainly cannot speak for all his courses as I have only played one (Black Rock) but at that course this phenomena is by no means limited to his par 3s.  

[Matt_Ward]

Michael:

To answer your questions succintly ...

1). Engh has been involved with the design of a number of his layouts on some of the most severe sites imagineable.

The one that gained him the most fanfare a few years back was Sanctuary in Sedalia, CO -- just 30 minutes from downtown Denver. Carts are needed there because the Airborne Rangers would have a hard time walking the property. Nonetheless, Engh did a stellar job in creating a course that still has a number of fun and clearly creative holes.

Let me also point out that other more recent courses -- like Four Mile Ranch in Canon City, CO are far less severe and can be walked if someone opted for that route. The course doesn't have one bunker and doesn't need any. Four Mile Ranch is also, in my mind, one of the best design and one of the best values you can play here in the States.

On a similar topic -- Engh's effort in Peoria, AZ -- Blackstone -- is also well crafted for the site and is quite walkable for those who again opt in that direction.

Lakota Canyon Ranch clearly needs carts because the terrain while not as severe as Sanctuary -- does require their usage. On the flip side Engh created a solid muni layout in Golden called Fossil Trace and it's another quite walkable layout.

2). The answer to question #2 is a bit more split too. Initially, a number of Engh layouts featured this element on plenty of his par-3's -- the situation seen at Lakota Canyon's 17th has been used at a few courses. However, on the more recent courses there's been a lot less so. Two of the finest par-3 holes Engh has done are in Parker, CO at the private Pradera Club. The par-3 13th is a dome-shaped green which falls off all sides -- the cart path is well to the side and is of no consequence. The beautiful par-3 15th sits in a canyon setting flanked by water in the front and a well contoured green which mandates a well-played approach at all times.

Another two par-3 holes which are quite good are at Four Mile Ranch. The short par-3 12th is only 160 yards but features a reverse Biaritz green that is truly spectacular -- it calls upon total dexterity with the short club and has a gorgeous view of the immediate Canon City area with the mountains in the nearby distance. The cart path here is well to the side.

The par-3 14th is also a gem. Here the putting surface is blind and the green quite narrow -- there is a slight upslope towards the rear of the green but it would be a stretch to classify it as a bowl. Plays about 220 yards from the tips and again is far different than many of his earliest par-3 type holes. Here again the cart situation is well removed from the play of the hole.

In sum, it would be a bit short on the factual reseach for people to pin a label on Engh and say all or most of his holes favor a bowl-technique. Let me also point out that Engh did include a bowl-shaped result at the par-3 7th at Harmony Club just south of Fort Collins, CO. Here the green is angled diagonally with high mounds flanking the entire length of the hole -- it many ways it mirros what you see with the Dell Hole at Lahinch -- although a good bit longer -- can play anywhere from 150 to over 200 yards -- that's how deep the green is if my memory is accurate.

[Rob Rigg]

The Harmony Club have a Jim Engh video up - obviously a PR piece but with some interesting photos of his courses and some discussion with the architect - for anyone interested.

http://www.harmonyhomescolorado.com/press_engh/index.html

[Steve_ Shaffer]

 As Matt indicated, Blackstone is indeed walkable. I played there with Bill Schulz. He walked and carried his bag while I walked many holes with my bag on a cart driven by my wife. I used the cart for some long green to tee walks. Lakota Canyon was unwalkable for me. Pradera probably is walkable. By the way, we haven't heard from Bill Schulz lately.

[Kalen Braley]

Michael,

I've seen the bowl on most of his par 3s that I've played.  Its usually situated behind the green from the direction of play and wraps part way around the sides of the green. On some occasions it sits at a 90 degree angle to the direction of play like Lakota #9 or Black Rock #2.  However this bowl isn't used just around the par 3 greens, its used around most of his greens, and is probably the biggest part of his work that I don't care for.

I've played 4 Engh courses and 3 were definitly pretty much unwalkable and 1 was fairly hilly but could be a doable, yet tough walk.

[astavrides]

I've played 4 Engh courses and 3 were definitly pretty much unwalkable and 1 was fairly hilly but could be a doable, yet tough walk.

Was the doable one Redlands Mesa?  I was the only one walking it that I saw.  God bless them, though, they did give me a $16 price break for doing so.

[Pete Lavallee]

The only Engh I've played is the Creek Club at Reynolds Plantation. The bowled par 3 on the back nine is the only time that I have had 3 chances to make a hole in one on a single tee shot. You'de be foolish to aim at the hole because if you missed it the ball would stop. Hit it pin high to either side and you will get at least 3 chances to hole the shot as the bowl is steep enough that the ball will carrom back and forth several times. Although some might find this enjoyable, I can't think of a single natural hole that allows this to happen. 

[Kalen Braley]

I've played 4 Engh courses and 3 were definitly pretty much unwalkable and 1 was fairly hilly but could be a doable, yet tough walk.

Was the doable one Redlands Mesa?  I was the only one walking it that I saw.  God bless them, though, they did give me a $16 price break for doing so.

Alex,

That was indeed the one.  Lakota, Black Rock, and Sanctuary are the other 3.

[Sean Leary]

Black Rock has the ampitheater greens on many of the par 4's as well.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim followed me at Nugent's office.  After I left in 1983, starting with the late Bruce Borland's tenure, Dick got into ever bigger green surround mounding.  He never felt subtlety was a huge virtue in earthworks......

When I was there, a 2-4 and sometimes 6' mound behind greens was standard.  Bruce once told me that had grown to over 10' high average, which would have been the time Jim was around.

I see a lot of that Nugent mounding and scale in Jim's work. I think he even exagerateds it more, and developed his own unique bunker style, but I am 99% sure that is the genisis of where it comes from.  Jim checks in, and he can feel free to disagree.

[Jay Flemma]

.

[Jay Flemma]

Sorry guys, I'm having trouble getting the quote in my message properly, but here's my point:

I have to jump in here because we have been through this discussion before, but there are a lot of new people who might take what David just posted as gospel.

That quote about "designing for the 90% in carts" is absolutely wrong.  Jim NEVER said that he thinks 90% of people take carts so he designs for them.  Jim came on GCA and answered that misconception long ago.  That leap of logic by the author was not correct and - however inadvertantly it might have happened - temporarily caused Jim to get unfairly branded as cart golf.  It was a simple misinterpretation of Jim simply observing that more people take carts...he never intended to give anyone the idea that therefore he designs for people in carts, that was incorrect.

Now it depends on what course you play as to whether it's walkable or not.  lakota is a murderous walk, but that's not Jim's fault...the course has not put in walking paths (at least not last time I checked).  However Fossil trace is an easy walk.  redlands Mesa is tough, but pradera is easy.  Sanctuary is tough, but doable, red Hawk Ridge is easy.  It depends on the property and the ownership maintaining easy walking paths.

As for bowls, this makes the course a little artificial, but also a little easier.  people like it and it's something different.  Jim took all his ideas from his interpretation of what he saw in the UK.

We should all celebrate how Doak, Dye, Strantz, Engh and others go over to the UK and see the same things, but like all great artists, interpret it differently.  Just like some people like Dali and others can't stand it...

[DMoriarty]

Jay,

I'm not trying to mislead anyone.  That's what was written and I don't remember it being corrected, but maybe I missed it.   Could you point me to it?  Does anyone still have the original article? 

At Black Rock it sure seemed that engh was more concerned with the perspective from the path as compared to the course.

[Pete Lavallee]

As for bowls, this makes the course a little artificial, but also a little easier.  people like it and it's something different.  Jim took all his ideas from his interpretation of what he saw in the UK.

Jay,

Can you name the hole in the UK that inspired these bowl shaped greens? I don't agree with Matt's analogy to the Dell, as the ball may roll down the dune slope there once; in fact if you come up short with your tee shot the ideal play is to hit the back slope and let the ball roll back to the hole. However, it will not roll back and forth several times.

[Matt_Ward]

Gentlemen:

It would help if people would not make broad generalizations of someone's work without being able to personally weigh in and see if such actions are still being carried out with the more recent openings.

I have played roughly 15 of Engh's layouts -- far more than many of you who have posted definitive comments on what the man is capable in producing.

I have no doubt that bowl-shaped elements have played in a role in the earlier designs but that's far less the case with the more recent effots -- I highlighted a few like Four Mile Ranch, Blackstone, Harmony, Fossil Trace, etc, etc.

I would hope that those who weigh in realize that many architects have used repeat items in their work -- RTJ with his famour airport tees, Pete Dye with his wood planks, etc, etc.

The issue is whether their inclusion fits well. I have opined previously that in certain instances they do not -- but in others it has turned out quite well. My comments are based on personal research and include a wider array of courses than many are basing their conclusions upon now.

[astavrides]

I used to live across from Fossil Trace and played it 5 times--always walking.  not the easiest walking course, but not the hardest either.

[Jay Flemma]

As for bowls, this makes the course a little artificial, but also a little easier.  people like it and it's something different.  Jim took all his ideas from his interpretation of what he saw in the UK.

Jay,

Can you name the hole in the UK that inspired these bowl shaped greens? I don't agree with Matt's analogy to the Dell, as the ball may roll down the dune slope there once; in fact if you come up short with your tee shot the ideal play is to hit the back slope and let the ball roll back to the hole. However, it will not roll back and forth several times.

Pete it's not a specific hole, but many.  Jim always does at least one "Irish hole" and one "Scottish hole" (his terms).  He saw the bowl a lot in Ireland, so 6 at Pradera or 7 at Fossil are examples of what he calls an "Irish hole." But 2 at Pradera has a feature found in both Scotland and Ireland, threading a drive between two huge dunes like at #1 at Tobacco Road.  Jim explained this on some earlier threads.

David, you'll have to search the threads, but it may even be the thread you pulled where I responded with Jim's answer, then he joined GCA a few weeks later.  So check his threads and he'll talk about that.  but it was discussed a lot and that fear put to rest for everyone except a few people who admittedly hadn't played one of Jim's courses.

The other point is Lakota is the exception, not the rule.  That is the most severe site except for the back 9 at Redlands.  It's even tougher than Sanctuary.  Pradera, Blackstone, Creek Club, and many others are far, far easier.

David, I remember Ran Morrissett coming back from Colorado and being exhilerate3d that he saw something refreshing ly new, but which also had a great grasp of and twist on the classic architecture of the UK.  Ran seemed to really enjoy what he saw.  Here's his interview with Jim:

http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/jim-engh-october-2006

Maybe everybody should take a second, closer look at Jim.  he moves less Earth than you think and he's just trying to create a style that is all his own, while building on what he learned in the UK.

[Pete Lavallee]

As for bowls, this makes the course a little artificial, but also a little easier.  people like it and it's something different.  Jim took all his ideas from his interpretation of what he saw in the UK.

Jay,

Can you name the hole in the UK that inspired these bowl shaped greens? I don't agree with Matt's analogy to the Dell, as the ball may roll down the dune slope there once; in fact if you come up short with your tee shot the ideal play is to hit the back slope and let the ball roll back to the hole. However, it will not roll back and forth several times.

Pete it's not a specific hole, but many.  Jim always does at least one "Irish hole" and one "Scottish hole" (his terms).  He saw the bowl a lot in Ireland, so 6 at Pradera or 7 at Fossil are examples of what he calls an "Irish hole." But 2 at Pradera has a feature found in both Scotland and Ireland, threading a drive between two huge dunes like at #1 at Tobacco Road.  Jim explained this on some earlier threads.

Ok, I'll buy an interpertation of something similar, but I seriously doubt there are any holes in the UK where the ball will roll back and forth between two dunes like Tony Hawk on a half pipe!

[Adam Clayman]

Pete, Half Pipe is accurate to a point. Usually, on Jim's bowl shaped greens there's a point where if the player misses by too much, the long rough on the outer edges of the green, makes for the stickiest of wickets. Trying to stop a ball on the correct level from above the hole. It can be extremely hard to accomplish successfully, but, also it can require creative thinking. That's a good thing, yes?
Aiming away from the hole is sometimes the most prudent route.

I've seen enough of Jim's work to say that he has variety, in spades, and some are great ideas that do work well. I'm a huge fan of his 12th (or is it the 13th?) at Redlands Mesa. His stylistics are not everyone's cup of tea, but, truthfully, the masses don't really pay much attention to that. Do they? Just us geeks.

It's a great big world blah blah blah...

[DMoriarty]

Matt, you need to get off your soapbox about people discussing courses they have not played.   I quoted and cited a widely read industry publication, and spoke only about a course I have played.  As far as I can tell, everyone else has only posted based upon their own experiences.  I'll take the collected knowledge and experience of those others over your tainted personal opinion any day.  

Besides, aren't we largely discussing stylistic elements that are obviously were obviously once part of Engh's repertoire and philosophic guideposts that may or may not have been?   You keep claiming that Engh's style has changed, and that is great if true, but it doesn't change any of our opinions about the particular courses we have seen, does it?    

_______________________________________________________________

Jay, thanks for your response.  It raised some questions that I hope you don't mind considering.

David, you'll have to search the threads, but it may even be the thread you pulled where I responded with Jim's answer, then he joined GCA a few weeks later.  So check his threads and he'll talk about that.  but it was discussed a lot and that fear put to rest for everyone except a few people who admittedly hadn't played one of Jim's courses.

Above you wrote that by posting an excerpt from a national industry publication I somehow inadvertantly misrepresented Jim Engh's position on walking, and I have no interest in doing so.   Naturally, I'd like to read where Jim Engh corrected the misunderstanding.    But I am not exactly sure why expect me to search through all the old threads to find the facts that support your claim.   It is your claim.  Shouldn't you support it?

And what exactly is being corrected?    Does Mr. Engh actually consider "the golf cart-path experience" when he designs his courses?   Or did the writer make up that terminology?   Did Mr. Engh's comments only apply to his courses with tough sites?   If so why?   Aren't most golfers going to be riding at all of his courses?  

Because based on my limited experience and knowledge, I suspect that while Mr. Engh did not mean any disrespect to walking golfers, he generally designs "with the golf cart-path experience" squarely in mind.

The other point is Lakota is the exception, not the rule.  That is the most severe site except for the back 9 at Redlands.  It's even tougher than Sanctuary.  Pradera, Blackstone, Creek Club, and many others are far, far easier.

I am glad to hear that some of his courses are on less severe sites.  As I said, I've only played Black Rock, and it is not readily walkable.  Not even close.   I'm no expert, but it is possible that a manageable walking course could have been designed and built there, but it would have taken some different decisions on the part the designer and developer to make that happen, possibly even forgoing the jaunt below the rocks, for example.

Regardless, I am not so sure that the issue is whether some of his courses are walkable.  Some sites would be walkable for some of us regardless of whether the designer ever considered the possibility.  My question is, did Jim Engh have walking in mind when he designed these courses?  Or was he considering the "golf cart-path experience?"   Does he consider walkers when routing?   Has he ever passed up an opportunity to design and build a more inspiring golf hole for the sake of making a course walkable?  

Surely some of his courses were intended to be walking courses, either because of the market or because of the owners wishes.   For example, the planned Nebraska course is supposed to be built for walkers, isn't it?   And how about Harmony?  I think CSU has a practice site there and the owner is a big booster, so I'd guess he insisted on a walkable course.  Regardless, my questions are more about his design philosophy than any specific course or client directive.

David, I remember Ran Morrissett coming back from Colorado and being exhilerate3d that he saw something refreshing ly new, but which also had a great grasp of and twist on the classic architecture of the UK.  Ran seemed to really enjoy what he saw.  Here's his interview with Jim:

http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/jim-engh-october-2006

I've read the interview, but I don't necessarily read it the same as you.   But I don't think we should be speaking for Ran, should we?  It really isn't fair to put words in his mouth.  Whether he loves everything about the work or has some concerns about it, it should be Ran's decision whether in injects himself into this conversation, not ours.

One last question . . .  You have mentioned that one course needs to build walking paths.  Did Engh design for walking paths?  If so why weren't they built?

[Mike Bowline]

............ Pete it's not a specific hole, but many.  Jim always does at least one "Irish hole" and one "Scottish hole" (his terms).  He saw the bowl a lot in Ireland, so 6 at Pradera or 7 at Fossil are examples of what he calls an "Irish hole." .......

Jay, I have only played Fossil Trace three times, but even though #7 at Fossil is located in a manufactured bowl, I do not remember that it PLAYS as in a bowl, due to the depressed areas at the back of the green that are LOWER than the green surface, thereby eliminating the option of playing long and having the ball roll back onto the green.

So I do not think it is accurate to characterize #7 as a true bowl, IMO.

[Matt_Ward]

David:

You need to get off your "soapbox" in labeling those who like specific Engh courses as being utterly clueless on what constitutes quality golf design. I don't give free passes to any architect or course. But I do keep my mind open that quality design is not the singular domain of just a handful of people you prefer.

Sure, you can have opinions of certain courses -- in your case -- you have played ONE Engh course. Let's count-em again shall we ... ONE !

In other discussions you have broadened that extrenely limited personal observation into some wider statement about the wherewithal of Engh to design quality golf courses.

I have tried to temper your own ignorance with a bit of personal observation from having played a wider reach of what he has done.

You continue to state that if Engh's style has changed that's great -- hello David, there's no "if" in my mind. No doubt Engh has his own style -- guess what? So do plenty of architects. I have seen firsthand -- not just from pics -- how his style has evolved and how golf shots must be played to succeed. His work at Four Mile Ranch should be seen by many people who claim golf is not heading in the right direction. That layout in Canon City, CO is very inexpensive, is walkable and provides a slew of exciting and fun holes and is playable for nearly all types of golfers.

Ignorance is e-z to combat -- it requires people to see firsthand what is being done in the field and if that is not possible to respect those who have done their homework. End of story ... 

[Jay Flemma]

............ Pete it's not a specific hole, but many.  Jim always does at least one "Irish hole" and one "Scottish hole" (his terms).  He saw the bowl a lot in Ireland, so 6 at Pradera or 7 at Fossil are examples of what he calls an "Irish hole." .......

Jay, I have only played Fossil Trace three times, but even though #7 at Fossil is located in a manufactured bowl, I do not remember that it PLAYS as in a bowl, due to the depressed areas at the back of the green that are LOWER than the green surface, thereby eliminating the option of playing long and having the ball roll back onto the green.

So I do not think it is accurate to characterize #7 as a true bowl, IMO.

Jim calls it an "Irish hole," not a bowl.

David, I'm just too busy to do the legwork for you on this one.   No, Jim does not omit walkers from planning a course.  Jim had a long discussion with the discussion group about this topic on several occasions.  If you don't want to believe that, that's fine, but it's not proper to proliferate something dispelled long ago.  The article in Golfweek was a blatant mistake - a leap of logic that was horribly wrong.  Jim never said that or inferred that he designs for the people who take carts.

It goes to show you can't trust every article you find...even recent ones.  Just because something is published doesn't make it correct.  So we all ought to be careful, because trying to read interpretations into articles from decades ago has the same peril.

[Carl Nichols]

The Harmony Club have a Jim Engh video up - obviously a PR piece but with some interesting photos of his courses and some discussion with the architect - for anyone interested.

http://www.harmonyhomescolorado.com/press_engh/index.html

There is a similar video for the Creek Club at Reynolds Plantation; it's been a while since I watched it, but I recall a lot of discussion of bowl-like greens.  It can be found here -- http://www.reynoldsplantation.com/media_room/video/about_reynolds -- and then you click on the video called "The Creek Club: "Best of the Best" gets better."