[Matt_Ward]

One of the more debated topics here on GCA is the future direction of golf and golf design. Issues such as cost, accessbility, walkability are in the mix -- as is topics such as playability and relative challenge / intensity, shot values, etc, etc.

Jim Engh designed Four Mile Ranch (FMR) in Canon Ciity, CO -- a locale more noted for hosting state prisons and the like. Ironically, the University of Colorado could have been located there years ago -- the locals opts for the prison side of the equation.

FMR is a daily fee layout with a housing component. The fees are among the lowest one can find in Colorado and the quality of the layout, in my mind, is among the best, for those seeking cost effectiveness and design ingredients. When people mention the likes of Wild Horse, CommonGround, Rustic Canyon -- you can add as well FMR to such elite company.

The top fee on weekends is $39 -- carts are optional and the course is very walkable to counter the Engh moaners and groaners that he doesn't include such a feature. The individual rate for an entire season (w cart included) is $2,200. That's quite a bargain when compared to courses that are not that closer to either Colorado Springs or Denver.

One rather interesting development at FMR is Engh's decision to not have even one bunker present. The rationale? It would likely take away from the qualities of the property. I was rather skeptical of this prior to my first round there in 2008 w fellow GCAer Doug Wright but I believe it works rather well with this particular site. In many cases bunkering today is nothing more than ornamental and for better players far easier to handle given the club's available and the spin control they provide.

One of the more fascinating aspects of the club's Website -- fourmileranch.com is a course graphic flyover after clicking onto the golf
link. Gives you a fairly good idea on what the course provides.

I returned there about 10 days ago and although the desire to sell housing units has slowed dramatically and the driving range has not been completely finished -- the essence of the golf course has improved with more maturity.

Engh designed a layout with max playability and the course is far from any real back breaker. CR = 71.6 with a SL of 126. Those numbers are quite accurate. Although the numbers are not demanding per se, one needs to position shots in the appropriate areas to get the most out of what the design provides.

A brief hole by hole description ...

1st hole / 418 yds (par-4)

Good opening hole -- long enough to stretch the muscles but far from severe from a physicality standpoint. Plays generally downwind with a W or SW breeze - but when I encountered it the first time the rare east headwin was in play and it was really howling in excess of 20 MPH.

The first hole features a fairly nondescript landing area but there's more to the hole than what you think from the tee the first time around. It appears there is more right but that is nothing more than an architect's ploy to cause you to head that direction. The more right you go the less likely you will see the entire putting surface. The danger in going left is that more natural debris is in that area. In addition, the fairway bottlenecks ar roughly 90 yards from the green and eventually ends save for a tiny portion that continues on.

The green is a reverse "L" and there is a distinct lower tier which can gather shots with played high enough to roll back down the slope. When the pin is placed far right you need to carry a front rise which will propel the slightest misplay. Going over the green in any direction usually will mean bogey because the distinct contours are rather tough to gauge the element of pitch and roll with any chip shot.

Like I said a good opening hole -- birdie is a possibility but so are other numbers.

I'll add more when time allows. Be curious to hear the comments from people who have played there -- I know Andy T's been there.

[Matt_Ward]

Interesting thing at FMR is how Engh uses the flat land near to the clubhouse and gets it out of the way very early and very late (18th hole) in order to move the entire design into the rolling terrain that abuts the course.

The long par-5 2nd -- 604 yards is FMR's longest hole -- fairly straight away -- but the best tee shot location is on the left side -- this opens up a better angle to play one's second shot -- the putting green is obscured by natural mounds that provide a solid defensive position. Those who opt for the shorter right hand side will need to play a slightly blind or totally blind 3rd to the green. The more you go to the left (a longer play) the more open the green becomes.

A solid hole because position is everything to get the best attempt at the lowest score.

The par-3 3rd at 203 plays slightly uphill -- to a bowled-in green. The depth of the green surface makes club selection critical here. It's very e-z to be way short as the green gives the appearance of being much closer to the tee area. I liked the hole but it's more of segway to the kind of terrain that really picks up the pace when playing at FMR.

The par-4 4th at 374 yards demonstrates real imagination. The hole slides to the right off the tee and there are numerous mounds and ridges which must be avoided in order to ensure a flat landing area for a pitch to a green which is elevated and quite narrow from back to front.

The par-4 5th at 402 yards is one of the best Engh holes I have ever played. Here you move the opposite direction -- to the left -- and the drive is essential -- more of placement than power. Those who can draw the ball around the corner on this slightly uphill hole will have the best angle. The green is like a stormy ocean with a front section that sits much lower than the rear. You need to properly gauge the approach because the green will only a skillful approach. The 5th at FMR is a classic example in how accuracy & placement are central to the playing of the hole. No doubt power helps -- but it's more of a secondary consideration to the playing of the hole.

[Matt_Ward]

FMR's 6th hole is roughly 160 yards to a green with plenty of contour -- green sits up high so any wind blowing that day will impact club selection and trajectory played. Not a great hole -- but as a short one -- it segways quite nicely between #5 and #7.

The 7th plays back into the prevailing wind and is a fairly long par-5. The best play is up the right side -- but only the strongest can give it a go for the green -- the target is hidden behind mounds which stand guard in front of the putting surface. There is a directional arrow behind the green and it's quite different for such a hole to exist in Colorado -- blind 3rd requires precision play to get close.

The short downhill 8th is about 355 yards. The green is driveable provided the player can navigate the slender opening that feeds into the green. Players can lay-up as the fairway is much wider until roughly the 275-yard mark. The more you miss left though the likely reality is you'll have a blind approach. Slender long green with drop-offs to either side -- especially in the rear. Good hole because a range of scoring options is at hand here.

The closing hole for the front is 435 yards and features a blind tee shot. The fairway splits as several raised mounds intrude on the centerline. You can play to either side of these mounds and it's best to avoid them if possible. The green is one of the very best at FMR -- a large spine separate the right and left sides. When the pin is placed in the most rear position it takes utter precision to get close. Just a grand hole to finish the front side.

[Brad Tufts]

I'd say the ninth green at 4MR is one of the best greens I have ever seen.

In my one play, the pin was front right, and I hit my approach long to the back half of the green.  I chose to come in off the center ridge from right to left, but after finishing I tried it from left to right off the upward edge curl, producing the same decent lag down to the hole. 

We all love options in a golf hole from tee to green, but to have them on the green itself is great fun.

[Matt_Ward]

Brad:

The key to the 9th hole is getting the tee shot down the fairway as far as possible.

I can't imagine how demanding it would be to hit the green with a mid-iron. The front right pin placement is quite demanding but the one that really makes things hard is when it's all the way in the rear. You need to land the shot far enough up towards it -- but can't go over.

Engh is not known for his green designs among many on this site -- few have played more than 1-2 of his layouts.

The 9th closes out the side in fine fashion at FMR and sets the tone for the back nine which is really well done and I would say even a tad better than the front.

[John Mayhugh]

One rather interesting development at FMR is Engh's decision to not have even one bunker present. The rationale? It would likely take away from the qualities of the property. I was rather skeptical of this prior to my first round there in 2008 w fellow GCAer Doug Wright but I believe it works rather well with this particular site. In many cases bunkering today is nothing more than ornamental and for better players far easier to handle given the club's available and the spin control they provide.

One of the more fascinating aspects of the club's Website -- fourmileranch.com is a course graphic flyover after clicking onto the golf
link. Gives you a fairly good idea on what the course provides.
chip shot.

Something I don't understand - are there bunkers on the course or not?  Your post mentions that Engh made a decision to "not even have one bunker present."  However, the course flyover that you mentioned shows bunkers on five or six holes.  Which is correct?

The flyover doesn't indicate yardages or pars (for those that are interested in such arcane information).  How do the yardages compare on those 90 degree dogleg approaches?  I noticed 3 or 4 of them.  Maybe this isn't noticeable when playing, but it made the strongest impression when viewing the flyover.

[Doug Wright]

One rather interesting development at FMR is Engh's decision to not have even one bunker present. The rationale? It would likely take away from the qualities of the property. I was rather skeptical of this prior to my first round there in 2008 w fellow GCAer Doug Wright but I believe it works rather well with this particular site. In many cases bunkering today is nothing more than ornamental and for better players far easier to handle given the club's available and the spin control they provide.

One of the more fascinating aspects of the club's Website -- fourmileranch.com is a course graphic flyover after clicking onto the golf
link. Gives you a fairly good idea on what the course provides.
chip shot.

Something I don't understand - are there bunkers on the course or not?  Your post mentions that Engh made a decision to "not even have one bunker present."  However, the course flyover that you mentioned shows bunkers on five or six holes.  Which is correct?

The flyover doesn't indicate yardages or pars (for those that are interested in such arcane information).  How do the yardages compare on those 90 degree dogleg approaches?  I noticed 3 or 4 of them.  Maybe this isn't noticeable when playing, but it made the strongest impression when viewing the flyover.

John,

I looked at the flyover and it appears to be a computer simulation of the course not a flyover of the completed project. There are in fact no bunkers on the course (in part a budget decision?). I believe that on a couple of holes piles of natural shale rock were left in the fairways instead of the bunkers. The 18th hole would be a better hole with the bunkering depicted in the flyover; as it is it's pretty tame IMO.

I liked Four Mile Ranch. It is an improvement on some of Jim Engh's themes and I thought he did a good job of working with the land instead of imposing on it. There is some redundancy in the peekaboo look of some of the holes like #2/#10/#15 as well as on the par 3 3rd and 17th, but I like the blind holes and there are some really terrific greens. I am trying to get back there before the snow flies to see it again.

[John Mayhugh]

Thanks for the comments, Doug.  I wasn't a big fan of the animated flyover, and its inaccuracy makes it even less useful.

The limited photos shown look better than the animation.  I like the bunkerless concept.

[Matt_Ward]

John:

There are various dog-leg holes at FMR -- but try to realize that holes like #2 don't dog-leg -- it's simply the green which is tucked around a series of mounds that block its view for those who play too close to the right.

In the other instances Engh has provided sufficient room for those who opt to play safe -- away from the turning points -- but there are only a few holes -- the uphill par-5 11th and the downhill par-4 16th which turn significantly. In the case of the former it takes quite a tee shot to effectively cut the corner (from the tips you would need to fly theball 300 yards to do it) -- there are various trees and debris protecting that side and the smart play is dead center or slightly to the right. At the 16th -- the fairway landing area is very generous -- the more left you go the more severe the angle and overall distance to be played becomes. Most of the holes at FMR if they do turn -- are much, much less than 90 degrees. The flyover isn't 100% clear on that point.

Hope the info I provided helps.

One other thing -- there are no bunkers at FMR and whether it was for economics or not -- I don't think their inclusion would have heloed matter much on just about all the holes although I agree with Doug that having one or two on the final hole would have added some dimensions to strategic calculations on that closing hole.

John, bunkers unless they are uniquely created / positioned really are more of a "look" element and really don't impact many players -- especially better ones. Having them left out at FMR works very well too because the existing terrain that Engh had is quite good in plenty of ways.

Doug:

You are right -- the green shapes and contours are truly terrific. For what people pay to play golf and for what you get at FMR it's quite special indeed.

I like the 10th hole -- I'll opine more on that separately -- you are right that the 3rd and 17th are fairly similar --although the 17th features a more narrow green which climbs significantly from front to back -- as much as 3 clubs at times. #2 and #18 are likely two of the weaker holes at the course but Engh did a decent job at both -- the hideaway green at #2 forces players to play up the longer left side -- the 18th could have been helped with some bunkers but the break-out debris that guards the front of the green works well -- ditto the contours you face when you finally reach the putting surface.

I really enjoyed the par-5 15th -- but have to wonder if the green complex was meant to handle incoming second shots -- as you may recall -- it's no e-z deal to hold that target from a direct play on one's second shot.

Overall -- for the $$ one pays -- the walkability and playability plus the design elements included make for an exciting round of golf where positioning, not brute strength alone -- pays big time dividends. Get there before the first snow flies ... anyway the facility is in that micro climate so playing during the late Fall is certainly doable.

[DMoriarty]

THE PRECEDING POSTS BY MATT WARD MAY HAVE BEEN PAID ADVERTISEMENTS.
MR. WARD IS A PUBLIC RELATIONS PROFESSIONAL WHO IS SOMETIMES COMPENSATED BY THOSE WHO CONTROL THE GOLF COURSES FEATURED IN HIS "REVIEWS."   HIS VIEWS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCORDINGLY.

[Matt_Ward]

Before going forward -- a few comments are needed. I do not represent Mr. Engh or any of the facilities he has done. I have served as PR person but am no longer engaged in that endeavor now.

The idea that my opinions are way off base is laughable because others who have played the course in questions have said they enjoyed playing it as well. Ditto all the other pubs that have weighed in as well.

Now back to the main discussion of the back nine ...

The start of the inner half is begins with a mixed trio -- par-4, par-5 and par-3.

Each is fun to play and quite different from anything else you encounter at FMR.

The 10th is just under 400 yards and dog-legs right. The more daring play is down the right side but unless you are sufficiently long and straight enough to accomplish the feat the wherewithal to see the putting surface wil be blocked by mounds and rocks. The further left you go the more open the shot but it only increases the overall length of the hole. The green, like so many others at FMR, is well contoured. There is tiny tongue area in the front and the rest of the green has a series of movements to different corners of the target. A really solid hole because it balances the twin provisions of length and accurary in a marvelous fashion.

The 11th is likely the toughest of the par-5's at FMR. In a somewhat similar fashion -- Engh designed a par-5 that climbs uphill but in this particular instance it also dog-legs right -- rather sharply. The play from the tee is to decide whether cutting the corner is indeed worth the risk. From the back tees the carry is significant -- over 300 yards. In addition, at the turning point the amount of space in the fairway also becomes narrower before fanning out to a wider dimension.

The green sits above the fairway and any approach that comes up short will likely roll all the way back to the fairway itself. Plenty of internal contours but when the pin is flush to the front you need to be totally precise on any approach play.

Many times par-5's can either be too demanding for the average player or too e-z for the stronger better player. FMR's 11th hole provides a solid avenue for the low and higher handicap golfers to show their stuff without overdoing it. To Engh's credit he does provide different tee pads which allow for the qualities of the hole to deal properly with the differing skills levels.

The 12th concludes this trio of differing par type holes. It plays 166 yards and features a reverse Biaritz green. Instead of the valley separting a front half from a rear half -- here Engh has placed the hollow in the middle with flanking higher sides. The hole is located at one of the highest points in the property and on any clear day you can see for miles and miles from the green. Wonderful control of the short iron is needed here to get close.

[DMoriarty]

Before going forward -- a few comments are needed. I do not represent Mr. Engh or any of the facilities he has done. I have served as PR person but am no longer engaged in that endeavor now.

The idea that my opinions are way off base is laughable because others who have played the course in questions have said they enjoyed playing it as well. Ditto all the other pubs that have weighed in as well.

Let me clarify as well.  I have said nothing about the accuracy or the inaccuracy of your comments about this particular course.    From the comments of others I trust, it sounds interesting.

But you often receive valuable consideration from the very courses you review, and that conflict raises serious questions about the validity and candor of your posts and reviews.  What do you suppose a weekend at Cornerstone runs, all inclusive?  How about at Red Ledges?   Do you suppose these places would continue wine and dine you if you had a reputation for trashing these courses when they deserved trashing?    

You say you are no longer working in P.R, but you were working in P.R. for golf related entities while still posting here, were you not?  Did you ever post comments about a course or entity you represented or hoped to represent?  And whether you are still technically working in PR or not, shouldn't you at the very least let us know what you are receiving from these places so we can consider your reviews accordingly?

Bottom line, Matt, is that you are receiving valuable consideration from the places you are reviewing then you are working P.R.   As a shill for these courses.  

[Kirk Gill]

Two things in regards to your last post, David - I've always wondered about this very issue when it comes to raters for the various magazines. Even if they pay for their round at a private club, the access itself is in some way a gift. It's an interesting question, and has obviously been discussed ad nausem elsewhere. That said, the word "may" covers a lot of ground. I "may" be the greatest saxaphonist of all time. But probably not. The other thing, you specifically mention Cornerstone - I didn't read the reviews of that course on this site. I'll have to look for the threads.

As to Four Mile Ranch, I've mentioned this before on GCA but I'll throw it in here. My aunt and uncle have played the course numerous times. He's not so deeply enamored of it, mainly because he has some issues with the oft-discussed gathering effect that Engh sometimes uses, and also because there are blind shots and he basically never thinks that a shot should be blind. Aunt Kitty loves it, thinks it's her favorite course of all time, and thinks that they have a better time out there playing than on any other course. They are both avid golfers, travelers, and walkers. Like Doug I'm hoping to get down there before the snow flies, but I've been saying that for a while now. What was it Yoda said -"do only, there is no try?"

[astavrides]

I always wondered why Matt spent all that time making over 10000 (and maybe that counter was reset a few times) looooong and detailed posts.  Now I have some explanation.  Maybe I am naive and should have realized it before.

[John Mayhugh]

John, bunkers unless they are uniquely created / positioned really are more of a "look" element and really don't impact many players -- especially better ones. Having them left out at FMR works very well too because the existing terrain that Engh had is quite good in plenty of ways.

Gee, Matt.  I never knew that bunkers were either for strategic or aesthetic purposes. Thanks for sharing that with me.   

[Doug Wright]

We interrupt this latest episode of "Let's Bash Matt Ward" to bring you the link to the thread on Four Mile Ranch from last year.  Some illustrative photos herein. Also a number of favorable comments from "non-biased" participants. Even Tom Doak thought it looked OK.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,36374.0/ 

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming...

[DMoriarty]

Two things in regards to your last post, David - I've always wondered about this very issue when it comes to raters for the various magazines. Even if they pay for their round at a private club, the access itself is in some way a gift. It's an interesting question, and has obviously been discussed ad nausem elsewhere. That said, the word "may" covers a lot of ground. I "may" be the greatest saxaphonist of all time. But probably not. The other thing, you specifically mention Cornerstone - I didn't read the reviews of that course on this site. I'll have to look for the threads.

Kirk,  There is definitely an issue with the raters, and no doubt some of them get a certain lift from just getting access to these courses and I cannot imagine that it doesn't make a difference.   I had a rater tell me one time that there was no way a certain affordable yet very good public course could really compete with a newer, exclusive (and expensive to build) private course.  Trouble is, he hadn't yet played the fancy course.  He just assumed it had to be better because it was exclusive and expensive to build.   Surely things like that impact some raters.

But I think we are talking about something a bit different here.   Matt isn't just picking up free rounds now and then, he is staying at these very high end places and being wined and dined at their expense.   We occasionally hear stories about this sort of things with raters, but hopefully it is rare.   More importantly, while the rater presumably can submit his rating in private.   Matt is "reviewing" these courses publicly.   If his reviews are truly candid then it could directly impact his meal ticket.    Imagine if I was a reviewer and you opened a new Jim Engh cart ball resort course . . . do you suppose I would have much luck getting an all inclusive weekend at the place?    Or do you suppose they'd want nothing to do with me?    

I agree that the word "may" covers a lot of ground.   That is part of the problem.   We know that Matt is operating like this, but we don't know when or for which courses.  That's because it is all hush-hush.   His reviews wouldn't be nearly as convincing if we knew Matt received a grand worth of golf, food, drinks, and wine to help him get in the right frame of mind for his review.

Matt did recently review Cornerstone fairly recently, mentioning he was there for a couple of days.   It was a strange review, not raving positive but by no means negative either.   It reminded me of someone who probably didn't have much genuinely positive to say, but was going out his way to put as positive a spin on the place as possible.  But that is just my opinion.  

_____________________________________________

We interrupt this latest episode of "Let's Bash Matt Ward" to bring you the link to the thread on Four Mile Ranch from last year.  Some illustrative photos herein. Also a number of favorable comments from "non-biased" participants. Even Tom Doak thought it looked OK.
. . .

Doug, believe it or not I feel kind of bad about the Matt bashing.   I've always enjoyed bantering back and forth with him and while I almost always disagree with him I have had a tremendous respect for (and envy of) his willingness and ability to get out to play all these out of the way places.   But that was before we knew he was acting as a shill for these places, or at least some of them.

I doubt I am the only one who sees this as more than a bit disingenuous. And what about the P.R. gig?   Was he posting about courses while working for them?    Surely that would be going well over any acceptable line, wouldn't it?  

[Matt_Ward]

David M:
 
This thread was on the qualities of Four Mile Ranch -- until you hi-jacked it.
 
I have stated my non-connection to the course in question (and all other Engh courses) and that my comments are simply mine. You can certainly "trust" who you wish. Doug Wright served a purpose by posting a past link to FMR so others could review, at their convenience, what's been said on the course previously and now.
 
I got a good laugh when you said you actually feel "kind oif bad about the Matt bashing." Surely you jest David. Geeze I can see how "bad" you feel since you stirred the pot with your desire to throw forward your 'warning label' about my overall credibility on this respective thread. Nothing like the self-appointed desire to act as judge and jury on such matters.
 
People can assign whatever value -- lack thereof -- as they choose in regards to my comments or to anyone else's for that matter. Just as they can assign whatever continuing motivation / obsession you seem to have in regards to this matter. However, your high and mighty act is wearing quite thin.
 
If any of the folks who have played Cornerstone and Red Ledges wishes to weigh in and say my comments are all wet I welcome their comments. If I'm not mistaken some have been to Cornerstone and even Red Ledges. My comments stand as mine -- I believe Team Nicklaus did an outstanding job at Red Ledges and it's one of the very best I have played from Jack's portfolio. I was given the opportunity play the course and I did so -- simple as that -- no more, no less. One other thing -- in the 75+ Nicklaus courses I have played my role with all of them has been from the editorial side of the aisle -- no PR connection -- either prospectively or after playing them.

In regards to my comments on Cornerstone I simply believe Greg Norman did very well as a follow-up to what he did at Red Sky Ranch and I really liked what he did with his layout in Wolcott. Many of the design details used by Norman there, e.g. -- such as the green falls-off not encumbered by rough grass work very well at Cornerstone -- in addition, the overall green contours -- both internal and those on the perimeter are also quite good and relatively demanding -- his green at the long par-4 8th at Cornerstone is one of the best I have seen from his handiwork. Again, all Norman courses I have played have been from the editorial side of the aisle.
 
David, let me clue you in something -- my review of Cornerstone stems from the fact that I identified those areas that were really good and those that were a bit less so -- simple as that. I don't, as you quickly and erroneously concluded, "going out (of) his way to put as positive a spin" -- I see the course as solid evolution for Norman and his crew in what they did there. Is it the best in all of Colorado for me? No. But it's certainly worth a play for those who get the opportunity to play there.  I see Norman's work at Red Sky Ranch and now at Cornerstone as solid joint efforts in the Shark's progression in the design arena.
 
Let me also point out that media people, raters and others within the golf industry are routinely invited to play courses -- sometimes they are provided lodging (either comped or offered at a slightly lower rate) as a means for them to see the course(s) in question -- especially if remote locations are involved. No doubt some will find that type of situation repulsive. Fine. There's a simple recourse. Ignore them and what they write. Those who speak accurately, whether they have accepted or not accepted anything, will emerge. The universe of comments today is so widespread and no doubt the individual can draw their own conclusions on whether a particular facility is bad, average, above average, good or excellent or whether the person writing such a review is grounded in reality or simply completely out of touch.

If I see the need to "trash" a course or courses I say so. If you bother to read my comments starting from the time I began here on GCA you will see that I have taken to task a whole slew of different architects and courses -- even when I was comped green fees and the like. I don't hold my thunder when it's merited. I also scale my approval comments when deserved. The problem, as I see it, --is that you disapprove of my take on certain courses when it comes in conflict with yours. The preponderance of your Engh rants and raves demonstrate that. You also personalized the situation with a below the belt like comment directed at me that you have a life and that I do not because you see my various golf trips as being "crazy." I explained to you -- for what reason I have no idea -- that I love the game in a big time way and have sought out a wide array of courses -- private, CCFAD, muni, etc, etc, -- that are being talked about as places worthy of one's time and attention.
 
I share my comments here on GCA as a mechanism to further the discussion of golf course architecture and I look forward in seeing related info posted from a range of people who have either played the same courses or played others of interest that I may someday wish to play or simply know more about.
 
Let me also point out in my 17 years as a former Digest panelist and for a far shorter time as a former rater for Golfweek I only received comp green fees and often times paid the prevailing rate. Since you have ridiculed my golf trips as a paid shill I will tell you point blank I have taken considerable time, effort and $$ out of my own pocket to venture to those places far and beyond my own backyard. You make it sound like I stay at a comparable Four Seasons Hotel whenever I go and that someone is paying the freight at all times or even most of the time. And that such visits are tied to me playing ball with them and keeping silent on what I truly feel. That is clearly an error -- again from you. I don't deserve special plaudits for my past efforts but the wide brush you are using is nothing more than selective half truths at minimum and character assasination at the maximum.
 
Another error on your part -- you say I "often receve valuable consideration." That is not so. I pay the standard rate for the overwhelming amount of golf I play in any season. In certain cases I pay a media rate which other members of the media are also charged and in other cases I am comped -- I don't ask in lieu of any visit for any special consideration. In the overwhelming majority of cases various items such as green fees, travel, meals and other expenses tied to any visit -- whether a course down the street or hundreds of miles away -- are picked up either by me or by those who have assigned me to provide a review(s).  Do such matters of comps happen? Sure they do. And, I have been quite open in saying so. At the end of the day people can judge for themselves on my overall standing -- or anyone else's as a reviewer and go from there.
 
Those who know me -- truly know me -- know the words I use in describing any course(s) I have visited are used without hesitation or reservation. All the facilities I visit know that directly from me and that I set no preconditions before I make such a visit.
 
I have also not been working for any PR group for a number of years -- and when I did their client listing had no individuals, projects, groups tied to the developent of golf courses and the like. I've stated that a few times and your style of accuse and convict is getting old -- very old. I also have never posted comments about any course I hoped to represent -- and this includes the time I started on GCA to present. I understand fully the wall between editorial commentary and those associated with the PR side of things.
 
When you talk about the botton line David -- here's yours -- you are hellbent on simply throwing endless grenades hoping just one can land on target.
 
Enjoy your firing away -- but do it on a different thread -- so that this one can speak about the virtues or lack thereof dealing with Four Mile Ranch.

[Michael Dugger]

Brad:

The key to the 9th hole is getting the tee shot down the fairway as far as possible.

It's comments like this that lead me to believe often times Mr. Ward's esteemed posts are fodder.

It is only in the rarest of instances that his aforementioned "key" to playing a golf hole does not ring true.

Brilliant review, Matt Ward, getting the tee shot down the fairway as far as possible is indeed a good way to best par on most holes!!!

[Jonathan Cummings]

Matt - for a Jersey boy you seem to spend a hell of a lot of time in Colo...  Are you a dual resident??  JC

[Tony Weiler]

Matt,

Could you rate Engh's courses.  It appears you've played them all.  Maybe you've done this before, but I'd appreciate it. 

[Andy Troeger]

Brad:

The key to the 9th hole is getting the tee shot down the fairway as far as possible.

It's comments like this that lead me to believe often times Mr. Ward's esteemed posts are fodder.

It is only in the rarest of instances that his aforementioned "key" to playing a golf hole does not ring true.

Brilliant review, Matt Ward, getting the tee shot down the fairway as far as possible is indeed a good way to best par on most holes!!!

Michael,
I suppose that's true, but on a lot of holes there's some reason to sacrifice a little bit of length for accuracy. Unless I play tees of 7,000 yards or more, I find myself hitting less than driver at least half the time because there is a higher priority than just bombing it. Just playing devil's advocate 

Matt,
One more round, would you go see Cornerstone again or Four Mile Ranch?

[DMoriarty]

Matt,

Ever heard of Earl Dittman?

[Kirk Gill]

David, by throwing out the name Earl Dittman you are essentially alleging that Matt Ward's reviews of courses have no credibility because his purpose is not to actually review the courses but to obtain attention for himself, gain access to courses, and have his reviews be used by clubs to further their marketing efforts. In essence, you are calling him a whore.

I barely know Matt Ward, just through this site, but to me those are serious allegations.

Do you have proof? Do you have more than what "may" be true, or "might" be true? Can you connect the dots between a positive review of an otherwise critically-panned course that he has either posted or published, and use of that specific review by the course?

[scott_wood]

I've met many of the GCA members, but not as frequently as I'd like. I've only met Matt on three occasions. I enjoyed our discusisons but like most of you I don't really "know him"......
BUT....
I can tell you that he has been the #1 "champion" of Rees' Olde Kinderhook Golf Club on multiple occasions since it was opened in 2000, both on and off this site,
 AND I CAN ASSURE YOU he has in no way, shape or manner  received compensation or been a shill for the owner!!! We members wish more shillin' had been done.........
Cheers
Scott

ps..it's a good one!!
pps. back to Four Mile Ranch

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()