Dave Zinkand's Bold and Imaginative Update of a Desert Classic

[Dave McCollum]

Like Mac, I only played the renovated course.  At that time the fastest unfrozen course I’ve played.  Very tough, yet a delight to play.  I thought it a desert masterpiece.  Rather like the Yale thread, if one didn’t know or obsess on what was there before, the focus would be on the course and experience, which I thought were fantastic.   

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

Doak gave this a 6 in the Confidential Guide saying its “the only ‘natural’ desert layout ever done, and deserves high-marks for originality.  The fairways aren’t artificially contoured, as on the modern desert designs; instead, they are laid out on ridges and through valleys… making this a great tee-shot golf course, rewarding accuracy first, and then length.”  His knock against it was its “large, plain greens”.   So, with that as a back-drop…

IMHO, the redo at DFGC was done well in some regards:  e.g. The tree removal and clearing of brush just off the fairways and tying in bunkers into native areas, brought more of the topography into play and made a challenging (yet fun) driving course even better.  I also thought the new, short 14th was very good and looked like it had been there for years.

On the other hand, thought some of the other changes were horrible whiffs: e.g. #8 is a absolute mistake with its horseshoe green and severe run-off of the right side… #6 and its new bunker is out of character… and the biggest trouble I had was taking these very simple yet very effectively sloped greens and adding WAY TOO MUCH internal contour to them).   

Overall, I’d give the pre-reno course that I saw (2004-2013) an 8 for its lay of land routing and fun, yet simple greens.  The Zinkand redo I’d give a 6 as it’s still a very good course, but has lost some of its simple pleasures that made it worth a special trip to see.

[Lester George]

Pretty bunkering.  Bravo.

Lester

[Peter Pallotta]

This is a good thread. I'm finding it hard to articulate what I see in the before and after photos, or to understand the 'philosphical' differences that are being expressed in the various posts.
Peter

ps Bogey - few books have left me feeling more 'convicted' than that one by Foster.

[Matthew Petersen]

I also have only played the renovated version. Based on Ran's photos and photos from the club history book by Brad Klein, the renovation was a pretty big success in clearing trees, and I think the new 14th hole is very good. I have no real basis of comparison, but I was not troubled by the greens. There are a few where internal mounds and humps can make for some really unexpected bounces, but I think some of this will be less of an issue as the course grows in and the greens become somewhat more receptive.

As for the bunker shaping, it didn't strike me as out of character with the site. I can understand why those familiar with the "classic" look that existed previously would find it jarring, but I don't personally have a lot of affection for oval bunkers.

I'm somewhere between a 7 and an 8 on the current iteration, probably. I certainly haven't played a better course in Arizona, nor can I imagine a desert course I'd be more interested in playing on a daily basis (the real drawback of desert courses, for me).

[Mark_Fine]

Matthew,
The new bunkers there are beautiful and I don't think anyone is arguing that at all.  The only point that I was making was that this was an historic Red Lawrence design (well know architect who studied under William Flynn).  I think the original course was fantastic (my favorite desert course).  It had just aged (some aspects not for the better) like all courses do to the point where it needed some attention (but not necessarily a complete redo/overhaul).  I believe it was Tom Doak who once told me (tell me if I am wrong Tom), "Only ten percent of all classic golf courses deserve to be restored".  To me, this was one of those in the ten percent category. When finished it should have at least looked like a Lawrence/Flynn design and not like something C&C would have designed/built.  Again, if this is what the club wanted it is their course and so be it.  Just my opinion  
Mark

[Matthew Petersen]

Matthew,
The new bunkers there are beautiful and I don't think anyone is arguing that at all.  The only point that I was making was that this was an historic Red Lawrence design (well know architect who studied under William Flynn).  I think the original course was fantastic (my favorite desert course).  It had just aged (some aspects not for the better) like all courses do to the point where it needed some attention (but not necessarily a complete redo/overhaul).  I believe it was Tom Doak who once told me (tell me if I am wrong Tom), "Only ten percent of all classic golf courses deserve to be restored".  To me, this was one of those in the ten percent category. When finished it should have at least looked like a Lawrence/Flynn design and not like something C&C would have designed/built.  Again, if this is what the club wanted it is their course and so be it.  Just my opinion  
Mark

Mark,

That's a totally valid point, even if I don't necessarily agree. I suppose part of the question is how much what is there now is really what the members wanted. Then again, you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Part of why it's OK with me is that my memories of the course have much less to do with the greens than with the fairways, the way the corridors snake around desert features, the humps and hollows and hills that the course is so beautifully laid on top of. Since the course has no fairway bunkers that essential feature hasn't changed all that much (again, my experience with the preener course all comes from pictures, but I'm a GCA dork and this is a great course not all that far from my house, so I was about as "familiar" with that look as anyone could hope to be who hadn't set foot on the property.)

Maybe that's why I really didn't like the old bunker style, even if it was original. That bunker style reminds me of bulldozed fairways and courses that don't integrate with the land (which is solely my bias, of course). Then you'd see a green with those bunkers and it never grabbed me. Either way, I think both versions were a magnificent course, and it's s shame that the original desert course led to so many others but so few that follow its model.

[Mark_Fine]

Matthew,
Thanks for your response.  One very important point to make that soooo many people miss is this - they go play a golf course and judge the course by "what is there now" and really have no idea "what was there"!  Bunkers and trees are good examples.  I had a gentleman one time tell me, "Mr. Fine, I have been a member at this club for 40 years and these trees that you want to take down have always been here as long as I can remember."  What that member forgets (or doesn't realize) is that his course is 100 years old and A LOT has changed (not all for the better) since it was designed/built.  Bunkers and even greens are the same - they age and their sizes and shapes, etc can be completely different from what the original architect designed.  This is what you saw/happened over time at Desert Forest before the recent changes.  So my point is don't judge the new design compared to what you saw five years ago.  Bad comparison 
Mark

[Tom_Doak]

I believe it was Tom Doak who once told me (tell me if I am wrong Tom), "Only ten percent of all classic golf courses deserve to be restored".
Mark

Mark:

I don't remember exactly what I said, but I would modify the first word in the quote to "Maybe".

In this instance, I don't wish to be dragged into the conversation, having not seen or played the revised course.  I have a lot of respect for Dave Zinkand generally [he's one of several young men in the business who participated in a class I organized while he was at Cornell] and I know he can do fine work, but as with all such consulting work, it's impossible to please several factions [not to mention other architects!] who have different ideas about what the mission statement ought to be. 

That is why I prefer true restoration work ... it's the only assignment with a pretty clear mission.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
It probably was "Maybe" or "Possibly" but we agree.  The only thing I would add is that "all" courses should be studied as to their evolution before bringing in the bulldozers and tearing everything up.  "Maybe" only 10% merit "restoration" but one wouldn't know if they didn't take the time to really look.

Again, I don't mean to be disrespectful to the work done at Desert Forest.  I presume the club loves it and a restoration and/or a Lawrence/Flynn look was not what they wanted or they would have gone down a different path. 

By the way, "true restoration work" as you called it (and as you well know) is tough to define.  My personal definition (the short version) is to restore the look/feel of the original layout as well as the "design intent" of the original architect as best possible to the point where when finished, few would know that the architect who did the restoration work was ever there 

[Jason Way]

Dan was kind enough to host me (great to meet you Matthew) on Sunday and I loved the course.  I had not played it before either, but I was aware of Dan's sensitivity to some of the changes as we had discussed them previously.  It would not surprise me if Dan's criticisms of the changes are quite mild compared to a faction of the membership.  But is that really news?  There are always going to be disgruntled voices when ANY change is made.

As for my impression of Dave's work:

I could imagine myself playing the course every day for a long time and having a blast doing it for precisely some of the reasons that others have criticized.  There are features that are borderline and even some that probably shouldn't been included.  In particular, there are contours (you might even call them mounds) on some of the green edges that will kick shots in God-only-knows what directions when hit.  Did those contours really need to be included?  Perhaps not.

As for #8, the day we played, the green was slow.  We hit 3 mediocre shots of various shapes and trajectories and they all held the green as I recall.  This goes back to the old thing about firm and fast.  Assuming that the green will be left firm, if it is too fast, then it will be clown's-mouthy.  Leave it at the right speed and it will be challenging and fun to play.  

The thing about all of these new quirks for me though is that they provide an interesting little puzzle to try and figure out, which I believe was characteristic of the original design as well.  This is an everyday members course from what I can tell, and it will definitely be interesting for the members to play it repeatedly.  If there is an "unfair" bounce that happens now and again, well...this is golf.

As for the comparison to C&C, I didn't see that at all.  And for contrast, I played Talking Stick North again the following day, so the two are quite fresh in my mind.  Through the green, DF is nothing like TSN (or C&C designs in general).  It is lay-of-the-land, but it is not minimalist.  It has a very classic feel to it in the grassing lines.  The course does not bleed into the native areas.  You're either on the hole or you're off it in the desert.  

Additionally, although the bunkers have more flourish than the old ones that I have seen in Dan's photos and in Brad's book, they do not look like Tom's bunkers or C&C's bunkers to me.  There is just a different aesthetic there that calls to mind Golden Era classics for me, more than "new classic" designs.  And above all, I didn't find the bunkering to look out of place, even in the instances where it bordered on being overdone.

Just in case none of the above made any sense, the bottom line is this: The course is a joy to play, and I want to play it again and again and again.  So at that level, the combination of RL+DZ+Nature is a big hit with me.

[Matthew Petersen]

Dan was kind enough to host me (great to meet you Matthew) on Sunday and I loved the course.  I had not played it before either, but I was aware of Dan's sensitivity to some of the changes as we had discussed them previously.  It would not surprise me if Dan's criticisms of the changes are quite mild compared to a faction of the membership.  But is that really news?  There are always going to be disgruntled voices when ANY change is made.

As for my impression of Dave's work:

I could imagine myself playing the course every day for a long time and having a blast doing it for precisely some of the reasons that others have criticized.  There are features that are borderline and even some that probably shouldn't been included.  In particular, there are contours (you might even call them mounds) on some of the green edges that will kick shots in God-only-knows what directions when hit.  Did those contours really need to be included?  Perhaps not.

As for #8, the day we played, the green was slow.  We hit 3 mediocre shots of various shapes and trajectories and they all held the green as I recall.  This goes back to the old thing about firm and fast.  Assuming that the green will be left firm, if it is too fast, then it will be clown's-mouthy.  Leave it at the right speed and it will be challenging and fun to play.  

The thing about all of these new quirks for me though is that they provide an interesting little puzzle to try and figure out, which I believe was characteristic of the original design as well.  This is an everyday members course from what I can tell, and it will definitely be interesting for the members to play it repeatedly.  If there is an "unfair" bounce that happens now and again, well...this is golf.

As for the comparison to C&C, I didn't see that at all.  And for contrast, I played Talking Stick North again the following day, so the two are quite fresh in my mind.  Through the green, DF is nothing like TSN (or C&C designs in general).  It is lay-of-the-land, but it is not minimalist.  It has a very classic feel to it in the grassing lines.  The course does not bleed into the native areas.  You're either on the hole or you're off it in the desert.  

Additionally, although the bunkers have more flourish than the old ones that I have seen in Dan's photos and in Brad's book, they do not look like Tom's bunkers or C&C's bunkers to me.  There is just a different aesthetic there that calls to mind Golden Era classics for me, more than "new classic" designs.  And above all, I didn't find the bunkering to look out of place, even in the instances where it bordered on being overdone.

Just in case none of the above made any sense, the bottom line is this: The course is a joy to play, and I want to play it again and again and again.  So at that level, the combination of RL+DZ+Nature is a big hit with me.

Jason, it was a pleasure to meet you, as well. BI can't believe you think my flared 6-iron to the right edge on 8 was "mediocre" (it wasn't even that good).

Otherwise, I agree pretty much whole-heartedly. There were some greens that are maybe a bit overdone, and by the 3rd (or 4th?) time I saw it, I wondered if the lion's mouth-style bunker in front was a bit overused, but I think the greens will soften somewhat (I know the club keeps things firm, but there's nothing like how firm a course is in the years immediately after new work) and the greens and bunkers all had a lot of interest for me.

What you say about the grassing lines, especially as a contrast to C&C's work on desert courses at TSN and WeKoPa, is really correct. Desert Forest is wide enough to be playable, but it's not wide. Certainly not like TSN or WeKoPa, and if you took the all fairway/gradual transition to desert style of those two courses to DF, there would be some holes where my impression is that it would be exceedingly difficult to keep the ball in play.