Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: John Foley on January 23, 2005, 09:58:16 PM
-
Been meaning to post these for a while and I am finally getting around to it (a nice project when it’s 5 degrees and 20 inches of snow falling on you!!) As an experience, Cascata is pretty amazing. We practically had the course to ourselves. Treated like we owned the placed with service second to none. Now granted, we we’re paying for it (and it’s not cheap!) but it never felt gratuitous.
As for the golf course, lets just say I needed to review my pics w/ the AOTD & scorecard in front of me to remember what I was seeing. The holes seem very repetitive and, for the most part un-memorable. There we’re a few I liked (the short up-hill #11 & the tough uphill #16) and some I just didn’t care for (#18).
I’m not going to bash Rees and say the bunkers are boring & repetitive, the routing while OK was too much uphill then downhill all day and the greens were way too flat. That is the feeling you get. You wanted the course to offer more.
There is some strategy out there and on some holes and a definite challenge off the tee (more to keep it straight, but on a few of the slight doglegs a proper shaped shot is rewarded and the improper shaped shot is punished). While not easy at all, I felt that the course would be viewed even harsher the better / lower handicap you are. For the most part the par 3’s we’re a let down, though #4 slightly downhill, 20 mph wind in our face was all the challenge you could want.
There is also the water. They’ve got a stream that runs from the top of the property next to a few holes and through the clubhouse. On the course the water is just way out of place. As for through the clubhouse, hey remember your in Vegas!!!
For those that don’t know the course is built into the side of a mountain. I don’t remember the exact number, but it’s construction budget approached Shadow Creek’s.
Here is Scott’s AOTD w/ the routing shown.
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/routed.jpg)
I think w/ some movement put into the greens and less repetitive bunkering, this could have been so much better.
A few pics:
Tee shot on #1 (Par 4 - 367 yards)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0662.jpg)
Tee shot on #3 (Par 5 - 561 yards)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0665.jpg)
Approach/Green on #3
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0669.jpg)
Tees shot on # 4 (Par 3 - 216 yards)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0670.jpg)
Tee shot on # 5 (Par 5 – 523 yards)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0671.jpg)
Bunker/Green on #5
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0675.jpg)
Tee shot on #7 (Par 3 - 157 yards)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0677.jpg)
Looking back towards tee on #8 (Par 4 408 yards)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0682.jpg)
Approach on #9 (Par 4 – 451 yards)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0684.jpg)
Tee shot on #10 (Par 4 – 466 yards)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0685.jpg)
Tee shot on #12 (Par 3 - 165 yards)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0686.jpg)
Tee shot on #13 (Par 4 – 469)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0687.jpg)
Approach/Green # 13
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0692.jpg)
Tee shot on #14 (Par 4 – 434 yards)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0694.jpg)
Tee shot on #15 (Par 3 212 yards)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0696.jpg)
Tee shot on #16 (Par 5 508 yards)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0697.jpg)
Tee shot on #17 (Par 4 489 yards)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0700.jpg)
Approach on #17
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0705.jpg)
Approach on #18
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a116/cbmacfan/Cascata/IMG_0709.jpg)
-
John,
Beautiful pictures! I haven't seen any up to date pictures of the course for a good while. I was the Assistant Superintendent with Landscapes Unlimited. The pictures bring back a lot of memories. The course still looks good as it did when I left the property when the project was finished. I forget what the budget was for the course, but I don't recall it being that close to the 43 million or so Shadow Creek.
Cheers,
John
-
What does being the only people on the course have to do with the architecture? Perhaps we need an updated Doak scale. 10 means you would play the course on a crowded day in a five hour round. 9 means 4:45. Probably a 2 would be happy to play it alone in 2:45. Anyway, that's what I gave Cascata.
-
John,
I think it was someone at the club (or the caddie ) who mentioned a big number, but no where near $43M.
Alex,
Being alone on the course has absolutley nothing to do w/ the architecture, I didn't say it did.
-
you paid to play there??? that is some nut........makes Pebble look like a bargain!
-
Summer time weekdays they've got some deals. Guarantee a room and tee time for Cascata is way less than the same at Pebble, Pinehurst, American Club/Whistling.
-
Well how much is , much, and in comparison to Shadow Creek?
-
John Foley,
What was it about #18 that you didn't like. The aerial photo makes it look like a zig-zag par 5 where you are forced to hit three shots to get to the green. The online scorecard says it is 546 from the black tees.
Does this hole suffer because it lacks the "getting home in 2" factor?
Thanks,
Gary
-
If anyone has received a publication called : "The Best of Northeast Golf 2005" go to page 123 and compare the photo of the ad for The Ridge at Back Brook with the photo above entitled "Approach on #9 (Par 4 – 451 yards)". It is interesting how 2 very different landscape settings could produce two greens that are almost identical. Maybe someone who has the magazine and knows how to post the picture will do so.
By the way there is an ad for pencil sketches of famous golfers by a guy named Ron Ramsey from Bronxville, NY. Beautiful work Does anyone know him?
-
Gary,
The water hazard at the green was forced. As a norm I don'y like lets dig a holding pond and use it for a hazard. I do realize that they are needed, just don't put them in play.
From the tee, there is really no option, can't cut the corner and gain anything.
James,
Summer rates at Paris was $89/nite double occupancy and gree fee;s we're $250. Thats sub $300 for a round and a room. Weekends we're $500 for the green fee and there is no way it's worth that.
-
James, in season, i believe that Cascata is $350 during the week and $500 on the weekends, and Shadow Creek is more limited in availability, but is $500. Both require you stay at one of their respective properties.
John, thanks for the great pictures!
-
John,
Do you have a copy of Geoff Shacks The Future of Golf in America....I would like to send you a signed copy (by Barney) for being the first guy on this site to admit to paying for a round of golf and not bitching about it....Congrats and just IM me your address so I can ship the book....
-
Summer time weekdays they've got some deals
John, thanks for posting, very good pictures.
What really got my attention, though, was the quote above coupled with your saying that the round was 'only' $250. I guess I don't get out much, but its amazing to me that a course that you aren't even keen on is a deal at $250.
-
Pricing is all relative. One man's garbage is another man's treasure. I played Shadow Creek with one of my best firends, and we each paid $500 and had a great time. To be honest, it was worth it and i would pay it again. Is it cheap no, but it was a bargain based on the memories.
-
Dan, I have no doubt what you said is true. Certainly the price vs. value of anything is different for each person.
And while I can't imagine paying $500 its A-OK with me if you wish to do so (though I have to admit to being amazed by that price tag--sounds like I do not belong in Vegas playing golf!) ;)
But c'mon, John paid $250 for a round of golf, he doesn't seem to think much of the course at all, and he considers it a deal!
-
I don't think you guys realize the value of an empty course....does the greenfee include transportation to and from the hotel...because if we are talking about an $89 room with transportation for a $250 greenfee on a top 300 course by yourself with excellent amenities..it's not bad....I am guessing cart and caddie are also included..
You are talking $50 an hour for entertainment in Vegas....the cut at most hold em games is above that at any level of play..
-
John,
Great pictures of what looks to be a not so great course. (is there a smiley face I can put here showing one of those little yellow heads sleeping?)
The talent and creativity just oozes from that man, doesn't it?
-
Yeah, but Mike, on the plus side it was a deal at $250, which John K explains is an 'entertainment' bargain for Vegas.
The world has changed, and nobody warned me!
PS I do have to say, I think the tees in John's pictures are kinda cool, the way the desert runs right up against the vivid green tees.
-
Dan/Andy,
What I meant was that with the normal $350-$500 rate they charge getting it for $250 combined w/ the room I already needed to pay for, it was worth it to see what was there. Would I go again? Only if I won big time at the tables. Since I don't play the tables looks like it was a one time deal.
As for Shadow Creek. IMHO fromt he book, it did not look like a course I'd enjoy. Too claustrophobic. So it's easy to not spend $500 for Shadow Creek.
BTW - I liked Dye's The Wolf at Pauite much much more than Cascata.
Mike C,
I do think that routing wise, it was a better than average. However the rest of whats on the ground could have been so much better.
-
Loved Cascata. I envy you guys who have the game and access to the courses which make Cascata, Torrey Pines-S, Shadow Creek, etc. so easy to dismiss.
Okay, some of the water features are contrived, but what in Vegas isn't? Cascata kept my interest, certainly challenged my abilities, and it was a most welcomed respite from the hustle and bustle of every day life. It may not be an architectural masterpiece, but it is quite an engineering feat. Perhaps if Rees was named Seth?
-
Lou,
I'm not dismissing Cascata because I routinely play "better" places. I'm dismissing it because it is in a class of courses that seek to be viewed as "great" and ask us to accept that premise, at multiples of $100 to play, for pro forma architecture.
I think my favorite Rees Jones courses are Olde Kinderhook, a rough-hewn, low-key private club near Albany, NY, Montauk Downs (although done under his dad's name), which is a $25 muni on Long Island, and Arcadian Shores, in Myrtle Beach of all places.
-
John,
I understand it may have been a bit toasty when you played in the summer, it's also quite hilly, and that carts and forecaddie come with the price, but are you allowed to walk if you want and catch rides on the apparent treks between holes?
-
Scott,
A bit toasty is an understaement, try 105!
There are some tremendous long drives between holes (7-8)and a few that are right next door. And this is truly built on the side of a mountain.
It may make Plantation course look like an afternoon stroll.
If you asked to walk, I don't know what they would say.
-
What's funny about Vegas courses is that they often fall outside the "main stream" of other courses -- particularly when viewed against so-called "classic" course profile coming from the Northeast.
Frankly, I think some of the "anti" comments about western courses comes to a degree from the "nose up in the air" approach some take. Basically, it boils down to this -- well the courses in Vegas aren't like course "A" or "B" from the NYC or Philadelphia area. Even while saying that I have to say that sometimes the very issue is not the unique terrain one finds out west, but the lack of skillful imagination employed by the architect.
Cascata is truly something to see. I mean having a stream FLOW THROUGH the cluibhouse has got be one of the more enhancing elements I have ever personally witnessed. But like much of Vegas it's pure hype -- with little connected to the actual golf.
The design at Cascata, though, is simply lacking. Here you have a site with a disproportionate number of holes running in two ways -- up the hill and down the hill. A few of them are really good -- I'm a fan of the 2nd. But the incessant revisiting of this without really adding something above and beyond that becomes tiresome fairly quickly.
One of the issues that I believe has traction against Rees Jones is that he often superimposes his basic ideas no matter what the site is. After one or two holes the same act gets old. That's something he's been unable to shake and I agree with many of his consistent detractors (some of whom have never played a superior Rees effort although there are a number of them I would recommend) when this is brought up for discussion.
John F is right on target -- the service at Cascata is without peer and it's likely anyone playing the course will never encounter any slow play or other human distractions.
Is the layout worth the $$? That's something only each person can address. Frankly, I would recommend people to play in Mesquite at Wolf Creek because there you have an edgy seat-of-your-pants layout that marries the concept of what Shadow Creek initiated and that Casata tries to outdo. Only at Wolf Creek do you get the kind of thrill ride with a solid interplay of terrain and design technique.
Let me say that those who look for some sort of "classic" pattern of golf will not find much of that particular approach / style in the greater Vegas area. If you come with the mentality that golf in Vegas must be like golf in the east the best advice I can give is stay home.
Cascata is layout without much substance -- the actual site is indeed unique and worthy to see -- it's the golf component that fails to bring home the bacon. Like Vegas -- it's the show not the depth that lies at the heart of Cascata.
-
good point on the temp in the summer..........paying over $200 to play in 100 degrees+ is not a good deal at all.
-
Las Vegas is all about gambling and each casino is competing for the business of the big players. In order to attract them they give out comps which can be rooms, meals, limos, and golf. The meals in the better restaurants are always over priced because they want their big players to feel that they are getting something of value in return for the action they are giving the casino. Same is true for the golf. A large percentage of the play at the courses associated with the casinos is free to the high rollers, and again, they are more interested in having them believe that they are getting something for their gambling action than worrying about the greens fees.
I went to Las Vegas with a high roller and we stayed at the Mirage and played Shadow Creek, and the four of us did not pay for anything including the limo to the course, and meals at the course, etc. But then again, he was gambling for very high limits and his swing of $25K at a time was worth more to them than some greens fees. We were also invited by an exec at Caesars to play Southern Highlands, which we did, because he heard the guy was a high roller and they wanted his action.
The best deal in Las Vegas is to play in the summer if you can take the heat. I played Paiute, Dragon Ridge, Revere At Anthem and Primm Valley for under $50 in the summer. 115 degrees is hot but with some cold towels and ice and water, you can make it through.
-
I don't think there is any question that Cascata would be a nice place to play for free....but....for the people who pay where they play you need to remember that $250 Vegas dollars are not equal to $250 in your pocket at home...If you accept that a 3 day trip to Vegas is a potential $5K nut...$250 is 5% of your stake.....consuming approximately 10% of your gambling/recreation time....it is a potental boukou value...
-
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tommy_n/Ridge%20at%20Back%20Brook.jpg)
With help from Tommy I think the image above will depict a Fazio green at Back Brook and I was comparing it to the image of hole #9 at Cascata.
I was surprised by how similar the two greens are, and how the designs could have come about in two totally different environemnts. For Rees and Fazio could this be a broiler plate design, or is it a classic design, generally speaking in the same way a Redan is a classic design for many architects, possessing qualities that deserve repetition. Maybe some one could post them side by side.
-
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tommy_n/Ridge%20at%20Back%20Brook.jpg)
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3429764323232%7Ffp63%3Dot%3E232%3B%3D965%3D%3B3%3A%3DXROQDF%3E23235%3A2%3C%3A%3B59%3Bot1lsi)
Working with the land, evidently.
-
Andy Hughes,
With Semi-Private room rates in New York Hospitals of
$ 1,800 and up, $ 500 for a round of golf seems like money well spent.
I'll hazard a guess that the food and service are better as well.
When given a choice, choose being stuck with a cactus needle rather then a hypodermic needle, every time.
A day at Cascata, Shadow Creek or Pebble Beach is something you'll remember for the rest of your life.
A day in a hospital is something you'll try to forget for the rest of your life.
This isn't a dress rehersal. Enjoy it while you can.
Mike Cirba,
Before making snide comments about the architect, perhaps you should examine the site, play the golf course, and then let us know your thoughts.
-
How is a day at Cascata something you will remember for the rest of your life?? I can see Pebble, maybe Shadow Creek. I only see the prospect of a big VISA bill after playing Cascata..........
-
P Drake,
Have you played Cascata, Shadow Creek and Pebble Beach ?
-
Yes I have...........I was comped for Cascata and Shadow.....and actually paid for Pebble when it was in the 100s.............Cascata is not in the same class as the other 2
-
P Drake,
How would you rate the sites on a comparitive basis ?
-
obviously Pebble is one of the best sites in the whole world.........Fazio did an all world with the Shadow Creek site.......as far as Cascata I can't compare it with these two. I see a lot of Rio Secco in Cascata.......
-
P Drake,
That's not the question I asked you.
I asked you to compare the sites.
Cascata, Shadow Creek and Pebble Beach.
Confine your answer to those three.
Shadow Creek was far from an ideal site, but dirt/sand could be easily moved, it just took money.
Could the hills/mountains surrounding the canyons at Cascata be easily moved ?
Perhaps you'd like to review the aerial and ground level pictures before answering the last question.
-
Look.........I do not like the course and I do not like the site..........as said it has a lot of Rio Secco in it.......plenty of mountains and such that couldn't be moved. And add Rees to the picture and it falls flat in my eyes.
-
P Drake,
Who in your mind could have designed and built a wonderful golf course on that site, and how would they have done it ?
Could that site produce a wonderful golf course ?
-
Patrick,
According to Doak, his Stone Eagle course in the Palm Springs area on the side of a desert mountain is a fairly severe site. I think he said it had something like 300 feet of elevation change. I know it is a different site than Cascata, but they sound pretty similar otherwise. We shall see if a wonderful course can be built on that type of terrain. As for Cascata's site, we'll never know.
-
Patrick,
I think Mike was being witty not snide. I am amazed at the similarity of the green designs. It almost looks like a type of design you could mail in to the field, and a type of design you could use on other projects, possibly flip it over and hold it up to the light if it helps with the balance of the course. It does not seem like the type of design that someone grinded out in the field. Or, maybe as I suggested above this style of green generally speaking is a classic design like a redan that bears repeating because of its tremendous strategic qualities. Therefore, it is a paradigm that we can expect will be incorporated into the great modern courses because of its strategic and aesthetic qualities. It definately is a style that could be used on any site in the country, transported from area to area so the locals can actually play one.
I think the answers, or I guess we can only conjecture the reasoning behind these similar design appearing on 2 very different sites, the answer as to how this comes about is enormously important to understanding the state of American golf course architecture as practiced by its esteemed leaders. Or maybe the green fees is a more important issue...
To be fair there may be some similar green designs that we can post here between say Friars Head and Stone Wall, or similar green designs may be found when comapring Pacific Dunes to Hidden Creek where by just from the pictures you have almost the same exact look
-
Scott Burroughs,
Are you telling me that you equate a few vague words from Tom Doak about a site that you've never seen, with the aerial and ground level photos posted by John Foley ?
Kelly Blake Moran,
Knowing Mike's sense of humor, I would say that he was being witty and snide, and that's okay, but, he's usually thorough in his approach and it's unlike him to comment about a golf course that he's never seen.
As to the similarity of the greens, I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing.
It's not uncommon for this group to sing the praises of CBM, SR and CB, all of whom repeatedly duplicated holes and greens at different sites.
Isn't the test in the playability and not the originality ?
If you condemn one duplicate hole, don't you have to condemn them all ?
I would think the critical question would be:
Do the holes/greens play well ?
If yes, then there should be no criticism of their duplicate nature.
If no, then there should be criticism of their inherent design.
-
With Semi-Private room rates in New York Hospitals of
$ 1,800 and up, $ 500 for a round of golf seems like money well spent.
I am sure there are many things more pleasant than a hospital stay. And I am sure many of them are cheaper than $1,800 and up. That does not mean that they are good values or inexpensive.
(am I to infer that you are in the hospital Pat? Sorry to hear that-hope all is well)
When given a choice, choose being stuck with a cactus needle rather then a hypodermic needle, every time.
I don't know, I've seen some rather viscious cactus needles!
(http://www.jimbatcho.com/common/images/PersonalImages/large_cactus.jpg)
A day at Cascata, Shadow Creek or Pebble Beach is something you'll remember for the rest of your life.
A day in a hospital is something you'll try to forget for the rest of your life.
Certainly true. But, not sure this really has any bearing on the quality of the course, or whether $250 is a 'deal' for a round of golf.
This isn't a dress rehersal. Enjoy it while you can.
Amen Pat, words to live by. But for those of us who consider $250 a lot for a round of golf, its hard to consider it a 'deal' especially when the course may be average or ordinary at best.
-
Then Pat you have probably played both greens so I ask you your questions. Furthermore, the Redan was oft repeated, this was a decision arrived at by these architects n accordance with their judgement about the qualities of that type of green. Does this green design we see in the above pictures meet that standard? Did Fazio and Jones make a sound judgement in choosing this type of green as a design worth repeating, or should they if I am presuming too much. And, is it possible these are broiler plate designs, not because the quality of the design bears repeating, but because it expedites the design and construction process, its safe, smart, attractive, and off we go to next big job. does that possible scenario bother you as a student of architecture, does the idea of designing a green in the field which many amateurs on this site would give anything to have that opportunity, does that opportunity to design a green on a paticular little piece of ground get diminished by that kind of approach to design, the broiler plate mentality. I know I have presumed a lot here, maybe not in a fair way, but it is enough to bother me, and if I were a student of the profession i would be somewhat let down by the professionals who approach their job in this manner.
-
Andy Hughes,
No, I'm in the beautiful snow covered north.
One certainly hopes that every dollar they spend will be in return for "value". But, tastes are varied.
Some people absolutely loved Cascata and thought the money spent was well worth it. Others who have played it, like P Drake, felt differently.
My point was, don't be swayed by the opinions of people who haven't played it. Especially, if they have an agenda.
I know people who don't like NGLA. And, they've played it.
We all have to judge for ourselves because our preferences and tastes are different.
$ 500 is a lot of money to spend for a round of golf.
My point was, you could be spending a lot more and enjoying it a lot less. People go to Vegas and gamble and lose $ 500 in
15 minutes, and what do they have to show for it ? That they got comped a $ 3.25 drink ? Spending about 4 hours in a healthy environment, with great vistas, playing a game we all love, shouldn't be viewed as a waste of time or money.
I'll bet you pay $ 125 an hour for lots of things.
Start with your dentist, doctor, plumber, copy/fax machine repairman, etc., etc..
This isn't an everyday event. It's something you do to indulge yourself, so, if you're going to be in Las Vegas,
why not treat yourself to a day you'll never forget.
With respect to needles, have you ever seen a viscious looking nurse, on her first day on the job, wielding a big one ?
I'll take the cactus and what comes with it every time.
-
Kelly Blake Moran,
Then Pat you have probably played both greens so I ask you your questions. Furthermore, the Redan was oft repeated, this was a decision arrived at by these architects n accordance with their judgement about the qualities of that type of green. Does this green design we see in the above pictures meet that standard? Did Fazio and Jones make a sound judgement in choosing this type of green as a design worth repeating, or should they if I am presuming too much.
I'm unqualified to answer your queston because I haven't played both holes/greens[/color]
And, is it possible these are broiler plate designs, not because the quality of the design bears repeating, but because it expedites the design and construction process, its safe, smart, attractive, and off we go to next big job. does that possible scenario bother you as a student of architecture, does the idea of designing a green in the field which many amateurs on this site would give anything to have that opportunity, does that opportunity to design a green on a paticular little piece of ground get diminished by that kind of approach to design, the broiler plate mentality.
It is possible that your above assessment is correct.
However, before drawing that conclusion, we both have an obligation to play those two holes/greens BEFORE making any assessment, good or bad.[/color]
I know I have presumed a lot here, maybe not in a fair way, but it is enough to bother me, and if I were a student of the profession i would be somewhat let down by the professionals who approach their job in this manner.
I understand your point, and it may or may not be valid, depending upon the quality of the holes/greens. But, in all fairness we can't, and shouldn't determine that until we've played both of them.[/color]
-
One certainly hopes that every dollar they spend will be in return for "value". But, tastes are varied.
Some people absolutely loved Cascata and thought the money spent was well worth it. Others who have played it, like P Drake, felt differently.
I have no real opinion of Cascata. I have never played it, and have not meant to say it was worthy of love or otherwise.
I am just amazed, as I said, that someone who paid $250, and didn't really care for the course, said it was a deal at that price. The game is just so pricey anymore.
I know people who don't like NGLA. And, they've played it.
We all have to judge for ourselves because our preferences and tastes are different.
This is certainly true. My gist had nothing really to do with Cascata itself, and whether I would like or if it was an outstanding course.
I'll bet you pay $ 125 an hour for lots of things.
Start with your dentist, doctor, plumber, copy/fax machine repairman, etc., etc..
Sadly true. And if I didn't need to pay those bills so often, perhaps $250 for a round of golf on an unloved course wouldn't scare me so much!
-
Jerry,
You must of went to the Mirage and played Shadow Creek on a down time in Las Vegas because I don't think at any of the MGM/Mirage Hotels consider 25K a high roller. I think maybe your friend has some good friends that got all of you on Shadow Creek and could of possibly got you on Southern Highlands, I don't think it was his high limit bets that got you all comped golf.
Cheers,
John
-
Jerry,
You must of went to the Mirage and played Shadow Creek on a down time in Las Vegas because I don't think at any of the MGM/Mirage Hotels consider 25K a high roller. I think maybe your friend has some good friends that got all of you on Shadow Creek and could of possibly got you on Southern Highlands, I don't think it was his high limit bets that got you all comped golf.
Cheers,
John
Maybe he simply told his friends that it was 25K....
Re: those greens above -
That's a pretty generic comparison. It would seem if those are considered the same, there are many many out there that would be considered the same. Given the tendency of photos to flatten out contour, it would be hard for me to conclude those are some sort of template.
That surrounding ring/berm on the Cascata green bothers me a lot more than the similarity between the two. It strikes me that good green complexes tend to be convex while lesser green complexes tend to be concave. (I guess the Punchbowl is the exception that proves the rule!) I'd say the same about fairway movement as well. I think that's why I like skyline greens so much - it's almost the antithesis of containment.
-
Andy,
Just so you understand why I said what I said. I play 20 rounds a year. Almost all at public/resort courses where I pay my own way. No comps. For argument sakes lets say, on average, I pay $50 a round. That means my total spends for golf is $1000 a year. Changing one $50 round out and making that a $250 round increases my overall spends to $1200. For me that is well w/in my budget. For the experience I had, spending the extra $200 was well worth it for me.
I never said I didn't care for the course. I just said said that I thought the course should be better.
-
John, thanks for the clarification. I did not mean to put words in your mouth or imply anything. I took what you wrote to mean that you really didn't think much of the course. You said:
As for the golf course, lets just say I needed to review my pics w/ the AOTD & scorecard in front of me to remember what I was seeing. The holes seem very repetitive and, for the most part un-memorable. There we’re a few I liked (the short up-hill #11 & the tough uphill #16) and some I just didn’t care for (#18).
I’m not going to bash Rees and say the bunkers are boring & repetitive, the routing while OK was too much uphill then downhill all day and the greens were way too flat. That is the feeling you get. You wanted the course to offer more.
Maybe it's just me, but that sounds an like someone who was less than impressed with the course ('very repetitive', 'unmemorable', 'boring bunkers', routing..too much uphill then downhill', 'greens were way too flat').
I certainly did not mean to imply that you or anyone else shouldn't play Cascata, and if you enjoyed your day there I am truly happy for you.
I, personally, would just have a hard time reconciling all your critiques with 'it was well worth it' at $250.
-
Scott Burroughs,
Are you telling me that you equate a few vague words from Tom Doak about a site that you've never seen, with the aerial and ground level photos posted by John Foley ?
What do you mean I've never seen Stone Eagle? Pictures of Stone Eagle have been shown several times here (I was one of them), taken both before shaping and during. Doak talked about the site from those pictures, and he's not normally one to be vague about describing a site. They are both severe mountainside sites in the desert - and that's all I said. It is often difficult to get wonderful courses on severe sites.
If you want my opinion, yes, I think someone else could have produced a better course at Cascata on that site.
-
Patrick;
My comments were meant to be "humorous", but I'll accept "snide".
Actually, I prefer "acerbic" or even "sardonic". ;)
-
Pat,
I'm going to avoid mentioning Sandpines. No need to do that because I have proven you wrong time and time again! ;D And while I can't talk about Cascata, lets talk about Quintero and Rees abilities to screw-up a wonderful piece of property there. We can bring in all sorts of topics to this discussion:
-Routing
-Repetition
-Regurgitation
.......and any other subject that starts not only with an "R", but starting from "A" and finishing with "Z."
Also, don't blame me for him being such a horrible golf architect. I'm not the one building these ugly mounds and hump-backed bunkers that look as if they were up-rooted and traded-in by a previous Rees Jones design. You know, like what Atlantic has done.....
-
The design at Cascata, though, is simply lacking. Here you have a site with a disproportionate number of holes running in two ways -- up the hill and down the hill. A few of them are really good -- I'm a fan of the 2nd. But the incessant revisiting of this without really adding something above and beyond that becomes tiresome fairly quickly.
One of the issues that I believe has traction against Rees Jones is that he often superimposes his basic ideas no matter what the site is. After one or two holes the same act gets old. That's something he's been unable to shake and I agree with many of his consistent detractors (some of whom have never played a superior Rees effort although there are a number of them I would recommend) when this is brought up for discussion.
Is the layout worth the $$? That's something only each person can address.
I don't know if anyone else brought this up, but I agree with what Matt is saying above. From looking at the pictures, I can tell you that Cascata isn't a good deal - BECAUSE YOU CAN PLAY ESSENTIALLY THE SAME HOLES for $40 at Poppy Ridge in Livermore CA.
Other than #14 with the Shadow Creek makeup treatment, the holes look amazingly similar...
Given this look, I'm starting to think Rees' firm and work deserves the pounding he takes here at GCA:
"-Routing
-Repetition
-Regurgitation"
It's kinda sad, because I used to enjoy Poppy Ridge more than I do now...
-
Scott,
If you want my opinion, yes, I think someone else could have produced a better course at Cascata on that site.
Is your opinion based on your experience of playing the golf course ?[/color]
Tommy Naccarato,
I've never seen Quintero, so I'm not qualified to comment on it. I'll have to take your word until my travels allow me a visit.
Where is Quintero located ?
However, your assessment of the work at Atlantic is inaccurate.
John Krystynak,
You can tell all of that from a dozen pictures ?
That's an amazing talent.
Did you happen to study the aerial closely ?
-
It's kinda sad, because I used to enjoy Poppy Ridge more than I do now...
John,
Has Poppy Ridge changed....when the pundits on this site steal the simple joy of a round of golf it may be time to take a walk...remember...it is easy for a no pay bastard to hate a place because they have no investment...give your heart or dollars to something and you will find yourself looking beyond the warts and flaws and enjoying the good...and the good is still there just like it always was...
-
Scott,
If you want my opinion, yes, I think someone else could have produced a better course at Cascata on that site.
Is your opinion based on your experience of playing the golf course ?[/b][/color]
Hell, no. I would never pay $250-$500 + room to play a Rees Jones original design.
I've played perhaps 7-10 of his courses (almost all prior to GCA) and generally, the more recent the design, the less interesting they are. I also value the (repeated) disappointments of too many others here from their experiences at his other designs.
I DARE him to put in a cross bunker.
-
JakaB,
Poppy Ridge hasn't changed, and I guess I have. By myself, I may have become more disdainful of the repetition of greenside bunkering, the lack of interior hazards, the "I can't taste my beer" similarity in the holes, but it's probable that learning to understand why I enjoy certain courses has exacerbated or at least accelerated my disdain...
Rees Jones' marketing efforts at calling the course a "Scottish Heathland" somehow get to me...
Kinda like your "intellectual vs dumbsters" thing in some respects. BTW, was I day dreaming about flying out to somewhere in Indiana because of some blog offering free golf? That blog is hard to keep up with, since the entry seems gone now...
-
Pat,
Quintero is about an hour Northwest of Phoenix. Many had me thinking it was going to be a very long drive. I found it to be quite enjoyable as well as saw some really good golf land along the way. If you were to draw a straight line from Scottsdale and go way due west, you would eventually run into Quintero.
The problem with Quintero is simply because its a horrible display of routing a golf course to make sure every hole has a moutain as its backdrop, whether its going uphill or going down hill. Its just not very good golf architecture at all--at least what one would want to write home about.
Most if not all the par 3's are drop shot par 3's of little interest--almost repeticious of one another over and over and over. Repetition occurs again on the back nine, where parallel running holes are almost exact duplicates of one another--all still with the same mountain back drop for the woo woo factor.
Some of the positives...
Exceptional club with an exceptional staff at an exceptional site in some of the most beautiful arid desert one could ever imagine. I would most defintely go back just to be there again--while leaving my clubs in the truck (my vehicle of choice) I could picture myself laying out there in a (rattlesnake free environment) looking-up at the stars. I would imagine that might be one of the very best aspects of Quintero. Its in the middle of Fumbuck, Arizona, and thats probably its greatest attribute--isolation.
I just wish they would have designed a golf course there.
What they did design was a greenbelt overburdened with all sorts of man-made drainage, and unfortunately as great of a club as its going to be (as far as what seems to be an honestly friendly and enjoyable membership.) They are never going to be able to outlive the golf course they have to play on--and the Norman course, judging from the topos and the plans I saw, doesn't look like it will be much different either. Lots of play from from mountain top to moutain top/bottom of the mountain to the top of the moutain and back down again. Amazing to look at too--just like the back nine at The Falls in Las Vegas.
Is Quintero the worst golf course I have ever seen in my life?
--No way. Its just one of the most over-rated ones, and in fact, its much like Sandpines in regards to the hype of its real worth. I would have loved to see what a Steve Smyers or KBM could have done with the property. I'm sure they would have given them a much bigger bang for the buck--but then again when your trying to sell real estate in the middle of nowhere, that Rees name and persona must have its worth. And to me thats a sad thing. Simply because people will drive and buy anywhere to play a name, but when it comes to quality--everything is out the window.
John Krystynak,
If you were to use a balanced scale rating, where one end of it said Golf and the other end said, Dentist Appointment for a root canal, where would you rate Poppy Ridge? ;D
-
Tommy,
If Huckaby or Getka or Benham or whomever emailed me asking me if I wanted to meet them there tomorrow, I'd be there in a heartbeat.
No doubt that Poppy Ridge is a good round of golf.
I enjoy it every time - and it costs $35 or so. I walk
it for the exercise. It's a fairly serious test of driving and keeping the ball below the hole.
But, if you've played 50+ times, it's not one of those
piles of dirt that endears itself to you.
Perhaps it wears on you that you can't remember which hole is on which nine. Or the fact that 4 outta 6 of the par 3s are copies of each other. Or you just tire of the severe greenside bunkering, which forces high aerial approaches.
Gib once told me that at least RTJII took some chances at Poppy Hills whereas Rees just failed to do anything risky, unique or special. At the time, I didn't know enough to know if that was fair. Having seen more of Rees work in the last 3 years, I'd say Gib was brutally accurate as usual...
PS. I hadn't read most of this thread when I posted originally, and the fact that others independently posted similar complaints about Rees' works is a remarkable coincidence, I think. I don't think "groupthink" is really to blame here...
-
Kinda like your "intellectual vs dumbsters" thing in some respects. BTW, was I day dreaming about flying out to somewhere in Indiana because of some blog offering free golf? That blog is hard to keep up with, since the entry seems gone now...
I have a job to do in Terre Haute, IN today of all things so I had to take the offer off of the table. You got to remember...this was for a tues or weds in January...I didn't want anyone to read it a month from now and misinterperate..
-
Scott Burroughs,
If you've never played or seen Cascata, then your opinion of the golf course is worthless.
As to your ridiculous dare regarding cross bunkers,
Rees put a cross bunker in the 13th fairway at Atlantic.
Perhaps you should look before you leap to conclusions, even erroneous ones.
Tommy Naccarato,
I don't know that I'll be in the Phoenix area any time in the near future, but,if I am, I'll make the effort to get to Quintero.
Is it a housing development or a stand alone private golf course ?
If it's a housing development, does the golf course weave through the homesites, or are the home sites at another nearby location.
Do you have a street address for the club so that I can get aerials and topos ?
Mike Cirba,
I prefer ACIRBAC ;D
-
Scott Burroughs,
If you've never played or seen Cascata, then your opinion of the golf course is worthless.
I never said anything about the qualilty of Cascata, I just said that I wouldn't spend a lot of money to play his designs.
As to your ridiculous dare regarding cross bunkers,
Rees put a cross bunker in the 13th fairway at Atlantic.
I knew you were going to bring up #13 at Atlantic. Me saying "I DARE him to use one" does not in one iota mean that he has NEVER used one. I just DARE him to use them a little more often than once in a career. Rees' bunkering style and placement are boring and low in strategy, to me and many others.
You are one of very few people who defend Rees amongst the many rest of us who know that he is supremely mediocre as an original design architect. He routinely leaves disappointments on good-to-excellent pieces of properties that could have yielded much better, but we also know that you would NEVER admit to that, even if you felt that way.
-
Mike Cirba,
I prefer ACIRBAC ;D
Patrick,
I say "acerbic", you say "acirbac" let's call the whole thing off! ;) ;D
I figured you'd catch that one!!
-
Patrick,
Quintero is a housing community, but I would suspect its going to be more on the upper scale of housing. If I remember right, memberships are in the $250,000 range. The couse is routed around the housing or vice versus. Housing losts encircle many of the golf holes as they run up and down the various peaks and valleys.
Some of the repetition and regurgitation:
This comes from the parallel 11th & 12th holes. I actually drove back to the 11th after I came across the same scene at the 12th, just to get this picture, and believe it or not, I had you mind when I did it! Trust me when I say this, it isn't the same picture just taken at a different angle, nor some creative Photoshop work. My feeling is that the golf course became a write-in when it got this point, and judging from the rest of the architecture at Quintero, they may have started here first.....
(http://home.earthlink.net/~sandybarrensjr/rp1.jpg)
(http://home.earthlink.net/~sandybarrensjr/rp2.jpg)
-
If I am correct didn't Norman have some input in Quintero also?? Maybe this bunkering is his doing. ;D
-
Tommy
The housing there is more like 1M plus. Maybe a lot is in the 250K plus range. I'm not sure.
PDrake
Norman had no input on the existing Rees course. He was hired to do the second course there. This project is on hold pending building of the clubhouse.
Steve
-
Tommy
I think you are way off the mark there. The one bunker only has 3 little peninsulas flowing into the sand from the left, while the other has 5. How you could say therefore there is any repetition is beyond me.
;)
-
Andy, Your right! ;D
-
Scott Burroughs,
I defend Rees on specific issues, just as I've defended Fazio on specific issues.
I"m not one to criticize how a golf course plays without ever having set foot on it, which seems to be an abundant practice on this site.
Vague, global accussations hold no interest for me, but on specific issues, one's I'm familiar with, I'm willing to put forth a counter point of view.
I wouldn't know your motives for making the "dare" statement.
I can only take your typed words at face value.
Tommy Naccarato,
I'm not as offended by the picture of the bunker as you and others appear to be.
How did it fit within the strategic design of the hole ?
How did it play ?
Until I know those answers, I'm unqualified to judge its relative merit.
What you and many others may be missing is this:
Perhaps, this is exactly what the owner/developer wanted.
Most owner/developers, especially ones with millions invested in a large scale housing project, don't give an architect carte blanche.
No owner/developer would risk millions and be willing to be surprised on opening day.
Perhaps the owner/developer saw another Rees Jones course, contacted him and asked him to build a similar golf course at Quintero.
If people are shelling out millions of dollars for a golf/residential community one hour or more outside of phoenix, there must be something of value that they perceive they're getting for their money.
As, I've said, I've never seen or played the golf course, so I'm unqualified to offer an in depth, thorough analysis, as many others are willing to do. I'm just not that talented.
-
Is this the same Quintero that cracked the top 50 on Golfweek's top hundred modern list?
If so, how do you reconcile your opinion thereof, Tommy, with that of a broader base utilizing a standardized criteria? In other words, is everybody else wrong?
Rees is a regular on the top 100 list. Would you, and others dismiss his other courses appearing there as well?
Mike
-
Mike H:
You asked Tommy a series of interesting and worthwhile questions. Although you directed them to him I would like to respond from my perspective.
Frankly, many people here on GCA have a very limited understanding of the courses being mentioned. In point of fact -- many people have not played a wide range of courses in a designer's portofolio but feel compelled to weigh in with a definitive assessment on that person's capabilities whether it's pro or con.
I have personally played at least 50 Rees Jones courses nationwide spanning a time frame from the mid-70's to now. Much of what is directed about the shortcomings of his designs is clearly correct from my perspective. However, there are instances where Rees has done a superlative
effort -- a clear example being Olde Kinderhook just south of Albany, New York, to one that comes quickly to mind for me.
In my mind -- it's one of the very best in the Empire State and would easily be included among my top 100 courses in the USA.
Mike, the idea that ratings demonstrates something is difficult to say for sure. I have always questioned the idea that people who have only played course A, B and C cannot really know how course D, E and F stack up when you have completely different voters weighing in. Without some sort of meaningful cross comparison how does one really know what the numbers mean and how the respective raters assess what is a 7 with one course and a 3 with another?
I have played Quintero and concur 100% with Tommy. The course could have -- should have been much better given the site. Much of it is redundant formulaic hole creation that Rees has done elsewhere. It is not refreshingly original as you find with Olde Kinderhook and I would add Nantucket and Ocean Forest -- although those two courses I see being a bit below Olde Kinderhook.
Mike, when you say Rees is a "regular" on the top 100 list I have to say that for many raters there is little effort applied to playing a good number of courses designed by the so-called "lesser" known architects. The work of Baxter Spann at Black Mesa and Kelly Blake Moran at Morgan Hill are two extremely fun and exciting layouts but because the architects in both instances don't have "high name recognition" it's possible -- almost likely -- that few people may take the time to experience what a superlative effort both did with each.
I played Cascata ans frankly the routing is purely one dimensional and lacking. I don't doubt the demands of the site were certainly an issue but the qualities of what that site had versus say what you find at Shadow Creek are clear to me. I was hoping for something more original and clearly beyond the repetitive themes that Rees has seen fit to replicate there.
Cascata is a fine course but the possibilities for something more were lacking IMHO.
-
Matt,
If guys like you and Scott and Mike can see with little effort the failed potential of so many courses throughout the nation...Why don't architects give you a call and ask your opinion....or better yet why don't owners request your assistance.
Note: I didn't include Tommy because Forrest had the good sense to call him in...
-
Is this the same Quintero that cracked the top 50 on Golfweek's top hundred modern list?
If so, how do you reconcile your opinion thereof, Tommy, with that of a broader base utilizing a standardized criteria? In other words, is everybody else wrong?
Rees is a regular on the top 100 list. Would you, and others dismiss his other courses appearing there as well?
Mike
Mike,
It would be foolish of me to say that all raters think alike, nor should they. In fact, I will go out on a limb here and say I don't think a lot of them really study golf architecture as much as they study rating golf courses. I find that both positive and negative.
I do think what Matt says below, has some merit simply because many of us are willing to corner an architect's style and single it out--as we are doing here. Yes, it helps to see as much work as possible from any given architect--especially when you here a buzz about certain courses in upstate New York; or a coastline piece of property in South Carolina. One should be inspired to see these places if they want to study that architect's body of work, and I'll tell you that I would try to go out of my way to see any of their courses if I have the time and money to do so.
From a Golfweek perspective, I look at those greens at Quintero and thats about the only somewhat positive thing going on, and they aren't all that great either. Ther ejust average. It surely isn't in the bunker work or placement and it certainly isn't the balanced array of golf holes either. What was it that tickled the fancy of the rater when they were there? Well, it should be no secret that in the last few years, Quintero has dropped lower and lower, on its way out of the ratings. Given the history of the ratings I would suspect in a few years it will eventually drop out for good.
The shaping work and the attention to detail to tie it in to the hills and dales and exisiting terrain is also another point killer for Quintero. But the biggest crime of them all is of course the routing which is similar to a 200 mile tour of the swiss Alps, only this is the Arizona desert and with that beautiful, vibrant and arid desert atmosphere, it is ruined by cart trails that keep you away from the streets of this master-planned community. I'm sure it all works well for the situated houses that will eventually get built, but its situations like this where I think of Pebble Beach and how Golf took the forefront over property values. In the long run it makes a difference as far as how it fares on the Golfweek greatness scale.
One thing Matt fails to tell you when critiquing my assessment of Rees Jones body of work is that I do have a somewhat positive--scratch that! Make that, somewhat nice things to say about Santa Luz in North County, San Diego. Although it has many of the same problems as Quintero, some of them even worse, there are some really excellent strategies going on there; like at the 2nd, 3rd and the........the.......the? ? ? ? ? Well at least I'm trying! the cart rides are also similar to Quintero's. You follow a winding and turning cart path for what seems like 3/4 of a mile, and when you finally stop at the next tee, your only like 50 yards away from the green of the other hole! Don't ask me to further explain, but Matt will hopefully back this up. Its pretty ridiculous.
Next time in Vegas, I intend to visit Cascata and see for myself, and I'll probably go to Rio Succo too, just to broaden my views of the round mound of Golf Architecture rebound, Rees Jones.
-
So I deduce - No repeat Naccarato performance in that part of AZ in mid-April?
-
What you and many others may be missing is this:
Perhaps, this is exactly what the owner/developer wanted.
Most owner/developers, especially ones with millions invested in a large scale housing project, don't give an architect carte blanche.
No owner/developer would risk millions and be willing to be surprised on opening day.
Perhaps the owner/developer saw another Rees Jones course, contacted him and asked him to build a similar golf course at Quintero.
If people are shelling out millions of dollars for a golf/residential community one hour or more outside of phoenix, there must be something of value that they perceive they're getting for their money.
As, I've said, I've never seen or played the golf course, so I'm unqualified to offer an in depth, thorough analysis, as many others are willing to do. I'm just not that talented.
Pat, I find this to be a somewhat odd perspective when the architectural elements/architecural merits of the course are the discussion.
Even if a course architect creates a course that is 100%, spot-on what the owner wanted, what bearing does that have on how 'good', or 'awful', the course is? At that point, assuming the (hypothetical) course is awful, all that could be said is that the achitect created an awful course and gave the owner what he wanted.
-
Andy Huges,
Don't couch your comments in the hypothetical realm., it's a waste of time.
Let's deal with the courses being discussed
Don't you find your position conflicted ?
Quintera is a golf course that was in the Golfweek top 50 modern course list. That's pretty lofty territory.
And, somehow, you've transitioned the discussion to convey a mind set of an awful golf course that the owner wanted.
That's an absurd leap, but not untypical of what goes on when Rees and Fazio are discussed.
Have you played Cascata and Quintero ?
If Quintero is so awful, how on earth did it get into the top 50 Golfweek Modern list ?
More then a few people must have liked it, and placed it above other courses.
Is every single positive opinion WRONG, based on the GCA.com Rees principle ?
-
Don't couch your comments in the hypothetical realm., it's a waste of time.
Let's deal with the courses being discussed
The hypothetical aspect of this discussion came about because you brought it in Pat, not I. You said: "Perhaps, this is exactly what the owner/developer wanted."
So unless you know that this is what the owner wanted, it remains in the land of hypothesis/supposition.
Don't you find your position conflicted ?
Quintera is a golf course that was in the Golfweek top 50 modern course list. That's pretty lofty territory.
Nope, I don't feel in the least conflicted, and yes, that is lofty.
And, somehow, you've transitioned the discussion to convey a mind set of an awful golf course that the owner wanted.
Nope Pat, I haven't done that at all. Again, you are the one who brought in the possibility that the course is exactly what the owner wanted, not I. All I did was ask you what the owner's wishes for the course had to do with its architecural merits (or lack thereof).
That's an absurd leap, but not untypical of what goes on when Rees and Fazio are discussed.
It would be a absurd leap, if it had anything at all to do with what I said. Since it doesn't, I assume we can agree that there was no absurd leap? ;)
The course itself was being discussed, its features, its strengths, its weaknesses. Someone, out of the blue, injected the possibility that perhaps the course is exactly the way the owner said he wanted it.
Have you played Cascata and Quintero ?
Nope!
If Quintero is so awful, how on earth did it get into the top 50 Golfweek Modern list ?
More then a few people must have liked it, and placed it above other courses.
Is every single positive opinion WRONG, based on the GCA.com Rees principle ?
You will need to point out to me Pat where exactly I said Quintero not just awful, but 'so awful'. Short of being able to do so, I think it is fair to say you are off on a bit of a rant that isn't really based on fact or anything I said.
-
Matt -
Don't you find it curious that Tommy came to the same conclusion as you on Quintero, yet he hasn't done the heavy lifting on Rees courses that you have?
It's a shame that many here on GCA have such a limited understanding of the courses mentioned.
-
At that point, assuming the (hypothetical) course is awful, all that could be said is that the achitect created an awful course and gave the owner what he wanted.
This is what you said, emphasis added.
You implied that the course was awful by juxtaposing that qualifier in your hypothetical about the owner, when in fact, the course being discussed, Quintero, made Golfweek's top 50 modern list.
Your premise, that an owner would want an awful golf course, is absurd.
That you see no attempt on your part to mislead or misdirect the reader as to the quality of Quintero is part of your inherent bias ?
I brought up a very real possibility/probability, not the far fetched hypothetical that an owner wanted a bad golf course, that's absurd, and you know it.
Quintero making the top 50 would seem to indicate that the owner got what he wanted, a superior product, with architectural merit.
Tommy Naccarato posts two pictures of A SINGLE bunker and you and others pounce on the quality of the entire golf course, never having set foot on it.
Remind me, how many of Tommy Naccarato's, Matt Ward's or your courses have made it into the top 50 ?[/color]
-
Touche' George! Touche'!
Pat, The pictures are of two SEPERATE bunkers on two holes that are parallel to each other, one after the other and are close to the same in look and play and setting. The pictures are not of the same bunker.
I just wanted to clarify that, again.
It is my opinion Quintero is a course that has been overrated and does not deserve to be in any Top 100 ranking. You can decide for yourself all the reasons why it deserves to be there but according to any sort of critieria--it fails on most every level.
For what its worth, I believe Matt shares the same opinion as I do as far as the course is concerned. As far as the club and the property itself, well honestly, its easy to see why some might overrate it. I think as a club, the place is going to outshine the golf course.
-
And Pat, How many courses of yours have made it into the Top 50? ;)
-
'm not as offended by the picture of the bunker as you and others appear to be.
How did it fit within the strategic design of the hole ?
What strategy?
How did it play ?
I don't know, I was asleep.....
Until I know those answers, I'm unqualified to judge its relative merit.
Then why are you posting on this?
What you and many others may be missing is this:
Perhaps, this is exactly what the owner/developer wanted.
I don't doubt that one bit.
I think they wanted a big name designer and they got exactly what that big name has been known to produce on a somewhat regular basis. Some like it, most don't. I also don't think sales are that brisk.
Most owner/developers, especially ones with millions invested in a large scale housing project, don't give an architect carte blanche.
Pat, you don't know much about Rees Jones' perrogatives when he does his thing, do you? Rees standing rule is that he has full control of the design of the golf course.
Another way of looking at it is that he could simply turn it down if he didn't like the way the project was going to come out. With his level of success as an architect, you would think he would be more concentrated on producing quality rather then quantity. Quintero more then proves his trust in Fed Ex, UPS and the US Postal system.
No owner/developer would risk millions and be willing to be surprised on opening day.
Perhaps the owner/developer saw another Rees Jones course, contacted him and asked him to build a similar golf course at Quintero.
Pat, I don't doubt this one bit. Your probably exactly right about this. I would also suspect the owner/developer doesn't know much about quality compared to name value. Thus is the problem with most developers in America. The quality takes a back seat to quantity. This is why we are a nation of hype, consumption and compulsion. Those three tools that tap into the American mindset--BUY! BUY! BUY! Whatever it takes to make a buck!
If people are shelling out millions of dollars for a golf/residential community one hour or more outside of phoenix, there must be something of value that they perceive they're getting for their money.
As, I've said, I've never seen or played the golf course, so I'm unqualified to offer an in depth, thorough analysis, as many others are willing to do. I'm just not that talented.
Pat, your selling yourself short again. Your a tremendous litagator. You just lose every case you litagate when defending Russ Jones! :)
Time for me to do my part. I'm out the door and on my way to Costco! :)
-
At that point, assuming the (hypothetical) course is awful, all that could be said is that the achitect created an awful course and gave the owner what he wanted.
This is what you said, emphasis added.]
Yes Pat, that is what I said, after you brought in the totally hypothetical notion that maybe the course was exactly what the owner wanted. By doing that, you changed the entire direction of the discussion from one of specifics on the architecture of this course to hypotheticals as you have no idea if the owner wanted the course like that. Or do you? If not, then you, not me, veered this off-course and brought supposition into play.
My reason for specifically using the word 'hypothetical' I thought was clear: to try and clarify your point when you aparently tried to excuse the architecture of the course by saying in effect 'well, maybe its what the owner wanted.' I tried to separate my question about that rather odd stance from this course and make it general.
You implied that the course was awful by juxtaposing that qualifier in your hypothetical about the owner, when in fact, the course being discussed, Quintero, made Golfweek's top 50 modern list.
I implied nothing Pat. I was trying to get at the meaning of your end around, whereby you excuse what may be awful architecture by saying 'well, perhaps the owner wanted it that way.' I also specifically said it was a hypothetical course so it wouldn't reflect on Quintero.
Your premise, that an owner would want an awful golf course, is absurd.
Yes, that is an absurd premise. Its also not my premise. You're trying way to hard Pat to see a bogeyman where there isn't one.
That you see no attempt on your part to mislead or misdirect the reader as to the quality of Quintero is part of your inherent bias ?
While I have big buckets full of biases, I'm afraid I don't have ANY bias as it relates to Quintero. I have no strong feeling either way on the course, and I am still awaiting the quotes from you that show I have said Quintero is awful or that Ree Jones is awful.
Quintero making the top 50 would seem to indicate that the owner got what he wanted, a superior product, with architectural merit.
So now you are saying that any course that makes any list is architecturally good? Careful Pat, this quote could come back to bite you at a later date! ;D
Tommy Naccarato posts two pictures of A SINGLE bunker and you and others pounce on the quality of the entire golf course, never having set foot on it.
Actually Pat, go back and take another look. TommyN posted 2 pictures of 2 different bunkers on 2 different holes. But you have just sorta proved his point :)
Remind me, how many of Tommy Naccarato's, Matt Ward's or your courses have made it into the top
Sadly, my only effort, a short course in the backyard when I was 12 really sucked. But I am fairly sure I am still tied with you for the number of courses in the top 50 ;)
I have come to learn, though, that Matt Ward is really just a screen name for Jim Engh, and several of his courses have done pretty well.
-
Yes Pat, that is what I said, after you brought in the totally hypothetical notion that maybe the course was exactly what the owner wanted.
Hypothetical ? You must be losing your mind.
The owner wanted a Rees Jones product.
The owner wanted a superior product.
He got both, the golf course was ranked in Golfweek's top 50 modern courses, that seems pretty superior to me.[/color]
By doing that, you changed the entire direction of the discussion from one of specifics on the architecture of this course to hypotheticals as you have no idea if the owner wanted the course like that.
I guess common sense isn't so common.
You want there to be but ONE explanation of how the golf course was designed and created, to the exclusion of all others. I didn't change teh diection of the discusson, I merely inserted the element of sanity, or common sense.[/color]
Or do you? If not, then you, not me, veered this off-course and brought supposition into play.
Supposition ? If you didn't consider the possibility that the owner wanted a certain product, Rees Jones's product, then your thinking is extremely limited.[/color]
My reason for specifically using the word 'hypothetical' I thought was clear: to try and clarify your point when you aparently tried to excuse the architecture of the course by saying in effect 'well, maybe its what the owner wanted.'
Excuse the architecture ?
Don't you pay attention ? The golf course was rated in Golfweeks TOP 50 modern list. It needs no excuse.
I'm sure the owner is delighted with the results.[/color]
I tried to separate my question about that rather odd stance from this course and make it general.
Let's see if I understand this. You're taking a particular and expanding it to a general statement. And, you call that prudent thinking ?
Remind me again, how many times have you played Quintero ?[/color]
I implied nothing Pat. I was trying to get at the meaning of your end around, whereby you excuse what may be awful architecture by saying 'well, perhaps the owner wanted it that way.'
By equating, or discussing in unison, Quintero and "awful architecture" you expose your bias. It's been established that Quintero is a Golfweek top 50 golf course, yet you keep on wanting to create a ridiculous situation where an owner wanted an awful golf course where the architect fulfilled his wishes and produced an awful golf course.
It's so patently absurd that you're subtracting from the total sum of human knowledge about the field of architecture.[/color]
I also specifically said it was a hypothetical course so it wouldn't reflect on Quintero.
That's where the word Juxtapose comes in, or the phrase,
"guilt by association"[/color]
Your premise, that an owner would want an awful golf course, is absurd.
Yes, that is an absurd premise. Its also not my premise. You're trying way to hard Pat to see a bogeyman where there isn't one.
My vision and radar are better then you think, or giving you the benefit of the doubt, Tommy Naccarato may have unduly influenced your perspective. Don't feel bad, it's not the first time it's happened.[/color]
That you see no attempt on your part to mislead or misdirect the reader as to the quality of Quintero is part of your inherent bias ?
While I have big buckets full of biases, I'm afraid I don't have ANY bias as it relates to Quintero. I have no strong feeling either way on the course, and I am still awaiting the quotes from you that show I have said Quintero is awful or that Ree Jones is awful.
When you continue to harp on a hypothetical that presents the owner wanting an awful product, and the architect providing it, juxtaposed with Quintero, any prudent person can make the connection.
Methinks the man* doth protest too much[/color]
Quintero making the top 50 would seem to indicate that the owner got what he wanted, a superior product, with architectural merit.
So now you are saying that any course that makesANYrchitecturally good? Careful Pat, this quote could come back to bite you at a later date! ;D
I didn't say ANY list, you've misquoted me.
I specifically referenced the Gofweek Top 100 Modern list.
And, yes, I think that any golf course that makes the Golfweek Top 100 list, modern or classic, has architectural merit.[/color]
Tommy Naccarato posts two pictures of A SINGLE bunker and you and others pounce on the quality of the entire golf course, never having set foot on it.
Actually Pat, go back and take another look. TommyN posted 2 pictures of 2 different bunkers on 2 different holes. But you have just sorta proved his point :)
As I stated earlier, you've mistaken a casual glance for in depth analysis. And, anytime that Tommy has posted pictures of Rees Jones's work, it was to reinforce his agenda.[/color]
Remind me, how many of Tommy Naccarato's, Matt Ward's or your courses have made it into the top
Sadly, my only effort, a short course in the backyard when I was 12 really sucked. But I am fairly sure I am still tied with you for the number of courses in the top 50 ;)
I doubt that our architectural experiences are similar.[/color]
I have come to learn, though, that Matt Ward is really just a screen name for Jim Engh, and several of his courses have done pretty well.
-
Tommy Naccarato,
Did you play all 18 holes at Quintero ?
Have you personally read the contract that Rees had at Quintero or at any other project ?
Have you personally read the contracts that other architects use when they're engaged in a project.
Is there an architect you know of that doesn't contractually retain artistic license/authority in the design of the golf course ?
Tommy, you have this notion, removed from reality, that architects should turn down jobs, as if they don't have employee payrolls to sustain. As if they have no responsibility to the people who work for them and their families. If you keep turning down jobs, you may wake up one morning and not have one.
Quintero was rated top 50 in the country by Golfweek.
Why on earth should Rees have turned that job down ?
Why do you also draw the conclusion that these successful businessmen, who put up millions of dollars, are dopes, totally unknowledgeable about anything related to golf, including architecture. Most of these men are very bright, very savy.
Are we to look at the Ken Bakst's, Mike Keiser's and Mike Pascucci's of the world as uninformed nincompoops ?
The fellows who embark upon these projects are nowhere near as uninformed as you would have everyone believe.
As for it being all about money and profit, do you think that Friar's Head, Sebonack and others are giving away memberships. Since when is commerce with the intent of making money a bad thing ?
It's commerce that provides the jobs in America, not charity, and not dreams, but hardworking smart business people who risk their capital, create jobs and ongoing commerce, in order to make money. That's the entepreneurial spirit that helps make America great. A spirit that we've all been lucky enough to benefit from.
-
Pat,
Once again you come back with a weak commentary heard time and time again regarding Rees Jones. You haven't seen the course, still continuing the hipocracy of judging it by pictures and slaming those who do the same.
The course was overrated, and in March when the Golfweek ratings come out, will hopefully further prove how overrated it it has been in the past.
Feel free to go aheada and waste your time to go play the course on your next visit to the Southwest, when there are so many other great options in Phoenix and Scottsdale. If you need me, I'll be at Talking Stick, Apache Stronghold or any of the Schmidt & Curley courses around there. (And eventually WeKoPa II)
-
since when are ratings the tell-all for a great course.....especially a new one????
they probably comped all these raters and treated them like kings to get a good rating, which in turn = more $$$$ for real estate........
that bunkering at Quintero shows Rees has the imagination of a 5 year old!
-
Pat,
Once again you come back with a weak commentary heard time and time again regarding Rees Jones. You haven't seen the course, still continuing the hipocracy of judging it by pictures and slaming those who do the same. You say no one is allowed to judge from images of the Rees Jones Quintero course here, YET you were able to come-up with quick fix suggestions for Rustic Canyon threads by looking at pictures of them, no?
Getting back to Quintero........
The course was overrated, and in March when the Golfweek ratings come out it will hopefully further prove to you just how overrated it it has been in the past.
Feel free to go ahead and waste your time to go play the course on your next visit to the Southwest, especially when there are so many other great options in Phoenix and Scottsdale. If you need me, I'll be at Talking Stick, Apache Stronghold, maybe even any of the Nicklaus courses and any of the Schmidt & Curley courses around there. (And eventually WeKoPa II) They are worth my time and study.)
By the way, when Rees' Verrado at Dorrado course is eventually started and finished, don't bother with that one either. I saw the one hole they built out there and it was the same old, same old. From the looks of the plans, the rest is going to be the same! What else would one expect when your designing the course from a drafting table in New Jersey.
"I only use Dr. Jones-brand SNAKE OIL!"
-
If anyone has received a publication called : "The Best of Northeast Golf 2005" ...
...there is an ad for pencil sketches of famous golfers by a guy named Ron Ramsey from Bronxville, NY. Beautiful work Does anyone know him?
Kelly,
I tracked down these portraits by Ramsey at GolfOnline (http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/print/0,18068,468875,00.html)
Runyan, Strausbaugh, Bell, Flick
(http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/images/instruction/features/headshot.jpg)(http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/images/instruction/teachers/strausbaugh.gif)(http://i.timeinc.net/golfonline/images/2004/02/bell150.jpg)(http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/images/instruction/teachers/flick.gif)
-
Thanks Neil. Incredibly nice don't you think? I did contact him by email and he does not have a website yet, but boy I think those are nice.
-
Tommy,
Once again you come back with a weak commentary heard time and time again regarding Rees Jones. You haven't seen the course, still continuing the hipocracy of judging it by pictures and slaming those who do the same.
I've never judged the golf course.
If you could cite where I did I'd be most appreciative.
You didn't answer whether or not you had played all 18 holes.
Could you please do so.[/color]
The course was overrated, and in March when the Golfweek ratings come out, will hopefully further prove how overrated it it has been in the past.
Because a group of people disagree with you, the automatic default on your part it to declare that the course is over rated. I don't know if it is over rated or under rated.
What I do know is that it was rated in the GolfWeek TOP 50.
And that speaks to the product produced for the owner.[/color]
Feel free to go ahead and waste your time to go play the course on your next visit to the Southwest, when there are so many other great options in Phoenix and Scottsdale.
Why is it a waste of time ?
Are we to stifle or limit our experiences playing golf courses based on the opinions, biases or agenda of others ?
Didn't Brian Schneider advise this site not to play Hollywood, declaring that Rees ruined it, when in fact Hollywood is a terrific golf course, AND, Brian had never seen the golf course pre Rees, hence he had no basis of comparison, AND, he stated that Rees put mounds on the golf course when in fact those mounds predated Rees and appear to have been Travis's work ?
I'll play Quintero, and see for myself what the course is like.
And, just because I play Quintero doesn't mean I can't play the other courses you reference.[/color]
If you need me, I'll be at Talking Stick, Apache Stronghold or any of the Schmidt & Curley courses around there. (And eventually WeKoPa II)
Hopefully, I'll be there too. ;D [/color]
-
Hypothetical ? You must be losing your mind.
The owner wanted a Rees Jones product.
The owner wanted a superior product.
He got both, the golf course was ranked in Golfweek's top 50 modern courses, that seems pretty superior to me.
Before you diverted this thread, the discussion was on the merits of the golf course itself. Rather than actually address those or deal with those, you chose to instead say in effect, "So what? Maybe that's what the owner wanted". For example, Tommy N showed photos of two holes that were virtually identical, from the bunkering, to the curve of the hole, even to the backdrop.
For you to address that particular architecural issue by saying, "Well, maybe that's what the owner wanted" when you actually have no idea if the owner wanted a repetition of holes, an apparent lack of imagination, and perhaps a regurgitation of tired, formulaic design as has been argued by others is, frankly, silly Pat.
And trying to excuse that by saying it made some rankings list so therefore all is well and any criticism of its architecture is therefore wrong is shortsighted and narrow-minded. Common sense indeed!
You want there to be but ONE explanation of how the golf course was designed and created, to the exclusion of all others. I didn't change teh diection of the discusson, I merely inserted the element of sanity, or common sense.
I neversaid I wanted one, or any, explanation of the course was designed. (You seem to me doing a lot of 'putting words in my mouth' on this thread Pat. Not sure why, as I say plenty of stupid things, you don't need to set up strawmen that have nothing to do with anything I have said)
I merely tried to point out the lunacy of your dual positions:
1. no criticism of the architecture can be made because maybe the owner wanted it exactly as it turned out, though this is pure supposition on your part
2. The architecture must be good because it made a ranking list (if the course drops off the list, is that that then ipso facto proof in your world that the architecture is bad?)
Supposition ? If you didn't consider the possibility that the owner wanted a certain product, Rees Jones's product, then your thinking is extremely limited.
Pat, come back to common sense my friend. The issue isn't whether the owner wanted this or that. The issue was the architectural strengths and weaknesses of the course.
Don't you pay attention ?
I do, I do, raptly!
The golf course was rated in Golfweeks TOP 50 modern list. It needs no excuse.
I'm sure the owner is delighted with the results.
Oh. Well. That's a horse of a different color! I was under the impression that all courses could be discussed, analyzed, dissected, even criticized (other than NGLA, granted :))
Nobody ever told me about the 'Golfweek Top 50' rule
Let's see if I understand this. You're taking a particular and expanding it to a general statement. And, you call that prudent thinking ?
Let me see if I understand this Pat--you have no idea whatsoever what the owner wanted architecturally, but you are saying it is appropriate to squash any and all negative commentary on the course because you think there maybe perhaps could been a chance the owner wanted the architecture a certain way, and besides, it made a ranking list somewhere so is immune from criticism? Is that prudent?
By equating, or discussing in unison, Quintero and "awful architecture" you expose your bias. It's been established that Quintero is a Golfweek top 50 golf course, yet you keep on wanting to create a ridiculous situation where an owner wanted an awful golf course where the architect fulfilled his wishes and produced an awful golf course.
It's so patently absurd that you're subtracting from the total sum of human knowledge about the field of architecture.[
Well, we all have our gifts, mine happens to be that I lessen the level of discourse wherever I go, and lower the average IQ of whatever group I am in. It ain't much, but it's all I got.
That's where the word Juxtapose comes in, or the phrase,
"guilt by association"
The course was already being critiqued, mostly in a negative way. You tried to excuse away the criticism by saying maybe the owner wanted the course to be as it turned out. If we add those two together, the silliness of your position becomes crystal clear, and it becomes obvious why you now need to try and throw around big phrases like "guilt by association" which you know I don't understand.
My vision and radar are better then you think, or giving you the benefit of the doubt, Tommy Naccarato may have unduly influenced your perspective. Don't feel bad, it's not the first time it's happened.
No, I already have nothing but respect for your vision and knowledge. But for you to excuse away the criticism a course is receiving by saying maybe the owner wanted each hole exactly as it turned out is just wrong.
Also, you keep saying/implying my perspective of bias or outlook on the course is a certian way. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I have yet to give an opinion on the course--why do you insist otherwise?
When you continue to harp on a hypothetical that presents the owner wanting an awful product, and the architect providing it, juxtaposed with Quintero, any prudent person can make the connection.
Methinks the man* doth protest too much
I'm afraid I must continue dothing as you keep trying to insert words in my mouth, as well as trying to run from your original premise.
Actually Pat, go back and take another look. TommyN posted 2 pictures of 2 different bunkers on 2 different holes. But you have just sorta proved his point
As I stated earlier, you've mistaken a casual glance for in depth analysis. And, anytime that Tommy has posted pictures of Rees Jones's work, it was to reinforce his agenda.
I'm not sure what that means? Does that mean that yes, you now see that you were wrong about that being two pictures of the same bunker and that damn, those two holes do look a LOT alike and perhaps there is the possibility that maybe there was not a lot of original thought there? Or are you sticking to the story that the owner actually wanted two holes to be virtually identical?
Sadly, my only effort, a short course in the backyard when I was 12 really sucked. But I am fairly sure I am still tied with you for the number of courses in the top 50
I doubt that our architectural experiences are similar.
Again, as I am just a simple, unschooled man, does that mean that you do indeed have the same number of courses in the top 50 as me?
-
By the way, when Rees' Verrado at Dorrado course is eventually started and finished, don't bother with that one either.
I saw the one hole they built out there and it was the same old, same old. From the looks of the plans, the rest is going to be the same!
Now you're judging an entire golf course that hasn't been built yet by viewing one hole, that was probably in the dirt and unfinished ? And, you don't think you're biased, or have a predispositon to bash Rees's work.
Think about how you're allowing your personal vendetta to erode your credibility.[/color]
What else would one expect when your designing the course from a drafting table in New Jersey.
Do you mean like Donald Ross did from Rhode Island and North Carolina ?[/color]
"I only use Dr. Jones-brand SNAKE OIL!"
-
Before you diverted this thread, the discussion was on the merits of the golf course itself.
How could that be, Tommy's never indicated that he's actually played the golf course.[/color]
Rather than actually address those or deal with those, you chose to instead say in effect, "So what? Maybe that's what the owner wanted".
Again, not true, how can Tommy discuss the merits of the course if he's never played it ?[/color]
For example, Tommy N showed photos of two holes that were virtually identical, from the bunkering, to the curve of the hole, even to the backdrop.
You can't be that stupid.
Do you actually believe that both photos were taken as the golfer sees those bunkers in the course of normal play ?
Or do you think it's possible that the angle of the photos was a preconceived idea to put forth one's agenda ?[/color]
For you to address that particular architecural issue by saying, "Well, maybe that's what the owner wanted" when you actually have no idea if the owner wanted a repetition of holes,
How do you know that there's a repetion of holes ?
You've never seen the golf course.[/color]
an apparent lack of imagination,
How do you know that ?
You've never seen the golf course.[/color]
and perhaps a regurgitation of tired, formulaic design as has been argued by others is, frankly, silly Pat.
What others, one guy who never played the golf course and Matt Ward ? You must be kidding or obtuse.[/color]
And trying to excuse that by saying it made some rankings list so therefore all is well and any criticism of its architecture is therefore wrong is shortsighted and narrow-minded. Common sense indeed!
That's not what I said and you know it, so stop lying to try to support your argument. And, it didn't just make SOME rankings list, it made the Golfweek Top 50 modern list.
Are you now calling into question the architectural merits of all of the course that made the Golfweek Top 50 list, or just Quintero ?[/color]
I merely tried to point out the lunacy of your dual positions:
1. no criticism of the architecture can be made because maybe the owner wanted it exactly as it turned out, though this is pure supposition on your part.
That is a blatant lie and distortion of the facts and truth.
It's obvious that you've lost your ability to be intellectually honest, and as such, have zero credibility in my mind[/color]
2. The architecture must be good because it made a ranking list (if the course drops off the list, is that that then ipso facto proof in your world that the architecture is bad?)
Not just A ranking list, the Golfweek Top 50 modern list.
Any golf course that makes that list, even for a fleeting edition, has to have architectural merit, whether Tommy Naccarato likes it or not.
If a course drops of the list it just means that 50 or 100 courses are ranked higher.
This may come as news to you, but if a course is ranked 200-300 it doesn't mean that it's architecture is bad, only that people thought that there were 199-299 courses ranked higher.[/color]
The issue isn't whether the owner wanted this or that. The issue was the architectural strengths and weaknesses of the course.
Then tell me how you determine that when you haven't seen or played the golf course ?[/color]
I was under the impression that all courses could be discussed, analyzed, dissected, even criticized (other than NGLA, granted :))
Nobody ever told me about the 'Golfweek Top 50' rule
Then I suspect that no one ever told you about the common sense or intelligence rule, and that is, before you analyze, disect or criticize a golf course you should see and play it.[/color]
Let me see if I understand this Pat--you have no idea whatsoever what the owner wanted architecturally,
Would you like to bet on that ?[/color]
but you are saying it is appropriate to squash any and all negative commentary on the course because you think there maybe perhaps could been a chance the owner wanted the architecture a certain way, and besides, it made a ranking list somewhere so is immune from criticism? Is that prudent?
That's not what I said, and you know it.
How can you validly criticize a golf course that you've never seen or played ?
Play it first, then fire away.
If you don't think owners decide on the architect of choice because they like his work, you're out of touch with the real world.
If you don't think that owners have input on the golf course, you're naive, at best.
I never said that a ranking makes a course immune from criticism, that's another lie on your part, which seems to be your modis operendi.
What I said was that the course had to have something going for it if a body of raters felt it was good enough to make the Golfweek Top 50 modern list. That's a pretty lofty ranking for a golf course that you and Tommy Naccarato think is awful.
[/color]
... I lessen the level of discourse wherever I go, and lower the average IQ of whatever group I am in. It ain't much, but it's all I got.
I can see that.[/color]
The course was already being critiqued, mostly in a negative way.
By people who hadn't played it [/color]
You tried to excuse away the criticism by saying maybe the owner wanted the course to be as it turned out.
Again, I have to correct you.
The complaints were about Rees's style.
And I stated that perhaps, that's exactly what the owner wanted.
I offered no excuse.
I repeatedly said that I'm unqualified to judge the golf course because I haven't played it, and, I'm not willing to take the word of others who haven't, either. Apparently, you are.
In what context would you evaluate the criticisms of a golf course that you've never seen ?[/color]
But for you to excuse away the criticism a course is receiving by saying maybe the owner wanted each hole exactly as it turned out is just wrong.
That's not what happened.
Others objected to the Rees Jones style and I said, perhaps, that's what the owner wanted. But, it's not perhaps at all.
That's why the owner hired Rees Jones in the first place,
he hired him because he wanted the style that Rees produces
I think the owner got what he wanted.
A Rees Jones product.
A product that was well received in the golf world, as evidenced by Golfweek ranking it in the Top 50.
Your opinion is evidenced by your analogy[/color]
Does that mean that yes, you now see that you were wrong about that being two pictures of the same bunker and that damn, those two holes do look a LOT alike and perhaps there is the possibility that maybe there was not a lot of original thought there?
It means just what I said it means, that I barely looked at the pictures because I know Tommy's agenda, and his habit of taking photos from and angle that promotes his agenda.
Have you seen the two holes in question for yourself ?
Or are you relying on Tommy's unbiased presentation ?
You just don't understand when you're being duped[/color]
Or are you sticking to the story that the owner actually wanted two holes to be virtually identical?
I never stated that. It's just another lie and another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
But, tell me, how do you know that those two holes are virtually identical ? Have you seen and played them ?[/color]
Again, as I am just a simple, unschooled man, does that mean that you do indeed have the same number of courses in the top 50 as me?
It means what it says, that I doubt that our experiences with golf courses and architecture are the same.[/color]
-
Before you diverted this thread, the discussion was on the merits of the golf course itself.
How could that be, Tommy's never indicated that he's actually played the golf course.
Tommy hasquite clearly indicated that he's been on the course, but whether he has or hasn't, your argument should then be with whether he is equipped at this point to argue the merits of the course.
For example, Tommy N showed photos of two holes that were virtually identical, from the bunkering, to the curve of the hole, even to the backdrop.
You can't be that stupid.
Actually, I can be as stupid as I like Pat, but I am not sure why you have lowered yourself to be so insulting. I expect that from others; I expect better from you.
Do you actually believe that both photos were taken as the golfer sees those bunkers in the course of normal play ?
Or do you think it's possible that the angle of the photos was a preconceived idea to put forth one's agenda ?
I can only go by what Tommy said and what I see. The holes must be damn similar, as just a few posts ago you yourself thought they were of the same hole! I am sure you will either ignore that or wiggle away from it, but no matter how you slice and dice it, youwere the one who thought they were of the same hole!
For you to address that particular architecural issue by saying, "Well, maybe that's what the owner wanted" when you actually have no idea if the owner wanted a repetition of holes,
How do you know that there's a repetion of holes ?
You've never seen the golf course.
How do I know?
1. I have now seen photos so similar that you thought they were of the same hole
2. Tommy has been there and made that assessment.
3. Matt has been there and made that assessment
You have never been there--on what do you base your assertion that Tommy is wrong, that Matt is wrong, and that the pictures are wrong?
How do you know that ?
You've never seen the golf course.
and perhaps a regurgitation of tired, formulaic design as has been argued by others is, frankly, silly Pat.
What others, one guy who never played the golf course and Matt Ward ? You must be kidding or obtuse.
Well, at least I am no longer stupid!
Yes, others have said those things about the course. Perhaps they are wrong, I have no idea, but two people have seen/played the course and seem to agree about it. Therefore, I am stupid/obtuse/kidding to make the observation that they have both made those comments?? What that heck does that mean Pat, and who has lost touch with common sense here??
And trying to excuse that by saying it made some rankings list so therefore all is well and any criticism of its architecture is therefore wrong is shortsighted and narrow-minded. Common sense indeed!
That's not what I said and you know it, so stop lying to try to support your argument. And, it didn't just make SOME rankings list, it made the Golfweek Top 50 modern list.
Great, I am stupid AND a liar. You're on a roll Pat, though your manners are lacking today.
And, in fact, what you accuse me of 'lying' about is, in fact, an accurate portrayal of what you have said. You have defended the architecture of Quintero, a course you have never seen or played, saying Tommy and Matt are wrong (both of whom have been there), and your only justification is a raking it has received. So, what I said above is in fact accurate.
Are you now calling into question the architectural merits of all of the course that made the Golfweek Top 50 list, or just Quintero ?
I am not calling into question the merits of ANY course, even Quintero. Are you, yet again, putting words in my mouth Pat, 'cause that would be, like, lying and dishonest, wouldn't it? :)
I am STILL waiting for you to point out where I said the course was lousy or lacking or anything else.
1. no criticism of the architecture can be made because maybe the owner wanted it exactly as it turned out, though this is pure supposition on your part.
That is a blatant lie and distortion of the facts and truth.
It's obvious that you've lost your ability to be intellectually honest, and as such, have zero credibility in my mind
Again, this 'blatant lie' is, well, the truth. I am not sure, but I am pretty sure, that just because you keep sticking out your tongue and going "nyah-nyah", that doesn't change what you said before.
You defended the architecture previously by saying it might have been architecturally what the owner wanted. That is what you have said. If you would like to amend that, fine, do so, but what's the point of calling me a liar for pointing out what you did indeed say?
The issue isn't whether the owner wanted this or that. The issue was the architectural strengths and weaknesses of the course.
Then tell me how you determine that when you haven't seen or played the golf course ?
That's just it Pat, I have NOT tried to determine it. I have been just been listening to those who have been there, Tommy and Matt, as they discussed the course. The only dissenter was someone who has never been there.
As always, please feel free to show me where I was 'determing' that? Yet again, it turns out that you are putting words in my mouth, which yet again makes your frequent accusation of lying on my part sound, well, that perhaps it should have been directed inward by you?
Then I suspect that no one ever told you about the common sense or intelligence rule, and that is, before you analyze, disect or criticize a golf course you should see and play it.
I agree. So, yet again, please feel free to show me where I dissected or analyed this course? This is, yet again, just another instance of you accusing me of saying.doing something I haven't said/done. I see a pattern here Pat, and its not an intellectually honest one. Especially from someone so free and easy about calling others a liar.
Let me see if I understand this Pat--you have no idea whatsoever what the owner wanted architecturally,
Would you like to bet on that ?
Yes Pat, I would. I would be happy to bet that you haven't any idea exactly what the owner wanted architecurally on each hole, what features he wanted or didn't want.
I never said that a ranking makes a course immune from criticism, that's another lie on your part, which seems to be your modis operendi.
Stones Pat. And glass houses.
And yes, the courses ranking surely WAS your defense of teh course.
What I said was that the course had to have something going for it if a body of raters felt it was good enough to make the Golfweek Top 50 modern list. That's a pretty lofty ranking for a golf course that you and Tommy Naccarato think is awful.
Where have I said it is awful? "That's another lie on your part, which seems to be your modis operendi."
The course was already being critiqued, mostly in a negative way.
By people who hadn't played it
That would be true, except for the fact that it isn't.
Both Tommy and Matt have been there.
That's not what happened.
Others objected to the Rees Jones style and I said, perhaps, that's what the owner wanted. But, it's not perhaps at all.
That's why the owner hired Rees Jones in the first place,
he hired him because he wanted the style that Rees produces
I think the owner got what he wanted.
How do you know what the owner wanted architecurally? That is what is relevant to what was being discussed?
-
Tommy hasquite clearly indicated that he's been on the course,
He's been on the golf course, what does that mean ?
that he might have snuck on the golf course and taken a picture or two, and that qualifies him as an expert?[/color]
but whether he has or hasn't, your argument should then be with whether he is equipped at this point to argue the merits of the course.
If he hasn't played it, or fully examined it, how could he argue anything ? You cited him as an authority, you based some of your comments on his alleged representations.[/color]
I can only go by what Tommy said and what I see.
If Tommy's never played the golf course, or he just glanced at a few holes, how can you take his word on the architectural merits of the golf course ?
All of the raters PLAYED the golf course.
And, their collective opinion is that it's a TOP 50 golf course.
[/color]
The holes must be damn similar, as just a few posts ago you yourself thought they were of the same hole! I am sure you will either ignore that or wiggle away from it, but no matter how you slice and dice it, youwere the one who thought they were of the same hole!
This is where my "stupid" comments come into play.
Didn't I explain to you previously that I barely looked at the photos ? Didn't I explain to you earlier that my friend Tommy has a habit of posting views and angles that could be deemed unflattering ? Were you around when the Santa Luz (sp ?) bunker photo was posted ?
Were you around, recently, when he posted photos of the bunker/s at # 7 at Sandpines ? Have you learned nothing from his posting of pictures, beyond what's in the pictures ?
[/color]
How do you KNOW that there's a repetion of holes ?
You've never seen the golf course.
You never answered this question.
You state that Tommy, who's never played the golf course, maintains it. That photos, taken from a predetermined angle reflect a similarity, and that Matt Ward maintains it. I'm not sure that Matt was speaking to the specifics of the photos.
But, is Matt Ward's word, in the absence of Tommy's, now The Gospel for determining architectural merit ?
What about the WORD of all of those guys who played the golf course as raters and thought that it was a superior golf course, does their word count for nothing ? Is their word to be totally excluded ? Are 10, 20 or 30 people wrong, and the word of Matt Ward the onlyl right one ? Think about it before you reply.[/color]
Well, at least I am no longer stupid!
I never said that, I did indicate that you were obtuse. ;D[/color]
Yes, others have said those things about the course. Perhaps they are wrong, I have no idea, but two people have seen/played the course and seem to agree about it. Therefore, I am stupid/obtuse/kidding to make the observation that they have both made those comments??
Yes, because you've completely disregarded the word of 10, 20, 30 or more guys who have played it, choosing instead to rely on the sole opinion of one guy who has played it and another guy who admits to a built in bias against Rees Jones, who hasn't played it, but has seen it, whatever that means.[/color]
You have defended the architecture of Quintero, a course you have never seen or played,
Cite for me, one single example of where I defended the architecture of Quintero ?
What I defended was the method of analysis or attack on the golf course.
Matt Ward has played it, so I can't disregard his opinion.
But, so have the 10, 20 or 30 people who played it and rated it, so I can't disregard their collective opinion.[/color]
saying Tommy and Matt are wrong (both of whom have been there),
Been there. What does that mean ? That somebody wandered onto the property and took some pictures ?
Without direct information from Tommy, you don't know if he saw 2 holes, 4 holes, 12 holes, etc., etc.. Yet, as uninformed as you are to the extent of his examination, you're willing to state that his opinion is the definitive opinion on Quintero.
Don't get upset, but how STUPID is that ?
Now, Matt Ward is another matter. He played the golf course and as such his opinion has to be accepted. But then, so do the opinions of however many people played and rated it for Golfweek. You can't accept but one opinion, the one you've embraced to the exclusion of all of the other valid opinions.[/color]
and your only justification is a raking it has received.
And how was that ranking arrived at ?
By people familiar with the process, golf and golf architecture, who actually played the golf course. Whose individual opinions were melded into a collective opinion which produced an analysis that determined that Quintero was a Top 50 golf course. Is that imprudent ?[/color]
I have been just been listening to those who have been there, Tommy and Matt, as they discussed the course. The only dissenter was someone who has never been there.
Tommy has never played the golf course. Matt has.
And so have a good number of raters who determined that it was a Top 50 golf course. So, let's see, that's 25 to 1 ?
But, you conveniently want to accept one opinion and completey disregard 25 other opinions.[/color]
[please feel free to show me where I dissected or analyed this course?
It's simple, you championed Tommy's opinion of it[/color]
I would be happy to bet that you haven't any idea exactly what the owner wanted architecurally on each hole, what features he wanted or didn't want.
Let's not duck the issue by getting down to "exactly" how he wanted each blade of grass.
Do you want to bet or not ? If so, how much.[/color]
The course was already being critiqued, mostly in a negative way. By people who hadn't played it
That would be true, except for the fact that it isn't.
Both Tommy and Matt have been there.
Been there, Tommy's never played it. And as of this moment you don't know if been there means he snuck onto the course and saw a few holes or walked the course from start to finish. Matt has, and so have the 25 or so raters.[/b
How do you know what the owner wanted architecurally?
Why would I reveal that prior to our bet ?[/color]
-
Pat,
This conversation has become to NARROW minded!
You and I have discussed how many holes I played and how many greens I putted on at Quintero. (Or don't you remember? I called you almost immediately after I got off the course while I was on my way to Desert Mountain's Outlaw Course, REMEMBER?
I'll repeat this again, once the new Golfweek rating comes out, we'll see if I'm right or wrong about Quintero. My guess is that it is going to come back to Earth from its supposed once lofty status. I have also talked with other raters that have felt the same--Great place, mediocre golf course. That's my viewpoint of it, and I find great humor in the fact that you argue about a course you have never even seen or know anything about other then the pictures I have posted here and the information that everyone else has posted.
That is it for me until the next new thread on Quintero!
-
Tommy,
How did the text get narrowed ?
I don't remember that discussion.
Are you sure it was me ?
What date did it occur on.
A collective of people felt that it had enough merit to make the Top 50. If it should fall to 150, would that not be considered substantive enough to retain it's inherent merit ?
Or, is it such that once a course falls from the top 50 or top 100 that it has NO architectural merit ?
I never judged the golf course, it's individual features, holes or architecture. I repeated, time and time again, that I was unqualifed to do so because I had never played it, something we share in common.
I do know that a significant body of golfers, raters, played it and found it outstanding enough to classify it in the Top 50.
I'm not as prepared to ignore that fact as you and Andy.
It may be, that after playing it, I'll share views closer to yours then the raters, then again, maybe not.
While I agreed with your assessment on some of the shortcomings at Sandpines, it wasn't as bad as you made it out to be, and a lot further from the Pacific Ocean and the Ocean front dunes that were photographed and depicted as representing the site that Sandpines was built on, when in fact they were many miles removed from Sandpines.
And, you've been known to shoot from the actresses unflattering side.
In all fairness, playing the golf course would be a prefered method of judging it.
While I had walked every hole at Friar's Head while it was still in the dirt, nothing compared to playing the golf course when it was ready for play.
Hopefully, we'll get to play Quintero and other courses and engage in debate regarding their relative merit based on our mutual playing experience.
-
How do you KNOW that there's a repetion of holes ?
You've never seen the golf course.
You never answered this question.
You state that Tommy, who's never played the golf course, maintains it. That photos, taken from a predetermined angle reflect a similarity, and that Matt Ward maintains it. I'm not sure that Matt was speaking to the specifics of the photos.
Pat, no sense quoting your entire post, since so much of it is more of the same.
You have done a masterful job of diverting what we originally disagreed upon, and banging on about what you know was never the issue and what I originally called you on.
You bleat on and on about how can I possibly be criticizing the course, how can I possibly point out all these negatives, how can I ignore the ranking the course received. And I continue to say to you Pat, please feel free to show me all the negative criticism I have made about the course. Please feel free to show me where I have critiqued the architecture of the course. I keep asking you to show me some of that, and you continue to pretend that it is not being asked. So is it because you are utterly obtuse (which we both know is not the case), or is it because you know that you can't find any? Of course, that is the case. I know it, you know it, but you continue to bang on on that knowing full well that continually erecting that strawmen is really all you have, other than asserting that the owner wanted the specific architectural details the course ended up with.
Our discussion was, entirely, about your silly statement that the owner wanted all the architectural details the course ended up with. No sense in trying to change it to whether I am justified in making critiques of the course based on Tommy's and Matt's comments, as I haven't been making critiques of the course at all.
Please feel free to justify your absurd comment re the owner and what he wished for architecturally and whether he got what he wished for architecturally, but refrain from paragraph after paragraph about my criticizing the course and whether I should or shouldn't.
For example:
please feel free to show me where I dissected or analyed this course?
It's simple, you championed Tommy's opinion of it
That's it? I ask for specifics of where I have been criticizing the course, and after 4 pages, the best you can come up with is 'Its simple, you championed Tommy's opinion of it'?? That's awfully weak Pat, as well as being utterly devoid of any specificity at all. None. If that is the best you can do, I think it best that you avoid that line of argument as you clearly are firing blanks. Perhaps it might be better if you explained exactly how you know what architecural detailing the owner wanted?
-
Andy,
Tommy
I think you are way off the mark there. The one bunker only has 3 little peninsulas flowing into the sand from the left, while the other has 5. How you could say therefore there is any repetition is beyond me.
;)
You did say this didn't you ?
You also said,
"perhaps there is the possibility that maybe there was not a lot of original thought there" (Quintero).
Is that not criticism of the architecture ?
How would you know what was "THERE" ?
You also said,
"The holes must be damn similar ..."
All 18 of them ? How would you know ?
You also said,
"I can only go by what TOMMY said and what I see.
You blindly accepted all of Tommy's criticisms as valid, even though he's never played the golf course, and therein lies your criticism of the architecture, the golf course, the blind acceptance of what Tommy said, and your interpretation of two pictures, coincidentally angled to put forth his agenda.
You're also willing to totally disregard the opinion of 25 or so people who have played the golf course and found it to be outstanding, choosing instead to rely on the opinion of someone who has admited to a negative predispositon toward Rees Jones and his golf courses, yet, he's never played this one. And, you don't feel that you've been obtuse ?
Now, let me get this right, you still don't feel that you've been critical of the architecture or the golf course ?
Your own words speak loud and clear.[/color]
-
Weak Pat, very weak.
After all that, is that really the best you can do to make it appear that I have been criticizing the architecture of Quintero?
I think you are way off the mark there. The one bunker only has 3 little peninsulas flowing into the sand from the left, while the other has 5. How you could say therefore there is any repetition is beyond me.
An obviously joking line about 2 pictures that are damn near identical, so identical-looking that you yourself said they were the same picture? Did you happen to notice the emoticon at the end??
And the other one is a quote pulled out to stand by itself with no context that has the words 'maybe' and 'possibility', and was said in reference to someone else's conclusions who has been there, not mine? Oy.
And what was your last piece of 'evidence'? Oh right:
"The holes must be damn similar ..."
All 18 of them ? How would you know?
You of all people must surely agree that the pictures look 'damn similar' Pat, as you were the analyst who said they were the same hole!
But for you then to extrapolate from that, which is blindingly obvious and with which you agreed unintentionally be saying that the pictures were of the same hole, that I said all 18 holes are similar is either incredibly misguided, or, dare I say it, a bit dishonest (modus operandi and all that). ;)
You blindly accepted all of Tommy's criticisms as valid, even though he's never played the golf course, and therein lies your criticism of the architecture, the golf course, the blind acceptance of what Tommy said, and your interpretation of two pictures, coincidentally angled to put forth his agenda.
So your logic is that because I didn't argue with Tommy and Matt and tell them they were wrong even though they have been there/played there and I haven't, I therefore have negatively critiqued the architecture of a course I have never seen and have never actually critiqued either positively or negatively? That's an incredible leap Pat, and I should be ashamed for not telling Tommy and Matt that they were wrong for the obvious reason that, well, I have no idea.
And because I saw the same pictures that you did, and just like you found them to look incredibly similar, my 'interpretation' is somehow a negative critique of the architecture, while your interpretation, which lets recall was essentially the same as mine, somehow gives you the mind-reading ability to know exactly what architectural details the owner wanted. That's amazing Pat ;D
Your own words speak loud and clear.
Yes Pat, they do, and if you would be so kind as to actually show the ones where I am critical of the course it might help your cause. But please don't use the ones that are obviously said in jest, and please don't feel the need to take things out of context and then give them meaning you know was not in the original.
Also, I am still awaiting word on how exactly you knew what architectural detailing the owner wanted, other than that ESP thing you got going for you (which is kinda nice, I admit).
PS I also blame you for the incredibly narrow text of this page :)
-
Andy Hughes,
The tone of your posts from beging to end, speaks for itself.
Knowing Tommy's predisposition toward Rees, that it never dawned on you that perhaps Tommy took those pictures from angles that would make them look similar is puzzling.
Perhaps, in the play of the golf course, the view and impression of the bunkers is quite different from what Tommy depicted.
Inititally, you believed that Tommy had played the golf course, and relied on his opinion. When it became apparent that he hadn't, you fell back on the "he's been there" position. Yet, you still don't know the extent of his examination, but, you continue to support his opinion as The Gospel, while ignoring the opinion of 25 or so golfers who actually played the golf course.
25 or so guys played it, and thought highly of it, but you continue to ignore them and put all your faith in the opinion of someone who's never played it, someone whom you have no idea with respect to the extent of his examination.
How do you explain ignoring 25 or so bona fide opinions of golfers who have played the golf course versus someone who's never played the golf course ?
It's not that you didn't argue with Tommy, it's that you acccepted his every word as The Gospel, while ignoring the word of all of the Golfweek raters who PLAYED the golf course and found it superior.
As to the pictures, I never analyzed them, as you indicate I did. I barely looked at them because I understand Tommy's agenda. You don't even know if those two bunkers provide those views and impressions from the golfers eye, do you ?
Why would I provide you with that answer prior to making the bet ? ;D
As to the narrowness of the posts, Tommy says that it's Rees's mounding at Quintero that caused the text to be pinched in and narrowed. ;D
-
Tsk, tsk Pat. When it turns out that the sum of my critiques of the course turned out to be a tongue-in-cheek joke (complete with smiley faces) and a throwaway comment that completely agreed with your view of 2 pictures, you then fall back on the 'well, it was your tone'?
I assume there's not really any need for me to comment on the 7 paragraphs of yours that follow that, is there? If you are reduced to, in essence, saying that I did not actually negatively critique the architecture but perhaps my tone was somehow negative, then I think it is safe to assume that you are now clutching at straws.
Why would I provide you with that answer prior to making the bet ?
'Cause you're a helluva nice guy and you know my baby needs new shoes? :)
As to the narrowness of the posts, Tommy says that it's Rees's mounding at Quintero that caused the text to be pinched in and narrowed.
Now, that may be, but what does Golfweek think?
PS Out of deference to your wisdom, I went and checked the Golfweek Top 100 Modern list. I did not see Tobacco Road anywhere on the list. Therefore, that list is worthless and should be utterly cryit down. 8)
-
Andy Hughes,
With the abundance of golf courses built since rankings first came on the scene, Golfweek initially addressed that issue by doubling the Top 100, by bifurcating the list into classic and modern.
I would like to see them expand their list such that the second 100 on each list become visible.
Perhaps Tobacco Road is 101 ?
-
Perhaps Tobacco Road is 101 ?
Maybe that's it! ;)
Must be a tough neighborhood if an amazing, unique, fun course like TR can't move in though.
I noticed your Hidden Creek was at 76--does that seem too high, too low, or about right to you?
-
Gents:
I've been following with some interest, but even more amusement the back and forth volleys taking place here.
Let me weigh in with all this chatter on the meaning of raters and the process that flows from it.
I have always said that consensus-based ratings are not the best of approaches that can be taken.
The reason is simple. You have different people weighing in with different applications of numbers in various categories. I would much rather have one person do an assessment because you have two things then at work -- a better sense of consistency when various rating numbers are applied and a truer sense of cross comparison of different courses from different parts of the country. This then allows for a much more coherent assessment of courses in states, regions and even the nation.
The magazines don't take that approach and simply want to gather an "all volunteer" army of people and send them on their way. In many cases the top tier courses are no brainer selections -- e.g. Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Bethpage Black and others of that ilk.
However, the real issue starts with the second tier of courses that are a bit below bulletproof status.
For me -- I have played everything of note in the greater Las Vegas area. I played Cascata and while I found it fun and a good course -- I didn't see it being worthy of national acclaim for the reasons I previously stated earlier in this thread.
I have no predisposition / bias against Rees Jones or any other architect -- in fact -- I have been a defender of Rees Jones against those who have played only a tiny fraction of his designs. I go by a simple rule -- I look at each course as a separate and individual situation. Clearly, I do weigh in with a thought or two about the general evolution of an architect if I have played a fair sampling of their work -- in the case of Rees Jones I have played no less than 50 of his designs and I believe I am certainly able to weigh in with some total assessment versus others who have played far, far less.
In the final analysis -- it all comes down to a subjective assessment. I liked Cascata -- and if opportunity presents itself the next time I'm in Vegas I would play it. However, if the choice comes down to Cascata and Wolf Creek in Mesquite then I know the latter will be the higher priority for me.
-
Pat and Andy and Matt, too
I am not a rater. I have played Quintero 3 times. My wife had a hole in one on the 16th hole so it will always be a special place for us.For those out there who have NOT played Quintero, take a visual hole by hole tour of the course at www.quinterogolf.com
The following appears on the Quintero website. While it may be a little overdone, I cannot disagree with its essence... "Enjoyable Desert Golf in the Wilderness." ... "visually striking"..."playable"..."I did think the three downhill par 3's overdid the theme a bit"... I would add similar bunkering on a few holes but even then it's a course that the developer likes, the members enjoy and guests certainly remember. Unfortunately for me, my friend recently resigned his membership there.
A Letter from Ed Gowan Executive Director of the Arizona Golf Association on reflection of his initial visit to Quintero October 20, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I have been pondering my duty to you for the last three days. "Describe Quintero," you asked.
To begin, the AGA is always indebted to first-quality courses that feel a relationship with the AGA can help create exposure and serve amateur golf. Service to amateur golf is a quickly disappearing factor in the game today. I believe that the events we do jointly will help identify Quintero as one of Arizona's special communities. In my fifteen years, I have not seen many projects that can set a new standard for excellence. Desert Highlands in the 80's did that, followed by Desert Mountain along with The Gallery and Stone Canyon in Tucson; they established a new level of golf residential excellence. Other projects in the country have done their best in the given area, from Sea Island and the Cloister with its new Lodge concept to the estates of the Preserve in Carmel.
Quintero has taken the "path less traveled," or better yet, "the path not-yet traveled" with the Jones and Norman courses. The Jones course is a visually striking and playable desert course in the wilderness. Even with the construction of some housing, the dramatic setting of the holes and their isolation from direct contact with residences will retain the dramatic isolation the player will experience on each and every hole.
The design of bunkering and green sites seems to fit well into the grand vistas. At the same time, with only a few exceptions, the playability of the course remains reasonable for the average player. The bunkering will penalize only the better player for the most part, although visual intimidation will take its toll initially until each player finds his or her "best route" for playing the holes.
My best description, taking in all the above, would be "Enjoyable Desert Golf in the Wilderness." To me, there is a valid criticism for any such course in that the landscape does not allow the "real golf" of walking and carrying one's bag in three hours. On the other hand, I'm not sure the vistas of Kapalua are as engaging as those on several of Quintero's holes, especially those facing west in the early evening. As for others, I was anxiously anticipating a covered wagon turning a corner in front of us as we drove the course. You have the impression civilization is 200 years removed, yet the site is only 20 minutes from Circle Ks.
Hole by hole I found no weakness in the challenge. I did think the three downhill par 3's overdid the theme a bit. The green settings on other holes framed under mountain peaks were extraordinary. So, on the proverbial scale of 1-10, it's a "10" on the modern scale.
-
Steve:
A few thoughts from your post ...
1). I don't view Quintero as a "10" as Ed states. There are no less than 10 other courses in AZ that I would easily have above the Rees Jones layout. Frankly, I don't see Quintero making even a 12-15 listing. How it jumps into the high octane level with Desert Forest is beyond me. Candidly, I see Outlaw at Desert Mountain being beyond it and would add Chirichua, also at DM, and Whisper Rock, above it.
2). Keep in mind that Ed spends a bit of time in his analysis on the housing elements when weighing the merits of the course.
3). Ed plays down the downhill par-3's but they are one of the most glaring deficiencies at Quintero. Have we not seen enough of the drop-shot par-3.
4). Ed doesn't mention other Rees Jones courses he has played. I would like to know if he has played others because it would give me a sense if he has seen repeated patterns of design. Frankly, Quintero features much of the same bunkering pattern as other Rees Jones courses I have played (50+ in total).
5). I like Quintero but to include it at that high of a level -- in AZ, forget the USA -- bafflles me.
6). I'd like to see where Ed rates all the other courses in AZ but his role as Exec Director may preclude that.
Be interesting to see where Bill Huffman -- the former star golf guy at the Arizona Republic weighs in on the subject.
-
Matt
Quintero is certainly not a 10 on the Doak scale. Who knows what scale Ed uses. I think his description of "Enjoyable desert golf in the wilderness" is on point and I'll leave it at that.
Steve
-
Steve:
I would love to see knowledgeable people on AZ golf list their best courses from the Grand Canyon State.
How Quintero rates far ahead of others there baffles me.
Outlaw, IMHO, provides the quintessential experience because you have no housing, the views are outstanding and the design by the Nicklaus team is clearly a breed apart from the standard fare one normally associates with the Golden Bear.