[Jimmy Muratt]

Here is Ron Whitten's review of Tom Fazio's Dallas National Golf Club.  I think this is Ron Whitten's best review in a while, he actually takes a stand and lets his true thoughts come out.  He talks about the very high expectations of everyone involved with the course and whether he thinks it lives up to the hype.....

http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/critic/index.ssf?/courses/critic/dallasnational.html


Dallas National Golf Club, Dallas, Texas


Tom Fazio could be his own worst enemy.

He has designed courses at such a high level -- in terms of budgets, beauty and acclaim -- for such a long time that he has set a standard that even he can't possibly reach on every project.

Yet every client expects him to. That's why they give him the big bucks.

Worst yet, Tom seemingly expects it of himself and his company. Here's just one example: Four years ago, at the ground breaking of Dallas National Golf Club in Dallas, Texas, Fazio told the developers, "Whatever your expectations are, we'll exceed them."

I know that one of the developers envisioned a course that would ultimately be ranked among Golf Digest's America's 100 Greatest. How in the world can you exceed that? By building a course that would make not just the 100 Greatest, but the top 10, I guess.

In 2002, Fazio talked with reporter Brad Townsend of the Dallas Morning News at the club's grand opening. They also discussed several other high-profile Fazio projects in Texas, including The Vaquero Club northeast of Fort Worth, Briggs Ranch in San Antonio and the refashioning of the Jackrabbit Course at Houston's Champions Golf Club (originally designed 40 years ago by Tom's uncle, George Fazio). Townsend brought up his newspaper's annual ranking of the best courses in Texas.

"It sounds facetious, it sounds bad, but there's no reason why they all wouldn't be in the top 10," Fazio told him. "It's certainly not fair, it's not logical. But it's a matter of opinion. I am super-charged about Texas. My goal is that [my] three new courses be 1, 2 and 3 in the state, and I'm not going to pick the order, obviously. We're going to let you and your compatriots pick."

The News conversation then turned to Golf Digest's biennial ranking of America's 100 Greatest, and Fazio hinted -- I emphasize, hinted -- that Dallas National was first among equals.

"If you look at the so-called top 100 golf courses," Fazio said, "other than maybe Seminole Golf Club in Florida, one of the common themes is definition of elevation change."

Dallas National, he told Townsend, has the sort of exciting changes in elevation found on 100 Greatest courses. "It's nothing like anyone around here has seen, that's for sure," he said. "It's top-100 caliber, no doubt about it."

Dallas National wasn't old enough to qualify for Golf Digest's most recent 100 Greatest. It finished second in our Best New Private Course survey in 2003. More recently, the course was ranked second in the state (behind Colonial in Fort Worth) in the Dallas Morning News poll and was ranked 17th nationally by the publication Golfweek. I have no doubt Dallas National will contend for Golf Digest's 2005 100 Greatest rankings, which, I should point out, I have no vote on. Nor do I personally evaluate courses using the criteria of our 100 Greatest survey.

I'm bothered a bit by all this rush to judgment. How much of this is fueled by the force of Tom Fazio's enthusiasm and personality, by the level of expectation he brought to Dallas? How much is based upon objective, disinterested evaluations of the golf course? To me, Dallas National doesn't make my own list of 100 Greatest courses.

I was lucky enough to tour Dallas National during an early stage of construction, and to play the completed course last fall. It is a very fine course on a special piece of property, an old limestone mine, with plateaus and canyons now covered with cedar trees just six miles south of downtown Dallas. It indeed has the dramatic elevation changes Fazio was talking about. It also has the usual Fazio blend of attractive features seemingly molded into the landscape and a comfortable playability for a wide range of golfers.

It has some great, memorable holes, exceptional conditioning and world-class practice areas, but that's true of every Fazio course. It moves forward from the pack, in my mind, in that it's secluded, with no homesites around it, offers some spectacular vistas of Dallas (including Texas Stadium in the distance) and has above-average bunkering.

But those benefits are offset, again in my mind, by a few deficiencies. Its four par 3s are just average. The best is the 225-yard fifth, over a deep ravine, with a cleverly contoured green. But I've seen the 13th, with its green hunkered down in a creek bed, on at least half a dozen other Fazio designs, and the 245-yard 17th is the blandest hole on the course. Early in construction of that hole, they started bulldozing down through limestone, intending to create some sort of Black Diamond-like quarry hole. But they quit digging after about 10 feet, and the result is something that looks like a Hill Country road cut.

The par-4 12th hole also seems awkward to me, uphill and around a hill on the left, then down slightly to a green squeezed between a barren hill on the left and a creek bed on the right. The green has already been rebuilt once, I've been told, after it slid some during heavy rains.

Dallas National has several terrific holes. The squiggly 610-yard par-5 tenth, from an elevated tee, with a strategic diagonal string of bunkers on the second shot, and the awesome 458-yard par-4 15th, where Fazio wisely filled in half a canyon to avoid a forced-carry second shot, are outstanding holes. But for a course to be on my personal 100 Greatest, every hole needs to be outstanding. There should be no weak links.

I had a developer ask me, after I'd played Dallas National, if I didn't agree that it was the best Tom Fazio design ever. Well, no, frankly. It still doesn't meet the creativity of Shadow Creek, or the integration into unusual surroundings found at Victoria National. Heck, the Fazio course that came to mind when I played Dallas National was Karsten Creek in Stillwater, Okla., in similar terrain, vegetation and turfgrass. I think Karsten Creek has a more stirring finishing three holes, down and around a lake.

So there you are. Tom Fazio has established such a recognizable, prestige brand that I find myself judging Dallas National not on its own merits, but instead by comparing it to other Fazio products. I'm demanding that it exceed expectations established by rounds on previous Fazio courses. That's probably not fair, but Fazio and his clients seem to be encouraging just such comparisons.

By that standard, Dallas National just isn't one of the 100 best courses in the nation, in my mind. I don't mean that as an insult, but since I'm a golf course critic, it will probably be taken as one.

[Jason Mandel]

It was ineresting to read what Whitten wrote here.  Here is my take on it:  Whitten liked the course, he thought it was good, but I don't think this article was even about Dallas National, I think it was about the fact that Tom Fazio blows his own horn on basically every new course we see.  We've seen the quotes from the various websites "this is the best course I've ever built" or something like that from Fazio.  It's good that he stands up for the quality of his work, I like that.  What I don't like is the bullshit he tries to feed us about all of his courses.  I don't have a problem with the courses themselves, some of them are good to very good, and I havent seen his supposed best Vict. Nat or Shadow Creek, but I know when someones trying to feed the bs to try and justify his exorborant prices, and this is clearly PT Barnum in stlye.  

Jason Mandel

[Jim Franklin]

I don't think Matt Ward will agree with Ron's assessment, only because Ron thinks Shadow Creek and Vic Nat'l are Fazio's best.

[Jimmy Muratt]

I agree with Jason's comments.  Don't get me wrong, Fazio has done some excellent work, especially early in his career.  The problem now is, Tom Fazio always comes across as a salesmen.  Rather than letting his work speak for itself, he feels the need to talk it up and make "Top 100 or Top 20" promises that almost always can guarantee a letdown.  

I think it has a lot to do with his target audience.  It seems like many of the developers he works with and the members and players that he targets have unrealistic aspirations which lead to Fazio and his staff trying to do too much.

[DTaylor18]

Jimmy, that is one of the better reviews I've read, thanks for posting it.

Jim, from the review DN sounds a bit like Hudson National?  Having only played Hudson, is that a fair comparison?

[A_Clay_Man]

 Comparing DN to other Fazio designs is interesting, especially Shadow Creek. Since Wynn has design credit too, is that comparison fair?

One item jumped out at me and that was;

"There should be no weak links.

In the context given, this seems like a dangerous signal to send out to fellow critics, raters and readers. Not to mention ironic, since weakness was designed-in, at Shadow Creek. Ok, ok, so it was not really weakness, it was the over-the-top, hole after hole, TF warned Wynn about before starting the project.
 

[Joel_Stewart]

I thought it was a fair review.  He points out they have some weak holes and I agree that for a course to be top 100 you can't have that.

Fazio does promise the moon, Whisper Rock in Arizona choose Fazio for their second course over Coore-Crenshaw based on his sales ability.

[Matt_Ward]

Dan T:

I've played Hudson National and Dallas National and the former is not in the same category as the latter. That's not to say HN is not a very good layout but Dallas National encapsulates so much more because of the terrain it has and the greater array of holes along with a general routing that maximizes every inch of the property.

I agree with Jason M regarding the fact that Ron Whitten's review was more abot the Fazio spin he takes for each new assignment than for the overall work at Dallas National. In addition, Whitten himself admist that he is really assessing the product that TF produces and less so on what was there at DN.

Let's be frank -- when Whitten lowers the boom on some of TF's holes at DN being less than duplicates of other courses I can say the same for a great number of architects including some old time favorites from Ross to Raynor, to more recent designers including Crenshaw & Coore, etc, etc. My question is how bout applying this standard to others in the field and not just all of a sudden doing it with the latest from TF.

When Whitten lauds the "creativity" of Shadow Creek I have to wonder how dead flat barren land completely overhauled by man's hand can hold a candle to the likes of natural property that towers above all others in Texas and is created by Mother Nature? When he speaks about the unusual surroundings at Victoria National I don't doubt that, however, I have to question what was he looking at when walking the stunning property that makes up DN?

Truth be told -- Dallas National was not fuly reviewed because a number of stellar holes are simply forgotten by Ron's review. The course does start out slowly but so do a great many more noted courses. The par-3 5th is a dynamic hole and the stretch of holes from that point is rock solid. The long par-4 6th is well done -- the short par-4 7th is also good and the finishing par-4's on the front are diverse and use the land superbly.

The entire back nine is also well done -- if there are strategic weaknesses I'd like to see it. Ron points out the 12th green and that it had to be re-built -- my question is so what? How bout the finished product and does the hole play well? I saw it and there's no doubt in my mind that it's done well. I also take exception to what Ron said about the 17th because the green is set in such a way that any play that is either too timid or aggressive will meet a less than kind fate. When you have a hole that plays in excess of 240 yards you're not talking about a gimme hole by any means.

Let me also mention the brillant back-to-back par-4's with with the 15th and 16th holes! Each goes in different directions and the green sites are simply well done.

Dallas National may have some Texas sized egos -- TF included -- but the proof of the pudding is the taste and in my mind Dallas National has the totality worthy of the laudatory comments made by a great many people.

When Ron says, "I'm demanding that it exceed expectations established by rounds on previous Fazio courses," I beleve he missed the mark because Dallas National takes the time to deliver a superb site and couples that with the style and creativity that TF has taken to another level. If Ron spent more time analyzing the course instead of being taken aback by the TF spin production he would have seen what he truly missed IMHO.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:  So far the "great many people" who have lauded Dallas National include you, Lou Duran, and the developers.  Whitten's review is strong, but maybe he just has a higher standard for the top 100 than you do.

By the way, he didn't say the 17th hole was a gimme; he said it was bland, and implied it was sort of ugly.  I haven't been there, so I wouldn't know.

[Tom_Doak]

P.S.  I can sympathize with Tom Fazio a bit more these days.  Nearly every project I'm working on wants a quote from me about how their course is going to be "top 100" or better.

I still won't say it unless I think we've got a chance of doing it.  And it's just silly how many chances we've got right now.

[Lou_Duran]

Defending anything Fazio or Texan on this site is like kissing up to a GW rater (or one of the rattlers on the Muirhead thread).  Take Dallas National, call it something Valley or Hills, put a completion date on it sometime in the 1920s, attribute it to a Ross, MacKenzie, Tillinghast, Raynor, or even Bill Coore, or Tom Doak, place it anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon Line, and it is a work of genius.

I am not a member of Dallas National and really have no aspirations of becoming one.  Having played a considerable amount of golf throughout Texas since moving here from Ohio in 1978, I can state my opinion with a fairly serious face that DN is the best course in this part of the country by a fair margin.

Contrary to what Mr. Doak says, many people have lauded the course besides me, Matt Ward, and the developers.  It is not by chance that DN finished second to Colonial CC in "The Dallas Morning News" list of Top 50 Texas courses for 2004.  That Ben Hogan, Perry Maxwell, and Ralph Plummer have their names attached to Colonial, as well as the course holding a perennial top shelf invitational tournament, probably has a bit of an impact on the local panelists.  BTW, it takes at least 20 ballots to get on the Morning News list.

DN did rate in the top 20 on GW's modern list, so at least eight other panelists thought quite highly of the course.  But what do panelists from a couple obscure publications and 275+ members ponying up between $100m - $175m to join really know?  I mean, if the C&C course at Barton Creek is not even ranked and it is the least popular among the resort's guests, something rotten must be going on down here.  For God's sake, our own proud son's course, Austin Golf Club, barely made the top 50.  Bunch of stupids we are.

BTW, just like Ron Whitten, DN is not without faults.  I think that it transitions out of the box a little slow through the first three holes, then abruptly jumps in difficulty from there.  My least favorite hole is number #12 for the reasons noted, with #11 also being a bit awkward (both holes have wetlands and flood plain issues).  But those last six holes are nothing but great.

I totally disagree about #17, which does play less than its yardage, but allows a hard, high shot or one running on the ground.  The man-made canyon looks very natural to my untrained eye.  Incidentally, this is the hole where Fazio took great delight in telling the members that his client was initially concerned that the hole would be too bland, but after spending $1mm (probably a slight exageration) ripping rock to create the canyon, he (the developer) liked it just fine.

Just as some people on this site didn't like Shadow Creek, it is quite likely that they would balk at DN.  That's okay.  I can live with that, and so can Fazio, the developer, and the many happy members.  Golf is a great big thing.

Finally, if having a comparatively weak hole is justifiable criterion for excluding a course from the Top 100, I've yet to play a Top 100 course.  This is particularly true of courses predating WWII.  I was also under the impression that having 18 "signature" holes was not a good thing either.  Can Fazio not win for losing?

[Lou_Duran]

One other thing, who is the least photogenic, Richard Nixon, Tom Fazio, or Tom Doak?    Or maybe it is just the GW photographer whose ineptness is only exceeded by those in its rating panel.   It is probably a good thing that both Toms build some exceedingly nice looking courses.

[T_MacWood]

Several longs posts and I still have no clue what Dallas National is like (I haven't yet read Whitten's profile) - its strengths and weaknesses.

Usually there is a corolation between vague praise and architectural emptiness. I have no idea if DN is a good or bad golf course (or somewhere in between), but when your greatest supporters can't articulate the reasons for their support - JohnK w/Tom Fazio and PatM w/Rees Jones as examples - problems ensue.

[George Pazin]

Tom M -

You won't find a whole lot in RW's article, either. Maybe this will help a little:

http://www.dallasnationalgolfclub.com/dallasnational/course.html

For those who've played it, how walkable is it? The photos on the website are pretty, but, given the limitations of two dimensional photography, don't reveal enough of what the land movement is like, which is really critical in my book. I figured out that that is what I didn't particularly care for at Paa Ko Ridge - too many flat level stances. Enough uphill and downhill, but little else thatI noticed.

Lehigh is the only parkland course I've played that really stirred my soul - but I haven't played that many courses, so I'm not qualified to judge that. Give me open terrain any day of the week, that's my personal preference and bias.

Reading RW's last few columns posted on here, one gets the impression that he's getting a bit bored and jaded reviewing courses for GD....

[Lou_Duran]

TMac,

The problem might be that not many of us are as detail oriented as you are.  Nor do we possess the ability to describe features in the language which is meaningful to you.

George,

I've walked DN when I've played it, a slight oddity, but not unheard of there.  It is easier to walk than either Paa-Ko or Black Mesa.  And no, there are not many level lies.  The ground is generally rolling and tilting towards the various canyons, creeks, escarpments.  On the other hand, you must have played a different Paa-Ko Ridge than I did because I surely don't remember too many flat lies except for on the tees.

Re: Mr. Whitten- can a critic be a critic if he likes everything?  Taking a contrarian view is not unheard of on this site and it does have the tendency to garner attention.

[SPDB]

Joel -
Putting aside personal value judgments for a second, did the people behind Whisper Rock think that C&C would build a better course, but went with Fazio because he sold them?

on what?

[T_MacWood]

Lou
Maybe I do get caught up in the details, but I don't see how you can avoid getting caught up in the details if you have a strong interest in architecture. If you don't look at some details its hard to seperate Rees from Fazio or MacKenzie from Raynor.

I'm just looking for basic info--site, hazards, interest of golf holes, variety, greens, the piece fitting together well and last but not least how it strikes you personally (do you find it fun, do you like the aesthetic, etc)

* what is the site like, (if it is a good, great or unique site) how does the golf course work with the site, (if not so good a site) what has the architect created and how skillfully has he created

* what are the nature of the hazards (man-made and/or natural), how do they work with site and/or the overall scheme

* make up of the holes and variety. Do the par-3's standout in variety and interest, do the par-5's present interesting strategy and variety, do the par-4's have good mix of lengths and strategies

* the greens, interesting qualities of the greens or green complexes

* do the individual holes feel right as a whole, does it all blend well together - the individual holes with each other and the holes with the site or Nature

* I would like to know if the course is fun, does it have any unique qualities, aesthetics (I personally find this aspect very interesting), contours, etc

I don't expect anyone or everyone to hit on all these points, but a few would be nice -- particularly the site's natural advantages, the holes (variety & cool strategies) and is the course fun and/or interesting (and why do you find it fun and interesting).

And I almost forgot the most important information: The mission statement!

[SPDB]

Tom -
It seems like that is a classic appeal to ignorance, of the form that there is no evidence offered of architectural quality, therefore none exists. A lack of evidence is not evidence.

It could be just as possible that a praiser may have an equally difficult time describing what he likes about Cypress, Seminole or PH#2. By your logic, those courses would then suffer the same indictment.

[T_MacWood]

In my first post I said "I have no idea if DN is a good or bad golf course (or somewhere in between)"...in other words I make no judgment...I have no idea if it is a golf course I'd be interested in playing.

This what I do know about DN:

* the terrain it has and the greater array of holes along with a general routing that maximizes every inch of the property

* stunning property that makes up DN

* natural property that towers above all others in Texas

* the course starts out slowly

* the par-3 5th is a dynamic hole and the stretch of holes from that point is rock solid

* if there are strategic weaknesses I'd like to see (I'd settle for one strategic strength)

* DN did rate in the top 20 on GW's modern list, so at least eight other panelists thought quite highly of the course

I have no idea what this course is about.

Over time if praisers (defenders would be more acurate) can not explain (or refuese to explain) their reasons, you are forced to wonder if there is a problem, especially when you have drawn very different conclusions from identical courses.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

My standard for the top 100 is quite high -- I'd be happy to place it opposite yours or anyone elses and see how the chips fall.

Ron makes it a point to say that a top 100 course should not have any weak holes -- I guess he must have missed Pebble Beach and a few others of that type. I would still keep Pebble among the elite courses but my point is a simple one -- why does the standard of 18 bulletproof holes get hoisted on TF when the reality is that very, very few courses have 18 holes that are all-world -- even Pac Dunes has a few that don't jump off the charts but I'd still play it in a heartbeat.

Tom -- how bout a memory check -- there are raters from GolfWeek who placed the course within the top 20 -- I guess all of them are cowboys from Texas who are just mailing in the rating.

Regarding the 17th hole -- there are plenty of "ugly" holes in golf but they can be quite challenging and fun in there own right. The 17th at DN isn't going to challenge the 16th at CP or the 5th at PV by a long shot -- but it's still a good closing hole down the stretch.

The issue with Whitten's review has more to do with TF's boasting and his notion that everything he touches will automatically be a top 100 layout. Tom -- I'm aware that there are architects who do the Don King / Bob Arum "thing" regarding the product they put forward -- that when asked what is the best course they have ever done -- they almost always give the rote answer -- the next one! I've yet to meet any architect who doesn't have an ego -- some are the size of Texas!  

I also think I have enough experience to wade through the bull and see how a course stacks up against what has come before. Ron highlighted Shadow Creek as among TF's finest designs but beyond the engineering and massive amount of $$ to create something from nothing where are the quality holes at Shadow Creek. I don't see the course having more quality than Dallas National and I believe the hype of how Shadow was created is really the story line there.

I played Dallas National and I remember the specifics of that layout -- I didn't digress and start to hyperventilate about his previous work and then proclaim that there seems to be a great similarity with some of his holes. Hello! Plenty of architects will repeat styles of holes with future layouts -- last I check Seth Raynor is one of those folks but few here on GCA complain about it when it's done over and over again.

Lou D:

You hit the nail squarely on the head -- if the layout was done by some other annointed architect then all would be fine with DN. You also have the Texas bias because plenty of the people barking are lucky if they've played a few courses and many of them they have played are indeed from the dark ages in the Lone Star State.

Lou, I opined many times on Texas golf and I have said point blank that plenty of the slop that calls itself golf was from a period of time before the recent surge of golf development in the state. People need to play DN and venture down to Austin and tee it up at Cimmaron Hills before barking about how people can be so misguided on their views.

George P:

The course can be walked and it's encouraged whenever possible.

The land provides plenty of points where your tee shot needs to be for a better angle into the target. There are hills and valleys throughout the course -- uneven fairway lies can happen -- and if you simply bailout you will find the approach shots being longer and more demanding because of the angles. Like I said -- the layout can be walked and they have plenty of caddies on hand for such an option if you choose.

Tom MacWood:

Do yourself a huge favor -- breakdown and buy a plane ticket and see the course for yourself. I know what I saw and I liked it big time. I have had the opportunity to play 40-50 of TF designs, and, in my opinion, I would easily place DN among the top five I have played among his courses.

If you can answer I would like to know the five best TF designs you have played and why?

[T_MacWood]

Matt
I know you are consumed with rankings, but I'm not really interested in your top 5 Fazio courses or your top 100 courses. I'm trying to learn more about DN...why I should buy a plane ticket.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

I asked YOU for YOUR top five Tom Fazio courses that YOU have PLAYED! I know the best ones I have played and I would include Dallas National in that grouping.

I'll try to answer you question regarding Dallas National ... but I won't be involved in MacWood-itis -- the endless and inane game of parsing words until exhaustion. If you disagree with my conclusions / estimations of the facility then do as I suggested -- buy a plane ticket and play it yourself.

****

Dallas National

Texas Tees -- 7,326 yards / 76.1 & 155
Tees I -- 6,856 yards / 73.6 / 138
Tees II -- 6,514 yards / 71.8 / 136

After playing the course I don't see how the 155 slope is an accurate barometer of the overall demands -- I would gear it down to somewhere in the high 140's.

Let examine the course ...

1st (385 yards) -- Good opening hole. Plays slightly uphill with plenty of room in the drive zone. The approach also plays uphill to a green that is banked nicely from back to front and there are edges where the approach can simply roll off. With the hole pointing in the southern direction it's likely you will face a breeze in your face here.

2nd (541 yards) -- Good gambling dog-leg right with the land falling in favor of the player with the big tee shot who can stay close to the right and get a bit more yardage. The green is well done -- angled from lower left to back right with a neat bunker that guards the middle of it. Long hitters can get home in two but it will take a pin-point second to stay ont he putting surface.

3rd (175 yards) -- Plays in the same general direction as hole #2 but features a very long green that can make club selection a chore.

4th (554 yards) -- Plays in the opposite direction of the first par-5. Tee shot is slightly uphill and the best play is to hug the right side of the fairway to maximize your second shot possibilities. Green also has a few sharp edges so any approach had best stay near the target. Green is fairly large as well.

5th (225 yards) -- Superb long par-3 that plays over a canyon to a green that is both large and well contoured. Any pull left is deader than Elvis and should you go long the green is canted very sharply from back to front.

6th (452 yards) -- Plays completely away from the direction of the preceding hole. The tee shot bottlenecks into a tight fairway -- the deeper you go the straighter you need to be. Putting surface is slightly raised and slopes away from the different sides.

7th (356 yards) -- Good short par-4 that tempts the long hitter to go for it but unless the shot is laser-like off the tee the opening to the different pin placements is quite small. Best best is to hit a club that leaves you a solid 100 yards into the tiny contoured target.

8th (475 yards) -- Plays in the opposite direction of the first long par-4. Players must hit a tee shot on this slightly uphill target that generally plays into the wind and can leave all but the longest hitters hitting a fairway metal or very long iron. The green opening is quite narrow and although shots can bounce onto the target the probability for that to happen is not that easy.

9th (448 yards) -- Stunning par-4 that plays from an elevated tee to a fairway that has plenty of contour and movement. The better tee shot is to hit down the left side but there is not much room since anything pulled will reach the garbage. Push it too far right and the approach becomes a bit more problematci. Green is very skinny and a back pin placement will require accurate yardage and a deft touch.

10th (610 yards) -- Plays in the same general direction as #9 and from an elevated tee that sits way back in the trees. The hole features a cluster of fairway bunkers down th eleft side that can be carried by the strongest of players. If you opt to the right you avoid the bunkers but the second shot becomes much longer.

11th (408 yards) -- Plays uphill and the yardage is no where as near as long as it really plays. The tee shot needs to play down th eleft side because leaking it right may mean a lost ball or even if it's in play a more daunting approach to a green that has a wild array of contours. Miss right or left and recovering for a par is truly a test of maximum skill.

12th (429 yards) -- Also plays uphill but more on a straight line. The tee shot has to be accurate as the fairway is much narrower (at leasr it seemed to me) than the preceding hole.
The green is also angled slightly and when the pin is caught hard right you just have to know the precise yardage or simply err to the left safe side of the green.

13th (154 yards) -- Nicely done short par-3 that plays fairly level. Green is small so again accurate club selection is a must.

14th (374 yards) -- Plays in the other direction -- uphill off the tee to a superb fairway that will careen balls that hit to close to the edges. The green is another winner with a series of humps that mandate a finely played approach.

15th (458 yards) -- Long dog-leg left par-4. The key is keeping the tee shot as straight as possible because anyone attempting to cut the corner can find a huge waste area that is deadsville. The approach is played to an angled target and anything beyond the pin will encounter a glasslike speed putt.

16th (489 yards) -- Plays in the opposite direction -- long dog-leg right par-4 that asks the player to cut the corner. The green is another well-contoured surface with a back to front look.

17th (245 yards) -- The ugly hole as defined by R Whitten. Long par-3 that is quite tough to get near to the hole because of the way the green sits and the way the land is contoured just in front of the hole.

18th (548 yards) -- Good closing par-5 that plays in the opposite direction of the preceding hole. The tee shot is slightly uphill and long hitters can go for the green in two but the entire right side near the putting surface is garbage land and will likely mean either a re-load or unplayable lie. The green is angled nicely and there is a good bit of contour in the rear portion.

What makes DN such an interesting course is the change of direction of the holes (from a wind pattern perspective) and the general pacing and movement of the holes. There are no set patterns that allow the player to simply dial in at one speed level and go from there.

Like I said before -- when you marry the quality of the land provided and the interesting holes that TF has designed it makes for a winning effort in my book.

[Joel_Stewart]

Putting aside personal value judgments for a second, did the people behind Whisper Rock think that C&C would build a better course, but went with Fazio because he sold them?

Bill Coore lives across the street from Whisper Rock and thought it was the best piece of property he had seen in Arizona for a classical golf course.  Furthermore his bunker guru Jeff Bradley lives just a few miles away.

Fazios previous relationship with Gregg did have something to do with the selection for Whisper Rock.  Gary McCord told me that Gregg felt he owed it to Fazio to do the second course?

My thought has always been that Whisper Rocks feel (as a club for really good players) is going to be diminished by the selection of Fazio.  If you want to join a Fazio course in Arizona than go join Mirabel or Estancia.  There are no other private C&C courses in Arizona and as picky as Bill Coore is, probably won't be.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
I'm just looking for basic info - site, hazards, interest of golf holes, variety, greens, the piece fitting together well and last but not least how it strikes you personally (do you find it fun, do you like the aesthetic, etc).

I appreciate your  hole by hole account, but it sounds very similar every other modern golf course, with props toward the direction changes (not something I pay particular attention to...perhaps I should...but my experience is most courses contain direction changes).

I'm still clueless regarding the nature of the site, the nature of the hazards, the variety (long, short, hard, easy, wide, narrow, big, small, cross hazard, en echelon, diagonal, central, etc), green complexes and short game interest, how the pieces fit together (or don't fit together) as a whole and how the course relates to the site. Is the golf course fun, unique, aesthetically pleasing, etc....why is it fun, unique, aesthetically pleasing, etc...

I don't doubt it is a special golf course, I just haven't read anything that tells me it is special.

[A_Clay_Man]

#3


#9


#10


#13


#18

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()