[JNC Lyon]

I agree with Sean Arble here.  The course is probably fun to play without bad holes, and likely in great condition, but the bunker does not fit at all into the land.  Why is it only Doak, Hanse, C &C, and maybe a couple others who can make bunkers fit the land on rugged terrain??

[Matt_Ward]

JNC Lyon, et al:

I really enjoy when people proclaim bunkers don't fit the land and likely have not played the course in question.

I don't doubt Norman's Red Sky Ranch is not perfect by any means but it's a good more than some people are opining off of nothing more than "gut" impressions from simply viewing photos from the comfort of their living room.

I've played Norman's RSR twice and both times the course played very well -- the routing is nicely done to avoid long difficult slogs and the green dimensions / contours are suitably placed to make sure your approaches are rewarded / penalized proportionally.

The Vail Valley has certainly evolved from golf that is simply a gap item to handle the down time between the ski months.

[Kirk Gill]

I'd like to echo the statements about Keystone Ranch. It's been a few years since I played there, but I remember my rounds there very fondly, even if I have a hard time remembering specific holes. I also played near sunset, and maybe it was that "certain slant of light" that affected me, but it might also have been the fact that our group seemed like the only one on the course. It was less an experience of great architecture than merely a great experience, if that makes any sense.

Let's just say that there is some terrain that was not meant to house a golf course.

I'm sure there were plenty of folks who said the same when golf first came inland. I hear people say the same thing about the desert, or the flatness of the plains. There's no good reason that a golf course would be built where Jim Engh created Fossil Trace (or perhaps even where Mr. Doak built Stone Eagle, although I haven't played there). But each of those places seem to draw a good number of golfers who seem to be having some good times. I get where you're coming from, "in a perfect world," and all that, but to me it adds an element to my enjoyment of the architecture, to think how the designer managed to put THAT course in THAT place.........the spice of life !

[Garland Bayley]

JNC Lyon, et al:

I really enjoy when people proclaim bunkers don't fit the land and likely have not played the course in question.

...

Matt,

What don't you understand about butt ugly, and what does that have to do with having played the course or not?

[Andy Troeger]

JNC Lyon, et al:

I really enjoy when people proclaim bunkers don't fit the land and likely have not played the course in question.

...

Matt,

What don't you understand about butt ugly, and what does that have to do with having played the course or not?

Garland,
Thanks for that, very enlightening post.

IMO if people post photos the rest of us have the right to comment on what we see. However, the rest of us have the option of figuring out how much worth the comments hold.

Tommy,
Is this course more playable than the Mountain? I think the slope at Mtn was 149 from the back and was pretty darn tough. Its hard to tell from the photos but this one looks like it might have a little more room to proceed. This one looks like it should stay on my list of places to play up there, although there are quite a few worthwhile courses I have not seen yet.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
Thanks for that, very enlightening post.

...

Care to share your enlightenment with us?

[Andy Troeger]

I haven't played the course and the bunkers would not make or break the place for me without playing it. I'm interested in learning others opinions about the course, so if you found it worth making a comment I'd be more interested in knowing why you believe they are ugly than what you posted.

[Garland Bayley]

Andy,

I haven't read Richardson's and Fine's book on hazards. However, I have read Forrest's and Mark's posts here. They can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they believe as I do that bunker as hazards are far overused. I believe they believe that nothing is added to a course such as this by having so many bunkers.

As you know the mountain west of the US is a glorious place. To place so many out of place bunkers in such a beautiful place is an abomination. Perhaps think Tyra Banks with smallpox. There is nothing about most of those bunkers that look that much different than the scars left by smallpox.

The truth be known, much of the mountain west has land that can provide a wonderful test of golf without the addition of bunkers. Take for example, Forrest Richardson's Hideout. I must admit that I am not familiar with the ground for golf that is at Red Sky Ranch. However, I look at those bunkers and I see not only a defaced landscape, but I also see unnecessary cost of creation, unnecessary cost of maintenance, and as we now know a $250 green fee. In short, I see ostentation.

[Garland Bayley]

Andy,

Was that more enlightening?
 

[David Lott]

Of course these bunkers "fit the land"

First, they are put into the natural sidehill coutours of the holes, not built up or otherwise made flatter, deeper, etc. Thus they "fit" the contour.

Second, they shape the holes, on terrain that does not seem to have much natural shaping features at least in the photos shown.

Third, they are clearly designed to keep balls from rolling off the course, or from hole to hole, after a bad shot. (Most golfers playing most courses hit mostly bad shots.)

Fourth, they even fit the sky. Aside from spectacular mountains, none of which are evident at this course, the sky is the most lovely aspect of the western landscape. Take another look and see how many of the bunker groupings mirror cloud patterns in the sky. It's pretty cool, actually.

You may not like the overall look of the place, but it isn't because bunkers don't "fit the land."

[Matt_Ward]

For those lacking a bit in the analysis department -- how a bunker looks is not the central defining ingredient on whether or not it has significance -- the more critical aspect is how it plays -- and frankly those who opine from the comfort of their living rooms really don't know the answer to that since playing the course is a needed aspect before having conclusive proof beyond a "gut" assessment.

In sum -- what people "see" and what people know from personally playing is a major gap - as wide as the Grand Canyon.

Norman deserves high praise for what he did at Red Sky Ranch -- a very fun layout with plenty of fascinating holes to play again and again.

[Garland Bayley]

Of course these bunkers "fit the land"

...

Dang, I have been all over the mountain west and I haven't seen a bit of landscape that naturally looked like that. Just because a 36C might fit Tyra Banks doesn't mean I want her to put one on to please me.

As you may have guessed by now, you got the wrong definition of fit.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Third, they are clearly designed to keep balls from rolling off the course, or from hole to hole, after a bad shot. (Most golfers playing most courses hit mostly bad shots.)
...

Maybe it's just me, but they look like they are there to prevent the ball from running back onto the course after a bad shot.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy,

Was that more enlightening?
 

Very much. Thanks  

[Garland Bayley]

For those lacking a bit in the analysis department -- how a bunker looks is not the central defining ingredient on whether or not it has significance -- the more critical aspect is how it plays ...

Norman deserves high praise for what he did at Red Sky Ranch -- a very fun layout with plenty of fascinating holes to play again and again.

For those lacking in the reading comprehension skills -- they will not recognize that the critique was not about how the course played -- in fact the critique disavowed knowledge of how the course played.

...

In case you haven't noticed golf is fun. It doesn't take a Greg Norman group to make it fun, in fact I suppose some would argue that Greg Norman has the ability to take the fun out of golf. Seems on the dynamite-a-hole thread someone commented on him doing a dismal job that needed some dynamite to be applied.

[Ulrich Mayring]

It must be a horrible experience to walk this course? Seems like every tee shot is a drop-shot and the fairways are relatively flat - so there must be a severe climb between every green and tee?

I like mountain courses a lot, but more the Stanley Thompson style, where they fit naturally into the land. This course looks overbunkered and artificial to me. But maybe it's fun to play with a cart.

The European Tour plays on a mountain course this week that I have played last year (Crans Montana in Switzerland). This course is at an elevation of about 4500 feet, yet it is very walkable. And it was fun to play as well.

Ulrich

[Garland Bayley]

Ulrich,

That's it! Switzerland! You know the trains that go up the mountain from Zermatt? Chain in the ground and all. Put a short one of them between every green and tee, and our mountain courses would be a walkers paradise. Ride up, play down. Ride up, play down. Ride up, play down. ...
 

[Tommy Williamsen]

It must be a horrible experience to walk this course? Seems like every tee shot is a drop-shot and the fairways are relatively flat - so there must be a severe climb between every green and tee?

Ulrich

Ulrich, I walked the course.  I didn't carry though.  It was not a bad walk given the altitude and the elevation changes.  The course climbed steadily but rather slowly until about #14 when the course headed down hill.  

[Tommy Williamsen]

I'd like to echo the statements about Keystone Ranch. It's been a few years since I played there, but I remember my rounds there very fondly, even if I have a hard time remembering specific holes. I also played near sunset, and maybe it was that "certain slant of light" that affected me, but it might also have been the fact that our group seemed like the only one on the course. It was less an experience of great architecture than merely a great experience, if that makes any sense.

Let's just say that there is some terrain that was not meant to house a golf course.

I'm sure there were plenty of folks who said the same when golf first came inland. I hear people say the same thing about the desert, or the flatness of the plains. There's no good reason that a golf course would be built where Jim Engh created Fossil Trace (or perhaps even where Mr. Doak built Stone Eagle, although I haven't played there). But each of those places seem to draw a good number of golfers who seem to be having some good times. I get where you're coming from, "in a perfect world," and all that, but to me it adds an element to my enjoyment of the architecture, to think how the designer managed to put THAT course in THAT place.........the spice of life !

I played Fossil Trace amd thought that the land worked well for a golf course.  I especially like how he routed the back 9.  Very creative to say the least.

[Tommy Williamsen]

JNC Lyon, et al:

 
Tommy,
Is this course more playable than the Mountain? I think the slope at Mtn was 149 from the back and was pretty darn tough. Its hard to tell from the photos but this one looks like it might have a little more room to proceed. This one looks like it should stay on my list of places to play up there, although there are quite a few worthwhile courses I have not seen yet.

The tee shots at Rse Sky have  a little more room to stray without running into the natural flora and those nasty little creepers that don't have shoulders.  The course, however, is as hard as my mother-in-law's heart.  The shots into the greens are very demanding.  

[David Lott]

...
Third, they are clearly designed to keep balls from rolling off the course, or from hole to hole, after a bad shot. (Most golfers playing most courses hit mostly bad shots.)
...

Maybe it's just me, but they look like they are there to prevent the ball from running back onto the course after a bad shot.

In this case it is just you.

The one photo you pick, if you don't examine it fairly, supports your point. You ignore the rest, most of which support my statement that they have the purpose of keeping the ball on the course.

Plus the bunker on the right of the photo you chose has exactly the purpose I described.

As to the rest of the mountain west not looking like this, the scenery changes when you put a golf course on it. If you want it to look like there is no golf course, take a hike.

The cart paths I can do without visually, but since I am presently physically incapable of playing golf without a cart for very many holes, I am no longer very critical of cart paths.

[Matt_Ward]

For those who usually go a bit deeper into analysis - allow me to state this again for the hard of hearing.

How a course plays is the ultimate test. Throwing forward surface level gut opinions on simply who something looks from only POSTED PHOTOS is really no more than deep left field analysis on what is truly happening on the field of play.

I've played the course twice -- that's two more times than those who are simply talking out of their butt about what Norman did or did not do with Red Sky Ranch.

Those who have played the course and see it differently I salute them. At least -- the personal connection for comments is there.

When people look and not play you don't really delve below the surface. It's no less than simply looking at a plate of food and opining on how it tastes. That only comes when you put it in your mouth and swallow.

Like I said before -- RSR's Norman layout is well done -- it has a number of fun holes and it kept my interest the first time -- and on the return visit. In my book - that says something about the layout.

[Garland Bayley]

...
The one photo you pick, if you don't examine it fairly, supports your point. You ignore the rest, most of which support my statement that they have the purpose of keeping the ball on the course.

Plus the bunker on the right of the photo you chose has exactly the purpose I described.
...

Every photo given showing the drive has bunkers on the high side of the fairway.

Apparently there is something in the water or air out there that makes everyone drive it the same distance to be saved by that one bunker on the lower side of the fairway so its purpose can be justified. Probably has nothing to do with taking the most aggressive line off the tee, you know the kind of thing other architects waste their silly time building bunkers on.

 

[Garland Bayley]

...

Like I said before -- RSR's Norman layout is well done -- it has a number of fun holes and it kept my interest the first time -- and on the return visit. In my book - that says something about the layout.

OK Matt, you have the experience. Now can you please explain why there seems to be a bunker every 5 paces.

[Andy Troeger]

One thing I noticed when I played Red Sky Norman was that only some holes were heavily bunkered (see the previous discussion earlier in the thread). Most of them were in the photos posted previously on this thread (#4, 7, 12, 13 are probably the most overbunkered holes). I also played the Fazio course but agree with those that recommend playing the Norman if one only can play one course at Red Sky.

3rd Hole, long par four downhill


5th Hole, par three. Photo taken from near the 6th tee.


9th Hole, tough par four, from the landing area. Toughest hole on the course, not sure from one play whether I liked it or not. It reminded me a bit of a better version of #18 at Whistling Straits (other than the green), but this one is at least much more playable than that one. Its still pretty tough if you don't hit a fairly long drive in the proper location.


11th Hole, from behind and off to the left. No bunkers on this hole if I remember correctly.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()