[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

Thanks for the posts of the different pictures / re: The Raven at Verrado.

I see the 18th as the more strategic hole -- the narrowing of the fairway makes for a very demanding placement -- given the distance of the hole it pays to challenge that slot but there is mega danger should the execution fail to happen.

The 9th is also well done -- you would need to shape the shots accordingly -- moving the ball from left-to-right helps immensely.

In regards to Papago -- I don't have any comments on the "new" version -- but I think the original was really about a certain time frame for what it offered then. The state of desert golf since then -- both private and more importantly, public -- has really blossomed with a number of fun and compelling layouts. Would a layout of yesteryear still be able to hold it's own now -- I doubt it.

Be curious to know what people see with the "new" layout. Forrest did mention his concerns and I wonder if the playability / shot values elements, to name just two items, have been either helped or hurt when held against the original.

Tom:

You make a good point -- newer courses have included vast number of housing into the layouts and the golf connection issue gets strained further with massive cart rides. No doubt part of that has to happen because of the economics tied to the game.

Still, it was good to read about your enjoyment with The Raven at Verrado. I like the course a lot -- the housing is not as intrusive (yet) with other desert courses and the width dimension is certainly present to allow for as much playability as the site can offer.

Jonathan:

I like the original 18 at Gallery better.

The routing is better -- the newer 18 is more of an out and back setting which was meant to allow for more and more houses to be built.

I only wish the match play event could be held on the original but there are some cramped locations with that course.

Candidly, I salute John Fought / Tom Lehman for the first 18 -- one can make an argument that the excessively long 9th hole is more of a conversation item than a real strategic par-5. I'd like to see them play the hole at just about 600 yards so that the strongest players have to decide on how much risk they wish to entertain.

The second 18 at Gallery is just as well routed and fails for me at least to have a deeper roster of holes with more variety. It's still a challenge to play but I find the entertainment / fun factor better with the original.

What's your take ?

By the way -- I hope you can play Silverleaf when time permits. Wonderful layout and one of the best I've played from Tom Weiskopf.

[Tom Yost]

In regards to Papago -- I don't have any comments on the "new" version -- but I think the original was really about a certain time frame for what it offered then. The state of desert golf since then -- both private and more importantly, public -- has really blossomed with a number of fun and compelling layouts. Would a layout of yesteryear still be able to hold it's own now -- I doubt it.

It seems there are quite a few "layouts of yesteryear" that appear in the top rankings.  Take for example, Pinehurst #2.  Here is Donald Ross's so-called masterwork that is considered underwhelming by many.
 
I'm by no means suggesting Papago is comparable to #2, but just pointing out that older styles and traditional golf designs aren't necessarily always overshadowed by newer, flashier models.  If you look at the growing popularity of minimalism, Papago fits that mold perfectly (or at least, it did...)

[Jay Flemma]

Nice thread matty.  here's some of my faves - no order:

sedona
troon north (the old pinnacle, but I haven't been there since they switched the nines around)
ventana canyon (both)
tsn
we-ko-pa (both)
apache
blackstone
the boulders (south)

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Y:

Keep this in mind -- if the bones at Papago were THAT good to start with -- then why the desire to create a "new" Papago? Possibly someone who has played the pre and post versions can opine.

I think you are stretching the point in linking Papago to some sort of commonality with Pinehurst #2 (the subdued concept) -- no doubt you didn't mean a comparable situation in terms of course standing.

I just think from the many visits I have made to the AZ area that the benchmark of quality public couses has risen dramatically. No doubt a number of them have been impacted by the cluster of homes and the incessant cart rides as you make your way through the 18 holes.

Nonetheless, a place like The Raven at Verrado, Vista Verde, Saguaro at We-Ko-Pa, to name just two, are well done and have crafted a desert motif along with a compulsory architectural dynamic that calls upon the player to perform consistently through a wide range of holes that are both strategic and scenic in their appeal.

Jay:

Just a heads-up ... Ryan previously had asked me about public places. I don't see Blackstone as public. Ditto the South Course at the Boulders. They are simply resorts -- although in the summer months they may be more open to outside play without staying at the facility. I don't see them as bonafide 100% public courses in the same vein with Troon North, TSN, We-Ko-Pa or AS, to name several you mentioned.

You did mention Sedona and frankly I would award the place the "dumb blonde award" that Doak used in CG. The course is in an area of incredible beauty but there really isn't a hole there that really carries itself to a top tier of architectural wonderment. If I had to recommend a course nearby I would say StoneRidge in Prescott Valley. Gets little ink but is quite good.

[Jay Flemma]

well isn't 1 drivable?  4 is a good par-4.   I agree its not the most strategic course, but it's cheap...

[Ryan Farrow]

Matt I know I should have stopped this rumor many posts ago but from talking a bit with the architect in charge and reading many of the news stories and interviews about the on-going work, the course will be relatively un-changed. The bones will no doubt remain, the green contours preserved, the complete routing intact and a bunch of trees removed (although not enough IMO). I know of 3 major changes. 1) Lowering the lakes (Good) which were set above the fairway before 2) Raising tees & Possibly shifting a green site on 17. Grrrrrrreeeeat. That hole was horrendous. and A green was moved/shifted on #10 I believe.

I don't see how anyone who knows there shit could say this is not a top public course if the restoration turned out well, which most indications seem like it has been pretty successful. They nipped a lot of the big problems in the butt. Unfortunately I probably won't be able to check it out until sometime in January.

And Matt,  you talk about old time golf or traditions or whatever you want to call it. Dude, I am 22. I have no past memories from Papago's heyday. I have only known the beat up/overgrown and neglected Papago. But like MANY have said, the bones were still there, and that is what makes Papago special.

I'll put it up against Saguaro / Vista / and the Raven any damn day.


I think you just missed it. 

[Tom Yost]

Tom Y:

Keep this in mind -- if the bones at Papago were THAT good to start with -- then why the desire to create a "new" Papago? Possibly someone who has played the pre and post versions can opine.

I think you are stretching the point in linking Papago to some sort of commonality with Pinehurst #2 (the subdued concept) -- no doubt you didn't mean a comparable situation in terms of course standing.

No way was I trying to compare Papago to Pinehurst in terms of ranking, my (poorly expressed) point was only that in a general sense, old styles aren't necessarily trumped by newer styles.  This was in response to your comment that Papago "was really about a certain time frame for what it offered then" and your question "Would a layout of yesteryear still be able to hold it's own now?" 

As to the very good question why change it if it was so great?  The same could be asked of many classic courses that have felt the hand of modern architects seeking to put their name on things.  Why?  I don't know.  Empire building?  I think you said it best with the question you asked - "Would a layout of yesteryear still be able to hold it's own now?"  I think we know that the mindset here at GCA differs significantly from the mindset of the majority of the golfing public when it comes to architecture and maintenance.  It is easy to see how the desire to maintain the subtleties of the existing layout could be overran by the desire to create a "regional destination" and the predominate popular belief that new is better than old.  You gotta have waterfalls for that !

The AGA proposal and every press release issued subsequent to the contract award used the term "restoration," yet the final product  appears to have gained some significant modifications.  Without a clear directive for "sympathetic restoration" it seems there are few architects that won't try to add their own signature touch to a renovation.  Then there is the small concern that the AGA's chosen architect doesn't seem to have any track record for either new designs or renovations!  His only claim to fame that I can tell is that he was formerly the Super at ANGC.   

Like I said, I have yet to play the renovated Papago.  It is quite possible the changes have made it better.   I certainly hope so.  TBD.   

[Andy Troeger]

Ryan,
No way Papago comes even close to Saguaro IMO. I wouldn't be surprised if its better than I've given it credit for having only played it once and before the re-do, but I'm pretty confident on that one. Vista Verde too really--although that one might depend down the road on much devlopment occurs and how that changes the course.

I bet Papago stands up to TSN just fine though 

It does sound like the improvements will help, and I could see it moving well up against other Arizona public courses. Matt likes the overall group of them better than I do, although I think we agree that the majority of the best courses in the area are private. Colorado and Michigan and likely other states have a much better selection of public courses. Its comparing apples to oranges, but I think Indiana and Arizona would be an interesting comparison on the public side. It would be interesting (at least to me) to see if the renovated Papago would be ahead of my 10th best public in Indiana.

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

I can't comment on what is at Papago now. I do respect the comments made from Forrest R regarding what was done with the team that came in and decided to add their own "salad dressing" to the original salad that was present long before you even picked up clubs.

You say, "I missed it." Candidly, the former Papago reminded me of the shell of a course that was more about time from long ago. The game of golf design has accelerated greatly since the late 1980's and some of the more noted public designs -- such as Vista Verde, Saguaro at We-ko-pa and The Raven at Verradom to name just three, are stellar examples in bringing to life a true and meaningful desert golf connection that emphasizes a healthy marriage between playability and challenge.

Ryan, you say strongly that "anyone who knows shit" would place Papago at the top of the public charts for AZ. That's quite a statement because the former Papago was resting on nothing more than memories than anything else the last time I played it (about 10 years ago).

I have to ask -- you say definitively that all "the big problems" were "nipped ... in the butt." I don't know how you can say that with 100% certainty since you admit you have not played the course just yet.

Try to realize the bar for quality public course design in AZ has risen dramatically in the last 25 years. A number of key architects have been busy in the Valley area and beyond and the bar for such courses is no longer just your pedestrian muni with little real qualities attached.

You say -- without a personal play -- that the new Papago is more than able to match up against the likes of Raven Verrado, Vista Verde and Saguaro at We-ko-pa -- that's a tall order my friend and one I'll be most interested in testing when I play Papago this spring.

Tom Y:

I never said you were comparing specifically the likes of Papago to Pinehurst #2. Just the idea that the "old time" layouts have plenty to offer.

The "new styles" you speak about are courses that have greatly accelerated the desert / golf concept to a very high level. Weiskopf / Moorish did much on this front with Troon North -- those two 18-hole courses have since been passed by a broader array of top tier courses that are more unique while still permitting playability and overall scaled challenges. Just check out the qualities of AS in Globe. No doubt the shape of the turf has long been an issue but the detailing of the design is miles beyond the staid layouts that entered the desert scene from the time of the 60's and early 70's.

Tom, given what Forrest said the core elements of Papago have been changed to some extent -- clearly to the point of Forrest raising his own concerns given the pedigree of the course. I have no idea on what's been done now -- but if those elements that first made Papago special were that good -- then why the desire to change them? Maybe, just maybe, those things were needed to be done. Maybe, just maybe, those original elements were not as good -- when held against the gains made on the public scene by the sheer array of such courses since the late '80's.

AZ public golf has come a long way since its first steps -- Papago played a leading role in that effort -- however -- I think that modern public golf today in AZ has more than just a few standout designs that have taken what Papago first did and have gone many, many positive steps beyond.

Tom, I'd hate to see "waterfalls" or other goofy additions just for the sake of fanfare. How good is the "new" Papago? I have no idea. But, I think it's fair to say that modern architects have done well on a broad range of front in providing public players with some compelling architecture in the last 25 years -- places like Raven at Verrado, Vista Verde and Saguaro at We-Ko-Pa testify to that. Ditto a few others I have included as well.

Andy:

Interesting desire to hook up AZ public golf versus the Hoosier State. The old Papago could not sniff the top ten public in Indiana. It's a testament to how good the public depth is in that state. How would the "new" Papago fare? I don't have a clue now.

Interesting you mention Colorado public golf -- I see that state with some of the best options available for quality design. MI public golf has more in terms of quantity -- but I don't see that many of the best MI public courses holding their own with Colorado ... possibly closer to the level of AZ. Indiana is greatly underrated in terms of quality golf -- plenty of the hype often times shifts to neighbors such as Ohio and Michigan.

If the "new" Papago can really sniff a top ten placement when held against Indiana public golf then that's truly saying something for the Phoenix layout in my mind.

[Matt_Ward]

Just as an aside I have to mention that one of my personal favorite courses from AZ -- Geronimo at Desert Mountain -- was changed a number of years ago when the uphill par-4 13th and the delicious short par-4 14th were significantly changed.

Tom Doak's comments in CG about Geronimo were a bit harsh but I can perfectly understand how he could reach such conclusions given the need for strong driving skills.

The two holes were really complimentary to each other and the short 14th was one of the finest holes that Team Bear had created. The hidden bowl-shaped green was far different than what many had seen previously from Jack.

I also don't know if the facility still uses the tip tee at the 16th -- maybe someone can weigh in on this -- that back tee provided one of the most intimidating tee shots I have ever played.

I still like Geronimo with its grand par-3 18th bringing the round to a close. In fact, of all the par-3 closing holes I have ever played (e.g. Pasatiempo, East Lake, GCGC, et al) the closer at that layout is still the best for me.

Last item -- it amazes me on this discussion how few people have played most of the courses at Desert Mountain. Chiricahua and Outlaw are certainly worth playing if the opportunity arises.

[Peter Nomm]

Boy Matt - I couldn't agree more about the old 14th at Geronimo.  The anticipation after hitting your second and walking up to the pin to see where it ended up was great (especially on a left pin).

Last I was there the back tee on 16 was there, but in working there 6-years we never set markers back there.  I think you can still play it but it is not on record.

You talked earlier about the flow of Chiricahua, but I think a lot of the credit needs to go to Phil Smith, is design associate at the time.  There were quite a lot of in-the-field changes made for the better such as:

#2 - Originally just a Par 3 from the current teeing ground.  The green site was "found" while snooping around for a good cart path routing.

#3 - Would have been a straight-line tee-shot instead of angling to the fairway.  But as the path was being sought from 2 - 3, it served better placing the tees where they now are.

#4 - Jack actually wanted the tee fairly close to #3 green, hitting blindly over the hill left of the fairway.  Lyle said he was crazy!

#7 - Pond to the right drawn by Jack during a site visit.

#8 - Initially staked from tee way to the left.  I think that green is great where it is!

#10 - Green moved across the wash.

#13 - Debated adding a second green on the left to alternate on a regular basis.

#14 - Had about a million versions before settling on the final design.  I still think the green is quite awkward.

#16 - Originally a Par-3 like #2. 

#18 - Planned to have a pond to the right of the green, but wouldn't be very visible from the fairway so was removed.  Good call.

Definitely a FUN course to play, with a lot of variety.  Thanks for the thread.

[Jim Sweeney]

A reply that is a litle OT, but for those going to Rancho de Los Caballeros, take the time to tour the Desert Caballeros Museum in Wickenburg. The best public collection of old west stuff I have ever seen- leather, firearms, Indian garb, etc.- the real stuff from when the West was won. Also a wonderful gallery for original artwork from the late 1800s and early 1900s including Remingtons, Fanrneys, and much more and a facinating display of local minerals . If you live in the valley, shame on you if you don't go see it.

BTW, I like Matt's list but still think Desert Forest is #1, especially since the areas adjacent to many fairways have been cleaned out.

[Matt_Ward]

Peter:

Thanks for the detailed comments.

It's good to have someone who understands what Desert Mountain is all about bringing forward such comments. Too many people have only played one or two courses at the complex and depending upon which ones they played determined their opinion for the entire range of courses there.

The 14th at the old Geronimo was one of the best holes I have played in AZ -- it's a shame to see it RIP.

What really made playing Geronimo so much fun was the stress it caused on the tee shot -- you just knew that you needed to marry both length and direction on any number of holes encountered.

When people talk about exciting first holes -- the beginning tee shot at #1 on Geronimo has to rate right up there. The desert unfolds below you and the Tonto National Forest takes up one's eye in the distance.

Let me just say that the 16th is not the REAL 16th unless you play it from the tips if you are a low handicap player. When the tee is there and you encounter a prevailing south to southwest wind you'd better make sure you catch the tee shot square. One of the most intimidating holes I have ever played because you know what needs to be done and you MUST do it.

Thanks for mentioning Phil Smith's name -- he deserves plenty of credit for what he provided to Chiricahua.

I really like the 2nd hole there -- one of the best short par-4's from Team Nicklaus that I have played. Going for the green is not E-Z but the lay-up shot doesn't guarantee a low score either given the skill level required.

The 3rd is a fantastic par-5 because you need to decide at the tee how much do you dare try to cut-off. When I played it I had a good amount of wind helping and was able to cross the channel that cuts across. Even then a second shot to the green was no less daunting.

The first three holes really get you going in grand style.

I also love the back-to-back par-4's at the 8th and 9th holes. Two superb holes that really ask for everything from the player and when justifiably earned there is no greater feeling than accomplishment when doing it.

Have to say this -- the uphill par-5 17th is a bit of letdown for me. The hole gives you an opportunity to get one back but I don't see much there from a design standpoint.

You're right / re: the 18th -- the last thing the hole needed was for a pond to be inserted into the mix.

I've always enjoyed the four rounds I have played there because you get the total desert experience -- it provides playability to higher handicap types but will not concede anything except when accompanied by stellar play. Hard to fathom why this Nicklaus layout -- including Outlaw -- get so little attention given what others in the immediate area receive.

Peter, last comment -- I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the original Geronimo -- one last comment -- one of the better par-4's I always enjoyed playing was the mean son-of-a-bitch 5th hole - just a real ball buster but one that did reward absolute first rate execution.

Hard for me to fathom why Outlaw is so despised by the membership -- I've also heard talk that Lyle was considering selling the course to Troon Golf. Any truth to that ?

Jim S:

My wife and I toured the museum in Wickenburg and it's everything you said and so much more. Hard to fathom why anyone would not want to take the time to see it.

Help me out -- glad to hear about Desert Forest and the cleaning-up of the off-fairway areas but I have to wonder whether the details around the greens are of equal or greater stature than a few of the more recent additions to the desert scene -- for example, the Lower at Whisper Rock or even places like Outlaw / Chiricahua at Desert Mountain.

If you have played them -- be curious to see where they would shake out with your own listing. Thanks for the comments and course updates. I hope to be back in the Scottsdale area immediately after the PGA Show in late January.

[Peter Nomm]

Nearly every hole on Geronimo offers some sort of risk-reward.  Some on tee-shots, some on lay-ups, and, of course, approaches.  Yes, #5 is fantastic.  Always loved #7 & #8 - especially before all the houses were there.  All the par-3s are fantastic too.  I still probably enjoy Geronimo more than any of the other 5 myself.

The old "way-back" tee on #15 was pretty dramatic too (it's now a house).

Outlaw is a great and demanding course.  Better have your irons dialed in - especially your distance control.  I like that you can hit driver all day.

No doubt the brown winter appearance is not liked by most members, but it sure provides for firm and fast conditions.  I have seen players bounce shot-after-shot over greens (ie. #2) and I am sure this also contributes to the general displeasure.  As far as it being sold - Lyle no longer owns it anyway so it wouldn't be him selling in the first place.  The members are scheduled to take it over in 2010 from what I know, but haven't heard much talk about Outlaw being "outed."  I haven't worked there since 2000, but several members of my club here up north are also members there, so I will check it out and post something if there is some truth to the rumor. 

[Matt_Ward]

Peter:

Sorry to hear that the "way back" tee on #15 / Geronimo is no longer there. Can you tell me what the actual new "back tee" distance is now.

Given what you have said -- how do you see the "existing" Geronimo faring against the original 18? If you had to apply a Doak number to the original versus the existing would they be?

Outlaw proves the point that when a general golf crowd plays point-to-point over-watered layouts they will always bitch and moan when playing a layout where shot control is pivotal and where the judging of flight and roll are essential elements. I think Outlaw is a revolutionary layout from what you generally see in the greater Scottsdale area. The only downside I have always had is with the approach to the 10th hole -- a bit severe given the shallow nature of the green when approaching from the fairway -- when people can hit towards the 11th fairway and have a better angle from that direction something is wrong with the hole itself. A bit of a change would be helpful.

Part of the grandeur of Outlaw is that housing is really not a concern when playing. You can also walk the layout -- last time I was there people did use pull carts. The land for the course is really good and Team Nicklaus did a wonderful job in bringing to life the elements many people want in modern golf. Amazing to see how little appreciation there is for such a layout. If it is sold -- I can only hope its overall presentation and architecture will be preserved and not turned upside down.

[Peter Nomm]

Not sure what the yardage is, but there is no tee behind the original gold tee (same as #13 - that old "green" tee is also now a house!).

Realistically the only change for 99.9% of the players is #14.  Those green tees definitely made a HUGE difference, but it is like Erin Hills - hardly anyone ever plays all the way back.

That said, the change on #14 was sickening.  Besides losing a great hole, the new 14th is so un-inspiring.  It doesn't fit - the fairway is far wider than any hole.  A long-hitter simply cuts over the desert and has a short wedge up to that hybrid green.  When they built the new green, they left half of it there and just build it up to the new approach side.  Shorter hitters (average golfers) can't get it over the hill to the flat part of the fairway and have a long, blind uphill approach shot.  But it sure helped sell some more lots

You hit it about Outlaw - most golfers DON'T appreciate a ground game like you can use there.  If #10 wasn't so penal left, players wouldn't need to bail-out right.  They could probably still fix it by clearing a little more desert left of the green (create a bail-out area).

Outlaw is VERY walkable - and credit a lot of members for doing so there.  It is the only course on property that gives easterly views like it does - the Four Peaks with snow on it is awesome!  I have a feeling it will gain more and more acceptance - maybe slowly - but it will get there.  There are too many fun holes for it not to be played. 

[Matt_Ward]

Peter:

Amen -- on the saturation with the housing. DM lost a bit of its uniqueness when the holes / tee boxes were altered for those reasons.

You didn't answer my question on Geronimo -- Doak number you'd apply to the original and to the course that's there now.

Last item -- I have a feeling if Outlaw were designed by another person rather than Nicklaus - it would have gotten more acclaim. I know when I played it the first time there were a couple of people I bumped into after the round and it was there first time too and they had no idea that Nicklaus and his team could create such a thrilling and fun course to play (save for the 10th hole which needs some serious help).

Sad to say - many people on this site have never set foot on DM or only played one or two of the layouts there. It amazes me when people speak about desert golf in AZ and cannot reference their comments on what DM has added to that equation.

[Peter Nomm]

I'm not well versed on the Doak scale so I skated by the question.  If continuity is part of it, it loses a lot of value.

Outlaw definitely is not typical "Nicklaus."  Story goes that they wanted a walkable & playable course (aka easy for the members).  Got the walkable.  Not the playable if you ask the average member.

But could you imagine if DM had used 6 different architects for each course.  Would probably be one of the best facilities in the nation!

[Matt_Ward]

Peter:

Scale of 1-10 with 10 being absolutely perfect and zero being a total dog -- how would you rate the original Geronimo with what's there now?

Ditto for Outlaw in terms of a rating number.

Outlaw has a first rate presentation but as I said to you with my last post it constantly surprises me how few people have ever played DM or simply played just one or two layouts -- normally Cochise since it hosted the seniors there for so many years.

[Peter Nomm]

Oh simply I would rate the current a 6.5 and the original a 7.  There still are so many great holes that I love playing it whenever I am in the area. 

I would probably put Outlaw at a 6.5 as well.  Chiricahua a 7. 

Even with 2500 members, it is still strictly members and their guests, so they are not easy to get on.  Plus guest fees are probably still about $175. 

DM gets a lot of crap, but all in all a member there has 6 really good golf courses to play (including Renegade which is 1 1/2 courses in one).  Lot's of variety.  It is definitely far from a "member" experience overall as large as it is, but that's why they all go north for the summer.  I'd pay to be a member if I had that kind of $$$$.       

[Matt_Ward]

There's really little discussion on this site of the tremendous qualities found at Whisper Rock in Scottsdale.

The original 18 was brought forward by Phil Mickelson and Gary Stephenson and opened in early '01 -- now called The Lower Course. The course blends in with the desert and doesn't attempt to build up features that often times are seen with the other courses in the area.

The drive zones are also neatly disguised to provide the sense of more danger than there really is. It's tough not to get hesitant before pulling the trigger and executing. The greens and their surrounds are also not harsh in nearly all instances. There are preferred sides and you need to avoid missing whenever the pin is cut too close to one area of the green.

Almost four years ago a second layout (The Upper) was included from Tom Fazio and while the land for the second is more rolling the distinct nature of both courses has enough differentiation to drive interest for both courses --although I still prefer the original 18.

The key for the appeal for the Lower for me is how fairways shift at all times -- you can't simply grip and rip with being conscious of playing angles. For a guy who really is a poor driver of the ball -- I salute Phil and Gary for being able to make sure that total driving -- power plus position -- lies at the core of the course.

Whisper Rock gets little attention on this site because it's quite private. Candidly, I am amazed at how little attention it does get. Maybe others can weigh in with their thoughts. One other note -- for as much ink that Estancia legitimately gets -- the Upper Course can easily strike a good case that is equal -- if not better.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
I think Whisper Rock is tougher to access than most of the other even private clubs in town. I am hoping to play one of the Desert Mountain courses next month, hopefully others at another time.

[Matt_Ward]

Look forward to your comments ... the access issue has likely worked against Desert Mountain and Whisper Rock -- both of the facilities don't really genuflect to people who are raters and that is their prerogative.

The problem with ratings is that it's important for key people to make sure they have played the key candidates -- when I see the Digest and Golfweek state listings I have to wonder if that's happened or if people are simply adding more weight to favored architects no matter what comes forward.

Desert Mountain is a facility of immense proportions. What I mentioned to Peter reflects my personal angst on what happened to Geronimo. I am happy to hear he feels the same -- with particular respect to the old 14th green site. It was a fantastic hole -- Doak does mention this as an FYI in his review of the course (which I feel demonstrates Tom's bias against tough driving courses) in CG.

Whisper Rock has much to celebrate from an architectural dimension. The two courses are not carbon copies of each other and the original 18 will clearly give any level player more than they can handle -- at the same time playability is not compromised with either layout provided the players understand their own limitations and only play from tee boxes from which they can handle.

Be curious to see if others have any comments on the courses at DM and Whisper Rock. If one has not been to both then the education of desert golf from a purely personal standpoint is limited in my mind.

Happy New Year !!!

[Matt_Ward]

Unrelated to the thread but still something of interest -- does anyone know if green fees for the public available courses have dropped given what is generally charged during the peak winter months.

Someone asked me this -- be interested if others can comment.

[Brian Joines]

Unrelated to the thread but still something of interest -- does anyone know if green fees for the public available courses have dropped given what is generally charged during the peak winter months.

Someone asked me this -- be interested if others can comment.

I'm in Phoenix now and just played 3 rounds this week. Here is the pricing on all of the courses I played.

Vista Verde - $75
Troon North - Monument - $99
Talking Stick North - $80

I booked all of these rounds through either golfhub.com or golfnow.com. I don't know how these compare to prices in the past two years but they seemed very reasonable for peak season rates. I think Vista Verde and TSN were particularly good values. I don't think I'd pay $99 to play at Troon North again. I enjoyed holes 14,15 and the views on 16 but the rest of the course was just OK. (I may have missed something on the front nine due to an extremely slow and frustrating pace of play?) I look forward to getting back to TSN and Vista Verde on my next trip.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()