[Bill_Schulz]

During the past two weeks, I have had the opportunity to play for the first time two "over the top" courses (both have slope ratings in excess of 150) with dramatically different reactions to their architecture. One course I can't wait to play again and the other course I'll probably never visit again.

Two weeks ago in 50 degree weather after walking Pinehurst #2 with a caddie in the morning, I carried my clubs around Mike Strantz's wildly imaginative and aesthetically pleasing Tobacco Road in the afternoon. Despite a slope rating of 150 this "Pine Valley on steroids" requires the golfer to navigate their shots both aerially and on the ground around/over/laid up around the many bold and naturally integrated hazards that abound on every hole. At only 6532 yards from the tip monuments, yardage is decidely not the key ingredient for this 7 handicap but rather chess like course management skills. When the course is great (such as the beatifully blind dell that hides the green of the par 5 13th hole) Tobacco Road reminds the golfer of the 7-8-9 stretch at Cypress Point. When the course is "over the top" such as the 432 finishing hole which requires a 200 yard plus carry over an unforgiving looking quarry to a relatively narrow fairway then followed by a somewhat blind approach to a platued greensite with a bottle like opening the golfer is reminded that life is unfair and that sometimes bogey is a good score (and is certainly better that the double or triple that awaits the golfer that unwisely forces the action). The waste areas are beautifully integrated and the bunkers are rugged and asymetrical. I particulaly remember enjoying the little blow out area of only a few feet that disappears into tall weeds in the right greensite bunker on the short par 4 5th hole as one walks up to the green on the right through a small green walking patch of fairway. Despite the long walks from the 12th green to the beautifully elevated 13th tee and then again from the world class greensite for the par 3 14th hole to the 15th tee and also walking during my morning round, I felt exhilirated throughout the round with a bounce to my step as I couldn't wait to see what challenges Tobacco Road would serve up next.

In contrast today I played Dennis and Jon Rider's (the developers and apparently architects) Wolf Creek course in Mesquite, Nevada. With a slope of 154 from the tip monuments at 7073 yards, this dramatic course offers both postcard scenery looking from the rocky bluffs down to the overbunkered fairways with canyon desert walls on both sides yet very little strategy. The course's challenge comes from the long forced carries from the back tee on 1 (sorry Matt Ward but this tee should be retired as it is virtually abuts the resort lodging), 2,3,4,5,8,9,14,16 (which is close to a 270 yard carry over a canyon!),17 and 18. While 8 is beatifully enchanting par 3 of 248 yards downhill to a greensite surrounded by water on all 4 sides (think of the tough par 3 16th hole at Victoria National and add 70 yards, the entire experience is akin to a full contact rollerball game. The golfing experience is further diminished by the approximately 12 miles of cart paths. As it would be nearly impossible to walk between holes without desert survival skills, the course lacks both pacing and rhythm. Wolf Creek is perhaps best enjoyed by those golfers that like to drop a few extra balls here and there to see if they can "do it if they really hit it out there."

As a former caddie at San Francisco Golf Club in my youth and an avid walker, I would like to offer my Southwest (I live in Scottsdale) Top 10 Cartball Venues as follows:
1. Stone Canyon-Jay Morrish design with fascinating greensites
2. Desert Mountain (Chiricahua)-Nicklaus stategic effort with somewhat bland bunkering (I feel that way about much of the Desert Mountain bunkering) and a mind numbing clubhouse in the clouds.
3. Quarry at La Quinta-An excellent course on a difficult site. Shades of Shadow Creek meets Reflection Bay landscaping.
4. Paa Ko Ridge-A Ken Dye gem (thanks for the heads up Matt Ward on this one).
5. Sanctuary-Another postcard beauty including back to back par 3s that would take at least an hour if both were walked.
6. Quintero-A hottie marred by flat greens, potentially the same iron played on all four par 3s and no short par 4s.
7. Desert Mountain (Geronimo)-See comments on Wolf Creek.
8. Wolf Creek
9. Arizona National (formerly Raven at Sabino Canyon)
10. An unidentified scramble tournament course complete with beer coolers and GPS.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bill;

Unfortunately, I've played none of the courses you described in your post.

However, I would like to commend you for such a well-written, descriptive essay that gave me a good sense of each place.  To my thinking, this is the type of delineating prose that is one of the real attributes and enduring values of this site.  I hope others who have played any of these courses will jump in with their own concurring or dissenting views.

[David Kelly]

I happened to play Wolf Creek this past Wednesday and I agree with you completely.  We played in 30 mph winds which made the course close to unplayable.  This is ur-cartball golf at its most extreme and we spent most of the day slamming on brakes and blasting over the SPEEDBUMPS that were placed throughout the course to keep people from killing themselves while flying down the sides of mountains.  The drive between 8 and 9 is the longest I have ever seen on a golf course.  I felt like I had to warm up again when I got to the 9th tee.

Most of the strategy was trying to figure out what club to hit off of the tee to clear a canyon but leave the ball short of another canyon.  I striped a driver off of the 2nd tee down the heart of the fairway only to watch it fly the fairway and disappear into the abyss.  The third hole is a par 3 in which the tee box is some 30 or 40 feet below the green. It was like hitting a 5 iron to the top of a four story building.  I thought the back nine was more playable then the front although the 10th tee shot is one of the ugliest I have ever encountered (over a small pond with water on the left and a brick wall guarding the airport on the right with huge boulders placed strategically to screw with people who drive short off of the tee).

A major drawback of the course is that while the individual holes are completely surrounded on all sides by desert hills and sand, everything that is not grassed is off limits and marked by green environmental hazard stakes.  You could be one foot into the desert with a perfectly playable shot but you are not allowed to play it much less go in to pick it up.  I don't know how they would play a legitimate tournament there with every hole guarded by green stakes.

Another thing I didn't like is the irons-only driving range where you warm up before playing  a course that requires some of the toughest drives you'll ever have to hit.

On the plus side the course is extremely scenic and except for the first hole it doesn't look like there will be houses built on the interior of the property.  The  patio offers great views of the course and mountains.

[A_Clay_Man]

Bill- I believe you have successfully quantified the major beef that many of this treehouse's dilatantes moan,groan, berate, and despise about the Standardized computer formatted mailed in renditions. Not to mention the rugged nature of the environs in the SW and the plush, prissy and pansielike turf carpet that gets predominatly laid. Bravo!
Also,
Are you old enough to have caddied at SFGC prior to the 280 labotomy?

[Matt_Ward]

Bill S:

Enjoyed your commentary but disagree with your take on Wolf Creek.

First, let's not forget that the site in question is severe -- both in its location and what can actually be created for golf purposes there. No one makes any claim that Mesquite is going to be a replica for courses you see in SF or in Westchester County!

Second, when people come from "classic" designed courses (i.e. SFGC) it does take a degree of flexibility in the mind to adapt to what you find in such places as Mesquite. Some will clearly balk at such layouts and say they represent goof ball not golf. Anyone presupposing that they will find something closely akin to what they have "back home" is going to be greatly disappointed. Just keep in mind you are in the high desert.

The question becomes a simple one -- does the course reward / penalize golf shots in proportion to the manner in which they are executed. That's my base line on deciding the merits of the course. Wolf Creek does that when you play the appropriate tee boxes and understand your limitations at ALL TIMES.

Bill, I don't doubt the extreme back tee on #1 can be somewhat daunting -- however, it's meant for people who can really play. Those who have major league problems in keeeping the ball in play should play from a tee box related to their skill level.

When you mention the "long carries" I have to ask what your skill level is and what tees you played from? I know of people who decide to venture to the "blue tees" and after they've paid a heavy price in either lost balls or the like they quickly dismiss the course as being unfair or some form of architorture. That's not being unfair.

There's plenty of options for the player IF you play the appropriate tee.

Bill you said ...

"Wolf Creek is perhaps best enjoyed by those golfers that like to drop a few extra balls here and there to see if they can "do it if they really hit it out there." I disagre with that statement.

When you mention the 8th hole you are playing a severe hole -- that much I don't doubt. But, there are plenty of long par-3's where you must hit the absolute superb approach to get near the target. Yes, it's demanding but every once in awhile I do expect designers to put it to the player and force them to ante up. The 8th does this in a big way -- one last thing to remember there is a lay-up area for those who are short but the serpentine nature of the water makes you realize there will be no "easy way" out.

When you mention the 16th I have to ask if the "championship tee" box is still played from near the tee at the 6th hole. If it is then the forced carry at #16 is beyond fairness and simply lowers the quality of that hole and the overall experience. My understanding is that the course were to reposition the original championship tee and align it further up in order to provide a balanced aspect between toughness and fairness. If you can update where things stand that would be great. My last visit to Wolf Creek was May 2002.

David Kelly:

When you mention the role of carts I have to say this to all lovers of walking -- courses of the type you see with Wolf Creek and others that are in harsh setting will not permit walking in such a manner akin to such courses as Rustic Canyon. If you believe that walking is essential for a quality golf experience then you will be disappointed.

Second, you mention the aspect of the 2nd hole. You simply took the wrong club -- David, I don't doubt the shot is tough but the play on that hole is to "fit" the ball between the danger zones -- it's no different than other holes you will play that are dog-legs or its equivalent. Let me also mention that big hitters often mention how "easy" the 2nd hole is because they simply blow it dead left and have their tee shots come either near or in the greenside bunker.

Third, when you talk about 30 mph winds. I say simply -- you caught a day when the desert is going through a transition period from winter to spring. Wolf Creek becomes even more demanding and if you gauge the course simply from the fact that wind played a heavy role then its obvious to me what you will think of the course.

Fourth, David K puhhhleeeeessee enough of the comments about the driving range. David, my good friend, if that's the case shall me hold it against RC that it has a completely articifial and high net driving range abutting such a superb public layout like RC? I hope you're not taking a Brad Klein approach here -- are you? Frankly, I believe too much attention is applied to a non-course related aspect such as driving / practice ranges. Shall we not then ask what type of glasses serve liquid refreshment after the round is completed?

Fifth, the green stakes are put there for one reason -- to keep Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass from leaving the confines of the golf course and becoming ball hawks at every spot on the course. If there was an event at Wolf Creek the markers you mentioned would be removed.

Let me also be fair and say your point about the 10th is quite correct. I have also believed that having the tee placed in the position it is, with the pond in front and the awkward positioning of the fairway, is something that needs to be addressed.

In conclusion, people who come to the SW portion of the United States -- specifically AZ, NM and portions of  southern UT and CO should be mindful that golf has to take some license in the manner by which holes are created. If you are looking for the next version of Tillie, Ross, Flynn, et al, I think you best save your $$ and go elsewhere. If you want to experience Indiana Jones adventure golf then Wolf Creek will give you a range of thrills few courses can provide.

[A_Clay_Man]

Matt- I am having difficulty understanding what you call your baseline. Perhaps it's the fact that you're a BIG hitter and a very good golfer but the way you define it, it seems so pre-determined. Not only in that it's your formula or gauge for course analysis but that you have already decided what defines a "good shot".

Could you either elaborate or change your baseline

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

The people who complain about courses in the SW generally believe that such courses should mimick in some sort of formula to "classic" design. That would be nice if it could be accomplished given the limited amout of acreage you can functionally "grass."

When I talk about a baseline I believe the simple test of whether the good shot is rewarded and the bad punished proportionate to the manner in which it is executed determines for me the "baseline" on whether a course is sound or if it falls in the category of goofball.

I have said this time after time but it bears repeating -- I don't rate courses simply on how they pan on with my game. I play with a range of players and I carefully observe what they're able to accomplish when playing. I also observe if the course in question provides option lanes for these players. If a course simply provides an "all or nothing" route on a repated basis EVEN FROM THE MIDDLE OR FRONT TEES then you have a serious problem. Let me give you an example of a hole that provides an option PROVIDED YOU PLAY FROM THE RIGHT TEE. The 9th at Wolf Creek requires a forced carry of 240 yards to avoid a water hazard from the back tees. I have seen mid to high handicap players play from these markers and promptly fire several balls into the H20. What complicates the hole is that the prevailing wind is usually into your face.

If these same players played the hole from other more forward positioned tee boxes the forced carry is reduced considerably and is within their means.

As I said before there are people with limited skills who decide to be a bit frisky and venture to the dead back tees. These same people then come in after 18 -- and before the beer gets a bit warm they then proceed to bitch about how "unfair" the course is. The back tees are like a double diamond hill in skiing. They are MEANT to be an intense and rigorous demand. They are not there for Joe Sixpack or Mary Wineglass to play their Ginty and wonder why they can't reach the fairway from soooooo far back. If they want to really enjoy the course and stay within a challenging but comfortable zone then play from a tee box that's within their grasp.

Wolf Creek offers a very dramatic setting. It is very easy to allow the mind to wander and be in "awe" of the setting. Sometimes conditions (extreme windy days) can be very demanding (heck, I've played the course on similar days to the one David Kelly experienced) and you have to throttle back accordingly. There's also the unfair statement that when people play the course just "one time" they automatically believe such and such is correct from their assessments. I don't doubt the 2nd hole is challenging. But the architect Dennis Rider does give you a range of options to consider. The power player can take it down the extreme left side BUT you had better execute the shot or say BYE-BYE BALL! If you decide to fit your tee shot on this dog-leg left you have to have the right club and land it properly. Often the hole plays downwind and this can make the challenge even more intense.

Adam, I do agree that certain critiques about Wolf Creek do have merit. The realignment of the new championship tee at #16 was still being talked about when I was last there in May 2002. I don't know if that was changed -- possibly Bill or David can elaborate. The 10th tee, and for that matter the entire hole, needs to be reassessed. The tee box does present an awkward situation and possibly can be shifted somewhat.

Wolf Creek is clearly Indiana Jones style golf. It offers a wide variety of thrills and can be extremely brutal for those who don't pay heed and attention when playing. But, I see the course as being fair and I also believe the appropriate rewards / penalties will occur if you execute your shots strategically and consistently. I hope I have helped your understanding of my "baseline."

[T_MacWood]

Is it a good thing to adjust your judgement of a design based its evironment? Aren't the qualities of a good design universal?

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom- Whether good or bad I know many a consumer who'd rather not golf at certain less desirable sites where there is a negative enviornmental condition, like a highway or refinery nearby.
Design be damned. And, since there seems to be a type of course for all levels of class and taste,  who's to say whats good and whats bad, who's the judge? (We have an Emperor a brain, we need a judge! )

On a hole by hole perspective I think the same argument can be made that each hole may or maynot utilize it's fullest potential of the land and that is something that kind of hits me when I see it and had no pre-conceived notions or knowledge of it's existence.

[T_MacWood]

Adam
Matt said, "The people who complain about courses in the SW generally believe that such courses should mimick in some sort of formula to 'classic' design. That would be nice if it could be accomplished given the limited amout of acreage you can functionally 'grass'."

I don't think there is formula for a 'classic' design; I do think there is formula for a good design, be it old or new, SW America or Paris. I don't believe a golf course in the desert SW should be penalized for the severity of its environment or on the other hand be given bonus points because the envirnment is limiting, extreme or different.

A good design provides thought provoking choices. A poor design provides little choice (be it too docile or over the top difficult).

Good designs have interesting features (greens, land formations, natural undualtions, etc) and interesting hazards. A less than good design has features and hazards with very little life.

A good design exhibits variety...is unpredicatable, fun and a little quirky. A less than good design is predictable standard fair, that could be airlifted to Mesquite or Bridgehampton with little or no difference.

A good design melds gracefully into its environment - be it the desert, prairie, mountains, jungle, seaside, heathland, etc.(the better and more interesting the environment the better the course will likely be).  A less than good design exists despite or in total contrast to its habitat, with little or no attempt to meld naturally or at least simulate a natural merger.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

Wolf Creek meshes as well as one can expect for such a harsh environment and at the same time DOES provide a clear acknowledgement of the good shot / poor shot frame that any course should embody to clearly differentiate the quality of shotmaking and skill. There was no slack provided by me in regards to the merits of the facility. All I did do was state an obvious fact for anyone who may not be familiar with the unique landscape of Mesquite and where Wolf Creek is situated.

My point was a simple one -- there are people who a have a certain "preference" on how and what a golf course should look like and heaven help someone if a design in a harsh environment like Mesquite deviates from that pre-packaged formula.

I don't doubt that Wolf Creek is one touch SOB course if the conditions get a bit w-i-n-d-y. But my point Tom is that all the aspects you penned regarding the qualities of a golf course are present with Wolf Creek. The only issue I have is with your last statement when you say how a course should "meld(s) gracefully." I don't know how one can do that since grass is a foreign object in the confines of Mesquite and in a great many areas throughout the SW. Dennis Rider did a superb job in making sure that man's hand didn't go above and beyond in destroying the natural canyons you find at Wolf Creek and how he diligently embodied the shotmaking qualities you find today with the edceptions that I have already noted.

[T_MacWood]

Some sites are easier to meld than others, but garish is what comes to mind in these pictures. The differentiation of good shot from poor shot is common on many courses, many I don't consider particularly interesting or well designed. Firestone-South, The Bear and Kemper Lakes are examples.

Some sites have severe limitations and those limitations are difficult to overcome. But even with those limitations, there are practices that might help the course look more at home and appealing to play. Fairway grading that resembles an Interstate Highway combined with the natural badland formations is startling. Where is the irregularity of the land formations in the fairway grading? There doesn't seem to be any attempt to transition the golf course to the site. The transition from natural muted tones to the bright green is stark, not to mention the glaring white bunkers. Why not include a transition zone and lose the ultra-white bunkers....helping the course meld more gracefully?

 The severity of the site may have prevented a great course from being built - I'm not sure - but Wold Creek doesn't look to possess what I normally look for in golf course. Drama and difficulty can only take you so far.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

I chuckle when I saw your analysis of the pictures you presented. You have not been to the site or played the course and therefore from only gleaning from pictures are able to make some bold announcement about the merits / lack thereof of Wolf Creek. Tom, you have a talent that clearly few have and I salute you.

Tom, you have a definite view (my opinion) on what golf should look like and the manner by which it works in concert with the land it occupies. So be it.

If you play Wolf Creek (the ultimate barometer) you will find a course that does what a solid course is suppose to do -- reward the good shot and penalize the bad shot proportionate to the manner in which it was executed and offers a stunning array of holes -- the 8th, 14th (pictured) and 17th are truly three spectacular holes that are etched in my head, to name just three. But the qualities of Wolf Creek don't just succeed alone in that apsect. The ebb and flow is done well by Dennis Rider in situating holes in a number of box canyons. Here is a site that could have been bulldozed to death. Rider didn't do that. He took the existing land and through sensitive shaping was able to blend as well as could be expected a course that works.

Tom, you simply glossed over my point that certain people want to see golf in the same form as it exists in certain locales in the country -- the so-called "classic" approach -- the less is more type thing. I have no issue with those type of courses. Like I said before -- so be it. I take a pragmatic approach to golf design and after playing Wolf Creek several times have come to firmly believe that it's creation is indeed a marvel -- no less than what was done at Shadow Creek. Are the courses natural? No way Jose! They've been built by man and the outcomes had to be imposed as nature fights tenaciously in such demanding locales.

Wolf Creek is for those who want to play an Indiana Jones (I did enjoy your use of the word "drama") course that's full of excitement and definitely not in the "main stream" of conservative course analysis that's applied by you and a few others. Who knows Tom -- maybe you and I can become the Clinton / Dole debate team on GCA!

[T_MacWood]

Matt
"...you will find a course that does what a solid course is suppose to do -- reward the good shot and penalize the bad shot proportionate to the manner in which it was executed..." This is true of 90% of all golf courses, not exactly the most useful way of identifying the very best architecture IMO.

"...the 8th, 14th (pictured) and 17th are truly three spectacular holes that are etched in my head..." The panarama does look spectacular.

"Here is a site that could have been bulldozed to death. Rider didn't do that." Are you saying he didn't bulldoze the hell out of this site, the only thing that looks unaltered are the brownish rocky out croppings that are the dominating natural feature of the site. Mr.Rider needed more than a bulldozer, more like the MOHAB. The golf course looks like it was dropped in from another location.

"He took the existing land and through sensitive shaping was able to blend as well as could be expected a course that works." "Sensative shaping" and "blend as well as expected"....I beg to differ, but I'll take your word for it since you've been there....I'd hate see a course you thought was insensatively shaped and not blended into its site.

"Wolf Creek is for those who want to play an Indiana Jones" Did you watch a lot Westerns growing up?

The so-called "classic" approach seems to have eminated from you, I haven't heard anyone else describing this so-called "classic" approach. What is the "classic" approach and would major construction projects like Banff Springs, Yale, Lido, Cape Breton, Sharp Park, Oyster Harbor and Timber Point fall in or out of your definition?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Macwood:

Do yourself a big favor -- buy yourself an airplane ticket to Vegas and trek the 70 miles and play Wolf Creek. Until you play the course and see how it WORKS the rest is just a lot of 19th hole conjecture -- on your part!

Tom, we have had this conversation before -- you know, the one where you make comments from the comfort of your couch in Ohio and seek to explain to me and others how "such and such" course is deficient based on your penetrating anaylsis. Instead of making analysis from one's home how about playing the course and seeing if it actually works or fails based on a PERSONAL VISIT? I KNOW FOR SOME PEOPLE THAT IS SUCH A NOVEL IDEA!

I didn't claim the course was not shaped extensively by man's hand -- so was Shadow Creek. Big deal. Did anyone years ago contemplate golf in such wild areas -- yes, I do like Westerns sir.

I introduced the classic argument because there are people who believe such a layout must be fit in the same mold where everything is "blended" (try to define that term) in some touchy feely sense of harmony. Dennis Rider successfully built a course on a very demanding site. I believe the holes and the manner by which he did the routing work very well -- it is not perfect -- there is a waterfall behind the 18th that's really not needed. I also mentioned how certain holes could be altered because of safety issues (i.e. 10th) or for basic fairness (the original championship tee on the 16th).

P.S. Your 90 percent rule is not as high as you claim from my experience. Have a great day Mr. MacWood ...

[T_MacWood]

Matt
While I would love to take your word on Wolf Creek, unfortunately you seem to be a lone wolf regarding good reports (I'm looking for a little more than rewarding the good shot and penalizing the bad shot proportionately). Those poor reports combined with the guady images have forced me to postpone my planned trip to Mesquite.

You seem to like the term so-called "classic" approach, could you explain, what is this "classic" approach, what are its characteristics?

And would the major construction projects like Banff Springs, Yale, Lido, Cape Breton, Sharp Park, Oyster Harbor and Timber Point fall in or out of your definition?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Tom,

I gave a good report about Wolf Creek some time ago.  In summary, it's a good course for what it is, a not-made-for golf site.  It is spectacular in setting and many of the holes work, a number of which aren't pictured.  The 14th, pictured last, is a very good Cape-like hole, bite off as much as you dare to get closer.  That "spine" running through the fairway is actually a shelf between levels of the faiway to make the slope less severe, as otherwise, balls might just roll back off.

Best holes not pictured include #2, 3, 5 (or 6?) (as a par 4) another Cape-like hole, #8, #13 with a hidden green.

[T_MacWood]

I know.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

I'll give it my best shot but please understand I make no claim to being an historian. Much of the classic designs that many people rave about are connected to their desire to be minimalist type designs. You know the drill -- less is more. Or better yet -- let the land speak for itself.

I find a number of these types of courses to be well done -- although there are times where you get a course that's so minimal that "less is less." Among modern architects who have done well using this theme are Tom Doak, C&C and Gil Hanse, to name just three.

On the flip side there will be situations where man's hand is clearly involved and where most, if not all, of the entire project is significantly manipulated. For some people, you may be one of them, who believe that having man's hand used in such a way cleary goes beyond what is appropriate. I disagree with that because many times the sites one finds today may not be so conducive to course construction as in years past and more so when dealing with sites as harsh as many are in the greater Southwest.

I have explained in great detail the variety of holes that exist at Wolf Creek and I tip my hat to Scott B in providing some of the more noteworthy holes at the layout. I have also pointed out several areas where some form of improvement may be warranted.  

Wolf Creek is a testament to man's imagination -- some may believe it's Disney-golf minus a few extra bells and whistles. All I can say is that I've played the course several times -- played with plenty of wind and in other times less so -- the course gives you a wide variety of holes and given the rightful fanfare attached to Shadow Creek, Wolf Creek is no less an awesome creation.

Unfortunately, people have turned their attention to sideshow matters -- the cart paths (yes, they are annoying in spots), the driving range (yes, it is limited in size) and other matters that do not deal with the actual 18 holes themselves. My comments to these people were simple -- do not expect to find golf in the Southwest to follow some pre-ordained formula of classical style golf. It is clearly testing and if you fail to play the correct tees you will make a huge donation of golf balls.

Scott has clearly identified certain specific aspects of the course -- the 14th, for what it's worth, is a superb hole. Most times you play the hole into a good breeze and you have to both provide power and placement. The approach shot is also a winner as the green sits slightly above the fairway and runs on a diagonal from right to left with protecting bunkers. I also believe holes like the par-3 8 and par-5 17th are also well done. Scott does mention the 13th hole and it's hidden green. Here you have a short par-4 that was skillfully shaped to use the box canyon the green is situated. Man's hand did not do anything more than situate the green in a natural location.

Tom, at the end of the day -- the only sure fire way to validate the merits of a course is to play it. I don't doubt, given your eye, you can glean certain things from pictures, but nothing beats actually being there. But, we've been through this tap dance a number of times.

Wolf Creek presents an incredible vista for the eye. There are a number of "edge of your seat" type holes that will bring the player back. Some people don't like the course which is fine --I think the course is stellar and worth the time of anyone who ventures to the greater Vegas area. Simple as that ...

[T_MacWood]

Matt
With all due respect, you have want to play the golf course before you can validate its merits. We all know that two of the most powerful factors (for me anyway) in deciding if you want to go out of your way to play a golf course are 1) respected opinions (either read or from conversation or your own developed opinion of a particular designer) and 2) visual images (although some may not admit it). The photographs of WC alone were enough to dash any desire, although I'll admit the scenery does look spectacular. To each his own.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
Also on your definition - 'less is more' - is very narrow. It sounds more like a definition for minimalism - which is not what the best architects of the first two or three centuries practiced IMO. They were not opposed to enhancing when they had too and in many cases enhanced a great deal - that is why I mentioned those golf courses like Banff Springs etc. Get the impression even Tom Doak has rejected the idea of minimalism as too limiting. They (those famous architects of the 1900 to 1936 era) did however have a great respect for nature and natural features, and when forced to enhance that respect and appreciation for nature came in handy.

[A_Clay_Man]

Matt- I think there is a way to have these courses blend in gracefully. But, not in the standardized conditions the "market" may demand or demanded in the past. The reality of the harsh climate means if you don't water it, it won't grow. Now, I think if there was a modicum of thought on how to place the proper textures and colors on the periphrial or transition areas then the stark green won't be right up against the hard rock which would make it seem more graceful. Ala the mounds at Pinon, when they are bright green the courses grace is homogenized compared to when the browns are introduced gracefully from the surrounds.

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

I hear what you're saying -- but I think you protest too much about a periphery concern. The body / soul of Wolf Creek is fine -- if you want to apply the make-up (the transition colors) a bit differently so be it. But to me such a concern is nothing more than beefing about the color of the napkins when the main focus should be the actual meal.

Tom MacWood:

In my assessment of courses I take a very pragmatic approach to what I like and don't like. I also know from having played Wolf Creek on a few occasions whether or not the course can sustain interest time after time. In my mind it does and it's one of the reasons why I returned. I just didn't go back to see the gorgeous terrain.

Tom, all I can say is that if you place a high degree on the value of pictures you are to be congratulated for such a rare talent. I do it the old fashioned way -- I have to play the course and see how the holes play and how well they integrate themselves into the entire routing scheme used by the architect. You can glean "certain" upfront factual cues from pictures but NOTHING trumps being there and playing the course. That's the difference between armchair quarterbacking and playing the game.

By the way I believe my definition for minimalism is on the mark.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
Based on what you have written on this site you obviously will play anything anywhere - more power to you. I have to be a little more selective. In all honesty there are some high profile courses I have no desire to play - including Wolf Creek.

Its not such a rare talent, we all judge photos even if we refuse to admit it. It is often the reason we seek out a golf course (or the opposite).  A single photo I saw as a kid inspired me to visit a very obscure Cape Breton in 1984.

I look forward to a game with you on your next Ohio visit - I understand from your posts your game is quite strong. Hopefully I will be able to get out of my chair to swing the club.  

By the way I didn't ask for the defintion of minimalism, but the definition of classic approach. Are they the same thing? If so are Cape Breton, Banff, Timber Point, Oyster Harbors, Yale and Sharp Park examples of this classical approach?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

I'll be in Ohio sometime this summer visiting a few college friends. Give me a few dates sometime in July and I'm ready to let it fly off the tee. My main area of visiting should be in the immediate Columbus area.

Now back to the issue at hand --

Tom, you rob yourself of golf experiences when you use photos as a major guiding ingredient. I take issue of your statement that I will play anything anywhere. I DON'T DO THAT TOM -- I CHECK OUT WHAT PLACES MAY BE OF "HOT" INTEREST and I get my info from sources in that immediate vicinity. I'm not interested in playing courses for the sake of playing courses -- my time is too valuable for that and my family is more important. Sometimes my sources don't check out -- but then, on the other hand, there are times when I get pleasantly surprised. Wolf Creek was one of those times.

By the way I also take issue with you that Wolf Creek is simply "high profile" -- the course has plenty of depth and the rich variety of holes and the manner by which many of them have been set has been done quite well by architect Dennis Rider. Tom, I've seen plenty of pictures of a sunset happening over the Grand Canyon -- being there and seeing it firsthand is beyond anything else. Look, we've had this pleasant tap dance on this subject time after time and you and I will never see it eye-to-eye exactly. So be it.

Tom, regarding classic golf -- my definition of "less is more" is really a good deal of many of these courses. Yes, there will be exceptions -- you named a few, but let's be clear -- the big time designers didn't get to places like Mesquite because places like Mesquite were nothing more than dust and blowing sand until after World War II.  When you design in such harsh and severe terrain you will find that man's hand has definitely been involved. Sometimes it works -- Wolf Creek does in my mind -- in other cases -- Cascata (a Rees Jones design I might add ) it doesn't.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()