JW Marriott Scottsdale Camelback Inn Resort & Spa

Loved playing the Padre course. Great layout with various types of holes throughout. There is plenty of water for a AZ course but it is a very player friendly layout. The course conditions were fantastic, greens were firm and true. There was a tournament here the two days we played and you wouldn't know it by pace of play or the course. The Padre was very impressive. Lunch at the clubhouse was good too.

I understand that it is the busy season in Scottsdale but we paid the twilight rate of $180 for a 1:12 tee time. Normal price was $280.

While course itself was in nice condition the layout was nothing spectacular. It is located off of the JW Marriot property but was actually an older country club marketed as their courses.

The major complaint was the pace of play. We had GPS monitors on our carts that were constantly popping up messages that we were behind schedule and a marshal would be out yet we never saw one as we waited between 5-10 minutes on every tee box for the group in front of us. We are all around 10 handicaps and understand there are varying levels of ability, but there is also an consideration factor for other golfers on the course. Our issue was that the course appeared to be very well managed with staff yet did nothing to ensure the pace of the group in front of us which led to a 5 1/2 hour round. It was unfortunate that we were out there for two days and this was one of the courses we played.

Worn out/damaged/thin areas on most fairways. Had to move the ball and play preferred lies. The greens had significant clumps of poe annua grass which affected putting, especially by mid day. Great layout tho, but really unfortunate. Had played this course once before. Was really disappointed with the condition of what is supposed to be a premier course. Until this course has maintenance and condition issues fixed, will not play again.

Course is in tough condition due to the rain. Very flooded and wasn’t notified by staff the course conditions this morning. Course shouldn’t have even been open with the flooding.

For some reason, they just can't keep the greens at Ambiente in good shape. A lot of it is just poor greenskeeping as old holes have massive dips on the green. Fairways are so-so with patches of muddiness and dead grass. The practice green was in great shape and I believe Padre is in good shape. Ambiente needs a ton of work, especially for the greens fee.

I’ve played Ambiente in the past ( the better of two courses on the property). The green complexes have several thin spots. The greens are very average compared to years past with 2 or three with severe disease.. still a nice course but not in as good shape as years past

Played with my sister-in-law, who had never played desert golf in the past. We played with a lovely couple that are members at Camelback. The pace of play was great and the course conditions were as they should be for the price paid. That said the course was in excellent condition!

I played the Padre course for the first time. It’s a great track! I had played the Ambiente course twice before, and now prefer the Padre course. Both courses are fun, and very different. Staff are great!

Such a great course as my valley favorite as a long time local however they are loosing my favorite status not due to staff nor course layout but maintenance v costs.
They know this and my remarks are not nor should be a surprise as a well manage property but somebody above is cutting budgets to improve profitability to make themselves shine !
The best greens usually on condition coupled with rolling at 10 plus is gone with excellent speed , lack consistency as well as patchy , bear conditions, green filler for bare areas, on numerous greens - disease/poor oversight from greens keeping/ can’t say who’s at fault - shameful.
Course sand traps v costs to play needs a lot of budgeting without further play price increase as these costs should be built into there reserve studies under applicable maintenance over the course of maintenance reviews. - well past the spend required to refresh -