News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Brian_Gracely

Most of the discussions are about how little dirt was moved, how breathtaking (or non-pretty) the area is, how much Huckaby loves it (along with 99% of GCA.com), or how remote it is.

....but not even Ran get into discussing the architect very much.  Just comparing his Pine Valley to Sand Hills reviews, you might think that Sand Hills is worthy of a #38 ranking.

So why isn't the architecture discussed more?  Is it one of those courses where it can't be understood unless you've been there?  
I understand the Par3s are excellent and that #7 is one of the great short Par4s in the world.  But what about the rest....?

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2005, 09:17:29 AM »
I'd like to discuss this topic;however,I'm not a member and I'm not a rater and I've never been invited to play there. I'll just have to wait. :)
"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2005, 09:21:24 AM »
Brian,

I think too few have ventured out to play it, as Steve says.

Also, its easy to discuss concept holes of CBM, and even Pine Valley from photos.

How do you discuss missing Sand Hills 3rd green left, and putting down the hill and over the ridge on a slick green with a trailing wind?  Most of the essence of SH is the wind and its architectural subtleties.  Most of us aren't as talented a wordsmith as Henry Longhurst to really describe that.

Also, the overall ambiance is virtually indescribeable!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

ForkaB

Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2005, 09:28:31 AM »
C'mon, Jeff!

You're an architect, aren't you?  Please describe the 3rd green, as best you can, and tell us why it is great architecture.  I really do want to know.  Surely GCA is not just about the "overall ambience?"  If so, I can see why TOC is rated so high.

THuckaby2

Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2005, 09:30:27 AM »
Well I think we HAVE discussed the "architecture" in here, quite a bit actually.  Ad nauseam in fact.  Where have you been, Brian?  ;)

Seriously, every time a discussion of greatest holes comes up, several at Sand Hills are mentioned.  Greatest collection of par fives or par threes?  Sand Hills gets a nod.  Greatest short/driveable par fours?  Sand Hills again.  Most fun disparity between tough back tees and playable middle tees?  Sand Hills.  All of that has been discussed in here and if that's not architecture than I don't love this game.

Brian, all of the things you mention are important about Sand Hills and do tend to dominate discussions at times because the place is so damn unique and special.  So maybe that does drown out "architecture" discussions about the place, I don't know.  But it's not like such hasn't been discussed....

And unfortunately, the place is so incredible that Jeffrey is right -  it would take a Longhurst or Darwin or the like to do it justice.  It really sucks to say this, but one does have to see it to understand it... or have a VERY good imagination, anyway.

TH


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2005, 09:40:53 AM »
Rich,

The 3rd is a big green on a 200 yard plus par 3, usually playing in a cross wind.

It has a chipping area and bunker right, and a uphill slope left, where the wind often, but not always, blows your ball.  Off that slope, a big ridge, perhaps 3 feet at the green edge, tapering down to six inches near the center runs into the green, not quite at 90 degrees, but at an angle away from the tee.

Depending on where you miss left, many things can result.  One is hitting the collar, which will feed your ball down to the pin. However, if you are in the short strip of fescue, you have an option of putting or chipping over the ridge.  I putted to 5 foot beyond the hole last summer, thinking that a downhill lie lob wedge could be skulled, but mostly that any flying shot would propel even further off the green than a barely touched putt.

If you are in the tall stuff further left on the green, you have no shot, not, as Seinfeld would say, that there is anything wrong with that.  Just the facts.

So, perhaps missing right and chipping into the slope is better, and once the gca gets into thinking about playing somewhere other than the green, I think he has ya.

The course is full of those shots.  

Some holes require reall precision. The par 3 13 and 17 are both distance control testers.  17 is oft discussed as a prototype par 3, but 13 is really tough, a longer shot with wind, and the green perched atop a knob.  Others let you bounce off a slope with good result.  The first two greens are examples, although both have roll offs that can "de-green" both a putt and a chip easily, often more than once!

I also like the second fw - a ridge runner that goes against the typical valley design usually favored.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

ForkaB

Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2005, 09:48:25 AM »
Many thanks, Jeff.  That's exactly what I was looking for.

Now, if we can only get Huckaby to concentrate on post quality rather than post quantity, maybe we can learn some more, architecturally, about what makes Sand Hills so great..... ;)

PS--I personally think that "overall ambience" is perhaps the most important GCA quality.  I just disagree with those who say otherwise, but whose "analysis" indicates that this is what they really value. ;)

THuckaby2

Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2005, 10:07:21 AM »
Rich:

I guess a synopsis like Jeffrey's helps - that was well done - but to me anything like that - focusing on shot requirements and the like - just falls SO short of adequately describing what makes Sand Hills special that well... I don't think it's worth even trying.  You say "overall ambience" is the most important thing to you.... well gee whiz, surprise surprise, that's what it's all about to me also.  

And I freely admit I don't have close to the literary skill required to give a sense of Sand Hills in that context, which is necessary or else one does sell it short.

It's a very, very special place.  It does have a spirituality I have never felt elsewhere.  Reducing it to "architecture"... well... I just can't do it.

My apologies if my quality is not up to your standards.  But when has it ever been?

 ;D

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2005, 10:10:18 AM »
So why isn't the architecture discussed more?  Is it one of those courses where it can't be understood unless you've been there?  

Brian - easy - 99% of us will never have an oppurtunity to play there.  Heck - anybody can walk Pine Valley during the Crump Cup.  Merion, Oak Hill, Winged Foot,  - they're all on TV.  Bandon - you can play if you pay.  But Sand Hills is unattainable for the 'rest of us'.

Brad Swanson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2005, 10:46:31 AM »
   In my few years frequenting this site, I think SH has been discussed at length many times.  Dig through the archives, Brian, and you'll find plenty of discussion.  I would say that it also must be right up there with the highest photo exposure (right there with Cypress Point) on GCA too.
 
   To contribute something besides "sift through the archives" and "ya gotta see it to believe it!" I think the flow of the holes is great, and my weekend of a one-man scramble tournament at Wild Horse followed by a day (36 holes) closing out the season at Sand Hills had me visualizing and attempting ground game shots I never had in the past (no GBI golf for me, yet).  The flow and variety is great, which is amazing considering that the par 5s are not evenly spaced (1,14,16).  I really enjoyed how some of the holes played dramatically different for me depending on the tees (4, 5, 10, 13, 16).  Its plasticity in its difficulty, considering tees and pin placements on some holes (2, 3, 6, 8, etc.) and weather/wind is also a very cool aspect.  I particularly liked watching our host fill-out the hole handicaps for us after tossing up some blades of grass to determine the direction of the wind.  Although I'm quite naive to the world of great golf courses, I've played a few others, and Sand Hills is at the top of my list too.

Cheers,
Brad Swanson  

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2005, 12:10:20 PM »
There have been a lot of wonderful posts on this site, but one of my favorites remains when Gene walked us through the course with a series of posts. I'll try to dig up the thread.

There has been lots of discussion of SH's architecture, though maybe none as complete as Jeff's post above. Imagine that - a practicing architect has a good eye for detail and the abillity to communicate it well to others. Who'da thunk it? :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2005, 12:20:45 PM »
I think that some of the great golf writers often wrote in depth and with great style only on single or maybe a couple of holes on a great course in any single piece of writing.  They would describe the course generally, but then go into very compelling prose about certain holes.  Perhaps another article would return to that course and go into more detail of another hole, not previously so finely described.

With Sand Hills discussion over the years here on GCA, it seems to me that a discussion will focus on the architecture of a certain hole while generally just taking for granted that the entire course is a masterpiece.  That the discussion returns to the qualities of most or all of the holes eventually, gives credence to the totality of the golf course as a whole work of great golf architecture/design excellence.

How many modern golf writers have actually played Sand Hills frequently enough to begin to understand her nuances?  Really!  Like the rest of us, we are overwhelmed the one or two times we are privileged enough to play there.  How do you get your mind around the whole thing if your are a writer or a GCA hound by having played there only a few rounds.  Thus, we tend to gush in generalities about the "experience" because that is the enduring emotion that is left to our memories.  

Then, when we just try to bring our attention to a specific hole, perhaps looking back at a picture to bring the vision more clearly back to our memory, we might go into detail of all that we remember from that hole.  When multiple posters chime in, one seems to remember nuances another missed, etc.  The complexity is so great that a few times playing for all but the most talented eye, makes us realise that design features are missed. It seems to take a collaborative effort to describe it all.

 Jeff Brauer, I thought your description above was quite remarkable in detail.  How many times have you played there?  You must have some sort of a trained eye for that sort of thing... ;) :o ;D

I have to believe that the great writers in golf history, particularly those that chronicalled the courses of GB&I, played the courses they famously described many times before they committed thoughts to paper.

Finally, if one thinks of the time we might have been invited to play at Sand Hills, we only have the frame of reference to the few golfers we went around on her with.  I am lucky enough to have played there with some pretty good players.  And so I got to see a very few attempts and in cases successes to pull off interesting shots.  But, only a very few.  Compared to the great writers of golf architecture from GB&I where they watched great competitions and saw many shots attempted with varying creativity over many tournaments, lends itself to a more detailed understanding and appreciation for the design.  God forbid if I had to only describe a course from my very limitted abilities to pull off or try great golf shots.  Perhaps I can imagine them, but until you see them being made and with different levels and styles of play, you really are just speculating, in my view.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2005, 12:30:00 PM »
RJ,

I have been fortunate enough to play there on three occaisions, the most recently last summer, for a total of at least six rounds.......

Even then, I think a detailed description would/could exceed mine.  Frankly, I wrote that as much as a golfer as gca type.  You tend to remember the shots that either scare you or cause you great joy (like the kick in banks on 1 and 2 greens)

Had I had the gca hat on, I think I would have pointed out that while they claim to move only 6000 yards of dirt, I think that more was dozed, such as the big hole on nine fw under the shack, which was clearly dug out to make carrying the bunker the prime line, and punish (via blind shot out of a hole) a long drive played too safely.

I can also attest to the potential for rattlesnake bites out there, but that is another story altogether......
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2005, 12:53:23 PM »
Great thoughts, all.

Here's a theory about the possible imbalance in commentary (general vs. specific) about Sand Hills:

At Sand Hills -- as at every great course, but considerably more so than average in the case of Sand Hills -- the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

The whole of the Sand Hills experience (and the Sutton Bay experience, while I'm thinking about it, which is practically every day for at least a few moments), is so sublime that it nearly makes a mockery of standard GCA analysis. Analyzing it hole-by-hole is entirely possible, and possibly even fruitful, but somehow seems to miss the point ... and, maybe, to diminish both the analyst and the analyzed.

It's like doing a feature-by-feature analysis of [insert the god or goddess of your choice]. You can do it, but it's ... wrong.

Seems to me the only proper ways to do a GCA analysis of any course, but particularly of a great course, are: (1) Play it a whole bunch of times, with various pins, in various conditions, with various partners; or (2) park yourself at each hole and watch a whole bunch of players play it, with various pins, in various conditions.

Very few of us have had, or ever will have, that opportunity at Sand Hills.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

THuckaby2

Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2005, 12:58:59 PM »
The whole of the Sand Hills experience (and the Sutton Bay experience, while I'm thinking about it, which is practically every day for at least a few moments), is so sublime that it nearly makes a mockery of standard GCA analysis. Analyzing it hole-by-hole is entirely possible, and possibly even fruitful, but somehow seems to miss the point ... and, maybe, to diminish both the analyst and the analyzed.

Thank goodness Kelly has arrived.  Because that is EXACTLY what I have been trying to get at, and it also illustrates why it takes a gifted writer to convey difficult ideas.  Kelly's words make sense where mine ramble.  Thanks, Dan.

That's exactly the point... we can try to talk about what one would call "shot values" on any given hole, but in so doing it diminishes the analyst and the analyzed.  Man that is right on.  Thus it's difficult even to make the attempt... it's just so "not enough".....

I know this doesn't help Rich Goodale and others who want to try and understand the course from afar, but well... it is what it is.

TH

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2005, 01:02:46 PM »
Jeff, that wasn't a natural kettle down in there?  I'll believe it was dozed out when Dan tells me it was, not until... ;) ;D
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2005, 01:07:27 PM »
Yeah, thanks Dan, I'd have never thought of that! ::) ;D
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2005, 01:17:53 PM »
Yeah, thanks Dan, I'd have never thought of that! ::) ;D

Dick --

That was your seventh paragraph -- and a long one, at that!

You think I have all day to fool around here?   ::);D :P

With all due respect (and then some),

Dan

P.S. As God is my witness: My first paragraph originally said: "Great thoughts, all. (Especially you, Mr. Daley; I think you've nailed it.)"

Decided not to play favorites.

Rewrote the parenthetical to say: "(Except for you, Tom IV.)"

Decided not to risk smileylessness -- and you know how I hate these smileys!  ::) ;D :-*
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

THuckaby2

Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2005, 01:23:10 PM »
Here I call you a "gifted writer" and that's what I get back.

Some gratitude and nerve.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D

I am busting up.  You nailed all of this, Dan.  Even your summation of me.

 ;D

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2005, 01:43:29 PM »
Dan Kelly,

A perfect summing up.

Isn't the experience of Sand Hills rather like Gestalt Therapy,dealing with the whole?

Wertheimer was especially concerned with problem-solving. Werthiemer (1959) provides a Gestalt interpretation of problem-solving episodes of famous scientists (e.g., Galileo, Einstein) as well as children presented with mathematical problems. The essence of successful problem-solving behavior according to Wertheimer is being able to see the overall structure of the problem: "A certain region in the field becomes crucial, is focused; but it does not become isolated. A new, deeper structural view of the situation develops, involving changes in functional meaning, the grouping, etc. of the items. Directed by what is required by the structure of a situation for a crucial region, one is led to a reasonable prediction, which like the other parts of the structure, calls for verification, direct or indirect. Two directions are involved: getting a whole consistent picture, and seeing what the structure of the whole requires for the parts." (p 212).


John Foley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2005, 01:43:57 PM »
Every now & then we've discussed the architetural merrit of Sand Hills. We;'ve beeten up some of the holes & even the routing. It always comes back to the experience, and Dan & Dick nailed it. It is soooo much more than hitting a five iron at #13. Someone (Mike C perhaps?) had a tag line about being unable to seperate the experience from the architecture. No place is that more true than in Mullen NE.

What we really need is for a well versed Armenian from No Cal and a electrician from So Cal to visit and then offer up a few thousand words of their thoughts. That should stimulate a few thousand post thread.

As for architectural items, that third green is about as cool a green as you'll find.
Integrity in the moment of choice

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2005, 02:09:21 PM »
Dear Uncle Boab,

I can assure you that I'd have NEVER thought of that! ;D ;D ;D

... but now that you've pointed this out...hmmm
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't the architecture of Sand Hills discussed more often?
« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2005, 02:12:03 PM »
Jeff B.,

For whatever it's worth, I had recent conversations with Dick Youngscap, Bill Coore and Dave Axland re: Sand Hills. To my knowledge, NO HEAVY EQUIPMENT was used to construct the course.

It would have been tough to dig out that hole at 9 f'way with a Sand Pro  ;D
jeffmingay.com