[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Bobby Ranum hosted me for a day several years ago, so I'm somewhat familiar with the Atlantic. My only problem is that Bobby and I skipped from hole to hole (to stay out of the way of members) and, therefore, I don't have a good memory of playing the course in sequence.

Have people been too harsh in their assessment of the Atlantic? Maybe. Maybe not. It would take another go around the course for me to offer a strong opinion.

The course will always be challenged by the tough neighborhood it faces, but then not many would look good next to SH, NGLA, Maidstone and, now, Friar's Head.

As for making it out that way for a game, having a look at the Bayberry property is on my agenda for 2003, so maybe we could hook up.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

As you may know, I have a different perspective than most when it comes to the relationship between the owner/developer and architect.

I like the idea of a collaborative effort, rather than that of an absentee owner.

If I owned the property and was building my own golf course, I would have no problem hiring Rees Jones, Tom Fazio, Tom Doak, Kelly Blake Moran, C & C or anyone else you want to name.  The question is, could they accept the relationship under my terms.
I believe they could and would after spending time discussing my concepts for the golf course and touring the site a number of times.
Then again, they might not.
I'd certainly like the opportunity to try it.

Depending on the site, my dilema might be the duplicate hole issue.  I love the 8th hole at NGLA and would like to see it replicated.  Same goes for the 6th hole and a few others, as well as the 1st at NGLA and GCGC, the 2nd and 10th at GCGC.

If the site were unique I'd probably forego my duplicate hole desire, but would reserve the right to change my mind.

Tim Weiman,

I agree, it's a tough neighborhood.

Many will try to diminish Atlantic by comparing it to Friar's Head but the inherent differences in the property and the enviro constraints at both sites are vastly different.

I also think that Ken may have benefited from the Atlantic experience.

Unlike Baby Doc Duvalier, Lowell didn't make himself President for Life, a lesson that shouldn't go unnoticed.

Bayberry is going to have an even more difficult time with comparisons, especially due to its proximity.

[G_Tiska]

Paul Turner

Could you please explain smoothed and graded fairway? Do you think East Hampton, Frairs Head and/or Maidstone's fairways were smoothed and graded?

[Mike_Sweeney]

The course will always be challenged by the tough neighborhood it faces, but then not many would look good next to SH, NGLA, Maidstone and, now, Friar's Head.

Tim,

Either people don't know it or they forget it, but the greens at Southampton GC (Raynor) are certainly worth a look when you go out. The land and thus the holes are not as dramatic as its neighbors but those greens at Southampton are awesome.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
From your answer I take it your main criteria would be the architect's ability to work with you. All things being equal on the colaboration front would you chose Rees first...why or why not.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

GTiska
How would you compare the routing of Friar's Head and the Bridge? In judging a routing what are the most important critieria? If you were given naturally blessed site on LI which architects would you consider - your top 5?

[RJ_Daley]

Just to digress a little bit, I am curious if any of our well travelled posters can give an example of a golf course that Rees Jones designed that was built on a remarkable piece of land with many possibilities for routing many great golf holes, and one in which the course was minimally constructed?

George Tiska speaks of the limitations of the permitting process, forcing the architect to many compromises and design-engineering decisons.  He speaks about Rees's on site time and how considerate he is to check if certain planned features work for him.  Well, that is good testimonial to a more dilligent effort by Jones than may be the view held by some who post here that he mails the designs in from Montclair.  

But, let's assume Rees likes to walk the land vigorously in search of golf holes in the planning/routing stage as he is quoted in the cigar magazine.  My question is; What is he thinking when he walks to discover golf holes as a matter of primary philosophy of his golf course design and hallmark of his name?  When he walked Sandpines, surely he recognised straight away that it was a unique costal dunes property with mixed pine forest and scrub coastal sand dune open areas.  Surely, there were many possibilities to find many natural golf holes without the imposition on the landscape of new terrain not in harmony with the surroundings and native terrain.  Why does a fellow like Rees see shimmering ponds where there are none? Design image?  For borrow material to do feature work he is noted for, that is why.  What feature work.  Rees's pieces signature mounding for containment, separation, and varied lie stances, that is why. Rees's courses look and play distinctively Rees Jones, I think is in Rees's mind.

Does anyone think that C&C walk a remarkable property of many golf hole possibilities like a sand pines area and start from a mindset of where are we going to put the shimmering lakes and how can the bunkers be shaped for easiest maintenace, and how much material will be need to create containment and shaping.  Perhaps they start asking those questions on land that don't offer much, needs serious irrigation lake water reserve, and certain areas of land use permitting issues constrain their routing ideals.  But, I don't think they start from the same mindset or see the same things on the land, and ultimately respect the land more than their own hallmark of design identity in the same way as Rees.  

So maybe I'll backtrack a bit and not just dismiss what Rees said as a load of marketing crap in the quote about walking the land and finding the holes.  Maybe he does do that, but finds where he can "construct" Rees's trademark holes and design style, not what he can do to harmonize the golf design with the beauty of what existed there naturally as minimally as possible.  Maybe in his mind, he can't do that because he is the great golf architect that must "construct" a great course with massive efforts.

What do you think, George Tiska?  Do they start from totally different mindsets and use different processes and construction methods?

Did anyone look at the website?:
http://www.sandpines.com/coursedescription.htm

[Mike_Young]

Mdugger,
You state:

" Considering there are numerous other people who agree with my sentiments regarding Sand Pines being fake, many of which have provided NUMEROUS examples of supporting evidence to back this position, are we at least a little closer to fact then we are to opinion  ? "
I would bet that if a poll was taken of all who played Sandpines in a given time most would think it natural.  And I have never seen it.  And if that be the case then your position of "number of people agreeing" being a basis for determining a fact would be against you.

Now don't gang up and think I am against the "natural look" or other clasical aspects assumed under traditional architectural values.  It may be that I hold the same opinion as you or Tim.  You will never convince me that the aesthetic aspects of design are anything more than opinion.  If an architect can have the majority enjoy what he designs then he can be sucessful and be paid for his opinion as expressed.
Now there are parts of the architectural side that I would agree can be facts.  These are irrigation coverage, level tees, green construction, cart path constuction, and these elements can be judged against the specifications of the architect.
Taking the Pamela Anderson mode
Pamela anderson is a woman
Sandpines is a golf course

Pamela anderson is a woman due to her female anatomy
Sandpines is a golf course due to 18 holes with tees and greens, irrigation etc

Pamela Anderson is an attractive , naturalwoman with mounds (opinion)
Sandpines is a beatiful, natural course with mounds (opinions)

My friend is a hemaphrodite. But mostly looks like a guy.
Sandpines is a  golf course built on a very natural site.  But mostly looks like a modern golf course.

My friend has female anatomy.
Sandpines has 18 holes, mounding and an irrigation system.

Is my friend a female?
Is Sandpines a good golf course?

IMHO the only facts are that Sandpines is a golf course that attracts a significant number of golfers.  

Tim,

you say
"All this talk about people stating "opinions as fact" is really just an effort to get people to tone down their observations of a golf course.

People who pay to travel and play golf courses deserve to hear strongly stated opinions even if they are unflattering.

They are going to be bombarded with marketing influences, so why not give them the other side of the story?"

I do not care if you tone down your opinions or not.  I enjoy hearing them.  I agree give them the other side.

You say
"But, there is one fact about golf architecture that we seem to frequently ignore: most people don't have an unlimited supply of time and/or money, two things you need to really sample and appreciate the world of golf architecture.

That's why I believe it is so helpful when people express strong opinions, even when they are negative. I don't have the time or money to see everything. Hence, I'll travel from Cleveland to Oregon to see a Pacific Dunes but not do the same for a Sandpines. The feedback I've heard about these courses just isn't the same. One proved worth a special trip; nobody has ever told me the other is even when I lived on the West Coast."

IMHO, if you play golf, you sample golf architecture.  
IMHO, most golfers don't appreciate golf architecture.
IMHO, you  and me are probably one of the 2 or 3% of golfers that do appreciate golf architecture.
IMHO, what we think regarding golf architecture isn't relevant in the big picture.
IMHO, strong negative opinions weaken a position.
FACT, golf architecture today is a real estate driven game and name recognition is the driving force and therefore the opinion of the name is of value to the market.
FACT, Rees Jones is paid more for his opinion than me ( I don't know about you).

But after all of this rambling INTUITION tells me we probably like the same.
Mike
.

[Tim Weiman]

Mike Young:

Your 2-3% number is probably about right. On more than one occasion I've written about the most impressive golf experience I've had in the past several years. It came at a course near Cleveland that had absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever. A totally boring piece of property and not a single interesting hole, bunker, green complex, etc., etc.

But........after playing I went with my friends into the bar, found the place filled and everyone having a blast.

I sat there in "snob" mode wondering how the hell people could enjoy the play so much and what they would be like at any decent golf course, much less a place like NGLA or any other course we talk about here.

Obviously, I didn't get it....the entire crowd seemed to love the place.

Oh well, I guess that's not bad.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike Young, To let you know, Sandpines is not that busy of a golf course. In fact, there have been times where they have been on the edge, so-to-speak. The course is now owned by locals, and I can only wish them the best of success in operating it because they have the best of intentions. Their very frieindly people that work there+ they're Oregonians, which means that more then likely they are former Californian's that hate California!

Last time I played there it was like $35.00 to play Sandpines on a Saturday! So, I consider that somewhat of a good deal, and thankfully that is a huge positive for both the golf course and the GAME.

[Michael Moore]

Awesome thread. Mr. Jones brings out the best on this board, and I mean that sincerely.

At Mr. Daley's suggestion, I did look at the website. And I saw something there that caused me to jump in.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't even need to see photographs of the course to be suspicious. I will set a GCA precedent and frown upon Sandpines by gazing upon the scorecard.

Gold - out 3626     in 3626
Black - out 3487    in 3467
Blue - out 3287     in 3249
White - out 3070   in 3015
Red -  out 2660     in 2686

I find that to be eerily artificial.

[mjdugger2]

The last thing I am going to say about this whole ordeal is that an article about how Rees Jones "works with the land" is misleading.

Or maybe it isn't misleading, but it is agravating to read this type of crap.

I'd be happy to tee it up on any Rees Jones golf course at any time.  Because any golf is better than no golf.  

But it's not Bandon Dunes.  It's like hooking up with a fat chick....or riding a moped.  It's all fun and games until your friends see you.

 

Maybe Atlantic is great...and The Bridge is great, too, and so on.....

If there is any point at all to a heirarchy; however, be it a Doak rating or Golf magazine top 100 ranking, it is to discriminate.  Mustn't this discrimination be based on some type of system?    

What's the highest ranking Rees Jones golf course?  Forest Ocean?   Rees Jones courses don't rank out............................And they don't appeal to my sense of "golf in a natural setting", either!!

What do they have going for them besides your seal of approval?  That's right, it's gloss Rees time.  What do the critics say about Rees?  Open Dr.?  'Minimalist' designer?

Perhaps if Sandpines was Bandon Dunes, like it could very easily have been, it would be ranked #44 is the U.S.  

Why has it gone through three ownership groups......and I have played it, Pat.  IT SUCKED, but it was golf...and any golf is better than no golf.

I'm sure they had h2o needs, what freaking golf course doesn't?  But, again, Pat, you are firing blanks, or bbs, or 22 cal.  I'm using the bazooka.

Come to Oregon, please, and look at EVERYTHING around Sand Pines and tell me the course doesn't fit.

It's like you are arguing against the roots of the game.  Played on the linksland by the Scots.  Beautiful, rugged golfscape, just waiting to be shaped and formed into a course.  Half of the property ALREADY WAS a golf course, the wind creating natural sand blow outs, trees scattered about randomly.  There surely wasn't a big ass hill and there sure wasn't an irrigation pond there.  Just natural dunesland of the kind we see at Dornoch, Royal County Down, Machrihanish, Pac Dunes, Spyglass Hill and Cypress Point.  

Go ahead and make something up about how my comparison of  a PRE-construction Sandpines to all of the above courses is stupid.  But come to Oregon and look at EVERYTHING around.  Just bums me out    

Please answer the question.....What do you think of the article in Cigar Afficianado, the one about Rees, by Jeff Williams?  
You have read it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ Daley,

You'd have to ask Rees those questions, George and I can't answer for him.

Mostly, I don't hear an objection to the HOLES he finds, just the mounds ?

If you could review the gerrymandered property that was finally approved by the authorities for a golf course at Atlantic and tell me how he didn't undertake this process,
I would appreciate it.  If you could do the same thing at The Bridge I'm sure George Tiska would appreciate that as well.

Michael Moore,

Is it the "out", "in" you feel is artificial or the five sets of tees ?

Tom MacWood,

I can't answer that, as it would depend on the various architects' views on the property, their availability, etc., etc..
But, as I said, I would have no problem hiring Rees, the question is, would he have a problem working with/for me ?
I'm fairly certain that I would get the golf course I wanted.

Do you feel that Friar's Head and The Bridge are similar properties and that the permiting problems at both locations are/were almost identical ?  

Or was Friar's Head's golf course subjected to very little enviro restraints by the various authorities, other than the coastal issue, prior to the building of the golf course ?

MDugger,

You say that his courses don't rank out, that they don't appeal to your sense of the natural,
Could you list the Rees Jones courses you've played so that I may gain a better frame of reference with respect to your statement ?

I need a more refined, rather than a general description of Sandpines, saying it "Sucked" doesn't tell me anything specific about the course or the individual holes.

Let's take for instance, the hole in the first picture Tommy posted.  What can you tell me about the strategy and play of that hole ?  I'm at a disadvantage, I've never seen or played the course and I'm trying to find out what is so bad about those 18 holes, other than you and others seem to think the style isn't in harmony with the surrounding land.

I'm trying to understand this in the context of a comparison of the use of the land and naturalness that occurs at Shinnecock versus NGLA, two golf courses that are adjacent to one another.

Now, you say, I'm arguing against the roots of the game ?
And you alleged that I was crazy

What type of permiting and enviro problems do you think TOC, Dornoch, RCD and the other courses had to deal with ?
What type of water needs and restrictions ?
Could they be built in today's enviro climate ?

I thought I answered your question before but, here's how I feel.  It's just an article in a men's magazine about golf and a golf course architect.  You can view it as informative.  
You can view it as promotional.  You can view it as accurate.
You can view it as inaccurate.  It's just an article in a men's magazine about golf and a golf course architect, like a zillion others.  If this article upsets you, you need to focus on more important things in your life, like family, friends, business, hobbies and your golf game.  

Just a small piece of advice from a crazy old man with no taste  

Again, if you could list the Rees Jones courses you've played it would be a help in understanding your position.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
You answered the question...you would hire Rees if you were in charge of Atlantic, you can't say if you would hire him first for some reason, but you would definitely hire him. Why would you hire him....do you think he maximized the property - enviro contraints and all? As a team do you think you may have gotten more out of the property? How would your influence have changed Atlantic?


The similarities of the Bridge and Friars Head are they were both built around the same time, both on eastern Long Island and by two architects that GTiska is intimately familar with.

If you are interested in the enviro issues perhaps you should ask GT, my questions are more focused on architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You're right, both courses were built in America in the same century.

One on the south fork, the other on the north fork on two distinct pieces of properties.

One in Riverhead and the other in the Hamptons.
One town encouraging growth and development and the other discouraging it.

One only has to look at Shinnecock and NGLA two enormously different golf courses built on the same adjacent/contiguous piece of property to see how different two courses can be on the same land, let alone different land with different constraints.

Try asking questions without an agenda.

With regard to Atlantic and your hypothetical questions,
we'll never know the answer.  But, I would suggest that you read "Miracle on Breeze Hill" to better understand what took place at Atlantic.  It gets out of the theory, or dream world, into the real world of golf course architecture and construction.

[G_Tiska]

Pat
Well put about the mind set of the two different towns [Southampton & Riverhead]
The permit process at The Bridge took somewhere in the area of 5-6 years before a bulldozer was allowed to start work. Groups for the enviroment fight us every step of the way.
They are back with $$$$, so it's a delay game. It' not easy to build what you want,where you want. Limitations are set by the Town THAT IS A FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

GTiska
I understand that all new courses have to deal with environment issues which effect the design process, but my questions are related to the finished product and your general philosophy on routing.

How would you compare the routing of Friar's Head and the Bridge? In judging a routing what are the most important critieria?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

How can you totally ignore the answer that goes to the core of your question.  Friar's Head didn't have any routing constraints other than the coastal issue.

The two towns have entirely different perspectives and impacts upon the land being used, one conducive the other obstructionist.

Let's see if I can put this in language you can understand.

How would you compare the performance of two fighters, one performing with one or both hands tied behind his back and the other unencombered ?

You just don't get it.

Actually, you do, but don't want to acknowledge the inherent differences.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I thought the question was addressed to GTiska.

Every golf course in the world has its own unique site, does that mean we should not analyze and compare how architects lay out their golf courses. Seth Raynor faced many different sites during his career (from Yale to Monterey Peninsula to Yeamans Hall to Shoreacres to Fishers Island to Lookout Mountain) - does that prohibit us from analyzing his routing abilities and comparing his routing tendencies to other architects?

GTiska has a unique perspective that would be interesting to tap and at the same time I'm curious about his own ideas on what is important in a routing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Not one of the courses you referenced faced environmental or permiting restrictions.

Isn't disengenuous of you to ask for a comparison in the routing of two courses when one had virtually no restrictions and the other had restrictions ?

If Seth Raynor and the others faced today's environmental and permiting restrictions most if not all of the classic courses wouldn't be in their present form.

If you want to start with Pebble and Cypress, then move down to Seminole and Indian Creek then move up to Lido, The Creek, Maidstone and NGLA that would be okay with me, and a nice trip to boot.

Start dealing with the realities of designing and building golf courses in different jurisdictions, with the mulitiplicity of agencies, authorities and interested groups affecting your ability to freely use the land through the barriers of the environmental and permiting process.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

mdugger,

To clarify, yes my post was intended to point out that the article is not just misleading, but i believe it to be a lie.  My other point is that golf writers are hired to write these fluff pieces and willingly participate in the lie.  There are no investigative pieces that I am aware of.  GCAtlas provides an excellent forum to debate, and you will not get this type of free for all debate in the publications.  My other problem with the Rees piece is that he is assuming a virtue he does not possess(sic).  It pisses me off because walking the land, letting the land drive the design process is something I believe in deeply, and having practiced it for the last 8 years. I see no possible way that his disfiguring of the land is a result of his committment to walking the land, working with nature.  I have spent a tremendous amount of time on the land, and it just does not seem possible to develop his style from those experiences, I would say my style is much more subdued compared to his because I spend so much time on the virgin land before construction begins, and still i think I have been too heavy handed in the final result.  Aside from that, his holes my have tremendous strategy, I would not know because I have not played them, if so then I would have tremendous respect for his work because I think ultimately the strategic excitement produced through the design process is the ultimate intenetion of a designer.

People can excuse bad design by citing environmental factors, but I think ultimately the final design is impacted by the talent and creativity of the architect far more than any other factor you can name.  Environmental constraints is a crutch that is used all too often to excuse bad design.  The owner or developer is another crutch that is used all too often to excuse a lackluster effort by the architect.  It compares to Brad Klein's effort to somewhat excuse Pete Dye's big budgets by blaming the shapers who go too far in interpreting Pete's intentions thus requiring Pete to undo all their work to get back to what he intended.  Really?  Damn, if we could just control those bad shapers golf could be more affordable.  

With that type of reporting, you need GCA in hopes somebody will pursue the truth, because it is not happening in the golf magazines. No?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Do you speak for GTiska now? Can you also answer the question I asked him about his own routing philosophies?

Didn't you just lecture this group about blowing the chance to ask questions of GTiska in the past, something about not taking the perfect opportunity to interogate George on specifics, and that when he responded, everyone ran away and never once did we question or challenge him. Its kind of hard when you seem to be his mouthpiece.

[Proverb Boy]

Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

Over and over, apparently, when it comes to threads about Rees Jones at GolfClubAtlas.com.

It's your time and energy, of course, but what's the point?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Use the opportunity prudently, don't squander it with disengenuous questions.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Proverb Boy
Good point. I sometimes can't help but get sucked into Rees/Mucci blackhole - otherwise known as the architectural wasteland.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()