Rees Jones article in Cigar Aficionado

[Timmy Turf]

G Tiska

You were the grow-in superintendent at Easthampton and were there during construction and prior to seeding, right?

In response to a question asking you to compare Rees with C&C, you said:   “Rees is a gentleman. To the super.. he is an ideal architect to work for.  He  always asks" Are you comfortable with this?" Plus his shapers gave me great conditions to grow grass on. I think part of an architects job is build something that can be maintained.”

The implication is that C&C didn’t necessarily care if you were comfortable with anything and that their shapers didn’t necessarily give you great conditions to grow grass on.  If that implication was not intended, then just say so.  But if that implication was intended, then would you please answer the following questions:

1.      Are you saying that C&C built un-maintainable features at Easthampton after you expressly told them that you didn’t think they could be maintained?  If so, can you cite 3 or 4 examples and explain what the problem was?
2.      If you didn’t tell C&C that you didn’t think a particular feature could be maintained before it was seeded, regardless of whether or not they asked, why not?  Isn’t that one of the very important reasons that a grow-in superintendent is brought on during construction?

["  "]

                                                                   

Hey everybody, G_Tiska isn’t really posting.  It’s Pat Mucci posting under his name.
Just look at this quote from his last post:

“Self Interest.
Why don't you put a name to your thread, A Coward!”

                                                                   

[Gene Greco]

Whose responsibility is it to see that a golf course is constructed in such a way which reflects the land it is built upon?

Is there a law that says Sandpines had to be done the way we would like to have seen it?

Is it the developers fault? Not all developers have the knowledge and keen sense which Mike Keiser, Dick Youngscap,etc possess. Some don't play golf.

A developer hires an electrician to do the electrical work in the clubhouse. Is it the electrician's fault or the developer's if the lines continually short out?

For those developers who aren't very keen on all this golf architecture stuff, the same ones who don't know much about being an electrician,  would you think the golf architect would have to ultimately assume the responsibility that things ARE done in a responsible manner?

Mduggers pictures show that Sandpines appears to have been constructed in an irresponsible manner.

Is Jeff Lewis' suggestion that a golf architect's license be suspended for negligence plausible?

Is there a license? What are the requirements for such?

Who regulates this stuff?

["   "]

Hey everyone, "   " isn't really posting as himself.

See, it works both ways.

["  "]

Hey "  ".
I sent you an e-mail and it came to me.
Now what?  

[sad guest]

Pictures have been known to speak 1000 words, but in the case of those pictures of Sandpines only one word is needed, BUTCHER!

[Mike Erdmann]

Mdugger, in regards to your dunes photos of the area pre-Sandpines, are those photos of THE land Sandpines sits on, or are they photos of other areas in the Oregon Dunes National Monument?  I will never defend Sandpines, because I do think it is a very disappointing golf course, but in fairness to Rees Jones I think it's important to know if those photos are of the actual ground the golf course now sits on.  The Oregon Dunes are a very large, very varied region, and the photos just don't look like the areas directly adjoining Sandpines, which makes me ask my question.  For example, the area to the north of the course is a vast expanse of sand, but it seems to lack any kind of dune-like terrain depicted in your photos.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Erdmann,

I'm glad you picked up on that because I suspect that MDugger's post is a FRAUD, a sham in an attempt to gain support for his dislike of Rees.

I ask you to undertake the following exercise.

1.  MDugger clearly stated that he was posting photos of the
     land SURROUNDING Sandpines, not the land Sandpines is
     on.  That's a deliberate attempt to mislead, or a lack of
     candor.

2.  Go to mapquest or another map service and plug in the
     Sandpines address:  1201 35th Street,
                                 Florence, OR
     And, you'll see that Sanpines is not located where he
     would have you believe.  It is 1.5 miles from the ocean,
     across streets, across Coast Guard Road, Across a river,  
     across dunes, and then the ocean.

3.  Go to the Sandpines website. Go to the schematic of the
     18 hole golf course, get your bearings on your directions,
      east, west, north and south.  Then Go to the hole by  
      hole diagrams and pictures.  Do you notice on almost
      every hole that very tall, dense pine trees exist.  Does
      that look like the property that MDugger presented to you
      as the site that Sandpines was built upon.

MDugger's photo exhibit appears to be disengenuous, a clear and deliberate attempt to mislead you.  I would suggest, on future posts, that you question his credibility, and examine with enlightened suspicion, his point of view or persepective.

Do you see the importance of obtaining the FACTS rather than a biased opinion ?  

MDugger,

Why didn't you answer my earlier questions about the golf course ?

Tom MacWood,

You should be aware that C & C had nothing to do with the routing at Easthampton.  The routing was essentially established years and years ago, and, as I understand it, to attempt a different routing may have run into difficult to impossible enviro and/or permiting restrictions.

George Tiska,

They're so willing to be deaf, dumb and blind that they'll believe anyone who attacks Rees, irrespective of the facts, rather than listen to someone with first hand knowledge, such as yourself.

Did you also notice how the severest critics lack the integrity to post under their own names ?  If they're so firm in their convictions why are they so afraid to identify themselves ?  
Stand and be counted, like men.

[RJ_Daley]

Here you are Pat, knock yourself out.

http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com/addressimage.aspx?t=1&s=12&lon=-124.113413513979&lat=44.0064838300394&alon=-124.10968436&alat=43.9976665&w=1&ref=A%7
c1200+35th+St%2c+Florence%2c+OR+97439

You can navigate around in this aerial and zoom in or out.  You might notice that the land bordering to the north and south are the same sort of coastal sand pine forests that Mike's pictures depict.  Then go to topo button and you can study that too.  Note that when you switch to the topo, the map is from 1980, before the golf course development and the legend clearly depicts the property the course is on as "coastal dunes".  Mike said SURROUNDING LAND, so how does that make him a fraud?  Early on, someone described that it was about a mile and half from the beach, where is the fraud? He can't verywell go and undo the golf course to give you exact photos.  Tommy spent his youth there in that region and says the land that the golf course now occupies was typical coastal sand dunes-pine property and that is good enough for me.  

It seems to me that in your admonishment to Mike and challenge to us to study the map, that you have hoisted yourself on your own petard. :-/

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ Daley,

That's not the OCEAN, it's a river, the OCEAN is farther west.
Hoist that !

If you want to get the FACTS right, here is Tommy's exact quote.  Turns out he's not that familiar with the area as he's only off by a multiple of three.

Hard to believe, but this "site" was pure as pure can get, Oregon Coastal Dunes less then a half mile from the Pacific ocean.

To further, what you also don't see in these photos are the two beautiful watertanks that grace the property and can be seen from almost the entire course.

Interesting that the highly visible Water towers at Friar's Head and GCGC don't bother him, but the ones at Sandpines do.  Why is that ?
I'd call that a double standard or a bias, take your pick.

If you look at Tommy's first photo, of the 18th hole, with the west to your left, you'll note dense, tall pine trees.
Where did they come from, did Steve Wynn Plant them ?
Where are those trees in MDugger's photos

I stand by my presentation.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, I am really begining to worry about you.  I see the trees in the photos.  I see the mix of sand barrens and sand-pine dunes and forest.  I hope everyone else does too.  One of us is due for a trip to Dr Katz, and I hope it ain't me.

I watched the play on PBS the other night, "Waiting For Godot" and I'll be damned if these conversations with you Pat aren't alot like those in that 'theater of the absurd' genre.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ Daley,

First you can't tell the difference between a river and the Pacific Ocean and now you're trying to tell me about the dunes, totally disregarding photo after photo of tall, dense pine forests.  

What would you say the predominant feature is, tall dense pine forest or Ocean front dunes mixed with trees ?

Do any of MDugger's photos bear any resemblence to the photos of each hole, or Tommy's first two photos ?

Dr Katz awaits you  

Perhaps we can get a group rate  

MDugger's presentation was a FRAUD.

Having said that, Tommy Naccarato may be correct in his assessment of the strategic merits of the golf course and a style not to his liking, but if we're going to take a position, lets be honest in our presentations and avoid trying to deliberately mislead fellow GCA'ers.

That's fair isn't it ?

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, the ocean is by my scale 7/8ths of a mile from the western prolongation of rough on fairway #6.  There is a river wash between the course and the ocean.  Yes, that dastardly Tommy exagerated by 3/8s of a mile.  Pat, I hate to say this, but your retorts are becoming posts about nothing, over and over... they are absurd.  I think I will leave you the last word, as I fear that I have already taken your bait hook line and sinker... :-/

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ Daley,

I understand.

You didn't answer any of my questions, so indulge me for one last one.

Do you feel that MDuggers photos are an accurate representation of the land that Sandpines was built on ?

A yes or no will suffice.

[DMoriarty]

Okay everyone, leave poor Patrick alone . . . . so he will have the time to finish responding to my post #142.

Patrick, my search function is not working so I have not been able to go back to the Bridge thread.  If you can let me know approximately when it (finally) wound down, I will go back through and find it manually.

I can tell you that it still looks to me like we are in agreement that the developer hires an architectbecause he likes the architect's style and wants that style at his course.

If you are also saying that, on some features and design elements, the developer will bend the architect slightly in a direction the architect might not otherwise go, I will certainly concede that.  

But, based on your posts, I still think that you and I agree that, normally, when an architect designs a course, he does so (for the most part) in his own style, whatever that may be.

Question for you Easterners.  When you tried to find the ocean on Terraserver, did you naturally try to look to the East instead of the West?  The ocean to the east is a lot more than 1 1/2 miles.  

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I am totally unskilled when it comes to reading topo maps. But, it appears to me that you have ignored an important point Dick Daley made.

How do you interpret the topo? Doesn't it appear that, in fact, Sand Pines was built on sand dunes?

[Fact Patrol]

If you think about it, Mr. Mucci, the Undisputed Anti-Bias Champion, might be the person who is exhibiting the greatest degree of BIAS on this thread.  BIAS in favor of Rees or his golf courses?  Or perhaps BIAS against any adverse opinion about Rees’ golf courses?  Or perhaps BIAS against anybody that exhibits excessive idolization of C&C?  

And how did C&C get brought into this thread anyway?  Oh, yeah, I forgot.  Mr. Mucci always brings C&C into these Anti-Bias Rees threads!

Just think about the irrelevant details that he will argue about in defense of his positions or to prove fraud.  Did he say FRAUD?  You’ve got to be kidding!  mdugger expressly stated that his photos weren’t of the site itself, but representative of the surrounding area.  So perhaps Mr. Naccarato can describe how closely the pictures represent the Sandpines site pre-construction.  But FRAUD???

“Golf Holes” versus “Good Holes”???  .5 miles versus 1.5 miles (and as Mr. Daley showed, it ain't 1.5 miles and the Oregon Dunes right next to the Pacific are probably not even .5 miles)??  Who cares.

FACTS??   Mr. Mucci, you want FACTS??  You can’t handle the FACTS on Sandpines Mr. Mucci.  Just look at the 1980 topo map, before Sandpines was built, and compare it to the aerial photo.  There was a wooded area to the east, into which it appears only holes 8 and 9 were built.  There was a wooded area to the west, into which holes 3,4,5,6, 7 tees, 12 approach, first ½ of 13 and 15 tees were built.  The rest of the course, comprising most if not all of 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 & 18 were routed over sand dunes.  Those are the FACTS!

And although the topo map doesn’t show it, it is highly likely (OPINION!!!) that the land underlying the pine trees was sand dunes too!

Mr. Mucci, you criticize people for making judgments and rendering opinions based on photos, and then you use those very photos to support your own judgments and opinions.  You see pine trees in the distance and then use that FACT to support your OPINION that the entire golf course was cut out of a forest of pine trees.  And your OPINION is  INCORRECT!  Geez!  If you are going to Champion an issue, perhaps you should at least hold yourself to the same standard.

[Fact Patrol]

And one more thing Mr. Mucci.

It's time to wave the white towel.  (FACT)
It's time to admit that you were wrong.  (FACT)

But we all know that's not going to happen.  Right?  (OPINION)
I mean, we're still waiting for you to say "Perry Maxwell.  I was wrong."    (FACT)

Here it comes everybody.  When all else fails, it's time to play the anonymous card!  The golfclubatlas.com equivalent of the race card!  

[Tim Weiman]

Fact Patrol:

I'm looking forward to Pat Mucci's interpretation of the 1980 topo map. Either we are both way off base or Pat has some real explaining to do. And, perhaps, an apology to mdugger for the comment about "fraud".

Your observations about Pat and "bias" also appear to be on the mark. There is nothing wrong with Pat liking Rees Jones as a person or even as an architect, but in this instance Pat might have been better off taking Tommy Naccarato's advice and lay low on the Sandpines discussion.

["   "]

Fact Patrol,

Patrick already tried the anonymous card with me, kind of, sort of. He only refused to address half of me for debating convenience. And I was making no personal attacks of any kind. Just holding a mirror up to a helpful passage in a book. At this point, I hope Pat is able to take his own advice and  to "divorce" the style/poster of a post from the strategy/post of a post. But sometimes it is easier to deal with the messenger than the message.

No, at this point, I predict more "interrogation extraordinaire" from him now. A good 5 to 10 questions such as, "Can anyone show me photos of the actual dunes the course was built upon?"

"Can anyone show me magnified photos of the sand particles of the dunes that the course was built upon and a soil test that proves the course and the sand dunes shown are one and the same?"

"Can anyone show me video of the time in history when the dunes were actually formed in that exact location to prove that someone hadn't artificially manufactured those dunes shown in the photos presented by mdugger?"

[Fact Patrol]

"  "

Despite Mr. Mucci's OPINION that most participants on this site don't care about the FACTS, I would think that everybody would very much like to see "photos of the actual dunes the course was built upon."

So before Mr. Mucci asks for that information, I'm asking, on behalf of every participant on this site, that somebody post pre-construction photos of the Sandpines site before Mr. Mucci claims:  "Why was it only me, and nobody else, that wanted to see the actual photos of the site, so that they could make a judgment based on the FACTS.  And you people don't think there's a BIAS on this site against Rees?  Give me a break!"  

If Rees Jones spent so much time on the Sandpines site pre-construction as the Cigar Afficionado article states, you would think that he would have photos of the pre-construction site.  Pictures taken by him would certainly have been helpful to him when he was working on the course from New Jersey!    Mr. Mucci apparently knows Rees Jones as well or better than anybody else on this site, so maybe Mr. Mucci could ask Rees for such photos and post them here himself!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Fact Patrol,

MDugger held out the photos to be of the site sandpines sits on.  Just look at the responses of those who posted after viewing the photos, and see if they got that impression.

Would you cite for me, specifically and exactly, even quoting me, where I said that "the ENTIRE golf course was cut out of a forest of pine trees." ?  Now, you are the fact patrol, so that should be easy for you, since you alleged that I said that.

So you don't think that 1.5 miles versus .5 miles makes a difference.  Let's see.  Let's move Friar's Head a mile south.
Let's move Maidstone a mile north.  Let's move NGLA a mile south,  Let's move Seminole a mile west, lets move Pebble and Spyglass and Cypress a mile east.  
Nah, there's no difference, is there ?

I made no judgement with respect to the golf course, its strategy or playability based on photos.  That's a fact, and a consistent position I've taken.

I noticed and mentioned that MDuggers photos bore no resemblence to the photos of the holes on the golf course.
There wasn't a significant tree in sight in his photos, let alone dense stands of pine trees. And, the Ocean is up close and personal.
It's funny that Mike Erdmann noticed and mentioned the same thing, but no one challenged him. I sense a tangential bias.
MDugger never responded or answered the questions from Mike or Myself,

Fact Patrol, can you cite me just one example where I made a judgement about the golf course ?  Where I offered even one opinion relative to its strategy or playability ?  
I think you'll find that your contention is without the facts.  
I think you should post under a different moniker, this one is seriously flawed and inaccurate.

MDuggers pictures are a clear attempt to mislead the viewer, and thus I view that presentation as a fraud.

Let me ask you, do you feel MDugger's photos are an accurate representation of the land that Sandpines sits on ?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

By the way, if someone would post photos taken pre or during construction of the actual site where holes from Sandpines sits, that would be an HONEST presentation of the FACTS.
If one could obtain 360 degree or wide angle photos from several directions, that would be even more informative.

You, Mr. Fact Patrol have missed the point, and since you are
Mr "Fact Patrol" it should have been YOU, not Mike Erdmann and myself who pointed out that the pictures presented were not FACTUAL depictions of the land that Sandpines was built on.

But, let's suppose for a second, that the golf course sits on top of the land in MDugger's photos.  We would all agree that the golf course as shown in TN's pictures and the pictures of the golf course on the Sandpines website doesn't mirror the look of the surrounding dunesland.   If we agree, then you have to ask yourselves, WHY.  Now, before you leap to your Pavlovian answers, think..... I know it's difficult, but think..... WHY.
Could it be because that's exactly what the owner/developer wanted ?
Is it possible that the owner/developer wanted something that looked unique or different, from the surrounding area ?

Shouldn't Mr. Fact Patrol provide that information for us ?

Before you draw your conclusions, shouldn't you have all the facts ?

DMoriarty,

I haven't forgotten about the latter portion of your post and questions to me, but between business, family corrective and enlightening posts to the others,  
I haven't had time to get to it.  I'll try later today.

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Could you please comment on the topo map? What does it tell you about the land Sandpines was built on?

Again, I'm not an expert at reading these things, but it sure looks like you may be unfair in faulting mdugger for posting the photos he presented.

[Mother Nature]

Pat,

you wrote, "I noticed and mentioned that mduggers photos bore no resemblence to the photos of the holes on the golf course."

Well, I think that is the exact problem. Rees seems to have ignored the natural beauty of the preconstruction condition of the site. Or at best, he seems to have ignored the opportunity to incorporate the natural beauty of the site. Most of us would be a lot happier if the golf holes actually bore some resemblence to the sandy land they are placed in. The wind that created the sand dunes does not create such regular mounding. With regular mounding, you get regular bounces of the golf ball. Where does that leave the golfer? "Well, Bill, I wouldn't worry about going left. Those mounds just kick you right back into the fairway the whole way down the left side."

[TEPaul]

Some of those photos of raw land are definitely some great looking flowing topography wherever it is in relation to Sandpines golf course.

As for the photo of that hole, it's a bit hard to see how it might play or whatever but certainly the general look of the hole isn't hard to miss. To me the basic presentation of the hole, the "lines" of the hole, the "lines" of the lake, the features, whatever, is the look of "modern architecture" to me.

Maybe there're a ton of golfers who think the look of that hole is the "cat's whiskers"  but all in all the look of that hole is decidedly unprepossessing to me!