[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

I don't know what topo map you're referencing.

If you're talking about the aerial photo that RJ Daley supplied,
I see a golf course surrounded on its east, west and southern borders by trees and sparse housing.  To the northwest there are trees and to the northeast a strip of sand about 300-400 yards wide.

I can't tell from the photo where the sand ended prior to the golf course being there.  Perhaps earlier aerials could provide that info and an indication if there were 118 holes on that site

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci,

I'm referring to the same topo map Dick Daley mentioned. Dick's post is the only reason I found it.

Again, I may be reading it incorrectly, but it does appear that an apology to mdugger is in order.

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Mucci -

There's a small drop-down menu on the left hand side of the page that switches you to the topo map. That Terraserver is pretty slick.

Good luck.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

Pretend you're standing in the middle of Sandpines.
Look at the dunes, can you see the Ocean ?
Oh, wait, there it is, the Artic Ocean.

Now, look to the west, pretty dense forest, tough to see an Ocean through that stuff.

Rather than post disengenuous pictures showing dunes and the adjacent Pacific Ocean, and holding them out to be the Sandpines site, shouldn't pictures of the actual Sandpines site been shown.  Wouldn't that have been more HONEST ?

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Someone above mentioned that quite likely Rees Jones has pictures of the site before construction began. Maybe you could get them and post them here.

But, why sidestep the fact that the topo map appears to support mdugger's suggestion that his photos are representative of the land Sandpines was built on?

Also, you raised a question about the effect of moving 1/2 mile east or west or north or south at different alternative sites, e.g., Friar's Head, NGLA, Cypress Point, etc.

I'm not sure how this is relevant if the pre construction topo map does accurately portray the land Sandpines was built on as being largely, if not entirely, sand dunes.

Shouldn't this point be resolved before suggesting mdugger's photos amount to "fraud"?

Pat, the less experience you have with a particular site, the more out on a limb one goes making strong statements about it. In this case, it appears - I could be wrong - that you got out ahead of yourself.

[corey miller]

Pat- perhaps an invitation could be issued to Rees to attend next years GCA winter meeting?

Do you or anyone else have a sense as to what the best site (natural land - environmental restrictions) he has had to work with?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moore,

Thanks, that is a neat feature.

Tim Weiman,

In looking at the topo it reflects a band of sand running through the entire length of the property.
I can't comment on it's look based on the topo as the topo doesn't appear to have enough detail to support any evaluation.

I suspect that the pictures MDugger posted were of the dunes between the Pacific Ocean and the River.
I would also suspect that those dunes and their look is different from the dunes at Sandpines, with the wind probably having had a greater influence over those dunes than the band of dunes surrounded by a forest on both sides.

As I said earlier, actual photos of the pre and during construction site would be accurate depictions of the land, more revealing, and factual.

I would think that MDugger who posted photos from land SURROUNDING Sandpines could obtain photos from the club, town or county.

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Okay, it sounds like we have moved forward and acknowledged that a significant portion of the Sandpines property was sand. Whether it looks "exactly" like the photos mdugger presented, I haven't a clue. But, again, I think you were way ahead of yourself declaring mdugger's photos a "fraud".

As for other photos, I don't know what others mdugger has, but I understand it is pretty common for golf architects to photographically document a site before and after construction. Thus, Rees Jones may be a better source than mdugger.

Pat, I have seen before and after photos of Mackenzie's famous 9th hole at Cypress Point. It does show that architects long before Rees got in the business did that kind of documentation. Pretty standard by the time Rees got to the Sandpines project, I believe.

[CHrisB]

Hey, I found this picture of the area SURROUNDING Augusta National!  Doesn't look at all like the course.   :-/



And look!  Here's a picture from the area SURROUNDING Cypress Point!  Hmmm...



This has been a good thread but I'm afraid a pretty strong argument on the anti-Rees side has been weakened considerably by photos from the area SURROUNDING Sandpines instead of the actual preconstruction site.

But in the end it's all opinion anyway--in the words of the Naked Gun:
(as Frank Drebin walks up to the table where Vincent Ludwig and Jane are sitting)
VL: "Drebin!"
Jane: "Frank!"
Frank Drebin: "You're both right!"

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

Sorry for the delay.

Style & Strategy.

I feel that style is variable, strategy constant.

As an example,

Let's look at the following holes

REDAN

Original North Berwick
4th NGLA
2nd Somerset
7th Shinnecock
8th The Creek
13th Yale
3rd The Knoll
3rd Montclair (4th 9)
8th Innescrone
Pete Dye's redan
Other designer's redans

The strategy is basically constant irrespective of the designer
and each designers particular style.

If we examine cape holes will we find the landscape littered with each designer's style while the strategy remains fairly constant.

Eden,
Leven
Road
Valley
Biarritz
Short
Alps
Dog legs
Double Dog legs
Bottle

Each of these holes has been designed and built by a variety of architects, each reflecting their own style, but the strategy remains fairly constant.

With respect to your Style Continuum, I disagree with the order of your process.  I think architects design holes strategically FIRST with their style being an inherent part of their thought process and aesthetics afterward.

But, that's just my opinion.

[Tim Weiman]

Chris,

I'm trying to decide if you are serious.

If so, can you explain why the argument of the "anti Rees" side has been "weakened" by presenting photos of the area surrounding Sandpines?

Given that the topo map strongly suggests a large part of Sandpines was, in fact, built on sand, why are you so sure mdugger's pictures don't present meaningful insight into what this site might have been?

Saying it would be even better if mdugger anticipated this thread years ago and accumulated pre-construction photos for us, doesn't do much for me either way. We all know the more documentation the better.

mdugger never suggested his photos were of the exact acreage the course was built on. At this stage, what remains to be determined is how representative the pictures really are.

I didn't see the property before and I haven't seen the finished product, but I think at this stage we are a long way from reaching the same conclusion ("fraud") Pat Mucci did.

Hopefully, folks familiar with the site before and after will weigh in.

Also, I'm wondering what "anti Rees side" means. Can you explain it?

[CHrisB]

Hey Tim,

I'm just kidding around really, having a good time reading this thread.  By "anti-Rees" I mean "opposed to Rees" on this issue; i.e., those whose argument is "Rees wasted the potential of the Sandpines site, imposed his style upon the land, etc."  I think that side has a pretty strong argument, but I agree with Pat that when mdugger posts pictures from a surrounding area instead of the actual site to support an argument that Rees wasted the actual site, it can be misleading.  Doesn't make the argument incorrect, it just distracts from it and in that way weakens it and the credibility of the arguer.  For example, if it weren't for those pictures, those on the "pro-Rees" side wouldn't have much to say about the aerial and topo maps presented later, which clearly show that much of Sandpines was built on sand dunes.

Either show pics of the actual site (like the aerial and topo), the site which was argued to be wasted, or don't show any.  Showing pictures of surrounding land and saying, "it might have been this good" (or in mdugger's words, "instead we get this?") are like me showing pictures of a surrounding Krispy Creme store and saying "it might have been this bad".  And Pat's right--moving a mile in any direction can drastically change the piece of land you have to work with.  Just imagine if Prairie Dunes were built a mile away from where it is now.  Maybe not in the case of Sandpines, but maybe so.  We don't know for sure!

So I guess I'm saying the same thing you are, that you can't make a strong statement either way until you have the right information to go on; hopefully those who really know will come forth.

(I'll retreat back onto the fence and watch from here on out; these threads are much more enjoyable when you aren't on either side!)

[Paul Turner]

Patrick

I haven't played Montclaire so I don't know how similar this are to the holes at The Knoll.   I think we'd both agree that the holes designed by Madonald, Raynor, Banks show plenty of variety.  Compare the Redan with the original: there are major differences between the two, Yale's plays downhill and the green doesn't slope away from the line of play, in fact it's gently uphill!  

Whereas the Redan at Piping Rock is much more similar to the original.

So I believe calling these holes "copies" is far too simplistic; but let's not argue about semantics.  You originally asked whether Rees would be cut as much slack as Mac and Co if he built "copies".  He would if he could build holes of that quality.

I'll try to post some pics of Atlantic at some point.

[Raynor of Sunshine]

Pat Mucci,

What do you think of the "push up style" of green and its accompanying strategic elements?

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

It seems to me that you are simply drawing a distinction between a theory (redan or road "type" hole) and the subjective application of that theory (redan type hole at north berwick, redan type hole at the national, reverse redan type hole at LACC).  

I will conceed, for the sake of argument and for the time being, that there are theories of strategy in golf, that stand seperate and apart from the subjective application of those theories on golf courses.  

[I dont think it would do much good here to dive into the real practical difficulty of ever divorcing objective, archimedian theory from the subjective application of that theory. Maybe at later date I will take back my concession above and we can get into thisissue.  Might make for an interesting discussion, but lets set it aside for the time being so as to not further complicate the discussion at hand.]

Now,  don't you agree that certain architects favor, impliment, apply, build, and/or create certain specific strategic elements and theories (e.g. open green fronts, center bunkers, half-par holes, double fairways, alternate routes, redan, eden, road, fast and firm, ground game, aerial only, etc.) into their courses on a repeated basis?

To put it another way, don't architects consistently re-apply certain strategic theories into their work?

See my examples above if you don't understand what I am asking here. (CMB/Raynor by repeating same hole "type" on almost every course;  Thomas with trouble in front of greens and not behind; Mackenzie and the use of slope to advantage a well-placed and hit ball; Early Nicklaus high-fade courses; Dye stadium #16 reachable but dangerous par 5, #17 island par 3, #18 long cape 4; Hanse run-away greens and open green fronts, Curley and Schmidt with use of center fairway bunkers, etc.)


As an aside, I am curious, what is a chevron bunker, and what is the origin of the term?

Thanks for being patient with all these questions, Patrick.

[TEPaul]

I'd like to know what chevron bunkers are too. Maybe Pat is thinking of bunkering in stacked Vs like a master sergeant's insigna or something. Or maybe he's thinking of echelon bunkering and said chevron instead.

[Slag Bandoon]

 The course, aside from the fact that the finished result bears little resemblance to its natural surrounding, has many flaws.  REGARDLESS OF ORIGINAL TERRAIN...

  Drainage problems with fairways and bunkers.
  The dozer moraine is sadly obvious.
  Uninteresting holes.
  Routing is very questionable. Some long walks.
  Walkable but cartball leaning.
  Little strategy.
  No linksy feel or run of the ball.
  Unmemorable bunkers.
  Excessive mounding is for containment, not action.
  The style seems to want to bring Florida to Oregon. This I see as a preconceived vision - not a vision of "talking with the land".
  A feeling of being divorced from real land and surrounding.
    Greens are not that interesting.  And soft.
  Too much water in play.  IMNSHO
Distressing to be there and play on a lost opportunity. IMNSHO
I could have done better.    InMyNotSoQualifiedOpinion
  etc.  

  "If I can do it, it aint art."  Red Green

[FACT PATROL]

Mr. Mucci

Do I see the importance of obtaining the FACTS rather than a biased opinion???   You must be kidding!

Mdugger expressly states that his photos are of the surrounding area.  Even said “if only I had a pre-construction picture of the course.”  Couldn’t have been more clear.  Yet you said he posted a FRAUD and with a lack of candor???  Then you INCORRECTLY said “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.”

Now you say  “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.’ ?”  So here’s the answer, Mr. Mucci, and keep in mind that it is more than just an IMPRESSION that you created from your post #232:

     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

So you based YOUR opinion on an artsy schematic drawing of the site.  Nice try, but no CIGAR!

So repeat after me:  “PERRY MAXWELL.  I WAS WRONG!”

[Tim Weiman]

ChrisB:

You are exactly right. Pictures CAN be misleading. If you have followed my past comments about Doonbeg in Ireland, you could even point out that I have made the same argument.

However, saying that pictures CAN be misleading doesn't mean they necessarily are. One has to be familiar with the actual site to make the judgement that a picture misleads rather than accurately portrays what the presenter intended.

What is especially noteworthy in this discussion is that Pat Mucci went way out on a limb describing mdugger's pictures as a "fraud" when he has no first hand experience at the site.

One would think that does more to undermine the credibility of Pat personally (and perhaps the "pro Rees" side), than anything mdugger has done.

Why not first resolve whether the pictures are representative of the land Sandpines was built on BEFORE suggesting "fraud"?

In truth, Pat is just speculating that mdugger's pictures don't tell the real story of what happened at Sandpines. Pat really doesn't know.

I'll also re-state my point about Pat reference to moving 1/2 mile away from any golf course and finding different terrain.

This is silly. We all know that land contour can change rather quickly. Compare, for example, the terrain Ballybunion's Cashen course is built on with what sits right across the street. Not a half mile away. Just fifty yards away. The golf course is built on some of the biggest sand dunes in the world of golf. They brought tears to RTJ's eyes (and mine too!). But, right across the street, the land is dead flat.

But, so what? In the final analysis you still need to come back to the question of what existed before Sandpines was built. Pat didn't shed any light on that question. He just assumed the mdugger was unfairly representing the situation.

That is what Pat used to call "bias", is is not?

[John Muir]

Talking Stick was built on sand.  Shadow Creek was built on sand.  Were they ideal sites?

Nobody here seems to know how to read a topo map.  I can see only one contour line on the whole Sandpines property.  The elevation change between lines (the scale of the map!) is not given.  Therefore, how can that topo map show what kind of site it was before the course was built? The photos shown by Mdugger have some pretty nice elevation changes among the dunes. Would one contour line on the whole topo map account for this?  Who knows since we don't know the scale!

Would a topo map with 2 feet of detail between lines look identical for the Shadow Creek or Talking Stick sites?  Yes it would.

[Tim Weiman]

John Muir:

There may be many people here unskilled at reading topo maps (myself included), but I think Dick Daley and the rest of us understand the map shown does NOT show detail.

All it suggests is that a large part of Sandpines was built on sand.

I'm still hoping people familiar with the site will weigh in on the contour pre construction. I don't know what it was. It would appear Pat Mucci doesn't either.  That is why I questioned rushing to the conclusion mdugger had committed "fraud" with his pictures.

[John Muir]

Mr. Weiman

A topo map can have GREAT detail.  It depends on the resolution between the contour lines shown on the map.  If the resolution of that map was 100 feet between the contour lines then the site could be the equal of your Ballybunion site with vast undulating dunes. However, if the resolution between lines is one meter then we could be looking at a site much like Talking Stick or Shadow Creek- flat uninteresting desert. Having sand on a site is of course a positive feature but it in no way makes for an ideal place to build a minimalist/natural golf course. Again, were Talking Stick and Shadow creek ideal sites jsut because you could dig down 100 feet and only fing sand?

[Tim Weiman]

John Muir:

I'm well aware topo maps can show great detail. I'm well aware there can be different levels of resolution. I'm not very good at reading them, but it only takes a two minute lesson from a practicing architect to understand that much. Been there. Done that.

Thus far all we seem to have established is that Sandpines was built on sand. Whether the contours were as appealing as the mdugger pictures suggest - or even half as good - remains for others, people actually familiar with the site to say. I don't know.

Reference to Talking Stick, Shadow Creek or any other site doesn't advance our discussion. It is really just a distraction. We need to focus on the Sandpines site itself and, hopefully, get input fron people who actually know.

[Michael Dugger]

Pat...

You are starting to turn this a little too personal.  I apologized for some of the things I said about your taste and so on, now you need to respect me.

You need to step-off a little bit with some of your comments about my integrity.

I have no control HOW people "take" what I have said or displayed.  As someone pointed out, I never claimed my pictures were those of the actual Sandpines property, just examples of what can be found in EVERY direction around it.

And you, Chris C.....How is my argument weakened by this fact?  

I certainly don't think posting examples of the surrounding property weakens it.  Like I said, I wish I had pictures of the property pre-construction.  But I don't.  Thus, I turn to the next best thing.

I never claimed they were pictures of the land itself.  If I did have those, and they looked like the ones I DID post, this discussion would be over!
  
It is entirely possible that the pre-construction property looked different from the pictures I posted.  I'll never dispute that point.  

But, the apple generally doesn't fall far from the tree.

    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

You can't possibly think that MDugger's photos represent the land surrounding Sandpines.  Just look at the aerial.  Look at MDugger's pictures with the Ocean nearby.  I would imagine that those pictures are taken from across the river on the dunes next to the Ocean or at some other duned location on the Ocean.  Perhaps MDugger will identify the exact site.

DMoriarty,

I should have used diagonal rather than chevron which is a double angled diagonal.

I would say that some architects probably have tendencies,
But, I don't know that I view them in a strategic context.
I would probablly view them in the context of his style.

Slag Badoon,

Your assessment of the course may be accurate.
I wouldn't be able to provide an opinion as I've never seen it.

Fact Patrol,

You've got to change your name or get your facts right.

MDugger never EXPRESSLY stated that the pictures were of the surrounding area, and I'm not the only one to walk away thinking that this was the actual site, or the site not far removed from ground zero.

You allege that I said the ENTIRE course was in a tall pine forest and then quote me saying "did you notice that on ALMOST EVERY HOLE very tall dense pine trees.

Do you not know the difference between ALMOST and ENTIRE?

Time for a new name pal.

MDugger,

If you had described the exact location that the pictures were taken from it would have made it easier for everyone.

But, I am curious, where were they taken ?

I think the topo was informative.

From the begining I've asked for the facts surrounding the creation of Sandpines.  A long, long time ago, I asked Tommy who the owner/developer was, and why he hired Rees ?

I even suggested, that if Sandpines was right in the middle of the photos you posted, could it be that the owner/developer didn't want a minimalist design, perhaps he wanted something unique or different.  Perhaps he sought Fazio, Dye and Rees to build his vision, not your vision or my vision.  Since the pond was villified I asked about the water needs and asked it the retention pond was connected to water requirements.

Before blanketly condemning the golf course built on the site, I think you have to ascertain all of the facts relating to its creation, design and construction.  Once all of those facts are in, a MORE PRUDENT conclusion can be drawn.

And, in the end, it may all be a matter of style.
Perhaps the owner/developer was ecstatic with the result, but you, Tommy, slag and others disappointed

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()