[Fact Patrol]

To all:  Out of respect for ChrisB, I chose not to post this on his bias thread.  If you have the patience to read through this post, you will understand why I considered doing so.

Mr. Mucci

I offer the following with the sincerest of intentions.  Not to discredit you, but rather to possibly help you understand why the STYLE of your posts triggers a firestorm of hostility that many (see the other bias thread) view as not in the best interests of the site.  Now if you don’t need my help   then just ignore the rest of this post, but just think about the connection.  You have often expressed a hope that more industry people would participate in this discussion group and, in fact, when G Tiska participated on this very thread you spanked   everybody for not taking advantage of his participation and encouraged everybody to ask him more pertinent questions (btw, what happened to Mr. Tiska ).  Yet we have on this very thread industry sources (Rees Jones of all people   ) indicating that these types of threads, if anything, discourage their participation.  Now you can blame that on others for their reactions to your posts, but forget who is to blame because the result is really the only thing that is important anyway.  The FACT is that every single time you accuse people of bias, non-fact-based posts, deceit, fraud, etc., these firestorms erupt.  You have the right to ignore this fact and continue to post as you choose, but then you must also accept responsibility for the consequences of that choice as well.  

Think of it like the 1st Amendment, which protects free speech, but not speech intended to incite a riot!  

Recent Examples:

1.  “I never called MDugger a liar.  I called his presentation disingenuous and a fraud.”  Post 349  Disingenuous is defined as not straightforward; crafty.  Fraud is defined as a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain; a piece of trickery; one who defrauds; cheat.  Clearly, both require an “intent” to deceive or be crafty, which is exactly what you have expressly alleged (“MDugger attempted to DELIBERATELY (emphasis added) deceive GCA'ers” Post 321).  Even if mdugger’s photos were in fact deceiving as you contend, he needed an “intent” for you to fairly use those words.  In any event, I think I would prefer to be called a liar than a disingenuous fraud!  

“Before Mike Erdmann disputed the location and the representation made by MDugger, I knew those photos were not of the Sandpines site.  One only had to notice the Pacific Ocean, the vegetation on the dunes, view maps and aerials of the site and view the pictures on the Sandpines website to establish that the pictures offered bore no resemblance to the Sandpines site.”   “If you LOOK at the aerial photo of Sandpines (fact), and you combine Mike Erdmann's first hand knowledge of the area, the ONLY (emphasis added) conclusion that can be prudently drawn is that MDugger's photos look nothing like the pre-construction site at Sandpines.”  Post 321

If it was so obvious and constituted the ONLY conclusion that could be reached, then how can you say that mdugger’s presentation was so fraudulent and deceitful when you, yourself, weren’t deceived, I wasn’t deceived and many others weren’t deceived either.  “EVERYBODY thought that those photos were a representation of the site or land surrounding Sandpines.”  Post 321  EVERYBODY?  Don’t you and I, yes even I the anonymous, count for anything?  

I believed (and continue to believe) that mdugger believes that the photos are somewhat representative of the Sandpines site (not identical by any means), and Mr. Naccarato apparently agrees.  Two people that have both seen the site apparently believe that the photos are in fact somewhat representative of the Sandpines site.  Does that make them right?  No, but in their minds Yes.  Perhaps they are looking solely at the sand dunes and not the vegetation, but only they could say.  Sand is sand mind you!    Intent to deceive though?  That’s a stretch unless you have some kind of special brain scan to prove it!  

Perhaps we should just think of you as the Prosecutor, who can make allegations of guilt (FRAUD!!) before proof, as opposed to the Judge or Jury, who is supposed to presume innocence until guilt is proven.    Do you by any chance see the irony in this?  

So your choice of words, perhaps as much as anything, is what often triggers these firestorms in my OPINION.  Why couldn’t you just come online and say:  Mdugger, it is clear from your post that your photos are not of the Sandpines site itself, but are those photos truly representative in any way of the Sandpines site in your opinion?  If so, how so?”  Same message, but no intent to incite a riot!  

2.  Okay, now everybody take five minutes, WIPE THE EGG OFF YOUR FACE (emphasis added), and let's get back to discussing architecture and golf courses based on fact not fiction.”   Post #305  “But, I understand, you bet on the wrong horse and lost.”  “You bet on the wrong horse and lost and are now trying to cover up your own naivety and the continued foolishness of your position.   "  Post #321  

This isn’t about winning and losing.  Comments like that, even if said in jest (there’s always some truth in jest), only further the perception amongst many that you view this discussion group as a debate club or court of law.  Is that really what you want it to be?  Remember, it’s your choice.

By the way, if there is egg on anybody’s face, you threw the egg, so shouldn’t you do the wiping!!  

3.  “Oh, I think a name change would be in order   ”  Post 305  I am taking the comment, grin and all, in the humorous vein that I believe you offered it.  But you often make comments like that as a way of saying YOU’RE WRONG.  My moniker by no means is a guarantee that I am always right or that I am immune to making mistakes.  When I do so, I will have no problem fessing up.  I suggest that you consider doing the same.  It’s the civil thing to do.  

4.  “I know what Tommy Naccarato's opinion on Sandpines is, We've had many discussions about it off this thread and website, so once again, you're wrong.”  Post 321  See, there’s that YOU’RE WRONG thing again.  

If you knew Mr. Naccarato’s OPINION from offline discussions before he shared it with the rest of us online, an OPINION that we now know to be in disagreement with Mr. Erdmann’s OPINION, then why characterize Mr. Erdmann’s OPINION as FACT or me as WRONG or mdugger as a FRAUD?

Remember, this is not about right and wrong and people can have a difference of OPINION with respect to the same issue.  Wouldn’t it be easier to just say that you might have rushed to judgment, rather than throwing the dictionary at us?  

Or are you suggesting that Mr. Naccarato is being fraudulent and deceitful by expressing an online OPINION different than his offline OPINION?  

If you so vehemently disagree with the substance of a post, why not just present FACTS that dispute or bring into question the substance of that post.  If you had just diverted 10% of the time that you have devoted to reading and writing posts on this single thread to getting pre-construction pictures of Sandpines from Rees as requested, we would already have our answer.   Or is it possible that you have seen such photos and wouldn’t dare post them?    

I apologize to Ran Morrissett for taking up so much bandwidth with this post and would understand if he chose to delete it.  However, Ran, can you at least confirm that Mr. Mucci read it before doing so?  

I apologize to ANYBODY else, including Mr. Mucci, that doesn’t think that this post was written with a sincere attempt at HUMOR and a sincere intent to help improve this Discussion Group, which has great potential, but is not yet THERE in my OPINION.  The Morrissetts have done an amazing job with the rest of this website.  It would truly be a shame for this Discussion Group not  to achieve that same level of quality and the only way it’s going to get THERE is for change to occur from within.

May this be the Fact Patrol's last and final post!  Mr. Mucci, please for at least my sake, make that come true!  

[RJ_Daley]

FactPC:
in the interest of making your wishes come true, I'm deleting my last inflamatory post and signing off...

[An "Unbiased" Observer]

You people have way too much time on your hands.

What possible good can come from this thread?

Shame on Mr. Naccarato for starting another Rees Jones thread under an assumed name.

And shame on you all for taking the bait and re-litigating a tired and unproductive topic.

It's time for the senior members of this community to show some leadership and end this bullshit.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Dear Unbiased,

If you haven't notice, its the senior members of this community who are keeping this going!

[The Bridge Thread]

Thanks RJ! That is one less post for the Cigar Thread. I am still in the game!

Now die Cigar Thread! Die!!  

[Las Vegas Insider]

This thread can't die!  

I took the over on the over/under number of 403 by 2/1/03! My kid's college fund is at stake!! What about my mistress?? I'll have to sell my damned boat!    

Don't quit this bullshit quite yet, men! I need you!  

 

[Jeff_Lewis (Guest)]

I will try one more time to pull this together and stop the madness!

As far as I can tell, Nobody has attempted to defend Rees for his statements in the article. Nobody has backed up the notion that what Mr. Jones says he does is what it is apparent that he actually does. Nobody. So, that would appear to be the bottom line. Rees Jones builds courses in his style, that some people like and some people don't, but what he does NOT do, is "discover" them, according to any of the hundreds of people who have participated in this discussion.

Now, Ran, I think it would be in everybody's best interest if you put this thread out of it's misery.

[Proverb Boy]

Jeff, Ran isn't going to put a stop to this thread. It's not in his nature.

Let me just reiterate what I said earlier about "those who forget history are condemned to repeat it". If history tells us anything, it tells us that threads about Rees Jones on this website - usually started by Tommy, posting anonymously, then fanned by the give-and-take between Patrick and everyone who finds his inimitable style abrasive - meander interminably and cause much more harm and ill feeling than good. Why is everyone so surprised that this has happened again on this thread?

If you don't agree with Pat - his style, his message, his opinions, whatever - in my opinion the adult thing to do here is to GIVE IT UP! Move on. Do something more productive with yourself and your time. Contribute to other threads. Go out and play golf - or if you're snowed in, go out and buy a copy of Tiger Woods 2003 for your PC and play it. If you've tried to reason with him and in your opinion he hasn't responded with equally fair reasoning, there are two things you can do: 1) keep trying to reason with him; 2) accept that you and Pat aren't going to see eye-to-eye about Rees Jones, no matter how much you try to reason with him, and move on. Which is the greater folly: letting the other guy "win" the argument by abandoning it, or continually trying to win the unwinnable? (Everyone gets to stage 2 eventually - why not beat the rush?)

Las Vegas Insider - if you were really an "insider", as you claim, you would have made a large spread bet on the "over" when the over/under line was set at +/- 250 posts. Not that I can condone that sort of thing, of course, being Proverb Boy and all...

[paul cowley (Guest)]

i think some on this thread finds it irksome that Rees 'discovers' holes in a creative, romantic sense.
....in truth he does 'discover' the course the first time he sees it.
..he then applies his patented styles and strategies in the easiest way to his surroundings .
...regardless of how one might rate the outcome , i don't think Rees is being disengenuious in his sense of 'discovery'

[Tim Weiman]

Paul Cowley:

Honestly, I have no idea what you mean when you say an architect "discovers the course the first time he sees it".

What does this mean?

An architect like Mike Strantz has talked about walking a site for months to figure out the best overall routing.

Can you compare whatever you are talking about to the way a guy like Strantz describes his work?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

You can't seperate the "project" from the finished product because often the "project" determines the finished product.

If we're to evaluate and comment on a golf course, going beyond surface or casual opinions, one should have a full command of all of the material factors that influenced and determined the outcome of the golf course.

Money, permiting, environmental and issues unique to the site
all influence the outcome of the golf course.

You can view a golf course in the realm of fantasy, as if we live in an ideal world with no constraints on the developer and designer, or you can examine the real world issues that influence the outcome of the golf course.

If you want to discuss real world issues, you need to undertake a serious and thoughtful discovery process.

With respect to the photos, why are there no photos of tall, dense pine forests, which, from the aerial, and website for Sandpines are highly visible.  If you're going to contend that the photos represent what the land looks like, where are the trees in just ONE photo ??

Many on this site rendered a verdict on the final product without EVER having seen it, others rendered a verdict based on the opinion of others, and on some photos NOT taken of the actual site.  If you feel the above methods of reaching a conclusion are prudent, we strongly disagree.

Does anybody know, ......if the dunes on the Sandpines property are Oblique Dunes, how would you stabilize them ?  At what cost ?  Could you create fairways that would not be overcome by the shifting sands ? At what cost ?  And what would the time frame to accomplish these goals be ?

Aren't those vital questions in determining why Sandpines is in its present form ?  And in evaluating the final product ?

Do you think Sandpines would have turned out differently if it had an unlimited budget ?

RJ Daley and others have been critical of Sandpines without ever having seen the golf course and without knowing what was entailed in the "project".  I've just asked that we get all of the material facts before rendering a final judgement on Sandpines.

I have rendered no opinion on the golf course at Sandpines, because I haven't seen it, and I don't have enough of the facts to make an intelligent evaluation of what transpired to produce the golf course.

If others want to be like the blind men examining the elephant,
go ahead.  But, I'd prefer a more analytical approach anchored in a broader data base.

For example, on that wine you don't like from a particular year, would you understand why, if you found out that on that particular year there was an epidemic of athlete's foot amongst the peasants ?  

Conducting more research and obtaining the material facts which influenced the outcome of the final product can only help you.  Why is everyone so opposed to that process.
Why is everyone so willing to jump to conclusions without the material facts about Sandpines ?

Fact Patrol,

You can start whatever threads you like, anonymously or under your own name.  And,
you post in your style, I'll post in mine.

If you haven't learned anything from this thread, that's your fault, I've learned plenty.

Tommy Naccarato and I are friends, as are TEPaul and I, and what we say to each other, is a form of communication that we understand and accept.

And, I'm willing to bet you that the photos don't look like the site at Sandpines.

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Consumers have every right to say "I don't like it.....it's ugly".

That is why it is so important to separate the project and the final product perspective. Consumers should be able to have their say regardless of whatever factors produced the result they find unattractive.

Insisting that every consumer review and consider a detailed project history would only serve to stifle candid, critical feedback. That would do nothing to advance the art.

Consumers also have a right to rely the advice of others. Not every person can possibly check out golf courses all over the globe. It's great that Tom Doak ran all over multiple continents, but 99.9% of the people can't do that. They HAVE to rely on input, advice from others.

As for the wine, I only want to drink the good stuff. Why should I care if the growing conditions were unfavorable for a certain year? I just want someone to tell me what to buy and what to avoid. I can't sample them all, for heaven's sake.

Finally, you ask whether I want to discuss "real world issues". Yes, I find that stuff interesting, but only where a project team overcame the obstacles to produce something special. By all accounts, Sandpines does not provide such an example.

[Derek Duncan]

Patrick,

Out of curiosity, from where are you posting? It's 12:02  AM EST from where I am and your last effort is dated 12:28 AM.

Jeff Lewis,

This thread is bigger than you, bigger than me, bigger than Patrick and even Rees Jones himself! You can't solve it and even if Ran deletes it, it will still live and breathe and consume and simmer until...Maybe in one way or another this is what it's really all about, isn't it?

Proverb Boy,

Why should anyone walk away from this? What is so important about ending this? I say let it live, breathe, go on forever! It's obviously important and from a spectator's vantage, what could be better?

From this perspective all dignity, rationalization, and civility has been thrown out the window. And so what? This thread is about grown men (presumably) bickering, name calling, f-bomb dropping (via symbols), and accusing. Well done! I haven't felt this good about myself in a long time. It's also the most entertaining thing that's happened at GolfClubAtlas in the 2+ years I've been reading. This is highly theatrical. I find myself returning constantly to the computer, waiting for the next post, leaning one moment toward the consensus--Sandpines is a waste of a potentially wonderful piece of property and Rees Jones is...--and with Pat Mucci the next. He's got a point about objectivity and facts: we dont' know what the constrictions of the site were and maybe it isn't wrong to ask for pure objectivity when analyzing a golf project (all though there's nothing about oblique or non-oblique dunes or stablizing vegetation or not that would mandate building ski moguls on that site).

For everyone that's tired of this thread, hose who don't want it to drag on, don't contribute. It will exist and expire on its own volition. For those of you who find it fascinating, like me, then cheer it, cherish it, add to it, for is this not a pure expression of the passion that we all share, for better or for worse? At the end of it all, after we all meet and share a beer, bourbon, glass of wine or water, won't we all laugh about it and talk about how great golf and golf courses are, and privately curse Rees Jones?

Long live the Cigar Thread!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

For what it is worth, I did not start this thread under an assumed name. I have no problem at all letting the world know how much I detest Rees Jones work at Sandpines.

Simply put, I'm not Jeff Williams, but if I was, I could only hope that he is thin, really good looking, carries a -1 handicap and somehow is closely related to the Rothschilds.

Now that would be good.

Who knows, with that kind of money, good looks and golf game, maybe I could buy Sandpines and a bunch of Round Up and kill it.

Now that would be REALLY good!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

The image below is taken right alongside the 7th at Sandpines, showing the type of land on the the lower end of the property. Sorry it isn't more descriptive, but its all I have of the land alone.

[paul cowley (Guest)]

tim wieman
...i mean each designer percieves a site differently and employs different methods to solve the puzzle.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I have one question for you that I'm curious to hear your answer to;

If I showed you the eight pics of different courses, in different geographical areas that I did on this thread, and you didn't know who the architect was....and I came up to you claiming that "Now here is an architect who just studies the land, finds natural golf holes, and lets the natural attributes of the site dictate his architecture" would you tell me...?

A) Yes, you're right Mike...I can see that clearly!  Move over all you minimalists!

B) Mike, you needs immediate professional help.  Get Katz in here...STAT!

C) Although I seek facts, and I won't judge a course I haven't played through pictures, is that a golf course or a Rohrschact test?

Thanks for your answer.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

If GCA is going to approach the evaluation of a golf course through the eyes of a consumer, then GCA should fold up the tent and move on.

Wasn't a major complaint, the success of CCFAD's.

Are you now saying that if a course is financially successful that that in itself is the litmus test for the architecture ?

I would think that the core of GCA and others seek to go far beyond operational success in evaluating a golf course.

Does that mean that clubs that charge and get 250,000 to 500,000 to join are the pinnacle of golf course architecture ?

Fact Patrol,

So, based on pictures of other golf courses, you want me to evaluate Sandpines.  That's a novel approach.

Now I know why you post anonymously.

Mike Cirba,

I draw a huge distinction between finding a NATURAL golf hole and retaining the NATURAL surroundings.  

One can find a natural golf hole and then build the hole in his style.

Those two aren't mutually exclusive or contradictory.

ET. AL.,

Why is there an attempt to move away from Sandpines when we're just begining to explore the circumstances and facts behind its creation, development, design and building ?

Let's obtain the material facts about this course, then render an objective, informed verdict.

Or do you prefer to make judgements without the material body of facts at your disposal ??  Based on hearsay and photos of some other sites ??

One of the critical questions, maybe THE critical questions is, can the dunes that run throught the Sandpines property be reasonably built on, leaving the dunes intact ?  If the answer is NO, then most of your criticisms are wrong.  If the answer is YES, then why wasn't the golf course built that way ?  
I want to know the answer and am puzzled why those bashing Rees don't want to know the answer.

Who knows, when all is said and done, I might agree 100% with Tommy.  Then again, maybe Tommy will change his opinion.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Thanks for your answer.  

So, if I understand your definition correctly, you are stating that it's ok to "find a natural golf hole", and then apply all of the stylistic trimmings so to speak.  

Since almost all of the pictures I posted obviously involved massive amounts of earthmoving, I'm not sure what "natural" is left on the "innards" of the hole.  The fact that he kept the "natural surroundings" outside of the playing avenues just seems to be a matter of time, property lines, and budget at some level, wouldn't you think?  Otherwise, you and I might awake one morning to find those mogul fields in our backyards!

What about "blending"?  Do you think that the architect, especially one who is now sounding like a "minimalist", should be striving to blend his man-made features into their natural surroundings, as men like Tillinghast and Mackenzie so eloquently and emphatically stated in their writings?

[Almond Joy's got nuts]

Does anyone know if obique dunes necessitate the use of regularly shaped containment mounding??

[corey miller]

Pat Mucci-   "if gca is going to approach the evaluation of a golf course through the eyes of a consumer, then gca should fold up and move on"

"are you saying that if a course is financially successful that in itself is the litmus test for architecture"

"i would think that the core of gca and others seek to go far beyond operational success in evaluating a golf course"

Isn't the developer also the consumer?  Isn't the developer ultimately trying to appeal to the end-user?  Isn't Rees trying to please the developer through whatever mandate he is given?  I think Rees builds courses that the consumer generally likes.  I suspect many find the pictures Mike posted "good".  

Rees is a succesful architect whose name on a project I am sure helps the developer sell.  Shouldn't Rees appeal to this person?

Maybe a good topic would be who would you hire as architect for a particular project and why?  

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Your arguments amount to nothing more than an attempt to stifle criticism of golf courses people find unappealing. You are trying to protect the developer and/or the architect from feedback that says their project is not an artistic success.

That will not help move golf architecture forward. That isn't fair to the people who take time and spend lots of money to visit and play golf courses.

But, this is not simply about financial considerations. Cypress Point, for example, is generally considered a brillant artistic success, but it doesn't have cash registers ringing all day like some CCFADs. Indeed, when I first visited the Monterey Peninsula years ago, I was not able to play the course. But, the place was so visually appealing that just standing in certain locations was a treat, well worth the airfare without even having the opportunity to play.

Pat, you keep asking for background information about the Sandpines project. Fine. You  and others are free to provide all the material your heart desires. But, let's assume 100 pages of documentation on the project yields the following headlines:

a) the property included large parcels of so called "oblique dunes"
b) introducing vegetation and growing grass in these conditions is difficult and expensive
c) the developers lacked the financial resources to work with the land and build natural looking golf holes

Okay. Where does this get us? Are people who have played Sandpines now supposed to say it is worth playing? Should I jump on a plane because the project was insufficiently funded?

Finally, I don't judge a golf course based on how much money it cost to join a club. Why would I do that?

Moreover, I don't think folks like Tommy Naccarato do either. Indeed, Tommy has spent the past year raving about Rustic Canyon, a public access course with very low green fees relative to the Southern California market. How could you possibly think Tommy or others will prefer golf courses simply because they have a half a million dollar entry fee?

That's silly and you know it.

[Bob Villa]

Did the original developer have a housing parcel to sell off?  Did the original developer attempt to pay for the cost of the golf course construction in the drifted dunes area by selling lots or homes in the area Mr Nacarato shows above?  Was this a typical case where the best land was set aside for home pads, and the waste land was designated for the golf course?

[Michael Dugger]

Tim Weiman,

Good point.  I suspect what he is trying to say is that we can't hold Rees Jones responsible for the course BECAUSE OF the reasons you just cited....oblique dunes, no $$$, developers wishes.

And maybe he is right.

And maybe he is wrong.

Who really knows and how are we suppose to find out?

I always thought that there was a certain degree of common sense that we all shared when it comes to these sorts of things.  This thread has shown this not to be the case.

Nevertheless, we are constantly hearing on this website about how some of our 'hero' golf course architects are building golf courses cheaper and cheaper.  Bandon and Pacific Dunes were relatively inexpensive to construct, right?  Rustic Canyon was built cheaply, right?  How about Wildhorse?

Kelly Blake Moran is of the opinion that more time spent on a routing can save a lot of $$$$$ in earthmoving and construction.

When I look at these golf courses I mentioned above I see a couple of things that seem to go 'hand in hand'.  A natural-looking appearance and a cheap construction budget.

Why did so much of Sandpines have to be turfed?  Why not more 'untouched' expanses of open sand of the likes that can be found at Pacific Dunes #2, Bandon Dunes #2 & #3?  I still haven't heard one 'good' reason why this could not be accomplished at Sandpines.

You save $$$ on grass, you save money on earthmoving.  You save money on maintenance.

[Brian Phillips]

MDugger,

Kelly is correct.  Any architect that spends the time to find a natural routing will and should save the developer time, effort and money.

What would say if I told you that some architects are paid a % of the construction cost?

Brian.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()