[Michael Dugger]

ahh, errr, I'd say that questions answers itself!

If making money in that manner is what is important to you, of course.

[Tim Weiman]

mdugger:

If Pat Mucci is trying to say we can't hold the architect responsible, that is pretty silly.

Again, people playing a golf course have every right to say they find the course unappealing. I also have the right to make a decision whether to visit the course based on feedback some people who share common architectural taste.

That is what "final product" discussion is all about. If the course is ugly, it is ugly. Period. I don't need a degree in agronomy to comment on the pleasure of playing a golf course.

I'm beginning to think Pat is being unfair to Rees Jones. Maybe Rees himself would stand up and say Sandpines was not one of his finest efforts. Maybe he WOULD take responsibility.

[Carl Ingram]

Tim Weiman,

I don't think you understood Mr Muccis point, which I thought was, financial success doesn't equate to architectual success, and conversely, architectual success doesn't equate to financial success.

Spanish Bay, CA and Red Hawk, ND might illustrate that point.
Are the cash registers ringing at Spanish Bay and Red Hawk ?

I don't see his posts as stifling criticism.  I see them as requests for information supporting the criticism, which seems to irritate some.  I don't find those requests as troubling as I do the resistance they encounter.

Pacific/Bandon Dunes sits on a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean.  Are you equating the site in Florence, Oregon with the sites in Bandon ?

You've counted the opinions of 4 individuals who don't care for the  golf course, what about the opinons of the thousands of golfers who play the golf course yearly ? Don't they count ?

[S.P.Ringbok]

I have just returned from a sabbatical in Rome and must pose the question, is Rees Jones the new anti-Christ? He seems to be the subject of much vilification here.

[The Golf Course Exorcist]

SP, Rees Jones is actually well liked as a person it seems. But those darn oblique dunes are certainly the handiwork of Satan himself.

[Michael Dugger]

Carl Ingram,

I hope you stick around to comment again.

In response to your query I offer the following responses.

Carl Ingram wrote...
"I don't think you understood Mr Mucc's point, which I thought was, financial success doesn't equate to architectual success, and conversely, architectual success doesn't equate to financial success."

Answer: In the case of Sandpines, neither.


Carl Ingram wrote...
"I see them as requests for information supporting the criticism, which seems to irritate some."

Answer: What TYPE, Carl, of information supporting the criticism do you need?  

1. Pictures somewhat representative of the local area?
2. Critiques and reviews by people who have played the course?
3. Slag Bandoon's post RE: poor draining bunkers...etc?
4. A reminder that manmade ponds and perfectly linear lines are not often found in nature?


Carl Ingram wrote...
"Pacific/Bandon Dunes sits on a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean.  Are you equating the site in Florence, Oregon with the sites in Bandon?"

Answer: No

You've counted the opinions of 4 individuals who don't care for the  golf course, what about the opinons of the thousands of golfers who play the golf course yearly ? Don't they count?

Answer:  Yeah, sure they count.  But, do all 'thousands' of them say that they liked it?  No.


Mike Cirba didn't
I didn't
Tommy didn't
Who else...Slag Bandoon didn't

[Tim Weiman]

Carl Ingram:

My understanding is that Pat Mucci has as much access to documentation about the Sandpines project as anyone who has participated in this thread. Indeed, maybe more.

Thus, it isn't very convincing for him to continually request documentation from people who have played Sandpines but do not have any personal relationship with the architect involved.

Let's be realistic. Very few people have "inside information" about many projects. I take an active interest in such stuff, but even in my case, I could only discuss "inside information" in a very small number of projects (<10).

Thus, we don't want to go down the road of suggesting one can't comment about a golf course if you aren't in possession of "inside information". Nor should it be offensive if someone offers what I have called "final product" comments, even if they are negative.

Any of the thousands of people who have played Sandpines are quite welcome to express their views about the course. I'm willing to travel across oceans to see something special, so a cross continental flight is possible as well.

But, first someone has to stand up and say "Sandpines is a wonderful example of golf architecture. Tim you will see something special and always treasure the trip".

So far that hasn't happened.

[Pete Lavallee]

Feel free to add me to the list of those who did not like the course. Sand Pines is the poster child for "rape it, shape it, and grass it" golf courses!

[Craig Van Egmond]

Add me to the list of those who didn't like Sandpines too!  Big disappointment.

I guess we are still waiting for someone who has actually played the course to stand up for it.

[THuckaby2]

Such people do exist.

I haven't seen it myself, but I have a friend who lives in Portland who truly does like the course... He's a damn good player, I don't know particularly why he likes it but he's always trying to get me to come up and play it...

He also doesn't like Pacific Dunes that much, says it's too easy for the good player.  Loves Bandon Dunes, enjoys all the links golf we've played in UK and Ireland.  Interesting guy.

TH

ps - I had to have at least one post on this, the thread of all threads...  

[TEPaul]

How many people can you fit on a conference call? I think it's a helluva lot. Anyway, that's what I'd like to suggest for the contributors to this thread.

I'm warning you all, though, if Pat Mucci gets on the conference call the rest of ya'll will just have to listen--he talks more than any man in the Universe--but the good news is he's also the fastest talker in the Universe.

However, I haven't seen Pat on this incredibly horrible shockingly long thread in a while. Is it possible you people actually wore him out?

That'd definitely be a first--and if it's true then I'd like to suggest that ya'll forget about the conference call and just keep this thread going!

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I am quite sure we haven't worn Pat Mucci down. He's a big boy, but is just on the wrong side of this one.....like a lawyer taking a bad case.

Pat should have done Rees Jones a favor and let this one go.

Tom Doak will tell you that he faced restrictions on #18 at High Pointe, but will also candidly acknowledge his disappointment with the hole nonetheless.

Pat gives the impression that Rees isn't preapred to do the same. As I said earlier, that could well be unfair. Perhaps Rees would be closer to the Tommy N view on this project than Pat cares to admit.

Just speculation on my part.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

Obviously I've read very little of this thread so I don't even know what side Pat is on. Anyone who's actually read this whole thread should definitely see Dr. Katz right now.

But although I don't actually know what side Pat is on here I can tell you I spoke to Rees today for quite a while and he told me that everything Pat said on here is wrong. Matter of fact, Rees said he was quite sure that whatever Pat may say in the future is wrong too.

He told me that wasn't exactly for publication, though, so let's just keep it between you and me.

[Slag Bandoon]

I see no image of a vanishing point.  Before all hope is lost...  "I proclaim that this thread be utterly cryit down."

[Jeff_Lewis]

Tom Paul,

THANK YOU for injecting some much needed humor to this thread.

Does anybody remember a Saturday Night Live skit called "the Guest Who Wouldn't Leave"....this thread reminds me of that.

[Carl Ingram]

Tim Weiman,

Mr mucci never criticized anyone who played Sandpines and offered their opinion.  If you review the thread you will see that he accepted Tommy Naccarato's and Slags assessments on the playability of the golf course.  And he said so on more than one occassion.

Mr Mucci has neither criticized Sandpines nor praised Sandpines, he has asked questions on issues raised by others,  why is the burden of proof on his shoulders ?
Shouldn't it be on those making the critical comments, especially those who have never played the golf course, who have openly criticized it for a variety of reasons.

Both Tommy N and Mdugger criticized the pond in the picture
I recall mr mucci asking if the pond was built due to any water needs or requirements.  Nobody answered that question, which seems like a reasonable question if you want to determine the architectual merits of the pond and the holes it borders.

Mr Dugger,

On one hand you claim the course was empty and conclude that makes it architectually inferior and on the other hand you conclude that, because thousands play it, doesn't indicate that it is successful and that those thousands who play it don't like it.       How do you know that ?

Tom Paul,

I doubt that Rees Jones would make those comments.

[S.P.Ringbok]

I feel that there must be a prize for having the last word in this thread, how else does it keep popping up, rather like Glenn Close in 'Fatal Attraction.'

Ran or David, apply the coup de grace and end it all.

[Las Vegas Outsider]

The new over/under line on this thread is 459 by 2/2/03.  

Unless someone steps in and MERCIFULLY kills this thing.  

Personally, given the bulldog personna of some of the participants here, I say take the over.  

  

[guest]

End it all?   This is one of the most viewed & posted to threads in the history of the site.  People obviously are interested in it.  Cripes, if you don't like reading it, don't open it!!

[Michael Dugger]

Carl.....your sentence structre broke down a little bit there so I'm not sure I gathered what you are trying to say.

From what I do understand, I'll retort:

I've never claimed that because the course is not played a great deal it should be considered inferior ARCHITECTURELY.

These two issues are mutually exclusive.  

It is bad architecturely based on the architecture, not based on how often it is played.  

Give me a break.  You are putting words in my mouth.  I'm not that vague in my explanations.

On to your comments about the people who have played the course.  It has been stated here numerous times that any golf is better then bad golf.  I'd play Sandpines every day for the rest of my life it is was free.  Perhaps a better measuring stick for where you are trying to go with this is: HOW MANY PEOPLE WHO PLAY IT RETURN TO PLAY IT AGAIN?

Nevertheless, there is no disputing that we have no way of FINDING OUT what those who have played it think of it other then setting up camp at the entrance/exit and asking them.

Even then, we are talking about the general public.  Most golfers are not as attuned to golf course architecture as Mr. Naccarato or Mr. Weiman.  They just play, again, any golf is better than none.  Facts of the matter......Sandpines is better than a lot of municipals.  No arguments here.

Maybe you think we are splitting hairs, then...well, we are!!
Go read The Confidential Guide to find out why.

Water, you say?  Yeah, ok, I bet they did have water needs.  What course doesn't?  Do you recall me saying that anywhere?  But it didn't have to look like it does, come into play like it does and reside WHERE it does.  Hide the ugly, fake thing.

Carl.....what are you trying to say here??

[TEPaul]

mdugger wrote:

"I've never claimed that because the course is not played a great deal it should be considered inferior ARCHITECTURELY.

These two issues are mutually exclusive."  

M:

That very well may be so, but would you care to try to explain that to a potential new buyer of Sandpines? If you wouldn't, maybe Pat Mucci would.

[mdugger1]

I'll try, Mr. Paul...

If I had to, like my life depended upon it, I would tell the prospective owners that what they are getting isn't something people are going to travel from all over the place to visit and play.  The exact opposite of Bandon Dunes Resort.

I would tell them that they have a nice course in a very beautiful setting.  They need to get the locals to come out and play.  Set up a local membership.  Arrange their greens fees to address THIS market and go from there.  If need be, cut the maintenance budget to make the numbers work.  Stop watering all that turf 100 yards in front of every tee.  Stop manicuring those bunkers and let the wind take its' toll on them.  

But, if you buy this place you aren't going to get people travelling to play it like you will Bandon Dunes.  At that is simply because it isn't that great a course.

[Tim Weiman]

Carl Ingram:

This is not about "burden of proof".

If I go to a restaurant and don't enjoy the meal, I reserve the right to say so. If a drink a bottle of wine and find it only "okay", I reserve the right to say so. If I go to a museum and find some art display distasteful, I also have every right to say so.

Golf architecture is an art form. The same rules apply. There is no "burden of proof" required for people to share their impressions. Period.

Some in the golf industry would prefer not to hear negative comments. Tough. In a free and open capitalist system developers can spend all the money they want advertizing their course as the greatest thing since slice bread. But, consumers consumers have the same right to provide more candid commentary. Every course, as Tom Doak suggested, isn't "great".

Again, I get the impression you think it is easy for people here to provide documentation about the challenges a project team faced while building a golf course. Most people can't. The people who do have such information usually include:

a) people in the golf industry
b) people who have worked on the subject project
c) people who sponsored the subject project
d) people with an investment connection
e) people employed by permitting agencies
f) environmental or other social activists
g) friends of one of the above

In each case, there are reasons why you just might not get candid information about the project and the "final product".

That is what makes Golfclubatlas so important. It is the one place free of commercial influence where people can get candid feedback.

Rees Jone, for example, might be able to get candid feedback from someone like Tommy Naccarato that a personal friend like Pat Mucci might not provide.

Actually, I've had that very experience. I met someone employed by one of the most famous people in the world of golf. I told him that a piece of work by his boss was really lacking. We reviewed the specific details. In the end, this gentleman agreed. But, it was quite clear he had not intention of communicting that message to his world famous boss. And, I understand that. The man wants to make a living.

But, people here don't face that kind of restriction. We can simply say to some famous person that a golf hole or an entire course is really God awful. No fear of reprisal. Just honest feedback.

All this talk about facts, proof, bias, fraud and deceit doesn't add a thing. It is just an attempt to stifle criticism.

Tom Paul:

I don't know if you are being serious, but again I wonder if Pat has painted Rees Jones unfairly. Perhaps Rees doesn't feel Sandpines represents the best work he is capable of doing.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

Truly you don't know if I'm being serious? Well, then, if there's a way to be even more facetious, I will find it somehow.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

You continue to attribute statements and viewpoints that I never espoused, to me.

Please, don't post your conclusions, as being my thoughts and words

Could you cite JUST ONE instance where I disagreed with an opinion offered by someone who played Sandpines, with respect to the playability of the golf course ?

There is a difference that you may not discern between eating a meal and passing judgement on it, and walking by the table and viewing the meal and passing judgement on it.
Or better yet, looking at some pictures of a meal on another table, four tables away, and judging the meal on your table from those pictures.

My efforts aren't an attempt to stifle criticism, but they are an attempt to prevent misrepresentation and omission, and to try to discover why golf courses take their final form.

I think you're confused about something, I haven't painted Rees in any color, I've left him out of this, choosing to ask questions about the golf course.

Did you notice the tremendous difference in the photo Tommy Naccarato posted on 01-29-03 at 3:10 am and the pictures that MDugger posted ?  Tommy tells us that his photo is taken adjacent to the 7th fairway at Sandpines.  
Aren't Tommy's photos dramatically different from MDugger's photos ?

Which one is more REPRESENTATIVE of the property at Sandpines  Could it be the one taken next to the 7th fairway, or the ones taken from an Ocean side location 10 to 50 miles removed from the site ?

Tim, I'm begining to think you've been bonding too much with Tom MacWood.

MDugger,

You state that you object to the linear, man made lake at Sandpines.  Why haven't I heard that same criticism from you and others with respect to the linear, man made lake at Pine Valley ?
Do you have selective standards that are applied at your convenience, that depend upon the name of the architect ?

How about the man made, circular, artificially lined pond to the left of the 16th green at GCGC, that was forced into what was once beautiful sand/expanses/dunes.    
I've never heard you or others complain about that feature, WHY ?
Is it because Rees didn't build it ?

Let's try to be consistent in evaluating architecture, not arbitrary.

Don't you think that determining the water needs and budgetary limitations at Sandpines might be a factor in evaluating the lake, its location, size, etc., etc. ?

If you and others feel that permiting and eco-enviro constraints aren't a factor, and don't influence the ability to route and produce a good golf course, why did C & C accept the previously approved routing they inherited at Easthampton, rather than create their own ?

TEPaul,

Don't answer any of these questions.
Just because you live on a farm off the mainline doesn't mean that Tony Soprano can't find you.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()