As an admitted lurker of this site it has been some time since I last posted any comments. Reading the comments on this particular topic has pulled me out of my self imposed hibernation.
It appears that most of you know I worked with Rick on several projects over a 5 year period. In particular and in reference to comments in this thread I was responsible for the architecture on the Wuskowhan, Sharf, Shenendoah and Arcadia projects. The Signature Course at Treetops had been completed prior to my meeting Rick in late 1994.
For clarification I offer the following points.
Joel: While just about every square inch of Arcadia was touched by a bulldozer in shaping the course and developing the rugged look found on the western end of the property I would challenge the notion that this was a huge earth moving project. In fact there were scrappers on site for a period of time that did not exceed 24 working days.
Eamon: There are many issues that impact the final routing of any project. Often these issues include items not related to the topography, vegetation, site configuration, etc. In the case of Shenendoah there were issues that included future land development, the Client's desire to have holes situated along the property entrance and a direction to meet or exceed state and federal guidelines regarding environmentally sensitive areas. These all contributed to what is certainly less than the ideal routing because of the long connections on some holes. The Jones and Fazio courses that followed Shenendoah had the benefit of a revised policy on dealing with wetlands as the Oneida's developed a wetland bank to offset any impacts of these courses and other projects. This is why you will note better hole connections, particularly on the Jones course where there are extensive wetland areas.
Nate: For a guy who cannot pinpoint why he likes a particular course you do a good job of describing what sounds like a fine course of which to be a member.
Holes 9 and 18 are very different par fives with very different shot requirements and options. The green on 9 is set back from the wetland crossing and for the long hitter it affords an angle where the carry to the green can be attempted on the second shot. The 18th is a true 3 shot hole with less room for error on the third shot due to the angle of the green and the positioning of the hazards.
Anthony: Wuskowhan has the advantage of being a beautiful and serene setting for golf. Unfortunately the configuration of the property and the existence of extensive wetland systems prohibited a routing where there was no forced carry into a par five - there simply was not enough land unbroken by wetland to allow for a par five with no forced carry. This was and still is a disappointment in my eyes as I would prefer to have no more than one forced carry par five out of a possible 4 par five holes on any one course.
The 15th hole was not an after thought as some have suggested. For similar reasons (land configuration and wetland systems) the routing resulted in 5 par threes. It was a conscious decision to have a range of holes, including the short 15th and topping out at the 255 yard 6th. The area along the river was chosen for the short hole to include the encroaching river and prevailing wind as factors in playing the hole. When the wind does not cooperate the hole can certainly play significantly easier - the same can be said for the 7th at Pebble - without the wind its an easy wedge with a great view. Before I get any e-mails I am not comparing Wuskowhan to Pebble, its only an analogy.
Tom: As with many topics on this site you speak with what appears to be significant insider information. Unfortunatley on this topic your sources appear to be limited and your comments are a bit off the mark. It is completely unfair to throw out the "duck and cover" comment regarding the erosion incident at Arcadia. The fact is that with the exception of a regionally based marketing group, everyone who was actively involved with the project before the incident remained involved through the completion of the project. Ironically the marketing group departed over their concern as to how to put a spin on the problem versus the owners decision to face it head on and do the right thing. Rick had established his limited participation in the project long before the incident so it is not correct to imply that he choose to avoid the bad press at that time.
As far as the extent of Rick's involvement on projects, that is something you should discuss with everyone involved so you have a complete and accurate perspective. And I would ask you, if someone is not involved in developing new business, project planning, assiting in permiting, preparing drawings or specifications, and assiting in setting up construction costing and contracts how can it be about anything but the number of days someone spends on site seeing to the details as the project develops.