[Jordan Wall]

WRONG WRONG WRONG

Geez Kyle you cant really go in the water unless you carry the bunkers left.  The hole is dumb, as is the water.

Plus it is friggin too contrived[/color]

[Garland Bayley]

This #^#$& YaBB. I composed a long post to Jordan and the system timed out my login and lost my post. Kyle essentially covered my topic it turns out.
Thanks Kyle.

[Jordan Wall]

ugh

you guys are wrong

Pat, you should really tell me why you like that hole so much

It doesnt fit in, its too contrived, it has pointless bunkers ($$$ wasters), and the water doesnt offer much reward, if any, for going to the right of it.

You guys have some explaining to do...

[Garland Bayley]

...
Geez Kyle you cant really go in the water unless you carry the bunkers left.  The hole is dumb, as is the water.
...

Depends on how far you can hit and whether you can work the ball. From the ladies tee on a calm summer day, I would be taking aim straight at the green.
If I knew my fade was dependable, I would be working around the dogleg from the back tees.

[John Goodman]

Would seem like it has to be a mercy bunker; but if you need one of those then you shouldn't route the hole around the lake anyway, right?  The bunker seems like it serves about the same strategic purpose as a stone wall right there would have served.  I don't get it either.

[Kyle Harris]

Jordan,

We've explained it. If you'd like, I start doing the trig to show you all the angles and different yardages. Hell, your picture even shows LINES OF CHARM of a simple nature.

Looking at the rest of the course, this hole seems to stand out in regard to decision making.

The only thing you've presented is that we're wrong and the hole is contrived and you've then suggested a sandy waste area in lieu of water. This is hardly a deep examination and is something I'd expect you to put on a high school essay question, and you're capable of a more sophisticated response.

Do you think the sandy waste area would cost less to maintain than the water?

Do you know if the pond is serving as an irrigation source (something Rees Jones almost categorical does on all his courses)?

[Anthony_Nysse]

Jordan,
  "It would be better if the water posed a risk reward thing instead of putting useless bunkers in front of it (you wanna talk about wasting money??)"

Take at look at TPC Sawgrass-Bunkers and waste areas keep the ball from going in the water on #1, #2, #4, #6, #7, #10, #11, #14, and #15. Long Cove is similar-#1, #3, #6, and #10.
 I think the use of bunkers near water hazards help out the higher handicapper instead of giving them an automatic penalty.
Oh yeah, ther should be alimit to the numbe rof times you can use the word contrived...
Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Kyle,
On a course completely void of any architectural interest, other then a common guide to, (hurrumph, hurrumph) The Ultimate 'Could Have Been..' I would rather drive a couple of miles inland, up the road and play Ocean Dunes then ever have to experience Sandpines #2 ever again. In fact if I ever did go back, I think it would be just so I could get more photographic evidence of the crimes to Architectural Decency.

If there was such a thing as capital punishment in Golf Architecture, Sandpines would have been--make that should have been--gassed or lethally injected long ago.

[Kyle Harris]

Tommy,

No doubt I would be right with you in headed to Bandon or wherever other than here. BUT... in the context of just this hole, what's so bad playing wise? Yeah, I'd probably do something different with the ground, but the hole is what it is. If it's a could have been, what could have been with this hole?

Am I missing something the yardage guide, amount of photos and even playing descriptions have said?

Is this really one of those go there and see it sort of things?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

You guys are giving this hole to much architectural thought. Why don't you dissect the 2nd at Talking Stick instead.

[Kyle Harris]

Because it would be O/T?  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Kyle,
It's jut not that interesting of a hole, or at least what yuor making it out to be. There is one obvious line to the hole, and while you can't see it in the image or the drawing, it's straight right, eliminating as much of the water carry as possible. Right of the green is a depression or grass-like bunker which you don't really notice in the photo or drawing.

Seriously, it's a so-so hole and certainly one you wouldn't expect to see on a course in the dunes. More like one you wold see at acourse in Palm Desert or Florida. It's a totally created-hole on a site that offered much more of a creative palate. The entire course is that way.

How and why?

It was design by a topo map in New Jersey with little knowledge of the surrounds in Oregon. It also happens to be Rees Jones first course west of the Mississippi.

[Garland Bayley]

You guys are giving this hole to much architectural thought. Why don't you dissect the 2nd at Talking Stick instead.

Just trying to get Jordan to give us more than dumb, dumb, dumb, and replace the pond with a dune.
I wish he would explain what stategic options he had to consider if any in playing the hole. If his game is such that there were no strategic options, then he should say that.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

I actually really didnt like the course.  

That's not what you said.
You said it was a "decent, fun course, really not bad."

And now you've changed your opinion because a few critics chimed in.[/color]

There were so many holes that could have been better and so many decent holes that could have been great.

Which ones ?   Be specific, not vague.[/color]

BTW, contrived would mean the features are not natural and were put there against the will of the land.  

What does against the will of the land mean ?

Wouldn't National Golf Links of America, Augusta, Pine Valley and every MacDonald, Raynor and Banks course fit that mold ?[/color]

Pretty much it would have been better not man-made, but left instead more natural.

And how would you have dealt with the oblique dunes ?[/color]

Hole 1 did not have a good appearance.  
[size=4x] ?[/size]

First of all, it is right by the range

So is Winged Foot West

and is only separated by these big mounds that shouldn't even be there.  

Why shouldn't they be there ?
How would you stop range balls from entering the first fairway ?[/color]

It seemed all the mounding looked exactly the same, which is bad because they looked really contrived.  

Plus, the hole is straightaway and boring with little or no character.

Since when is being straight an architectural no-no ?

How's the 4th hole at Pacific Dunes ?[/color]

On hole 2 I thought the water was out of place.  
Where should it be ?

It makes you decide how to play the hole, risk-reward[/color]

I thought it would have, and could have been better if it was a sandy dcrub and it forced you to have the option of carrying it farther to have a better angle to the green or something.

At that length, sandy scrub would have no impact, nor would it present a material deterent to playing straight away.[/color]


Also, there used to be bunkers right of the green which left a testy bunker shot but now it is just fairway, so it makes the chip lots easier and with lot less skill and strategy.

How do you know that ?[/color]

Hole 5 was just a hole I didn't like.  
The water hazard and houses around the hole really made it look visually bad.  

How did the water hazard make it look "visually" bad ?

Are the homes structures like you see at TOC, Seminole, Merion or Riviera ?  Or are they different ?[/color]

The green is not very interesting and pretty flat, and the bunkers are to far from the green to legitimatelly go into them.  There is a lay-up area to the left, but even to get to there you have to carry 160 yards over water...safe, I really dont know about that...

Do you think that after having to carry a large water hazard that the green should be intricate.
How did the green compare to some of the greens at Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes ?  There are some pretty flat greens there aren't there.[/color]

And 11, well, it was totally contrived as well.  What was originally two nice and deep bunkers to the let of the green is now a man-made grass pit that is eight feet deep.  
How do you know that ?

And, weren't the alleged bunkers man made pits with sand on the floor ?[/color]

It wouldn't be so bad except it looks totally horrible.  
What looks horrible ?[/color]

Also, yes, the green is skyline but the tiers are boring.  
What's boring about them ?[/color]

Sure, the green has three tiers, but they aren't very difficult and it is easier then it should be to two putt from one end of the green to another.  

First you state that the green is boring, then you say that it has three tiers in it.   You're contradicting yourself.[/color]

A very questionable hole, not one I particularly like or enjoyed.


That's your opinion, which I differ with.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Sounds like you enjoyed it.[/color]

I did like it, but I thought it was a very very poor course with the land it had.[/color]

Had you seen the site before the golf course was there ?
If not, how can you make that judgement.

Now you say that you liked it, yet in another post you said you didn't like it.  Make up you mind.[/color]

Bunkering was OK, but I was really dissapointed that the main bunkering didn't actually come from the dunes.  

How could the bunkering come from the dunes ?

What does that mean ?[/color]

It means instead of making bunkers the dunes should have been used as the hazards instead.[/color]
How could you use oblique dunes as hazards ?

Do you understand what oblique dunes are ?[/color]

The greens were decent, say for the fact they were frozen.  


What does the fact that the temperature was below freezing have to do with the contouring and architecture of the greens ?[/color]

I said they were decent.  You just couldn't play shots on the contours (like hitting a shot using the slope of the green) because they were so firm everything bounced off the beack of the green.[/color]

But, that has nothing to do with the architecture or features, it's a product of the temperature.[/color]

I was totally bummed when I got to hole seven and to the left of it I saw huge sand dunes for a long ways but not at all used.  

How could they be used if they're not on the property ?

Are you familiar with oblique dunes, their shifting nature and the difficulty in stabilizing them ?[/color]

Its easy to use them.  Extend the boundaries of the course.  

If you don't own the property, and you can't acquire it, how do you propose that the boundaries be extended.

Please, THINK before you respond.

And I dont care how hard it is to move nature, because it would have been worth the work rather then creating a semi-crappy course[/color]

Now you're contradicting yourself again.  You said you liked it, and now you're calling it "crappy"

You appear confused[/color]

Tell me, what went wrong here

It's simple, you were predisposed by others and didn't think for yourself.[/color]

not true. not true. not true.[/color]

Baloney, just reread what you've posted.
You've contradicted yourself more times than TEPaul at a tax audit.[/color]

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

Just left you a voice mail. Fair enough though. Your point seems to be based in this being yet another disappointment in a string of them.

***EDIT***

Okay, just got off the phone with you, Tom. Understand the critiques now. This hole just a small disappointment in a string of large disappointment.

Almost like the bandaid places in a spot where a tourniquet was needed... just... not... enough...

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Sandpines problems are that--and in Rees defense--it was probably a very difficult site to work with. Talk with Dave Axland, Bill Coore or Jeff Bradley, and they will tell you how hard it is to shape something, only to come back the next day to see that the wind had blown it away, even after dumping all kinds of water on it to get the sand heavy enough not to blow away. (This is done at most construction sites for those not in the know. That's what water trucks are actually for)

But the major problem is that little creativity went into it. The routing didn't utilize the better features of the site.

Tommy, do you object to the routing of holes 1-7 ?

How would you have routed the property ?

It looks as if they spent all of about ten minutes routing the place. They went with a formula that might work back east, by using native dune grasses to try to cover up all those millions of man-made perfectly symmetrical containment mounds.

I think we agree that the mounding is excessive, but, that's at the outside border of the holes and not in the areas of play.

It's just up and back, up and back, up and back throughout the entire round to flat greensites of little interest.

Google Earth doesn't support your contention with respect to the routing.

The only interesting green contour on the entire course is on #6, and it doesn't work with the hole itself.

How does the contouring of the greens at Sandpines compare to the contouring of the greens at Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes ?

Don't strong winds preclude contoured greens ?

One day I sat on the hill just above 18 green, looking for some semblence of good work in that vast carved-out pit. The only thing I could find is one of the better holes there, #16 and how the tall natives couldn't contain the look of all those Rees Pieces mounds. It just didn't look natural, fell natural unless you have the artistic sensibilities of a ox in heat.

Tommy, forget about the look of mounds that don't come into play, how do each of the holes play ?

Try comparing Sandpines to say Astoria which has a similar back and forth nature to many of the holes.

Tommy, are you stating that the sites are similar ?

The difference is that the quirkiness of using natural features such as greens sloping with the slack of the dunes; playing tee shots from the top of rather large dune lines into those trough-like fairways is fun and quirky and enjoyable. Your feeling the dune-line nature of the site itself. Sandpines, well its man-made--all of it. They site deserved a better golf course then what was built there.

And I'll tell you this--really simple too. If I'm Rees Jones and I'm sick and tired of the fat electrician from Southern California ragging on my course on the Oregon Coast, then I'd send the associate who was responsible for Olde Kinderhook and this other new course in Texas or somewhere that I hear is really good and do a complete remodel for free.

How would you suggest that they reroute it ?

Redesign the entire course and strategies, because you see there are other neighbors less then 45 mins. to an hour away that blow it away and people aren't even batting an eye about wanting to go see Sandpines when they drive by  on their way to and from Eugene. (Sort of. It would be about a mile and a half the opposite direction)

Tommy, that's absurd, the sites aren't in the same league, one sits on a bluff overlooking the ocean the other is inland with strip malls, homes and warehouses bordering it.

And the other issue, which you're aware of is the financial issue, which is substantive.

It's really simple Rees. Rebuild it and they will come...

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Kyle Harris,

Listen to me.

# 2 is a good hole, as is # 3, 4, 5 and 6.

[Jordan Wall]

According to Sandpine's website "the course doesnt start until this hole'...

they are referring to hole #4

#2 is not a good hole, at least to me, and here is why.


The bunker, first of all.  I feel the bunker serves little purpose.  Since a high handicapper would struggle getting out sideways from it what is the use of it when he can go in the water and take a drop wherever.  The bunker needs to go or the water does, at least one.  Also, the water may challenge you, but it really offers little reward.  To hit a shot over a mound onto a putting green sloping away from you is not worth taking a penalty for.You cannot carry the water because it is simply to long.  I guess you guys may be right, there are some options.  But, I do notthink those options make it a good hole and do not really like them.  They could be better options, if you know what I mean, like carrying the hazard to gain a big advantage instead of going right of it to gain little to no advantage.

Also, about the course, I did kind of contradict myself.  What I am saying though is that some of the course is good, other parts of it sucked all high heavens.  For what was given, I was dissapointed...However, I did enjoy my round and the people I played with.  The course, if anything, gave me an understanding of what is good and bad and what makes it good or bad.  Hopefully that makes more sense on what I was trying to say.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

This is the hole in question:


Now, the high handicapper may be trying to cut the corner a bit by bringing the bunker into play to get the shorter shot in - over the water.

"The nature of golf is to challenge a hazard and in doing so, reap a reward."

Seems to be just that. An equal tee shot down the right side gives someone a 30 yard longer shot.

Looks like choices here, people.

Jordan,

What you failed to tell everyone is that the 2nd hole plays from a high tee, downhill, to a much lower fairway and green.

You also neglected to post the yardages which are as follows:

Tournament     341
Back               321
Middle             305
Front               266

Hence, the green is driveable and drives hit to the right with a draw are rewarded.

You can hit anything from Driver to 7-iron off the tee and you can aim far left to far right, so options abound.

How did you play the hole ?[/color]

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Patrick,
Your over-glamorizing a very mediocre golf hole and a golf course that is sub-standard when compared to the architectect's other bodies of work, which I might add isn't what the enthusiast would call overly provocative.

[Sean_A]

I have read this entire thread.  I don't quite understand why a few of you object to the 2nd hole so vehemently.  Other than the silly bunker guarding the water, it looks alright.  Nothing special mind you.  

More importantly, I think the use of the term "oblique dunes" is fantastic.  I gather from Pat M. that these dunes can be very high and in a storm the tops can be blown to form "baby" dunes.  Much like the dunes in the desert.  Is my take correct and are there any other oblique dunes areas near the seaside which are too difficult to stabilize for golf?

Ciao

Sean

[ForkaB]

Sean

As a general principle (for links courses):

Closer to the shoreline = less stable

Corollary:

If you want a course that is going to be reclaimed by the sea later rather than sooner, build it away from the immature dunes!

[Sean_A]

Rich

I was watching a progam detailing the erosion of the English east coast.  The Norfolk coast seemed particularly at risk.  This chap had a theory that approximately every two feet lost on the east coast there was a foot gained in added land on the west coast.  He also said that when the sea does take over The Wash that east coast erosion will slow and west coast land gain will accelerate, especailly in Scotland.  It was a fascinating program.

I know Burnham was with the front ridge of dunes being very unstable.  Through serious stabilizing efforts and an extra 290 (including a 100 acre salt marsh) acres gained by the sea receding has completely transformed the course in the last 100 years.  The club was able to cut back loads of buckthorn(the dune stabilizer) because a new ridge of dunes and salt marsh formed as a protective barrier.  

Ciao

Sean

[ForkaB]

Yes, Brother Sean

Dune formation is fascinating.  The only person who really knows what is going on now and will go on in the future is Mother Nature, herself, and she's not telling us, or the architects or even the geologists what she really has planned for our favorite venues!  Just lie back and enjoy it, as long as you don't mind not being on top.......

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()