News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


F. Ryes

Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2002, 12:36:33 PM »
F. Scues

The issues which you might have with the design of The Preserve, ARE FAZIO'S responsibility.  When he took the job, which I am sure caused some hard feelings, he also took the blame or the credit.  However you may feel, the Poellet routing is not terrible, but I think there were areas in which it did not take advantage of some of the canyons, draws, and more forrested property which exists close by.

Thanks for confirming the bias against this site though.  Take a thread and find a way to bash.  Well done.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2002, 01:54:05 PM »
This is not an example of an architect who could have gotten more out of a site but it certainly sounds like a real bullet was dodged where a great course almost did not get the most out of its site. It was something just mentioned about Pebble Beach!

I'm sure some of you heard what Ken Venturi said last month about some of the coast holes at Pebble Beach, probably #6-#10! Apparently that coastal stretch had already been sold as lot sites with the golf holes planned to go inside the lot sites. Luckily Samuel Morse recognized what that would have done to the golf course so apparenly he bought out the lot sites and put them on the inland side of the course instead of the coast side.

Don't know if a routing had been done before this switch was made but I can't imagine it could ever have been as good as those holes.

I also wonder if Maidstone, as good as it is, could not have been even better if the land to the east of #15 could have been used for the golf course. That may have allowed another hole along the ocean between #15 tee and the clubhouse. #17 is a great hole and should be there so somehow an architect would need to get #16 green back near #17 tee. Maybe #16 could have come along the southern side of the pond and #2 could have been routed along the northern side of the pond where #16 and the last of half of #3 now is! That way you wouldn't have to cross the road twice getting to and back from #2. #2 isn't a bad hole but the land there isn't good--very low and floods too much.

Couldn't you just see a great #2 par 5 going down the southern side of the road and broading out at the end of the hole with something wide and interesting strategically where the end of #3 and the first part of #16 now is? Like a high risk play near the pond (with a green oriented toward the pond) and the safer play on the north side of the fairway (with those bunkers in the middle of a really wide fairway) but a much more difficult approach into the green from the north side of the fairway! Maybe a road hole green could be used there but oriented left to right instead of right to left as the present road hole green is on the other side of the road.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Will E

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2002, 03:08:31 PM »
Tim,
Totally agree, without inside information it's hard to know what could have been. Without question environmental issues and housing have hurt many "what could have been" courses, and what have been courses >:( .

TE,
I often wonder what Piping Rock would look like today had CBM been able to do what he wanted there.
As much as I like NGLA I'd have loved to have had the chance to play the "real" cape hole before the road was built.
You're right about Maidstone, also think of what the Creek could have done with more sound property, they probably could have started the course on the sixth tee!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #28 on: March 04, 2002, 03:41:04 PM »
Shooter - a couple of observations.
Piping - I used to think that it would have been interesting to see what CBM could have done with the polo field, since it may have resulted in real stunners like the 14th. But i have since changed my mind because the off-limits polo field forced CBM (or maybe Raynor, because of CBM's frustration) to go to some pretty interesting parts of the property, which resulted in some pretty interesting holes, which give PRC some real character - the blind 15th, and 16th holes for examples.

The Alps, Knoll, 15th and 16th holes are all holes in which the putting surface is either partially of totally obscured, and all these second shots are, in my mind, so interesting. It could be that if the polo field was used, these holes would never have come to pass.

Creek - I wouldn't change this routing because i really think it gives the course 3 different and distinct characteristics. Take holes 5, 7, 10 for example.

#5 has terrific parkland characteristics, and i love the way the towering trees straight-frame the entire left side of the hole.
#7 has that sort of windswept, expansiveness of a heathland course.
#10 is of course hard by the LI Sound has more of a links-ish feel.

There you have it. 3 styles of course in one. This is my absolute favorite aspect of this course.

And to think, if what Doak says is true, that Joe Dey tried to reduce the bunker count down to 4!!! Can you imagine?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #29 on: March 04, 2002, 04:16:44 PM »
Shooter and SPDB:

I guess it would have been interesting to see what MacDonald would have done with Piping if he'd had his way.

I grew up at Piping--and although I don't know what the Polo Fields looked like topographically (naturally) or even if the polo fields preceded the golf course, I would just assume they must have been relatively flat. With that in mind, I'm going to make a point to see if there's a preconstruction topo around somewhere to check out what the polo fields were before the club was built.

It may have been a blessing though that C.B. did not get his way at Piping because the ground that was selected for the holes (around the polo fields and elsewhere) is really very interesting for golf, where I would wonder about those polo fields for golf holes! They might have been no more than a good location if the clubhouse was pre-sited--which I believe it was.

I do know a few things about that problem that C.B. had though. Firstly, he was a very stubborn man, and, secondly he could not have understood the polo interests in Long Island at that time particularly well. The fact is they were a lot more powerful than any golf interests and they were a lot more powerful than C.B. MacDonald!

The need to just accept reality and route around those polo fields back then was probably akin to the need to route around environmental areas today--some things golf just can't get into--and back then it was definitely polo interests!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »