Are the sand hills really a slam dunk?

[Tom Doak]

Was reading the post last night about the new Hale Irwin course in the sand hills, and saw several comments to the effect that "any course in the Sand Hills must be outstanding."  Does everyone really think so?

Is every links course in the U.K. outstanding?  Yes, they all have the appeal of real golfing conditions, but there is a hell of a difference between Royal Dornoch and Monifieth [not to pick on it].

And doesn't a truly outstanding course require an outstanding set of greens?  How many modern designers build those?  [THAT could be its own separate thread.]

I'm not in any way pooh-poohing the POTENTIAL of sites in the Sand Hills.  It's spectacular country, and I really hope we get to build out there someday.  But when we do, we'll still have to work hard on getting the design right.

[Lou Duran]

Many of us golf architecture enthusiasts who have played the game for a long time probably believe that given the right piece of land, we could design a highly satisfactory course.  While this is probably dangerous daydreaming, there is precedence (e.g. PB,PV).  It seems to me that with a deep sand base, good rolling terrain, and ample acreage, the task of building a high quality course is made much easier.  One should be able to build outstanding natural greens without having to worry greatly about agronomical issues.  The knowledge and tools that the modern architect has at his disposal also makes the job easier.  Additionaly, the envrionmental restrictions in this area are probably not as stringent.  Yes, greens are a very important part of what makes a course great, and this area most likely facilitates building nice rolling surfaces.

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, as I elluded to in my article about Wild Horse, there are varying degrees of the term "sand hills" terrain.  Wild Horse, as you know, isn't 100% pure sand hill terrain like the course in Mullen.  WH is on a prairie semi-ag surrounding property that had sand hill quality humps and rolls and enough natural green sites and fairway runs that little needed to be graded/shaped, etc.  When you get into the real sand hills, where it is 100% native grasses and land that hasn't nary a rock on it, with such frequency of hummocks, dunes, and hollows, one can find dozens if not 100s of natural greensites in every square mile.  I have walked many sections out there and have no doubt that in ubiquitous places around the vast territory one could indeed build a minimalist course with nothing more than a tiller and spring tooth to turn over the native and seed-fert-water, and a a backhoe and a shovel to enhance bunkers or blowouts that already exist.  

But, could anyone build/lay-out a great course there?  No, I think it still takes a complex golf strategist mind, and someone with a sense of the characteristics of the land and environment, with the wisdom to connect the dots so to speak, without going over and compacting the earth too much to destroy the quality of the sand-top soil organic cover and retain the natural subtlties.    It is sort of like I elluded to when I heard the first thoughts of that fellow was to bring in california washed sod wall to wall (which I hear is now an abandoned idea).  That is a red flag as to whether they know what they have or would respect what is there in nature and just go over it with equipment knocking the character right out of it.  We'll see...

[Robert]

Tom,

I have read and heard about C&C "finding" the holes at Sand Hills and then moving dirt in a manner so that it looked like none was moved.  Do you agree with that characterization? Are you saying that the sand hills have a lot of potential but may not be realized by everyone, especially those that "make" a course with simple green as opposed to those who "find" the holes and build greens within greens?

[Slag_Bandoon]

 Any land that excites the soul of an architect (armchair or otherwise) into admiration of the land has an edge in its potential playing fields.  The designer has to have a high worth ethic to not destroy what's there by attempting to fluff up the character of centuries of hard developement through a blind mind of preconceived ego dramas.
  We do not see with our eyes.   The mind sees.
  We do not hear with our ears.   The mind hears.
  We do not build with our hands.  The mind builds.
  We do not destroy with tools.  We destroy with a blind, deaf, ignorant mind.
  
  I haven't been through the plains in some time, but there is a buzz about them that is turning into a rumble.  I also don't think that the new courses will cannabalize each other with competition.  Like Bandon, western Ireland, or Tasmania (?), the more courses that are built, the more travelling golfers will arrive.  PR man Dick is doing a great job of expressing his love of the land and I can see terrific things happening out there under his (scowling?) optimism.  Dick, you don't play with a concealed Walther PPK do you?    

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,

I wonder if what has been written about C&C at Sand Hills has misled people into thinking that building a great course in sand hills is a no brainer.  I can't point to any specific write ups, but seem to recall a picture being painted of Bill and Ben not really doing anything.

By contrast, nobody has ever suggested the opposite extreme (e.g., a Shadow Creek) can be accomplished without a lot of work.

As for myself, I'd rule out the idea of a slam dunk regardless of the site, in part because the higher the potential of the site, the higher my expectations would be for the architect to create something special.

[David_Grant]

The dilemna in this situatuion is that a great site can mask the weakness of a routing when players are so enamoured by their surroundings that they lose sight of the negatives that would become obvious on a less stellar site.  Conversely, it takes greater skill to create something of interest on a nondescript site, a la Shadow Creek. (no Fazio bias intended!)

I'm confident this is where Tom was headed with this thread?

[TEPaul]

Robert, in a post above asked:

"Are you saying that the sand hills has potential that may not be realized by everyone... ?"

It sounds to me that's about what Doak is saying, and maybe some of the others that know the sand hills are saying too.

So it sounds to me that what is being said is the potential of the sand hills might not be REALIZED by everyone simply because the potential of the sand hills might not be RECOGNIZED by everyone--at least not to the same degree!

I've never been to the sand hills and I've never seen Sand Hills G.C either, just a lot of photos and I've heard a ton of positive commentary from a ton of people about almost every aspect of the golf course. It's noteworthy too, I think, to mention that many of the people who have high praise for it are people who you might suspect may not!

So never having seen it, I did once ask Coore about it and how it all came to be. He did say that they really don't take so much credit for what it is since they "just found it". Maybe Coore himself and Ben too are a bit responsible for this myth that anyone can just go out there and find great golf courses!

But you have to realize that those fellows can sometimes be the masters of the immense understatement! The way I was told is that the site Youngscape has is very large and they first might have looked it over by heliocopter. Then they combed it and identified what they considered approximately 136 possible golf holes! That might be somewhat misleading since many or most I was told you could come at from many if not almost any direction! Then they took what they considered to be the best into a routing they considered the best!

Does this mean they found natural hole corridors, natural blowouts for bunkering on those natural hole corridor and even natural green sites too--somewhat like the precontruction and post construction photos of MacKenzie's Cypress Point's #9? It might mean that and it might mean they had to add or enhance what they thought they needed here and there for whatever reason.

But that process and that product means to me just about the definition and epitome of what I was trying to say on that long topic about natural vs unnatural! It sounds to me that they RECOGNIZED the potential of the sand hills so the REALIZED its potential. Other architects might not have done that or do that in the future!

Just one last thing for you guys working out there that Coore said and I have never forgotten--you know he always puts in a lot of site time and the strong wind and the constant "sand lash" out there he said almost made him go blind. So bring your David Duval wrap-arounds on site with you--maybe a dozen of them.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I'd sum it up by saying it this way - If you literally did nothing other than just placed some tees and stuck some holes/pins in the ground on the site of Pacific Dunes you'd have a 5 or 6 golf course.  The same can almost be said for the sand hills from what I've seen and played out there.
Mark

[Matt_Ward]

I don't if anything is a "slam dunk," but having had the pleasure in playing Sand Hills, in my mind, it truly rates among the most pleasurable and most enjoyable locations that I have had in playing golf. C&C deserve a great deal of credit for a superb course, but as others have said the existing land provides so many different options for holes / greensites, etc. You still have to do the work, but when the land is THAT GOOD it clearly allows for other courses of  similar character to be designed. Will they? That's to be seen.

Laying out courses on dead flat pieces of property and shaping that type of parcel into something of real character is where the talented architect must in my opinion demonstrate a craft / talent that few clearly have.

The key is can such a unique area, the sand hills, really mushroom into more quality courses being built in a location that is clearly remote and off the beaten track.

I don't know the answer to that but if other courses are built in such a wonderful area you can be sure I'll be visiting.

P.S. I have not played Wild Horse, but I'll be venturing out that way this summer to see what so many have mentioned is a joy to behold and play.

[Jeff_Brauer]

We have only seen two sand hills courses, and they have both been good or great, but don't be fooled.  I have seen several courses - too many really - on other types of sites that were terrible uses of land, terribly routed, and had no magic in the features.  All because the architect - or non architect as the case may be - didn't design well.  Why should we believe someone couldn't totally screw up a sand hills site?

Part of the marketing blitz of any architect for any course, is a statement like "God put the holes here, we just found them."  And while that is never more true than at Sand Hills, it still took a designer who knew what he was looking for to find them!

[Don_Mahaffey]

I guess I'm the contrarian here, but I believe minimalist architecture requires more skill then moving 1,000,000 yds of dirt to create a site. We have the technology to dam the worlds biggest rivers, but does that take more skill then managing that same river to gain the resources it offers while keeping it natural?

While a great site helps, it's absurd to me to think that's all it takes for a great course to emerge. Working with the land to create a world class course with a minimum amount of physical disruption to that land requires incredible skill. To take for granted that anyone could do a PD or SH with the same land is like saying anyone could coach the Lakers or the Yankees . It just aint so, and history proves it. The crime is when a great site gets screwed up because the architect imposed his will on the land instead of the opposite.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I agree that the sand hills are not a slam dunk, it requires a tallented architect. In fact I wonder if the specataculr sites are where you seperate the average designers from the very good to great designers - I would think the pressure to produce would be substantial. There are far too many examples of spectacular sites that produced poor to mediocre to good to very good, but untimately fell short of their potential - a few that come to mind Ballybunion-New, Carne, Victoria National, Sandpines, Bandon Dunes, Spyglass, Nantucket and Crowbrush are a few that come to mind - some may disagree but I think these sites' potential may not have been totally realized.

[TEPaul]

Mark & Matt:

I couldn't agree more that it takes a talented and observant architect to find all the natural characteristics of sites like Nebraska's sand hills and to use as many of them as possible and properly for golf.

The danger is not spending the time and energy to notice and utilize all of what's there for golf and consequently to wipe away something that could be left and used so much better for golf!

I would just love to see the photos (and I sure hope they have some) that preceded any construction (or even routing stakes!!) at Sand Hills G.C.. I can just imagine raw hole formations and probably something like a jumble of natural possibilities just lying there waiting to be visualized and arranged into a routing and then tweaked into the holes that form the routing for anything and everything you would want the golf ball to do!

Looking at highly potential raw sites and particularly the natural landforms that almost appear to be golf holes is one of the most exciting and gratifying thing about this entire subject of golf architecture, in my opinion! It's odd as could be sometimes how they lay there naturally and to try to imagine what to do with them. We saw so many of them on an incredibly potential raw site in Virginia. But sometimes (many times) they don't fit very well into the basic routing balance and variety you're visualizing and progressing wth and what you'd  ultimately like to create.

You may see a perfect natural formation that seems like a perfect par 5, for instance, but then it might be 850yds long and just when you might not really want a par 5 type hole in the  routing, so you have to break it down into something with something else, some other hole that works in a progression and hopefully has some natural attributes of its own for that type hole and in its own space in that progression!

That to me is attempting to see all the natural characteristics of interesting sites for golf and then of course it takes a talented architect to put the pieces together into a logical whole (routing) and what might need to be done to use, alter or enhance things. But without going through the process of imagining and visualizing all the natural characteristics for golf an architect might not see them and it certainly is true that today anything can be CREATED almost anywhere (excepting  environmental and permitting problems) with machinery!

The other side of the coin talent-wise is an architect who can create something interesting out of almost nothing (a real flat featureless site). That sure takes talent too but maybe of a far different type! I guess that would be the raw visionaries instead of the guys who can identify the most natural elements for golf and their type of vision.

Coore and Crenshaw sure went from one end of the spectrum to the other and I guess Fazio has too. Now Doak's going to as well--it'll be interesting to see what he comes up with in Lubbock Texas immediately following Pacific Dunes.

[Paul Daley]

One must very careful about falling for the oldest trick in the book: "Shooting fish in a barrell".

The adage applies equally to golf architecture as it does photography.

As a photographer, I am strctly 36 h'cap. But I have just had the opportunity of spending 12 months working with the benchmark in the game, David Scaletti. Watching him mastering the technical aspects of capturing the sandbelt golf holes, proved to me just how easy it would be to screw up what your eyes tells you cannot be screwed up.

Surely it is the same with golf course architecture; be it in the Sand Hills region, the UK links, or upon any other enticing parcel of land.

When confronted with land that presents many opportunities, it must prove a wicked temptation for the architect to OVERPLAY their hand; or similarly, worry about doing that, and then set out to UNDERPLAY their hand ... by way of an overly cautious over-correction. With either scenario (due to the striking nature of the land), whatever comes forth will be adequate - pleasant even - but still be recored for posterity as a lost opportunity.

Good luck to Irwin, but he should be in two minds: How lucky am I? But goodness, what a responsibility I have to do it justice!

[Mark_Fine]

C&C's Sand Hills is no doubt a great golf course and a tremendous achievement for them.  However, with all due respect, it would be pretty hard to not come up with something truly special on that piece of property.  Golf architecture is not exactly rocket science and most any of us with half a clue about great golf holes could look for 50 miles in every direction around that course and envision great golf holes.  Tieing everything in together to end up with a 9 or 10 as C&C did is one thing, but even I could have gotten a 7 or 8 out of that property.  

I said this a few years ago that I think Cuscuwilla is in some ways a better example of the vision and creativity C&C are capable of.  That site is not ideal and most architects would have elected to build most of the holes by the water vs. where C&C put them.  

Just my opinion!
Mark

[RJ_Daley]

Well said cousin!

To bring in a world class course on land of typical sand hills nature, it requires a mind more oriented towards strategy than engineering know-how. Collective efforts of great strategic golf minds gave us Sand Hills in my opinon.  (Youngscap, Coore/Crenshaw, and their boys).  

I have been lurking on the other thread on strategic holes that is becoming a full day's read.  It strikes me that such collective thinking and debate applied to a sand hills typical property of endless possibilities would produce a great course.  (I know the old rule of thumb about too many cooks spoil the dinner, and design by committee, and all that).  But, in the case of the typical sand hill property, where the construction in terms of necessary engineering know-how is minimized (50-100 feet of sand below tends to minimize drainage scheme headaches, etc ) the emphasis becomes strategy and "sensitivity to the land".  If one knows the sand hills intimately in terms of wind, native grasses, erosion potential if too much machine trampling around it is done, and one can build natural looking bunker hazards or augment blow-outs to properly fit into a strategic scheme, then one can be successful out there.  

A Very big factor in success out there is a turf man that understands what will be needed in designing the right irrigation to cover what you should (AND NOT DRIFT INTO WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T!)  A great understanding of the micro climates that exist out there, and what turf to select for tees, fairways, surrounds and greens is important because assuming minimal grading and disturbance puts emphasis on what is left to define the golf course, the grass!

Not even C&C are infallible in all things sand hills.  I can show you pictures where the design is at the mercy of the wind erosion to the extent that if something doesn't halt the process, serious playability on certain parts of some of the golf hole's designs will be compromised in not too much longer time.  How do you construct natural bunkers or shore up existing blow-outs to not eventually encroach into key playing area strategic places?  

Finding what nature created, and then routing it properly, and being golf strategic/intelligent enough to match what you know about the sand hills environment with what makes great golf is not a slam dunk.  Any lesser combination may yield a course of some good holes and some clunkers, but not a masterpiece.  From what I have gathered in reading about Eddie Hackett, that may be the rap on his efforts.  Great land, natural approach to design, not under the pressure of having every hole a signature hole, and possibly missing a few opportunities...

A question I might ponder, is it possible to be over qualified in the LA engineering sense, to work in the sand hills?

[TEPaul]

RJ:

That's so interesting what you said that even with all the architectural talent in the world an architect might have to have an extremely fine understanding of the sand hill's natural environment and not do something that could be altered or ruined somehow by its ongoing natural processes.

If you have GeoffShac's book on Cypress just look at those beautiful photos of the course just after opening. There really seemed to be not only a natural ruggedness to the place but also far too much delicacy that MacKenzie obviously carefully created to probably mimic the little things of nature.

It just looked so low profile where the sand and even the beautiful bunkers (created by MacKenzie) met the fairways and greens in many spots that it seemed inevitable that natural elements were bound to play havoc with it eventually. I think they did too! Did MacKenzie understand this totally and plan for it? It's a good question but my sense is he did not!

[TEPaul]

RJ:

That's so interesting what you said that even with all the architectural talent in the world an architect might have to have an extremely fine understanding of the sand hill's natural environment and not do something that could be altered or ruined somehow by its ongoing natural processes.

If you have GeoffShac's book on Cypress just look at those beautiful photos of the course just after opening. There really seemed to be not only a natural ruggedness to the place but also far too much delicacy that MacKenzie obviously carefully created to probably mimic the little things of nature.

It just looked so low profile where the sand and even the beautiful bunkers (created by MacKenzie) met the fairways and greens in many spots that it seemed inevitable that natural elements were bound to play havoc with it eventually. I think they did too! Did MacKenzie understand this totally and plan for it? It's a good question but my sense is he did not!

[sndhlz]

i may be a little late with this post but i know from conversations with dick yougnscap that he did consider offerring the sand hills assignment to pete dye, since it was ust after dye did firethorn for him in nebraska. it's only speculation, but i don't think that the result would have been quite as universally applauded.