Are you ready for a really controversial thread ?

[Sean_A]

Re-the bunkering.  Guys, unless you haven't noticed it's a sandy site.  See the sand dune just beyond the green?  Aesthetically do you think it would look more or less natural with fewer bunkers?

Jud:

I really like the back two bunkers flanking the left and right sides of the green; they sort of bleed out of the sandy deposit mounds. From the other photo threads of the courses, it "looks" similar to much of the rest of the course(s), in terms of transitions between greens, closely mown non-green surfaces, and the crappy whispy stuff on other portions of the course. In other words, it seems to fit.

The fronting bunker -- or the right half of it -- looks "manufactured" to a greater degree than the other two bunkers. And there is some view -- Sean Arble has expressed this I believe -- that architects ought to avoid the double penalty of having both a water carry and a bunker carry facing the golfer. But, Shel suggests the hole is not penal in that regard given its length, so the fronting bunker really doesn't bother me. The more I look at it -- and Tom's response indicates some justification for this -- the hole has a vaguely Redan-like feel to it -- with the pin shown, that looks like a pretty cool shot one could attempt to hit a draw to the far right side and use the contours and tilt of the green to get the ball close to the hole (and avoid the fronting bunker -- a key element of a Redan's strategy.)

I can't make a judgement about comparing it to a Rees Jones design. But from what I've seen of each one's work here on GCA, it seems to be more of the Doak naturalistic style than the Jones highly manufactured style. But, that's just based on photos here on GCA.

Phil

I don't object to this as a double hazard.  I object to playing over water, but using a bunker to negate the impact of the water.  Its an archie craze these days.  What is the reason for the craze?  I also object to the aesthetics.  It is very hard to pull off.  It is especially irksome to find out the golfer has to back track after this hole.  Why is the goal to walk over water twice, but not take full advantage of the feature?    

Ian

The idea of an archie creating "down-time" for contemplation needs further explaining to me.  Don't you get enough time for contemplation walking the other 4-5 miles?

Ciao

[Tom Dunne]

Tom,

Thanks for providing a better understanding of how this hole came to be. I apologize if I missed your explanation in a previous thread--my custom is to avoid GCA photo tours if I'm anticipating seeing a course myself in the near future.

Ian,

I agree that the hole is worth the walk back. Arriving on that tee in a closely contested nine-hole match definitely got the blood pumping!

Jason Thurman,

Regarding CommonGround, I think it's important to keep in mind that in so many ways that project--the recycling of a crummy 1960s vintage AFB course--is a different animal from working on two courses in close proximity on a big, bold site like Streamsong's. At CG the footprint of the course already existed, so carping about the limitations of the property seems a bit much. I could be wrong, but I don't think there was a chance of Renaissance asking the client to go off-parcel in order to tap some great, virgin land. In a dense urban setting like CG's, that would probably be the parking lot of a Jiffy Lube. Even so, I think Doak and his team got an awful lot out of that site, orienting holes toward the Front Range instead of the concrete of Havana St. For me, CG is all the more impressive precisely because of the natural limitations of the site.  

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, what's my argument? I'm just suggesting that certain cliche crticisms get thrown around in the forum a lot and serve as lowest common denominator crutches to support arguments against other architects' work. Do you disagree? I don't think it would take much time to find ten examples of people posting things like "forced carries are always bad" or "bunkers between water and a target are a no-no."

No doubt this is true.  My objection is to your assumption that criticisms are applied unevenly because it's Coore & Crenshaw or me instead of someone else, instead of that the differences are based on the golf holes that we've built.

The 15th and 16th at Cypress Point have forced carries over water, too, but people don't post their inane boilerplate criticisms about those holes.  Do you think that's all because of a MacKenzie bias on Golf Club Atlas?  Or is it perhaps just because those golf holes are so good that it would be stupid to criticize them?

[jeffwarne]

Lots of interesting thoughts shared here and no doubt certain favorite sons are given some slack on this site. I cant imagine Pat stirring the pot , can you?

But, if you look at this hole and its wild and wooly appearance , and were told it was built by Rees, most afficionado's of his style wouldn't believe it !

Archie,
If you helicoptered me in and told me a modern signature built this hole, I don't think I would question it just from looking 190 yards away.
and I doubt they would've even considered other routing choices as Tom did.
However; I would immediately question you if I played the other 17 holes and you told me it was modern signature that designed them all.

I think it's very important to
1. accept the routing challenges that were already in place with the topogrophy in place and the challenge of 2 courses
2.Appreciate the scale(everything on the hole is big, including the green), beauty and drama of that area of the property
3.As Tom points out, evaluate it in the context of the par 3 two holes behind it, and the par 3 three holes ahead of it
4.Also, As Tom points out, evaluating the long walk in the context of how few others there are

I do have questions about the walk from 10 green to 11 tee
Not remembering the topography, would it not have been possible to move 10 tee and 10 green more forward to shorten the walk from 10 green to 11?

[Bill_McBride]

Tom,

Thanks for providing a better understanding of how this hole came to be. I apologize if I missed your explanation in a previous thread--my custom is to avoid GCA photo tours if I'm anticipating seeing a course myself in the near future.

You don't like to whet your appetite in preparation?   

I read books and studied the layout of the Old Course for literally decades before I got there.  I think that's why I wasn't disappointed at all when I finally got there!

[Jim Colton]

We can't forget the fact that this is a 36-hole routing built by two different architects working together and at the same time to stitch together a cohesive, intertwined routing. Has this ever been done before? It's amazing that they were able to get it to work with only a couple of these disruptions.

Tom can fill us in on the history, but I seem to recall that there was some discussion about having just 18 holes on the best land and another 18 on some of the lesser property. Joe Bausch posted an early 18-hole routing by Bill Coore. I believe Tom mentioned that there was some question whether they could even get 36 holes there. I'm sure an easier answer would've been to keep C&C on the perimeter and Renaissance on the interior, or one architect on the NE and the other to the SW, but would that have yielded two excellent golf courses? The client felt strongly they needed two stellar golf courses in order to draw people to the middle of phophate mine, FL.

[Sven Nilsen]

Are there any pictures of the greensite from before construction?

[Tom_Doak]

Are there any pictures of the greensite from before construction?

I used one for my Christmas card a couple of years ago.  I'm not at the office today so I can't post it right away.  It does not look much different than the finished product, except that there was more vegetation on the ridge at the front right of the green and down near the water, obscuring some of the view.  We did take a fair amount of tilt out of the green, but you can't tell that from the before and after photos.

[Mark Steffey]

What would you be saying about this hole if Rees Jones had been the architect ?

i would be shocked, SHOCKED, that the course owner(s) didn't have a budget to let the grass grow in on the green fringe there.

[Sven Nilsen]

Is this it?



For comparison, here's the photo from the OP:

[Dan Kelly]

Is this it?



For comparison, here's the photo from the OP:

If that's not it, somebody'd better hurry and find that spot!

[jeffwarne]

anybody else want to argue it's overbunkered?
I'd say it's overgrassed!!!!

[Michael Dugger]

I am failing to see the "controversy" here.

I've always felt gca.com folk appreciate good for good, regardless of the architect.

Pat Mucci is a giant apologist for his acquaintances and friends.

Not to say that he doesn't "know" good architecture when he sees it, because he does, but he is wont to defend complete garbage from time to time.

[Phil McDade]

We can't forget the fact that this is a 36-hole routing built by two different architects working together and at the same time to stitch together a cohesive, intertwined routing. Has this ever been done before? It's amazing that they were able to get it to work with only a couple of these disruptions.

And a significant distinction with Erin Hills, which had an enormous canvas upon which to work, double the space of most courses, and only one 18-hole course to develop. Apples and oranges?

[archie_struthers]

Jeff,  not to be argumentative , but I simply stated that it sure as hell doesn't look like a hole that Rees would build, knowing his refined style. It's just to wooly, bully. ( Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs)

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat,

I don't want to speak for Bill, but isn't that how the land was left after Mosaic's mining operation?


Not based on the pre/during construction photos I saw, but, they may not have been all encompassing.

How many cubic yards of dirt were moved ?

Obviously that's not the native landscape, but it was the nature of the property that Tom Doak and C&C encountered. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Tom  Doak would be eminently more qualified to answer that question.

Pat:

Care to revisit this post after seeing the before and after photos posted above?

Sven

[Greg Tallman]

Rees would have been accused of being in cahoots with the mining company all along and the hole (and course) would be poo pooed as unnatural manufactured garbage.

[Jim Sherma]

Looking at Dan's posted photos it is obvious that both of these holes are built to be independent of the land around them. All of the movement within the constructed bowls are well defined and fairly large and obvious. There are little or no micro-movements to the land that would remind someone of a natural field. Pictures of Doak's work along with other courses that this site tends to like have micro movements that look like they would be consistent with the land outside of the immediate field of play. It is pretty obvious that Reese's work shown here is not consistent with the land outside of the prepared area of play.

[Jud_T]

We can't forget the fact that this is a 36-hole routing built by two different architects working together and at the same time to stitch together a cohesive, intertwined routing. Has this ever been done before? It's amazing that they were able to get it to work with only a couple of these disruptions.

And a significant distinction with Erin Hills, which had an enormous canvas upon which to work, double the space of most courses, and only one 18-hole course to develop. Apples and oranges?

Phil,

Perhaps makes Erin Hills all the less impressive when put in that light.  Did they take the "let's not move a teaspoon of dirt if possible" thing too far?  Did they try to do what Tom did on this hole 18 times at the expense of a routing that was a pleasant walk (but now has no carts)?

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's amazing how so many people don't understand the essence of the question.

Ppallota,   What is Rees Jones mostly criticized for on this site ?

Tom Doak,  it's not about the entire course or putting the pictured hole in context, it's more a question that's feature oriented.

I happen to think it would be a very good hole if nothing else existed outside the green and bunkers, and it's the outside that was at the heart of the question.

Michael Dugger, what have I apologized for in this thread or others ?

[Alex Miller]

It's amazing how so many people don't understand the essence of the question.

Ppallota,   What is Rees Jones mostly criticized for on this site ?

Tom Doak,  it's not about the entire course or putting the pictured hole in context, it's more a question that's feature oriented.

I happen to think it would be a very good hole if nothing else existed outside the green and bunkers, and it's the outside that was at the heart of the question.

Michael Dugger, what have I apologized for in this thread or others ?

It's amazing that you won't just ask the question, "Is this a bad hole because it is a forced carry over water? Why is it better than the water-carry par 3s we criticize Jones for?"

I think many people have answered that actually.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's amazing that you won't just ask the question, "Is this a bad hole because it is a forced carry over water?

Because that would be a dumb question and not had I had in mind, especially after playing #  5 & #14 at Pine Valley, # 9 at Yale, #,13 at NGLA, # 11 at The Creek, # 17 at TPC Sawgrass, # 8 at Seminole, # 6 at Pine Tree, # 17 at Boca Rio and many others.

As I stated, it's amazing how so many don't understand the question

Why is it better than the water-carry par 3s we criticize Jones for?"

I didn't know that was a valid criticism of Rees.
Maybe you should start a thread on it as it's obviously not the focus of this thread.


I think many people have answered that actually.

That's why I posted that they didn't understand the question

[Bart Bradley]

Pat:

Is the question about mounding?

Bart

[Alex Miller]

It's amazing that you won't just ask the question, "Is this a bad hole because it is a forced carry over water?

Because that would be a dumb question and not had I had in mind, especially after playing #  5 & #14 at Pine Valley, # 9 at Yale, #,13 at NGLA, # 11 at The Creek, # 17 at TPC Sawgrass, # 8 at Seminole, # 6 at Pine Tree, # 17 at Boca Rio and many others.

As I stated, it's amazing how so many don't understand the question

Why is it better than the water-carry par 3s we criticize Jones for?"

I didn't know that was a valid criticism of Rees.
Maybe you should start a thread on it as it's obviously not the focus of this thread.


I think many people have answered that actually.

That's why I posted that they didn't understand the question

I understand the question, but I don't think it's rooted in reality. Most recognize that Rees Jones has never built something like this, and the fact that he is criticized on here may have less to do with bias than you believe.

People have brought up the routing issue with this hole. People have mentioned that 16 Red may be too difficult with a front pin.   I don't think anyone is immune to criticism, and if you feel that you are free of bias then say what you think should be said about the hole.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

As I stated, it's amazing how so many don't understand the question

Perhaps it's that the question wasn't clear.  Why don't you try to clarify what was bouncing around your fertile mind in the OP?  BTW, you're welcome for the OP picture.  

Vis-a-vis the original state of the land that Doak worked, just in case you don't accept Tom's word, here is a December 31, 2009 aerial that clearly shows the pond and the spoils piles and even the low spot where the green was sited.



And, here's a link to a Keith Rhebb picture of the hole early in construction.  The "dunes" are undisturbed.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithrhebb/5271285207/in/set-72157624336297903/]http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithrhebb/5271285207/in/set-72157624336297903/]http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithrhebb/5271285207/in/set-72157624336297903/