Ocean Dunes - hidden gem

[CJ72]

For all those that are planning to play Bandon and Pacific Dunes you need to know about Ocean Dunes.  Ocean Dunes is just under 85 miles north of Bandon, OR near Sandpines GC.

If you are thinking of playing Sandpines on your southern coast of Oregon trip you need to cancel you tee time and book with Ocean Dunes.

The course is only 6,000 yard from the back and most players would be very fortunate to break 90 on it for the first time.  The course weaves back and forth through the dunes and shore pines with and interesting variety of holes.  

The most interesting holes are the 6th - a 490 yard par five were the landing area narrows to 20 yards wide with dunes and scrub grass on both sides.  From there it is a downhill aproach with a natural hazard on the right.  And the 15th a 300 yard drivable downhill par four.

Both of these holes are great because they give you the option to go for broke or play safe, but if you deside to go for it you have to exicute.  This course can really get your heart beating.  

For those of you that will give this course a try just remember it is no Bandon or Pacific, but I personally feel that it is the next best course on the Oregon coast.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

You haven't seen Astoria have you?

Ocean Dunes is a family favorite simply because it is a wonderful little tract that anyone can play. Nothing really taxing about it. I go there simply to look at thos wonderful dunes situated South, off of #4. It makes you understand that the golf course is a "what if."

Bill Robinson, who both designed the course as well as owns it has done a good job of making the course play beter then the 9-holer he found there at the very beginning. I'll go on further to say that if someone of some really GREAT architectural knowledge got the place, Sandpines woud simply close their doors, and that in itself is a tragedy.

[CJ72]

Tommy,
There is no dought that both Ocean Dunes and Sandpines are both "what if" courses.  Ocean Dunes still has their property in tack though.  It would not be all that hard to do a slight redesign without destroying the natural landscape of the place.  
Sandpines is a lost cause.   Like everything else Rees Jones has ever touched it is a disapointment.  He must have laid out the course without ever setting foot on the property.  You cannot even tell you are playing on what used to be a great dunes sight.  

That brings up anouther topic.  How does Rees Jones get any work?

[Michael Dugger]

My oh my, CJ72 is on a roll!!!

Just so you know, Tommy and I feel the same way about Sandpines

Just a warning, CJ72, you're opening up a can of worms nobody wants to address, again, when you start talking about Rees Jones and Sandpines.

Explore the search feature of the site and look for the "Cigar" thread.  You will find all you want to know about this matter there.  

Oh, gawd, please don't show this thread to Mucci
 

 

[Norbert P]

  I agree that it is a more interesting course than the neighboring "S"* course.  Ocean Dunes can get infuriating if one is inaccurate with the tee ball - like me - but it still has some wonderful wild scenery and land action.  Tight fairways, homes on a few holes and some mean natural bunkers keep the irons in my hands but it's a great warmup for Bandon.  

*Like the dreaded sh--ks, which should never be written or spoken, "S---" should never be uttered or scribed in any medium, lest you yearn for a curse.

[CHrisB]

I played Ocean Dunes today in a 25 mph wind; the good news was being able to almost reach #1 and drive #18 with a 3-wood; the bad news was having holes like #5, 6, 15 and 16 into the wind.  It was a fun shotmakers course, and certainly one of the toughest 6000-yard courses you can find in the wind.  Favorite holes were #11 and 12 with elevated landing areas, and I enjoyed the drop-shot par 3's (#7 & 17) as well.  But there is almost no room to play on #6 and 16, and there were several holes where it was difficult to tell how far to hit the tee shots without going through the fairway into a dune. I balloon-faded my tee shot on #5, which buried in the sand against the big dune right, and took two hacks to return to the fairway.  All in all I would recommend this course for a fun afternoon round before heading to Bandon.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Chris,
Glad you enjoyed the course, but you forgot to mention how good those sand dunes look back in there off of #4. That is unless the Indians sold the property and it is now all houses....

Ocean Dunes is a fun little course that I love playing just for all of the reasons mentioned. And yes, it will kick you ass no problem either. The architecture isn't necessarily great, but there are a lot of sleeper holes on there that are a joy to play. Just being on those dunes makes it all worth while and it is without doubt Bill Robinson's labor of love. If you happen to go by there again before you leave, please send him my best, and tell him that I will see him next year for sure.

[Matt_Ward]

CJ72 sais the following:

"Like everything else Rees Jones has ever touched it is a disapointment.  He must have laid out the course without ever setting foot on the property.  You cannot even tell you are playing on what used to be a great dunes sight.  

That brings up anouther topic.  How does Rees Jones get any work?"

You know it's one thing to highlight the merits of a course (Ocean Dunes) and to even say that Sandpines is really a waste of time to play (I do agree with that and have played it). Sandpines is far from what it could / should have become. Of that -- I have no doubt.

But to throw a grenade and then wonder how Rees Jones gets any work -- is really mean spirited and truth be told -- a bit of ignorance bordering on -- well, I'll just leave it at that.

I don't know how many Rees Jones courses you've played -- however, if you are going to judge him only by Sandpines you are seriously underplaying his positive contributions to a number of other courses he has done (you need to see Olde Kinderhook, Ocean Forest, Nantucket, even the famed Bridge!). Look, I don't doubt that some people prefer the quirky, tricky and sporty type courses. That's fine -- but to lay down a broad brush generalized statement that's geared toward the crowd that loves all the anti-Rees BS makes we wonder if you are truly open minded or are simply a trash and burn type.  

I trust you're a bit more open minded than that.

[Michael Dugger]

Matt,

Gosh we've heard you say that a lot, about ten times, at least.  It's like you are on a personal crusade to uphold the Rees Jones name.  

Doesn't it mean something to you that newbie after newbie (veterans too, for that matter) comes into gca.com and says the same thing over and over and over and over again?  I personally find it quite telling of what we think of Rees Jones' work.  

Maybe he's done some good work, he's certainly done some bad.  

I guess I just don't get it.

It's not like Rees Jones, golf course architect, is never going to get another commission because of what someone on gca.com says.  I don't think anything that is said on gca.com is going to upset his future.  He'll continue to remodel U.S. Open courses and build more cookie cutter bunkers.  He'll probably get a hundred better commissions than those architects who have more talent.  

Am I suppose to feel sorry for the guy because he isn't getting a fair shake in here??  I think he gets more than a fair shake considering how often you point out that he's ACTUALLY built a few courses that are "great" and we'd know this if we had played them.  Yet, how many people have expressed disappointment in the designs they have played.  How many more people must express this opinion before it's fair to say he's not very good?  100?  500?

Why is it so important to you to uphold his image?  

He'll be fine
Isn't the level of ire aimed in his direction indicative of just how disappointing his work is?

I ought start a new freaking thread on the topic.

How many disappointing golf courses has Rees Jones designed?

A. 0-5
B. 5-10
C. 10-15
D. 15-20
E. 20-25  

[Matt_Ward]

mdugger:

Let me ask you this -- do you think it is fair and appropriate to make broad brush statements on how someone gets work?

I've made plenty of statements on courses that Rees Jones has designed that were not that good (i.e. Sandpines, Tattersall, Aracdia Shores, etc, etc) and on the flip side there are a number of courses where his work is very good to excellent IMHO.

The issue is a simple one -- how do ignorant statements add credibility to the person who utters them? If one doesn't like a particular course help me and others to understand why. This thread started out with a fine purpose it has been twisted in being another bromide about being anti a particular person. I mean why throw in some detailed info -- just go for the throat and nuc the person in general. How does anyone benefit from that?

I'm not hear to defend architects -- I rate / review courses. But, I think it's high time people post particulars on why they like a certain course and go from there. The trash and burn BS is really unnecessary and reflects badly on the person who posts such drivel.

When you say how disappointing his work is -- please tell me what is so deficient on the following:

Olde Kinderhook
Nantucket
Ocean Forest
The Bridge
Cascata
Haig Point
Huntsville
Atlantic
Black Rock

Shall I go on?

I'm not hear to defend Rees Jones as some sort of modern day equivalent of Alister Mackenzie or A.W. Tillinghast. But, when people throw invective of the type that say the man is totally clueless on how to design a golf course then such statements clearly show how "clueless" the person who makes such statements.

Last item -- when you say people (50, 100, 500, 1000) have said how "disappointing his work is" I have to ask how many people have played a wide assortment of his courses to make such a bold statement? I guess you think their standing is fine if they have played 4 or 5 and only from one part of the country. What a crock! People can certainly have differences of opinions but it's time the loudmouths who throw bombs backed it up with a bit more detail than what I have been reading. Nothing more -- nothing less.

P.S. I'll say this again -- in the event it's misunderstood -- when there have been courses Rees has designed that have not turned out well I have said it loud and clear and most of all -- with specific examples and reasons. I would hope people judge each succeeding courses he or any other architect does with an open mind before affixing some tired label and playing to the audience that seeks to reaffirm such BS each and every time.

[Evan_Green]

Is it really worth it to give up a chance to have another round at Bandon/Pacific to play at Ocean Dunes?

[ddavid426]

Absolutely not.

[CJ72]

You haven't seen Astoria have you?

Because you wrote this I went and played astoria.  Nice course, but I still prefer Ocean Dunes.

Ocean Dunes is a family favorite simply because it is a wonderful little tract that anyone can play. Nothing really taxing about it. I go there simply to look at thos wonderful dunes situated South, off of #4. It makes you understand that the golf course is a "what if."

Bill Robinson, who both designed the course as well as owns it has done a good job of making the course play beter then the 9-holer he found there at the very beginning. I'll go on further to say that if someone of some really GREAT architectural knowledge got the place, Sandpines woud simply close their doors, and that in itself is a tragedy.

[CJ72]

Absolutely not.
Any reason?

[CJ72]

mdugger:

Let me ask you this -- do you think it is fair and appropriate to make broad brush statements on how someone gets work?

I've made plenty of statements on courses that Rees Jones has designed that were not that good (i.e. Sandpines, Tattersall, Aracdia Shores, etc, etc) and on the flip side there are a number of courses where his work is very good to excellent IMHO.

The issue is a simple one -- how do ignorant statements add credibility to the person who utters them? If one doesn't like a particular course help me and others to understand why. This thread started out with a fine purpose it has been twisted in being another bromide about being anti a particular person. I mean why throw in some detailed info -- just go for the throat and nuc the person in general. How does anyone benefit from that?

I'm not hear to defend architects -- I rate / review courses. But, I think it's high time people post particulars on why they like a certain course and go from there. The trash and burn BS is really unnecessary and reflects badly on the person who posts such drivel.

When you say how disappointing his work is -- please tell me what is so deficient on the following:

Olde Kinderhook
Nantucket
Ocean Forest
The Bridge
Cascata
Haig Point
Huntsville
Atlantic
Black Rock

Shall I go on?

I'm not hear to defend Rees Jones as some sort of modern day equivalent of Alister Mackenzie or A.W. Tillinghast. But, when people throw invective of the type that say the man is totally clueless on how to design a golf course then such statements clearly show how "clueless" the person who makes such statements.

Last item -- when you say people (50, 100, 500, 1000) have said how "disappointing his work is" I have to ask how many people have played a wide assortment of his courses to make such a bold statement? I guess you think their standing is fine if they have played 4 or 5 and only from one part of the country. What a crock! People can certainly have differences of opinions but it's time the loudmouths who throw bombs backed it up with a bit more detail than what I have been reading. Nothing more -- nothing less.

P.S. I'll say this again -- in the event it's misunderstood -- when there have been courses Rees has designed that have not turned out well I have said it loud and clear and most of all -- with specific examples and reasons. I would hope people judge each succeeding courses he or any other architect does with an open mind before affixing some tired label and playing to the audience that seeks to reaffirm such BS each and every time.
Well I see you did not like my comments.  They were wrote to get a rise and see what good work he has done.  If you want reasons as to why I feel others do a better job at course design I could give you some.
If you looked at old pictures of Lake Merced after Alister reworked the course you would see wild and crazy bunkers and distinct golf holes that seem to blend right in with the land.  If you take Lake Merced in its current condition it is a good course, but nothing near as interesting as some old photos that I have seen.  After playing the course it is hard to distinguish one hole from another.  
S*** ***** does not need mentioning.
Most of Rees' courses have that same worked over feel to them.  Similiar shaped bunkers, raised greens, and standard looking and feeling golf holes.  He seems to use very little of the natural features of the land.  
The main point is that with all the talented architects out there how does Rees get so many high profile jobs?
P.S. Just to let you know I have played courses of his on both the east and west coast as well as the midwest so the judgement is not based on one course alone.

[Matt_Ward]

CJ72:

You didn't answer the question posed -- look at the listing of courses I mentioned. Have you played any of them? Do you think all or most or some are as poor as you indicate in your comments that all of Rees Jones courses are "disappointments?"

I've played about 30 of his designs and I have been quite candid to point out the ones that don't work and the ones that are very good to excellent (they do exist).

My only issue is your broad brush statement on how can a man of this type find so much work? And the follow-up which says his work is a "disappointment." Please tell me how you can make broad brush statements of this type?

I said before I do agree with you and others who look upon Sandpines (i.e. there are also others such as Tattersall, to name just one) and say it was a complete failure for what it could / should have become given the site involved. However, to say one thing in a narrow context is one thing but a number of courses that I listed are far beyond what Sandpines is and I believe without further clarification or details the tendency to simply broad brush a man's entire portfolio speaks more to the issue of the poster than the subject he is referring to.

[CJ72]

Matt,
The original comment was a question not a comment.  I was wondering how he got work and what would some good examples be as to why.  The answer to your question is no.  I have not played the list you mentioned.  
The original question was not meant to be a closed minded statment or a blow to just Rees Jones .  I feel as though we should both question and accept other architects work other wise we lose our true opinion on golf course design.  
Based on your comments to be fair I will play at least half of you list before making any more Rees comments or questions on this websight.  After that we may have to revisit this conversation.  Hopfully you are right and he does do some unique and creative golf courses.

[Matt_Ward]

CJ72:

I'm not interested in whether people agree with me or not. What I am interested in is for posters to be tough and fair in their responses -- no matter WHO the architect is. And a good part of that comes from people doing the due diligence in playing a vast array of courses in a person's portfolio before applying generalistic comments.

I appreciate your ability to understand what I am saying because there are those (a minority) here on GCA who simply believe they can comment on the "look" of a course (via aerials and the like) but never playing it AND still believe they can critique the course. I don't have that Carnac ability and I dare say neither does anyone else.

Rees Jones is most successful with the high profile contacts he has. Does he maximize or use the sites we gets to the fullest? In some cases he has and in a good deal of others he has not. That doesn't mean to say that sites in the latter have turned out to be turkey golf courses. They have not for the most part but to be equally fair that doesn't mean they should be listed within say the top 100 / 200 courses in the USA either.

Rees has become the convenient punching bag for a select number of people who want to ascribe all the issues of "poor architecture" to people like him. Like I've said before I take a very pragmatic position regarding all types of courses I see.

You do have people (again a small minority) who are in the "branding" aspect of architecture. They believe that if person "X" does a course and he is a favorite of theirs then all such work from brand "X" is not to be questioned (I happen to call it in narrow terms Seth Raynor-itis although it doesn't pertain to his courses alone). No architect hits home runs with all their designs -- but it's important for people not to tight cast any one person into thinking that they ALWAYS design good / bad courses. The manner by which people work can evolve up or down with each new site. Keeping that in mind prevents people from automatically assuming that each course will be no less than the one that preceded it.

I appreciate your comments and would urge you to play a few of his newer layouts in the eastern half of the USA if times and opportunity permits (i.e. Nantucket, Olde Kinderhook, The Bridge). I understand that Rees is doing additional work in the wine areas of Sonoma / Napa and it's possible these new courses will reflect a trend away from the hideous examples of containment mounding and the like that dogged his earlier efforts. We shall see ...
 

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt,
As an outspoken critic of the man's work, I only suggest it in hopes that he never takes any site for granted, given his name and stature. I think that is what CJ72 and MDugger also feel the same. Who could blame them for such a horrible effort on such a unique piece of property.

And I also agree with you whole heartedly that one should see or understand Mr. Rees Jones work at other unique places, as well as judge it in the light it deserves before casting dispursions. (But lets face it, he certainly has desevered a lot of it.)

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy:

Yes, you're right good buddy but let's not forget that a number of people here on GCA are into architect "branding."

That means if you take architect "X" and you are a fan of his then everything he does becomes the second coming of Jesus. The converse is also true and iusually applies to Rees Jones even though these people have played no where near a fair reflection of his total work to cast such a hard and lasting judgement.

I've played a good number of his courses (over 30) and I have said OVER AND OVER again that Rees doesn't hit home runs in all his design by a mile. Neither did Donald Ross -- neither did Pete Dye -- neither did Crenshaw & Coore -- neither did Seth Raynor and on and on it goes.

You play a course with a clean sheet of paper and then go from there. I've seen the evolution in the way Rees Jones designs courses. Even with that evolution he doesn't get them all right to the level of being called a masterpiece.

Tommy, we both played Santaluz in the Diego area. I liked the course but mentioned the long and drawnout cart rides were overdone for the sake of maxing out real estate sales. The quality of the holes are good in spots and in other areas they are lacking. The 2nd hole at the course is one of the best long par-4's you can play in the SoCal area IMHO.

I've said this before -- people need to PLAY a much deeper listing of courses by any architect before chiming in that such and such a person is at whatever level on the totem pole of architects.

The tendency to "brand" someone with a fixed label is really a sad commentary because there are people on GCA who want to be associated with the politically correct notion of what is being said by certain other posters. I am not saying this to be a contrarian but it's high time people saw and played more courses before deciding to pen their opinions from a scant portfolio of courses they have personally visited.

Nothing more ... nothing less good buddy.