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.


archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #275 on: December 20, 2016, 09:56:56 PM »
 8) :-\




Boy it would be fun to get a good site like that to build a course on !


Woo woo

Jim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #276 on: December 21, 2016, 12:16:44 AM »

Bogey,
You have really pissed me off this time. Normally, I refrain from responding to your comments, but I can't hold back with this. What exactly is the problem with the most accomplished modern architectural company on the planet applying their philosophy to a rolling sandy terrain?   


You work so hard to be a contrarian that you lose sight of what is in front of you. I do not deny that Lawsonia is a great course -- better than SV? Come on.


In the end, what irritates me most is that you have no idea what it takes to convert raw land into what C&C built at Sand Valley. To make unfounded, intentionally contrarian comments without the foundation to back up your thesis is insulting.

Which comments of Bogey's are unfounded? 

If he thinks Lawsonia is better than SV, that's what he thinks.  What makes that opinion objectively wrong? 

The construction/design process C&C went through to build SV seems to me completely irrelevant when comparing the course to others. 

Overall, I thought Bogey made concise, detailed comments.  Your response to him seems to me a bunch of name-calling and ad hominem attacks. 

John Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #277 on: December 21, 2016, 01:14:09 PM »
I wonder what Bill and Ben would think (not what they would say) about the comments on the last couple of pages (about Sand Valley, Lawsonia, and Sand Valley vs. Lawsonia).

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #278 on: December 21, 2016, 01:24:09 PM »
John, there is far more motivation on this site to endear oneself to Messrs. Coore and Crenshaw than there is to Mr. Langford. is there not?

I don't mind being wrong when the stakes are so low, but I know what I like and I like poking the bear every now and then.  Oh, and Lawsonia.

Cheers,

Mike   

Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #279 on: December 21, 2016, 01:29:36 PM »
So are there right and wrong opinions?

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #280 on: December 21, 2016, 01:40:03 PM »
So are there right and wrong opinions?

As one of my architect friends often reminds me, the answer is yes...and mine are WRONG!

So I let him be right sometimes....
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

BCowan

Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #281 on: December 21, 2016, 06:15:28 PM »
So are there right and wrong opinions?


Hoov,


The 3 by 5 cards were just sent out a few days ago.  Sent them to Lawsonia this year.   :)


Mr Bogey,
   
    Reading ur 2nd post has me in total agreement. Having only played 2 original C&C and one restored on clay Old Town, which I believe was outstanding, CLAY it is.  You are ahead of the game, you get it, they are lagging behind.  I solitified my agreement after reading Ran's most awesome Wykagyl write up last night.   
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 06:24:17 PM by Ben Cowan (Michigan) »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #282 on: December 22, 2016, 05:45:55 AM »
John, there is far more motivation on this site to endear oneself to Messrs. Coore and Crenshaw than there is to Mr. Langford. is there not?

I don't mind being wrong when the stakes are so low, but I know what I like and I like poking the bear every now and then.  Oh, and Lawsonia.

Cheers,

Mike

Bogey

Could this be a case of "looks like .... and ..... and ...."  I have said it before, but the I don't believe the problem (if thats the right word) is architects and their designs, but that people travel to see a decent percentage of these designs.  I don't care who you are (except for Fowler), if one is committed to a certain style of design then eventually the courses will start to look the same.  I dare say for the sandy and hilly sites, they will play similar as well...and if they don't play like a sandy site folks will be disappointed and feel cheated somehow.  Its good that you can identify what it is you like and what it is you really like because that is all that matters.

For the record...should I ever make it Sand Valley way...the main course I want to see is Lawsonia....Sand Valley is the icing on the cake.  Why?  I don't really care which is better and which has the higher Doak score...I don't play many Lawsonias....they are rare.

Merry Christmas & Ciao
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 05:12:38 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #283 on: December 22, 2016, 01:26:17 PM »
I can't help but think that Ben and Bill should have broken the mold after Sand Hills and Bandon Trails (though Friar's Head looks mighty tasty!) and Tom should have done the same after Ballyneal and Pacific Dunes.


Gotta admit, I don't really understand what this means. Do you mean they shouldn't have accepted jobs on similar sites to those which they've built highly regarded courses upon previously? Or do you mean they have some sort of formula for these courses that they are following?


Nice post, Sean.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first course architects
« Reply #284 on: December 22, 2016, 02:38:28 PM »
I find it highly unlikely that Kaiser will hand over the land to a Fazio and/or Nicklaus. It's possible, sure, but it would certainly break the successful mold.

George,

The above post is #9 on this thread.   To borrow Pat's term, Sand Valley definitely doesn't "break the successful mold."  I'm simply wondering if this genre of golf course is quickly becoming a stylistic brand for today's golden boys or at least the darling of the architectural cognoscenti, who are suckers for the next big thing and can't resist"gushing" about it pre-opening.

I know it's apples to oranges but Crump and Neville went out on top with one song and a mic drop.

With apologies to Alan Jackson, is too much of a good thing a good thing?

Bogey
 
« Last Edit: December 22, 2016, 03:13:42 PM by Michael H »
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

John Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #285 on: December 22, 2016, 03:02:09 PM »
Michael H -

I was referring more to the tone than to the content of some comments (as Bill and Ben are true gentlemen).  A healthy, respectful discussion is a good thing. 

For what it's worth, I absolutely love Lawsonia.  I have played Sand Valley only once and need to get to know that course better.

Thanks.
John

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first course architects
« Reply #286 on: December 22, 2016, 03:23:00 PM »
To borrow Pat's term, Sand Valley definitely doesn't "break the successful mold."  I'm simply wondering if this genre of golf course is quickly becoming a stylistic brand for today's golden boys or at least the darling of the architectural cognoscenti, who are suckers for the next big thing and can't resist"gushing" about it pre-opening.


I remain confused.


Would you prefer that they not accept jobs? Or depart from the practices that have resulted in many highly regarded courses?


We are not talking about a painter looking to break new ground in his art form. We are talking about golf courses that golfers actually play golf on.


You're a wise guy (a guy who possesses wisdom, not a wiseguy). What do you suggest?
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #287 on: December 22, 2016, 03:33:46 PM »
George, I'm grateful for Sand Valley since I travel to Madison each summer.  I can't fathom  not playing there and at Lawsonia every single year.  Oh, and I did give it a cursory 7 and recommend folks to play there. 

The architect and developer don't need to change a thing - we're all the better for their work and investment.  I just don't think this genre/style automatically qualifies for gushing and hype and an easy 8 as soon as we get photographs with grass growing.   The quality is more granular than the prevailing sentiment.   If I'm wrong, it will be a pretty boring top 100 modern list a few years from now. 

Make sense?
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #288 on: December 22, 2016, 03:35:37 PM »
Dear Mr. Bogey,

You are a dumba** redneck who should not try and make intelligent comments on a site such as this...."Sand is the new Black" ;D ;D ;D ...   Comparing Lawsonia and SV are like comparing the new first lady Trump with Jackie Kennedy...there is no way to compare brand new with old...give it time.  Plus there is no legitimate way to do it.  And here is the thing about C&C...very nice guys and they did not create the issue.  BUT the golf writer types treat them just like  composer David Foster treated Trump when he turned down the Trump inauguration music while calling him a dear old friend BUT if he took the job it might keep many of his friends who are Hillary supporters from donating to his foundation...  Same crap....

I find it interesting that Golfweek was down rating and playing Bluejack National with just 7 holes done...hell we all knew it was going to be ranked number one when we kept seeing the photo of the owner with the nice sweater wrapped around his neck...all about selling a lifestyle and it's maybe his second project..

Just remember , Yankees will try to intimidate you if you let them....don't fall for that crap...

My question for the new year is are you good if you are ranked or should it be if you are ranked you are good?  Being ranked 9th best new when only 6 are built is very confusing ;D ;D ;D

Merry Christmas
« Last Edit: December 22, 2016, 03:40:14 PM by Mike_Young »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #289 on: December 22, 2016, 04:00:22 PM »
Make sense?


Not really, no.


Different for the sake of being different is a childish notion, imho. It draws praise from the almost intelligent, like some of the posters on this site, but it does nothing to advance the art, nor does it do anything to advance the game among the rest of us.


Be happy with your embarrassment of riches and leave it at that.


That is true wisdom...
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #290 on: December 22, 2016, 04:00:58 PM »
Thank you Mike.   You so get me.   I completely mis-stutter stepped.

Also, I suggest your next course be called Billy  Jack National.

Merry Christmas
« Last Edit: December 22, 2016, 04:02:59 PM by Michael H »
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #291 on: December 22, 2016, 04:58:06 PM »
Bogey, I think I get what you're saying, and what Mike is saying, but I also think you should consider this: maybe Bill and Ben and Tom and Jim and Gil and whoever are simply building what they believe is the best golf course for the people who will play golf there, according to the principles and ideas that have worked for them in the past. If that sounds repetitive to you, well, so be it.


The logical extension of "break the mold" is Desmond Muirhead in Atlantic City, or wherever that course with the shark head was.


This is golf, not painting.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #292 on: December 22, 2016, 05:01:49 PM »
Thank you Mike.   You so get me.   I completely mis-stutter stepped.

Also, I suggest your next course be called Billy  Jack National.

Merry Christmas

I was thinking more along lines of The Buford (Pusser)  ball bats in every cart ;D
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #293 on: December 22, 2016, 05:03:31 PM »
Bogey, I think I get what you're saying, and what Mike is saying, but I also think you should consider this: maybe Bill and Ben and Tom and Jim and Gil and whoever are simply building what they believe is the best golf course for the people who will play golf there, according to the principles and ideas that have worked for them in the past. If that sounds repetitive to you, well, so be it.


The logical extension of "break the mold" is Desmond Muirhead in Atlantic City, or wherever that course with the shark head was.


This is golf, not painting.

George,
I got zero problem with anything they do there...I'm just saying you can't compare for a while...
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #294 on: December 22, 2016, 05:34:32 PM »
Bogey,


Would it be fair to interpret your position as one of wanting the developers to utilize different designers as the way to change it up a bit? Like others, I see little reason, from a success standpoint, to critize the formula apart from ones own desire to want something different.


If that's the case, you, being a banker-type, could find some investors. Then you hire me to design and build something not on every menu! That would solve your issue.
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

John McCarthy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #295 on: December 22, 2016, 09:35:39 PM »
Thank you Mike.   You so get me.   I completely mis-stutter stepped.

Also, I suggest your next course be called Billy  Jack National.

Merry Christmas

I was thinking more along lines of The Buford (Pusser)  ball bats in every cart ;D


Ax handle, lad.  Ax handle. 


Fun fact, the actor Woody Harrilson's father is reputed to have shot Sheriff Pusser's jaw off.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 08:43:57 AM by John McCarthy »
The only way of really finding out a man's true character is to play golf with him. In no other walk of life does the cloven hoof so quickly display itself.
 PG Wodehouse

Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #296 on: December 22, 2016, 11:23:17 PM »

George Bernard Shaw said “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
 
In architecture, Post Modernism was a backlash against Modernism. This movement was partially fueled by the emergence of the historical preservation movement. Society became fed up with watching old buildings being replaced with universal modern block of glass and steel. There was a strong desire to have more detail and culture in our built form.

Eventually that would give way to offshoots including Neoclassicism right through to what’s called Blobitecture. That’s where technology and software have allowed architects, such as Frank Gehry, to build just about anything they can imagine. But it keeps pushing providing us with ideas the Turning Torso by Calatrava. The advantage architecture has is the large volume of opportunities. This disadvantage golf has is how few there are.
 
 When Minimalism came along it was met with some criticisms, eventually if found acceptance. Finally Modernism gave way to Minimalism. Once it became the dominant movement it suffered what all other movements suffer ... "the style" being extensively copied. This began to take away some of the freshness of seeing new work by the top Minimalist designers, because it just didn’t seem quite as original as before.
 
And here’s the thing about Sand Valley – its no longer original. The formula was used at Cabot Links … and Streamsong ... and Bandon Dunes. Nobody has any criticism for the work. The mild criticism is its working in the same style with the same designers and expecting the same reaction. Eventually, the impact won't come. For Mike ... that appears to be now.
 
I think what Mike is suggesting is how exciting would it be if someone took a completely different approach at Sand Valley and put something different side by side with the other courses. The comparison would be engaging ... and it just might open up some new ideas on architecture.
 
Shaw also said “There are two tragedies in life. One is not to get your heart's desire. The other is to get it.”
 
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 09:38:51 AM by Ian Andrew »
With every golf development bubble, the end was unexpected and brutal....

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #297 on: December 23, 2016, 12:03:22 AM »
I think we are on the gaining side of the paradox with Mike Keiser :) Thank you
It's all about the golf!

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #298 on: December 23, 2016, 09:27:49 AM »
What Ian said.  I'm out.

Bogey
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sand Valley first , second , and third course architects, fourth?
« Reply #299 on: December 23, 2016, 10:27:07 AM »

Agree with Ian's broader perspective, but also add this - someone really did ask if CC should just change their style for the sake of change and freshness.  While I am not sure of the answer, its a valid question to any designer.


I recall seeing Fleetwood Mac.  They introduced "Tusk" by recalling the record company wasn't too happy, because the formula in rock is to crank out similar style albums until sales drop.  But as artists, they wanted a different sound (you might recall Tusk featured the USC marching band).


I long said I didn't want to reach the age I am now and have people say "oh, that's a Brauer course" as has happened to so many architects.  Always consciously looking to change my style. IMHO, a style can be put on (nearly) any site, while still designing in principle for those who are likely to play, as its two separate issues.  Obviously, we think some styles fit some sites better, a la, style gets more rugged on rugged, more refined in subdivisions, etc.


I have heard many say that CC are getting a bit too stylistically predictable, but I wonder why they should be any different than RTJ, JN, Fazio or Dye before them?  They get hired to do what they did before, no?  They will change when they are no longer getting the prime jobs, IMHO.  Or rely on fewer commissions and stick to their guns, which they may be ready to do anyway. 


Similarly, the problem with deciding whether their style still sells at SV, is that the Keiser concept, away from the ocean, may actually not be as good a business model, so cash register success may not equal design quality success.


All in all, a valid, but tricky question.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach