[Steve Lapper]

Gents,

 Since I am the likely unnamed soul with "more malice," I'd like to say I found no malice in Franks post either. Malice would have called for a more forceful response
,
Yet as a respected and accomplished architect who hasn't worked in South Florida( to the best of my knowledge) Frank's comment swere both "a call to arms" and disparaging in both tone and substance. His comparisons were feeble and his descriptions of  the property I'll-informed and shameless, all derived from a handful of pictures. In other words, exactly what we shouldn't have as a reference point for an "architectural discussion" of a new and very public project.

  Kelly, your call as to who "acts like they get it and make positive affirmations" is as speculative as it's assumption. As I said, I've played the course multiple times years back, studied Gil's drawings and walked the property while under construction, yet I won't opine on the finished product until I see and play it. Isn't that supposed to be fairest standard for any course review? I'm also sure-as-hell not exercising some sort of solidarity with Hanse&Co v. others. After all, aren't I best described as a JCU and KBM homer??  Many here and elsewhere didn't like things you did on some of your courses, but quite a few came around to seeing their value upon a round or two. When we set out to try to build Old Bridge together years back, the last thing we'd have appreciated back then would've been another architect (and not of the armchair division)  trashing it from a few pix. Of course, though, an ornery displaced Texan and a strong-willed New Yorker would've dealt with it "Christie-style!"

  I agree that curiosity should replace judgement until experience permits. In fact, the old treehouse used to do a better job of that. Frank's post was something I felt strongly should be rebutted. This site is read too well and influences too many inside and outside of the business to watch it so swiftly devolve into a one-size-fits-all mentality for GCA.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Guys,  is this the same GolfClubAtlas I joined a couple of years ago?

What am I missing?

We'll get back to that later.

Yes its Hanse renovation, but the result is still a course that is flat,

It's SOUTH FLORIDA, barely 2 meters ASL, right next to an International Airport with FLAT 12,000' runways.

If you're a "minimalist" why would you want Gil to move dirt, ala Fazio ?

water on every hole,

The water was THERE before GIL was involved.
Do you know how many agencies and how difficult it is to move or eliminate existing water features in South Florida ?

horribly palm lined,

NOT REALLY.
Those palms and other trees will form a great barrier, visually blocking the industrial area that the course sits in the middle of.

and quite overbunkered.

WHY do you think it's over bunkered ?
Have you played DORAL, pre and post Gil's work ?

The greens look like the only really nice part of the course.

We're glad that you found something you like.

No comparisson to the results at LACC,

Had you played LACC North pre and post Gil's work ?
Would you compare the topography at LACC to TD ?

Rustic Canyon etc...

I wasn't aware that Rustic Canyon was a renovation, I thought it was an original.

Not writing this to critique Gil, I'm sure he did what he could to improve the course, but with such a site there is only so much you can do.
How many times have you played it that allowed you to formulate your judgement that Gil's efforts were severely limited by the site ?

Were you aware that when Doral originally opened up as a Dick Wilson design that it was highly regarded ?

Looking at the pics I have zero desire to see or play this course.....

Oh, so you haven't even set foot on the golf course, let alone played it ?

[Mark Saltzman]

Mark,

How long does 8 play from tips and regular tees, now?

Is the drive as intimidating as the one on 18?

Does the new green site accept a shot bounced in from the right, or must a ball reach the putting surface through the air?

Thanks for your answers to these questions.

Ron,

8 plays approx 500 yards from the tees I played, and 550 yards from the tips.

No, the drive is nowhere near as intimidating or difficult as the drive on 18.  Yes, there is water left, but there is lots of width and unlike 18 does not need to be carried.  The bigger challenge is avoiding a bunker on the right that eats well into the fairway's width about 235 yards from the tee.

In short, no, you're not bouncing it into the 8th green.  It is a pretty clever green site though.  The goal is always to be approaching from near the water as possible.  From the tee, if you play down the extreme left portion of the fairway (nearest the water) you have an angle to the green that allows you to land the ball some 20(isn?) yards short of the green and run it onto the putting surface.

Similarly, when laying up, challenging the water hazard and playing farther left leaves a clear look at most of the green and allows you to play a pitch to the depth of the green (probably 40 yards deep) vs to the width of the green (probably 20 yards).

Bottom line is a tee shot in the fairway leaves plenty to think about for shots 2 and 3.

[PCCraig]

I tend to agree with Frank above. The photos above (no offense to Mark) are pretty uninspiring. Of course that's based on photos alone. However it looks like a pretty basic Florida "championship" course with new fancy bunkers. It also looks like Gil reused a few of his tricks previously used at TPC Boston.

[Ronald Montesano]

It also looks like Gil reused a few of his tricks previously used at TPC Boston.

Since I know neither course from personal experience, PC, can you elaborate?

[jeffwarne]

I tend to agree with Frank above. The photos above (no offense to Mark) are pretty uninspiring. Of course that's based on photos alone. However it looks like a pretty basic Florida "championship" course with new fancy bunkers. It also looks like Gil reused a few of his tricks previously used at TPC Boston.

Those bunkers don't look any "fancier" than the ones Dick Wilson built, or the ones that were redone in previous renovations.
I don't know what a "Championship course" is ,but at most Florida courses of the era, the bunkers were off to the sides flanking the fairways.
These clearly are not.

Doral appears now  to have many holes with options, strategy, tilt (which works with the strategy), width (which ,makes it user friendly and works with the strategy and centerline hazards)
The water was always there, but portions of the holes appear to have been moved merely closer to the water, leaving tremendous width on the safer side.

It seems many in the treehouse today are concerned more with aesthetics, texture, and off hole corridor views, which are of course part of the experience, but............

[Greg Tallman]

My takeaways from this topic:

1. Thou shalt not insinuate that GCA members will laud anything done by Hanse (and Doak, CC... etc)

2. Most GCA members WILL laud anything based on little more than the name of the person doing the work

I have thick skin gents, have at it.

[jeffwarne]

My takeaways from this topic:

1. Thou shalt not insinuate that GCA members will laud anything done by Hanse (and Doak, CC... etc)

2. Most GCA members WILL laud anything based on little more than the name of the person doing the work

I have thick skin gents, have at it.

Greg,

It seems to me the criticisms from Frank at least were that it didn't look like(come out like?) more of Gil's work.

We're looking at pictures and evaluating the limited information we have
He's compared it to an original project on wildly different terrain, and and another renovation based on a different architect on completely different terrain, and both in a different climate.

I'd say if this work had been done by Jim Mclean or Ray Floyd I'd have the same reaction to the photos.

This is Doral, way South Florida, and Trump we're talking about, it's not like he's altering TOC

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Most of Wilson was long gone

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

Most of Wilson was long gone

Pat,
I'm well aware of the history of Doral.
I said Hanse's bunkers didn't look any "fancier" than Wilson's original work, of which I've seen many,many photos from the early 60's, as well as what was left of his work when I played there in the early 80's.
In both cases I would be making that statement based mainly on photos.

and I would argue a lot of Wilson was left anyway, routing ,greensites, bunker placement etc.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Most of Wilson was long gone

Pat,
I'm well aware of the history of Doral.
I said Hanse's bunkers didn't look any "fancier" than Wilson's original work, of which I've seen many,many photos from the early 60's, as well as what was left of his work when I played there in the early 80's.
In both cases I would be making that statement based mainly on photos.

and I would argue a lot of Wilson was left anyway, routing ,greensites, bunker placement etc.

Jeff,

Then you're arguing that the course that Gil altered was almost the same as Wilson's original course on opening day.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

Most of Wilson was long gone

Pat,
I'm well aware of the history of Doral.
I said Hanse's bunkers didn't look any "fancier" than Wilson's original work, of which I've seen many,many photos from the early 60's, as well as what was left of his work when I played there in the early 80's.
In both cases I would be making that statement based mainly on photos.

and I would argue a lot of Wilson was left anyway, routing ,greensites, bunker placement etc.

Jeff,

Then you're arguing that the course that Gil altered was almost the same as Wilson's original course on opening day.

Ssme routing, same greensites, some longer tees, bunkers in mostly same places
Ray Floyd bastardized it, but that was blown up without fanfare in house, and Jim McLean restored much of Wilson's work
but no doubt there were differences from the original, as there are at any course.

[Mark Saltzman]

Jeff,

The aerials from 1969 vs 2007 look remarkably similar.  Here are 1961 and 1969 if you're interested:

[BCowan]

Mark

   It looks as though they have doubled the amount of water hazards since its early days or is it opposite way around?

[Mark Saltzman]

Holes 10-13 added in opening post...

[Terry Lavin]

I played it before and will play it again, but it's just too hard a course for me to enjoy.

[jeffwarne]

I played it before and will play it again, but it's just too hard a course for me to enjoy.

Funny,
I never thought of Doral as that hard with minimal OB and not too many water hazards (compared to most south Florida courses), despite its scary Blue Monster name.
Plenty of other South Florida courses scare me to death.

Mark,
that was always my feeling in the 30 years I've been going to Doral(minus the short lived Floyd bunker debacle)-Thanks for confirming that.

Great pictures 10-13  10 looks better-was always awkward best tee shot was 3 iron down left side before

[Frank Pont]

Guys, sorry for the late response, but I was at a funeral all day yesterday.

Let me start by stating that my previous posting in many ways did not come across as I intended, mostly because I was inaccurate in my writing (I am an engineer and English is not my first language ). Let me try to put things down more accurately:

1. I think Gil might be the best restoring architect on the planet, based on the many projects I have seen detailed pictures off and documents like the beautiful LACC one describing the before and afters. I said so much in a Christmas card I sent him last year, for what its worth. Given that I kind of dabble in the same area, I think that is a non trivial endorsement. Second any critique I might have of any of his work, would not be to further my own commercial ends, since I have none in the US.

2. I know south Florida is flat with a high water table. I live in Holland, which might be even flatter, with an even higher water table. I know what that means for building a golf course, having built 5 courses in the Netherlands. I also know that these circumstances make it very very difficult to produce a very good golf course, and probably impossible to make one  that can compete with the best in the world. Unless you would blow up the site, like what happened at Streamsong, it is difficult to produce the undulations and landforms that make golf interesting, but blowing up a historic golf site like Doral obviously was not an option.

3. I know LACC and Doral occupy completely different landscapes. I had also seen pictures of both places before and after the renovations. What I wanted to say is that the before and after effect of the renovations were much positively obvious at LACC. Maybe that is because the original architecture that got restored at LACC was a few notches better and more interesting than at Doral, and therefore restoring it had more effect for me.

3. I am not familiar with Dick Wilsons work, like I am familiar with the US architects of the golden age. As such I cannot comment on if the restoration is sympathetic, but knowing Gil's competence I am sure it is well thought through.

4. Mark takes beautiful pictures, that show the golf course in a way that the golfer would experience when walking the course. I love his tours and frequently spend significant time going through them. My sincere thanks for all the time and effort he puts into it !! I run the site Golf Architecture PIctures.com, so I know how much time it takes to do these tours.

5. As an architect I have seen very many courses and their sites in person and on pictures.  I know that pictures distort, and that they often do not show the real changes in altitude etc. I am therefore quite calibrated when I look at pictures to know what I can conclude from them and what not.  

6. When I looked at the pictures, what I saw was a typical Florida golf course, with many elements I do not like in a golf course, namely  lots and lots of water, symmetrical tree lined fairways, a large amount of very large bunkers etc. The one thing that caught my eye were the interesting undulations in the greens.

7. Even though this might be the only type of golf course that can be built ion such a flat and wet site, and the fact that Gil did a thoughtful and sympathetic restoration of the original Wilson course, in the end it still looks like a typical Florida course.  If the begin ingredients are poor for golf, there is only so much even the best architect in the world can do. I judge a course by the end result, not by the many limiting boundary conditions that cause to be less than great.

7. What sparked my mail was reading Connors comment: "The pictures look great. From what it looks like the course looks even better ". Based on what I stated above I did not think that anybody on GCA would find the course looking "better than great". Obviously I was wrong, and have learned from that.

8. My worry is that GCA turns more and more in a "its all great" site. In the last few weeks alone I received several PM's from people stating their opinion on something I posted, explaining they could not put their (critical) opinions publicly on GCA. That way GCA becomes a PR site where all is well, all courses are "great", and as Max Behr already said in his well known 30's article nobody will learn anything anymore.

9. Maybe my main question would be one to Gil, namely why he was interested in a project like Doral. Given his skills there must be at least 50 classic courses in the US alone where the impact he could have had would have been much larger. Assuming he has more work than he can handle, why spend it on a place like Doral?

10. Thanks for the feedback you guys gave me, again it made me realise how inaccurate my initial post was. I hope this one was slightly better (there is only so much a Dutch speaking engineer can learn )

[Jon Wiggett]

It certainly looks a lot better than when I played it just after the Floyd (I think) renovation. Then it was just bout unplayable mainly due to silly carries over water and bunkers where you could only advance the ball a few yards forward due to the softness of the sand. Have to say it looks good now.

Jon

[Jud_T]

While personally I'd probably make a beeline for Streamsong if going to Florida specifically for winter golf (hard to believe Streamsong is the value proposition in this context), I guess the relevant question is if one finds oneself in south Florida on business or family vacation, what other public options would you prefer to Doral?

Mark,  what Saltzman rating would you give the course?

[BCowan]

Frank

    Agree 100%

   I always went to Doral to take a golf lesson, money well spent.  I wish I had played Biltmore a Ross muni with a beautiful hotel.  I think they renovated it 5 or 6 years ago.   Clinton had stayed there and supposedly liked it.  You could play Biltmore, lesson at McLean, and a round at Streamsong for one go around at the blue monster.  The wind is such a great element there i must say I enjoyed seeing the flag stick practically sideways on the 18th green on my way to the lesson.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Limited photos from limited perspectives tend to make analysis difficult.
Add to that the "Lightning Rod" nature of the developer and the tendency to divert ones focus to the ubiquitous fountain and it's easy to see why the product that has neither been seen or played gets panned.

Before passing judgement, good or bad, I think you have to consider the following.

1. What was the quality of the course previously occupying the site ?
2.  What were the site constraints, physically and legally
3.  What was the mission of the developer
4.   Did the architect selected achieve the intended mission
5.   What's the quality of the finished product in the context of the mission
6.   What's the quality of the product overall, beyond the mission
7.   How does it play for the broad spectrum of golfers

It would seem that prior to addressing the above 7 questions, one would have to be familiar with the old course, along with Trumps intentions, and that one would have to have played the new course a few times or more.

I'm not particularly enamored with the course in WPB, so I'm anxious to play a course that would seem to be a major departure from previous projects.

[Greg Tallman]

Limited photos from limited perspectives tend to make analysis difficult.
Add to that the "Lightning Rod" nature of the developer and the tendency to divert ones focus to the ubiquitous fountain and it's easy to see why the product that has neither been seen or played gets panned.

Before passing judgement, good or bad, I think you have to consider the following.

1. What was the quality of the course previously occupying the site ?
2.  What were the site constraints, physically and legally
3.  What was the mission of the developer
4.   Did the architect selected achieve the intended mission
5.   What's the quality of the finished product in the context of the mission
6.   What's the quality of the product overall, beyond the mission
7.   How does it play for the broad spectrum of golfers

It would seem that prior to addressing the above 7 questions, one would have to be familiar with the old course, along with Trumps intentions, and that one would have to have played the new course a few times or more.

I'm not particularly enamored with the course in WPB, so I'm anxious to play a course that would seem to be a major departure from previous projects.

And here I thought this site was about #6 minus the last three words. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Limited photos from limited perspectives tend to make analysis difficult.
Add to that the "Lightning Rod" nature of the developer and the tendency to divert ones focus to the ubiquitous fountain and it's easy to see why the product that has neither been seen or played gets panned.

Before passing judgement, good or bad, I think you have to consider the following.

1. What was the quality of the course previously occupying the site ?
2.  What were the site constraints, physically and legally
3.  What was the mission of the developer
4.   Did the architect selected achieve the intended mission
5.   What's the quality of the finished product in the context of the mission
6.   What's the quality of the product overall, beyond the mission
7.   How does it play for the broad spectrum of golfers

It would seem that prior to addressing the above 7 questions, one would have to be familiar with the old course, along with Trumps intentions, and that one would have to have played the new course a few times or more.

I'm not particularly enamored with the course in WPB, so I'm anxious to play a course that would seem to be a major departure from previous projects.

And here I thought this site was about #6 minus the last three words. 

Greg,

That leads me to believe that you're totally unfamiliar with the mission and creation of Pine Valley

[jeffwarne]

Franks,

Thanks for the excellent clarification.......

To all who feel the site is becoming a loveall fest with no frank commentary

Could it possibly be that a few of the people who are defending the renovation (and make no mistake Frank, it is a renovation-not a restoration in most cases)
actually LIKED the course before, and ARE giving their frank opinions based on the limited pictures they see.
Or are at least willing to wait to pass judgement until after they've seen it in person, given that they already had a positive bias, and the pictures seem better than what was there before.

That doesn't mean those who dislike what they see aren't entitled to frank negative commentary.
But, they have to accept that others may disagree, and support their views when questioned-the same as someone who likes it should be prepared to support their positives views as well.

Big world out there.
One can like what Gil did at LACC, like Pinehurst in all versions, and still like the work at Doral-even if they'd rather play Streamsong or Mountain Lake. (preferring Steamsong to Doral though is a bit like not playing Tobacco Road because one prefers Harbour Town-they're about that close together)

Anyone ever read the reviews of Mark Rowlinson?
Ever see any nasty, snippy reviews?
But if you read carefully. you can see what he prefers,and where he thinks you should play, without all the nastiness.
This website in the early years was loaded with nastiness, all under the guise of of "frank commentary", but usually by poorly traveled, ill informed opinionated individuals with the most dangerous thing out there----a little bit of  knowledge

Hating Doral,  Rees Jones courses, or Trump projects (and I will admit to this bias occasionally) doesn't make you smarter than everybody else, it just means you have a differing opinion than someone else who does like one or all of these things.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()