[John Connolly]

Couldn't find the discussion I wanted in other EH and SV threads so ........


I've played EH three times now and Sand Valley zero. Loved EH - they didn't get everything right but they got a lot right. A friend says he's played both this year and thought EH was superior.


So, for the average club guy, what golf course would they like more? Not looking for arguments about the value proposition - just the golf course. Is one clearly above the other?

[John Kavanaugh]

I haven't played Sand Valley, but from everything I read, it just feels like it is the subject of the pandering thread. That should be exactly what the average club guy wants....but, my average friends absolutely would prefer Erin Hills if for nothing else than its US Open heritage.


I love Erin Hills but have not played it since it was social mediaized by some whiny critics. #DellHole

[Peter Pallotta]

I've really got to take a long long break from this site; everything is starting to bug me, especially the bloated needs and selfish hypocrisy of the golfing establishment. 
SV is built on something like 550 acres! Mammoth Dunes will use well over 600 acres! Those numbers are absurd for 18 hole golf courses. They are, in fact, obscene. And yet I remember the magazine review of SV from one of the top writers on gca. He called it a must play! Told me that fun fun fun is what it's all about. Said to pay no attention to the 128 slope rating from the very back tees, as the wind makes that rating meaningless. (Then why have a slope rating at all?) Just play whichever of the 6 set of tees (!!) promises the most fun. 
It's hard not to like C&C as people, but there is no justification whatsoever for this kind of wasteful 'art making' -- shame on them, and shame on the top magazine writers/gca experts for not calling out this kind of excess. Everyone is so busy pointing out and correcting the mistakes of previous generations re tree planting that they seem blind to the much worse mistakes of this generation -- the absolute wastefulness of resources in the service of a special experience/ 'must play' golf course.
I have a strong feeling that future generations are going to look back and be appalled by us. And if they ask one of us then-old timers "What the heck were you thinking? Why in God's name did you use 600 acres for one golf course?" what are we going to answer? How will we justify it? By saying "Because we could"? Because one very rich guy had the money to do whatever the hell he wanted, and everyone else lined up to fall at his feet and pay homage?
Or maybe all we'll be able to mutter in our own defence will be  "It was all about having fun back then. We wanted options and choices. We didn't know..."

Sorry, John, for this.
Peter

[Jim Hoak]

Just played them both.  Not necessarily apples-to-apples, but all in our group preferred SV. 
EH is a big, brawny US Open course.  It looks like it was built just to be an Open course.  There were some nice features, but the walks from green-to-next-tee were horrendous and detracted from the course.  In some cases, there was nearly a par 5 walk between holes.  I'm glad for the experience, and I think the proximity of the new SV complex will benefit them.  Certainly, if you do one, do both if possible.
SV is another Mike Keiser home-run.  I think it has the potential to be as good or better than Bandon.  I played just the C&C course and loved it.  It's what people are saying is missing from golf--it is fun, tremendous fun!  Some of our group played 9-12 holes at Mammoth and liked it as well or better than Sand Valley.   The courses and the complex are still immature; I want to see them again in a year or two.  But I look for another Bandon Dunes-like success.
To answer your question, I think the average club golfer will prefer the SV complex, but I hope that golfers will try  them both.

[Ryan Farrow]

Peter Pallotta, I am only going to choose 1 subject to grill you on. 


This was a Red Pine tree farm for the paper industry. Almost all of those trees were removed from the C&C course while native Jack Pines and Oaks were saved. Natural sandy areas were preserved and other areas that were formerly pine plantation have an ongoing ecological restoration to restore the native sand barren landscape to this environment. There are walking trails that have been routed through these areas and the interior of the C&C golf course, which does not occupy 550 acres


I am not quite sure why you are so worked up about how Sand Valley has chosen to use their land. Perhaps you should visit the course and look into what is being done on site for yourself.




To answer the original question, I really liked Erin Hills, perhaps as much as the Straits Course but  I prefer the variety, and green sites at Sand Valley, also higher marks for the landscape, & conditions as the native grasses at EH were atrocious when I played, SV has that part figured out. I recognize my bias but I think Straits, EH and SV are all great courses worth a visit.

[Tim Passalacqua]

Isn't the scale and size of the courses at SV possible because of the turf type?  From what I understand, fescue (I know....bent greens) takes a lot less fertilizer and chemicals than bent.  You would never try to pull off a course with this much acreage with bent grass.  Just like Streamsong.  Big courses possible with bermuda.

[Bill Seitz]

I'm going to guess that "built on" 600 acres doesn't mean they planted 600 acres, right?  What difference does it make if you plant 200 acres of a 600 acre site vs. only using 200 acres?  Why does it matter if you have 400 acres of native surrounding a course vs. 400 acres of native within the boundaries of a course?

[Adam Clayman]

Peter, I've not been to SV but I Trust that it's sense of place was respected and likely accentuated. Otherwise, your rant, and the frustrations inferred, hinted at some formula for proper sizing. Perhaps a break is called for? One that hopefully gets you out on the course, feeling, emoting, and, learning. Might I suggest asking Barney for his buddies recommendations, then go elsewhere. 

[Peter Pallotta]

I play a lot of golf in the real world, I just don't travel around the world to do it. I also type a lot - but unlike you, not always about myself.
You mock Nicklaus mercilessly for his cart ball courses, where he routes to maximize the scenery. But C&C get a free pass for 500 acres in the now-ubiquitous Mike Keiser model, where it's all scenery?
Jeff W worries about "sustainability" for old private courses that might have to move tees back 25 yards to serve the 1% that hit the ball too far, while today's leading developer spreads out brand new public golf courses over 600 acres in the middle of nowhere -- and you mock me for questioning whether that's "sustainable", and whether that's right? 
Ben C and Tom D debate the need for 3 sets of tees -- but you all fall over yourselves to praise a course with 6 sets of tees, and eagerly anticipate more of the same in Mammoth Dunes?
Fazio's name is mud around here, for long catering to old rich slobs who couldn't hit the side of a barn; but Mr K and his gang can so clearly cater to middle-aged rich slobs and there is nary a whisper? Why - because Mr K's courses look "natural" (even if you ignore the thousands of man hours needed to keep them that way) and Fazio's or Nicklaus' don't?
Brad Klein begs Tiger Woods years ago to design golf courses the right way, and then after it's hardly been opened for a second calls SV the latest "must play" course -- as if *it* is the right future for golf course architecture?
A professional like Ian A wonders about courses that pander instead of being playable, and none of you well traveled golfers dare to note that SV has a slope rating of 128 from the very back (6900 yard) tees -- while a classic like Cavendish is more testing and interesting from 5700 yards?
There's been what, 2 threads on The Loop and meanwhile some 500 pages on the latest Keiser work of genius? A reversible course on a small foot print -- but it doesn't awe with its scenery nor shock with its green fees, and it doesn't take a plane to get there, and so none of the sophisticates wants to bother too much about it.
Listen: I know I'm easy to ignore in this area. 
So ignore me.
But there is the *principle* of the thing. It doesn't matter that SV and MD are not in areas strained for resources.  The point is that dozens, hundreds even of not just good but really good and often truly great golf courses have been built on 150-200 acres. That is *all* the land you need to build a great golf course. The principle is: don't use more than you need. So how the f-ck do you celebrate courses that "need" 2 and 3 times that amount of land?
I know I don't belong on a site like this. I do need to step away, for everyone's good. The last word for a long while, on the Mr K model in general and SV and Mammoth Dunes in particular: 
It's excess for the sake of excess; it's eye candy disguising itself as top-flight golf; it's exclusionary pricing cloaked in the mantle of "public" golf; and it is the victory of money and power and marketing and big business over the autonomy and integrity of the golf course architects themselves.
Peter

[Ryan Farrow]

I play a lot of golf in the real world, I just don't travel around the world to do it. I also type a lot - but unlike you, not always about myself.
You mock Nicklaus mercilessly for his cart ball courses, where he routes to maximize the scenery. But C&C get a free pass for 500 acres in the now-ubiquitous Mike Keiser model, where it's *all* scenery?
Jeff W worries about "sustainability" for old private courses that might have to move tees back 25 yards to serve the 1% that hit the ball too far, while today's leading developer spreads out brand new public golf courses over 600 acres -- and you mock me for questioning whether that's "sustainable", and whether that's right? 
Ben and Tom debate the need for 3 sets of tees -- but you all fall over yourselves to praise a course with 6 sets of tee, and eagerly anticipate the monstrosity that is Mammoth Dunes?
Fazio's name is mud, for long catering to old rich slobs who couldn't hit the side of a barn; but Mr K and his gang can so clearly cater to middle aged rich slob and there is nary a whisper? Why - because Mr K's courses look "natural" (even if you ignore the thousands of man hours needed to keep them that way) and Fazio's or Nicklaus' don't?
Brad Klein begs Tiger Woods years ago to design golf courses the right way, and then after it's hardly been opened for a second calls SV the latest "must play" course -- as if *it* is the right future for golf course architecture?
A professional like Ian A wonders about courses that pander instead of being playable, and none of you well traveled golfers dare to note that SV has a slope rating of 128 from the very back (6900 yard) tees -- while a classic like Cavendish is more testing and interesting from 5700 yards?
There's been what, 2 threads on The Loop and meanwhile some 500 pages on the latest Keiser work of genius? A reversible course on a small foot print -- but it doesn't awe with its scenery nor shock with its green fees, and it doesn't take a plane to get there, and so none of the sophisticates wants to bother too much about it.
I know I'm easy to ignore.
So ignore me.
But there is the *principle* of the thing. It doesn't matter that SV and MD are in the middle of nowhere.  The point is that dozens, hundreds even of not just good but really good and often truly great golf courses have been built on 150-200 acres. That is *all* the land you need. The principle is: don't use more than you need. So how the f-ck do you celebrate courses that "need" 2 and 3 times that amount of land?
I know I don't belong on a site like this. I do need to step away, for everyone's good. The last word for a long while, and the Mr K model in general and SV and Mammoth Dunes in particular: 
It's excess for the sake of excess; it's eye candy disguising itself as top-flight golf; it's exclusionary pricing cloaked in the mantle of "public" golf; and it is the victory of money and power and marketing and big business over the autonomy and integrity of golf course architects.
Peter

Peter,  I don't think anything you said was accurate.




AND I do not think you have been to the Loop, Sand Valley, Mammoth Dunes, or Erin Hills. Why are you even responding?

[Peter Pallotta]

"Peter,  I don't think anything you said was accurate. AND I do not think you have been to the Loop, Sand Valley, Mammoth Dunes, or Erin Hills. Why are you even responding?"

I expected more from you, Ryan.
That bit of flip, cool dismissiveness I would've thought beneath you. It's the cheapest trick in the book.
There are more than a number of things that are accurate there. And you know it better than I do.

Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

We all respect the opinion of Ian Andrew. This started with his pandering thread.

[Ryan Farrow]

Peter, give it up.


All I ask of you is to respond when you have something of value to add.

[Greg Chambers]

Peter, give it up.


All I ask of you is to respond when you have something of value to add.

Peter has an emotional opinion about a subject that he obviously feels deeply about...and expresses those emotions succinctly.  And you respond by telling him he has no value to add?!?  His post resonates, and I've spent my whole life working in the "biz"


Your response is that of an asshole.

[Brian Hilko]

Peter,


I respect what you are saying. I make a similar comments about Erin Hills. Feels like you could of built 2 great courses at Erin but instead we have one long walk. I love the Keiser model. As a Chicago resident I am so excited to have the Keiser model within a drive of my house. I love the scale of Sand Valley because I can play great courses on 150 acres in Chicago. I travel for something different. I want scale when I am playing in the middle of nowhere. I will try and visit sand valley every summer from now to the end of my golf days but I feel sand valley caters more to Mr. Keiser's "retail golfer". I enjoy playing the course because of the sense of adventure you have playing there but I would never compare Bandon to Sand Valley. Sand valley gives you the feel of Bandon golf experience without having to battle the elements and challenges that true links golf presents. Those 2 elements are a big part of what makes Bandon great for me. I find Lawsonia to be a much more thrilling golf course where I find these elements verses Sand Valley. This year I had time to join some golfers on a trip to Lawsonia and sand valley. I only had time for one day. Lawsonia was an easy decision for me. 

[Ryan Farrow]

Peter, give it up.


All I ask of you is to respond when you have something of value to add.

Peter has an emotional opinion about a subject that he obviously feels deeply about...and expresses those emotions succinctly.  And you respond by telling him he has no value to add?!?  His post resonates, and I've spent my whole life working in the "biz"


Your response is that of an asshole.

Greg, the subject of the thread is the asking for  a comparison of Erin Hills vs. Sand Valley but  Peter immediately goes into a rant about a course he has not seen. He claims the course was built on 550 acres, while only 75 of those acres were actually planted.  Keep in mind, the state of Arizona set a limit of 90 acres of maintained turf  for new construction as a gesture towards better stewardship of the land. His 550 number is pulled out of thin air.


He complains about magazine articles stating that the golf course is good, he attempts to shame Coore & Crenshaw for "wasteful artmaking" I guess that includes myself. Perhaps I just wasted the last two years of my life.


Greg, maybe I am an asshole, but I am not going to sit back and let baseless claims go unchallenged. And when they are challenged let them be dismissed and ignored while Peter decides to continue restating his lies. There are fine critiques that one could made about Sand Valley and numerous golf course that have been built in the last 5-10 years. Let's have an honest discussion about the facts and subject matters that we are familiar with.




I stopped contributing to this site for a number of years but would always regret  sitting on the sidelines, not being able to respond when I had something to add, or could correct a poster on something I had intimate knowledge of. To be completely frank, I don't give a damn what he "feels" if what he feels is 100% factually inaccurate. Call it what you may.

[Mike Hendren]

I have Ryan and T-Bone Shulz 2 down to Peter at this point.  Taking a higher road could square the match. Just saying. Simmer down here.


Mike

[John Connolly]

So, let me throw this out in an attempt to focus the discussion a bit.


A legitimate critique of EH would be the long green-to-tee walks. The devil's advocate would say when it's not an "everyday" course, does it really matter? Maybe someone playing one or two rounds in a year, or in a decade, won't be too bothered by the long walks. I don't know about the green-to-tee walks at SV.

[Peter Pallotta]

I didn't realize until later that Ryan had been involved in SV.
Any facts & figures I used come from published and (I assume) reputable sources. 
I do think there are many points raised in my posts that are worth discussing/debating.
C&C and Mr K and the resorts themselves are big enough & successful enough to handle some criticism.
If I didn't believe what I wrote was justified, I wouldn't have written it.  I do think this current/dominant 'model' is flawed.   
But if my pen ran away in harshness/meanness, I regret that - my apologies.
Time now for that long hiatus.
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Peter,  I don't think anything you said was accurate.

AND I do not think you have been to the Loop, Sand Valley, Mammoth Dunes, or Erin Hills. Why are you even responding?

Ryan:


I've seen all four courses, and I think at least half of what Peter wrote was accurate.  I started to highlight it all [in green, no less], but that would just get me in trouble.


I don't know how many acres to assign to Sand Valley or Mammoth Dunes, but I'm sure it's less than Peter says.  That said, my review of Sand Valley was that you could fit a whole other course in between its holes, and I don't think that's much of an exaggeration.  Whether that is "wasted" land is a matter of opinion.


While you think that Peter's lack of experience on the property should disqualify him from commenting on the courses in question, I think it's just the opposite. 


The truth is that we've had two threads about these same courses, and a lot of the people who have commented are compromised.  Many posters here are the target customer for these courses, and they love them to a fault.  Others are young people getting paid to build them, or are hoping to, so their [your] perspective is compromised.  Ian and I, and probably others, have been pretty quiet because we don't want to be accused of bashing another architect based on one visit where not all the holes were even finished; and, sadly, it comes off as "bashing" if you do anything but bodysurf the tidal wave of gushing p.r. b.s. that goes with the opening of all these new courses nowadays.


Yes, you've spent two years working on Sand Valley, and from all accounts you've done some very good work.  I don't know what % of your time was spent on the subtle contouring of greens, what % on the fairways, what % on the leading edges of the bunkers, and what % on the sand-scaping of another 25-50 acres at the margins of the course, which you keep leaving out of your total acreage.  Personally, it's the last bit that bothers me the most, but someday the 75 acres of turf model has got to get dialed back, too.  It's possible to build a great course with quite a bit less than that, although it may not be possible to win a lot of awards and rankings that way.


[You might have noticed that The Loop doesn't have a lot of that stuff happening -- there is a lot of turf because it's reversible, but the native stuff is really native, which is why I don't employ as many interns as I used to.]


The irony is, the best and most efficient golf work I've seen all year is the par-3 course you guys have been building right next to the 18th green at Mammoth Dunes.  I would love to see someone build an 18-hole course that was that efficient, instead of another 350-acre course for Sand Valley III.  Actually, I would love to do that myself ... but I don't think they're going to let me, because it might change the conversation.


Unfortunately, I've stepped in on this a bit too late to try and slow down your argument, and the preceding post seems to indicate that Peter will take some time off.  I hope he enjoys that time off, but eventually comes back to deliver more critiques of the way things are going -- because an outside perspective is sometimes more useful than all of the suck-ups on the inside. 


You've got real talent, Ryan, but as far as contributions to my own education here are concerned, you are way behind Peter, and it's not fair to drive him away to try and catch up.

[Sean_A]

Tom


While I take your point about about turf acerage, however, where does one draw the line?  I have long advocated that the house should be very near the 1st and 18th tees if at all possible.  That approach didn'tseem to get much support from archies or pundits.  The weight of opinion was on build the best 18 hole possible and let the rest sort itself out approach.  I don't know where the line is, but it seems like it could be a shifting prospect depending on who and when.  I can understand the hammer blow if folks think an excessive course sucks, but if folks think it is great should there not be some leaway of opinion on sustainability?  There is a huge number of smaller footprint courses in the US alone, many of which serve their communities admirably regardless of quality.  Is there not room for a relatively small number of excessive publics catering to the jet set?  I mean, to get real, just the travel to these far flung places is probably a far greater sustainablity issue then the footprint of the courses. 


Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Fascinating discussion.
Many different perspectives-which is highly educational.


I've ranted plenty about scale and enjoy hearing both sides.
It's a conundrum for me, because I feel like if the playing elite(pick your own %) are using an implement that hits it 15 % farther, the corridors and corresponding features have to be that much bigger for safety, playability,fun, and yes even strategy.And this flies in the face of sustainability when there is a simple alternative way to reduce the scale of the game.


The other side of this is that a course that uses 300-500 acres but only has the maintained turf of an "average" course is its own type of nature and wildlife preserve, reducing the chance that acreage will be developed for some other eco-unfriendlycommercial or private use

[Jim Hoak]

The question asked was which course between San Valley and Erin Hills would the average amateur golfer like the best.  Wouldn’t it be nice if only those people who have seen either or both courses answered?  But maybe that would reduce the number of posts dramatically.
The discussion on acreage and expanse is interesting, but what does that have to do with the question?  Out of respect for the originator of a post, shouldn’t we limit responses to things that pertain to the question?  Begin a new thread if you have a different point to discuss.  Isn’t that right?

[Tom_Doak]

The question asked was which course between San Valley and Erin Hills would the average amateur golfer like the best.  Wouldn’t it be nice if only those people who have seen either or both courses answered?  But maybe that would reduce the number of posts dramatically.
The discussion on acreage and expanse is interesting, but what does that have to do with the question?  Out of respect for the originator of a post, shouldn’t we limit responses to things that pertain to the question?  Begin a new thread if you have a different point to discuss.  Isn’t that right?

Jim:


What parts of the courses are allowed to pertain to the question?  Peter was an "average amateur golfer".  I'm getting pretty close to average now myself.


If the question is, which course "will people like" better, I think it's a close call.  Both are pretty sites.  One has the weight of the U.S. Open influencing people's opinion, the other has a ton of p.r. press behind it right now.  If you could strip all of that away, I'm guessing most 10- or 15-handicaps would like Sand Valley more, because it was built specifically to appeal to them, whereas Erin Hills' mission statement was quite different.


But what kind of question is that to limit ourselves to?  The answer doesn't really depend much on your observations of the two courses; it depends on your opinion of the average amateur golfer.  If you change the question to "which did YOU like better," then maybe it is worth talking about.

[Ryan Farrow]

In order to set the record straight, a quick calculation has the limits of the Sand Valley Course (not Mammoth Dunes) at 275 Acres. That includes a full size driving range that plays as an alternate hole in reverse. A large ridge also bisected the property and was home to the old 15th Ave. I would venture to guess that many architect would have avoided this ridge line that occupies plenty of acreage. We are talking about very large, broad dune ridges at Sand Valley and Mammoth Dunes. When the goal is to make a successful project I would think most would err on the side of getting the best golf course possible out of the available land, instead of self limiting the extents of the golf course under principle. Would any of us be willing to risk a project's success by limiting every designer to 200 acres when 1,000's upon 1,000's are available?


Just some quick and dirty acreages here help everyone get a perspective on the numbers:


Sand Valley : 275
Erin Hills : 310
Straits Course : 260
Lawsonia : 210
The Loop : 215
Forest Dunes : 310
Cypress Point :160
Pine Valley:185
Bandon Trails 200
Tara Iti : 231
Troon North (1) 18 hole course with housing at interior : 350 acres


Peter,


To make the argument that there is some kind of principle that we should only build a golf course on less than 200 acres because many greats are built on 150-200 acres is interesting. What happens when there are physical obstacles to creating a course on this amount of land? What if there are deep canyons, large hills and ridges, large rock formations. If the golf course encompases these land forms but only uses 50 acres of turf, can it be forgiven if said golf course takes up 300 acres?   I am not sure how you define waste or excess as each golf course site is unique and it is ultimately up to the owner/entity (perhaps government?) to decide how he or she wishes to use the land. Help me understand the moral authority here. If the land inside the golf course is left in its natural state is that better than a housing development? Are a playgrounds or tennis courts better than a housing? If you can't answer this, does it all come down to acres of maintained turf or the safety limits of the golf course? 


Who is the judge of jury? Who sets the criteria and why? Should all courses be treated the same no matter where they are built or what grasses are chosen?  You seem to be bringing up a completely philosophical question that may be too complicated for any of us to answer.






I am supportive of the view that golf courses are becoming too wide. Width for the sake of width is not a good thing. If you have 80 yards of fairway and it doesn't matter if you are left right or center then I think there is a problem. With that said, I am a fan of having wide corridors for safety and to help speed up play. If we have 35-40 yard wide fairways and you cannot find your ball in the native grasses just off the fairway then I think there is a problem.


As I stated in the other thread I do not think this is the future of golf. The limiting factor will probably come down to economics and most work will still be in the remodel category, not new construction. I am not afraid of this becoming some kind of runaway train that will not be stopped. 




To be completely honest I am not exactly sure what we are discussing here. Overall golf course size and fairway width are not the same and I feel like they should be two completely separate discussions. For the record I am less concerned with the number of acres a golf course occupies and extremely annoyed with golf courses that are extra wide and say hit it anywhere you want, it doesn't matter.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()