Jeff:  Early on at Sebonack, Jack Nicklaus talked about Michael wanting us to be involved because he wanted the "look" of Pacific Dunes, and he intimated that was okay but he could have done that "look" with his own crew if he'd wanted to.  I was offended by that at the time, but held my tongue because I knew he hadn't really seen anything we'd done to know what it was about.

Eventually he did come to see that the "look" he was describing is more than that, it's a way of using internal contours which makes the course play a bit differently, and he has at least gotten to the point of crediting us for that part of it.

Jack does talk a lot about getting the client's input to give him a different starting point for each job, and while I think he overstresses that aspect, it is a good note to follow, IF your clients really want different things.  Often in the "signature" design business, they just want your signature.  Julian Robertson loved Pacific Dunes and wanted THAT for Cape Kidnappers ... it took a lot of time for him to understand that his land couldn't be more different and that we couldn't build bunkers or greens in the same style.  Mike Keiser's preference for softer greens certainly influenced how we built the features at Pacific Dunes and concentrating our efforts more in the surrounds and the fairway contouring and even the tee complexes.

MWP,

To me, # 2 at PV represents one of the severest greens in all of golf.

Am I missing something ?

Pat
I agree it is very severe, yet it is not tricked up or unplayable.
What I mean is that you do not have multiple internal contours resulting in in the green becoming unplayable from one quadrant to another...as Fazio likes to do.
I like some severity in the green but I think it becomes unfair when the severity is multi directional...the second at PV has a predominant back to front slope, but you still feel as though you can two putt...sometimes that is a challenge, but the green is very fair...am I making any sense here?

Tom Doak,

Weren't you limited with respect to the severity of the internal contouring on the greens at Pacific Dunes by virtue of the velocity of the winds ?

Tom Doak wrote:

"P.S.  I hope John Kirk sees this thread and replies to it.  He is a member of both Stone Eagle and Ballyneal, and so far as I know, the only person besides me to have played them both to date.  If he thought they were the same course I would wonder why he would plunk down his own money to join them both."

I'll struggle to make a unique contribution here.  The subject has been exhausted for the most part.

I've played Stone Eagle, Ballyneal, and Pacific Dunes.  John Kavanaugh (the other JK?) makes a valid point that the courses share a similar look: wide, "rumpled" fairways, contoured greens (not so much at Pac Dunes), and bunkers which transition into native areas.  Neither Stone Eagle nor Ballyneal has trees, and both feature quite a few uphill approach shots.

It's the undulating fairways which most define the similar look.  They serve an important function: to make the hole play different each time, very valuable in my book.  Here at home in North Plains, Oregon, a drive in the fairway at Pumpkin Ridge almost guarantees a level lie.

Pacific Dunes has two holes, #1 and #16, which feature "high frequency" undulations, lots of little peaks and valleys in which balls readily find their way to the bottom of the valleys.  Hitting from an old divot is not uncommon.  You don't see that at Ballyneal or Stone Eagle, and I wonder whether that is an evolution of Renaissance Golf's design philosophy.

Stone Eagle and Ballyneal play quite differently.  Stone Eagle plays up and down the hill for the most part.  Ballyneal plays  over, through and around the dunes.  Both use existing landmarks to frame holes.  Stone Eagle is particularly beautiful in this respect.  Stone Eagle has approach shots with one to two club adjustments for elevation.  Ballyneal has less elevation adjustments but more wind adjustments.  There are more bunkers in the middle of play at Stone Eagle.  At Ballyneal, many bunkers guard the corners of par 4s and 5s, discouraging the aggressive tee shot.  Ballyneal has native sand, which is extremely difficult, but it's easier to avoid the bunkers there.

I've played three Coore/Crenshaw courses, Hidden Creek, Bandon Trails, and Sand Hills.  Hidden Creek and Bandon Trails shared similar traits, and I think you can easily distinguish a Doak course from a Coore/Crenshaw course by the contouring style, even though they seem to agree on a basic philosophy of how the game should be played.  That's great.  I liked Michael Wharton-Palmer's take on style and consistency.

As far as similar holes, I think #5 and #11 at Ballyneal are somewhat similar, uphill par 3s with a right to left slope.  #6 at Ballyneal reminds me of #7 Bandon Trails, a long, uphill par 4 that rewards a power hitter.  #11 and #16 at Stone Eagle are downhill par 4s that beg for a right to left tee shot.  #16 and #18 at Stone Eagle have similar looking green complexes, but play quite differently.  As Tom says, none of the holes at Ballyneal look or play like any at Stone Eagle.

This is a long post of questionable value.  I'd be happy to answer any questions.  Both new courses are very enjoyable.  One is a winter getaway, the other a summer windswept dunes retreat.

Tom:

Would any developer today want "the look of St. Andrews"

Cary

I'm a little bothered by how similar the picture of Sebonack on the front page of the Golf Digest article looks like pictures I have seen of Pacific Dunes.  These courses are on opposite sides of this huge country...nobody ever accused Pebble and Shinney of looking similar even in the earliest of pictures.  

John K:  I don't really think Sebonack looks like Pacific Dunes, and it certainly will not play like Pacific Dunes, even though:

a)  They were both built my same associate (Jim Urbina) -- having all these different guys in charge is one reason Stone Eagle doesn't look like Ballyneal;

b)  The client LOVED Pacific Dunes; and

c)  Jack Nicklaus's associates were of the impression that the client wanted the bunkers to look like Pacific Dunes, so they kept asking us why we weren't building more bunkers like a specific photo of the 11th at Pacific!

The bunkers may look similar to some degree but I do think they're different ... Pacific's bunkers have a much heavier lip a la Melbourne.

The green sites are entirely different.  Many of Pacific Dunes' greens sit down in a bit of a bowl.  Sebonack didn't give us any bowls like that to work with; the greens sit up and so recovery play is MUCH harder.  [Personally, I wish it HAD been more like Pacific in this respect, but it wasn't what we were given.]  Sebonack's greens are also quite a bit smaller.

Sebonack relies much more on length.

Sebonack has more hilly stances in the fairway, whereas Pacific has just undulating ones.  [The 1st and 16th at Pacific which John Kirk mentioned are entirely natural phenomena, not indicating any change in our style ... though I might relent and change them a bit if I were building it today, because they do concentrate the divots in certain spots.]

Would you be less bothered had we made Sebonack look like Shinnecock Hills instead?  Even though we had to clear 16 holes out of a tangle of small trees and there were few of those grasses growing on the site to start with?

Michael Wharton-Palmer:

I'm off-topic here but I really have to disagree with your opinion that Pine Valley's greens aren't severe.

They aren't contrived and hokey looking, if that's the point you were really making, but, with the exception of #'s 1, 4, 7 and 14, they are most definitely VERY severe.  #'s 2,5*,8,9,15* and 17 are especially dangerous.  #'s 3,6,10,11,12,13,16 and 18 all have majority contours where they, too, are treacherous.

You must be an awfully good putter!

Tom,

I would have been less bothered if you made it look like Eastward Ho! (note: the ! is part of the name and in no way indicates a rise in the level of my voice.)

I have only seen Eastward Ho! from accross tha bay and pictures, but that is probably the most severe land on East Coast coastline that I have seen. Fishers comes in second. Eastward Ho! appears to have Yale-like terrain where fairway bunkering is not needed as the terrain acts as natural hazards. I have only been on Sebonack prior to construction and have only seen a few holes through the trees of National, but it clearly is more rolling and less severe terrain.

Jaka, if Nicklaus/Doak built Eastward Ho! minimalistic looking bunkering on that terrain they then would be copying Southampton GC, which is not such a bad thing, but clearly not worth their design fees.

In the words of Matt Ward, maybe it is time to get that new swelt body off that couch.

What I don't understand when looking at these pictures is why the new courses look older than the old ones..

Contrary to what many people think, the old clubs are tight with maintenance budgets. They often have a diversity of economics in their memberships, so they try not to pinch the small guys. Thus, bunkers get removed, and maintenance gets streamlined. One of the big problems with Yale for those many years was they did not have the bodies to maintain the course. Now they do.

I would guess that Victoria, located in Indiana with a much lower labor cost, actually has a much bigger maintenance budget than Eastward Ho!

Have we ever seen course pictures here of a Golden Age course where bunkers were added after it opened? I am obviously not talking about courses that have recently gone through restorations.

Mark and Chipoat,
I did not say they were not severe..what am I crazy...but Chipoat hit the nail on the head...what I was trying to say is that they do not appear contrived and tricked up.
They are as wonderfully challenging as any greens I have ever played, but very fair..for the most part....unlike many of the current "internal contour" greens being built my people like Fazio...again in my opinion.
Merion..another course with immense contouring on the greens, but playable and without appearing contrived..thanks Chipoat for the right word....