[hp@hc]

rgkeller

You're an ass

[TEPaul]

I'm convinced that rgkeller must be trying to be facetiously funny. Not too many on here of sort of the purist bent could possibly be as uninformed and naive as he's being on his posts without trying to be facetious!

[Brian Phillips]

Troy also gave me a firm lesson in how he managed the exisiting greens at Bandon.  Bandon has now been open what five years?  They have not yet seen a lot of poa in their greens.  The bent/fescue greens are kept pretty dry and firm.  Poa doesn't like these conditions.  The more inland course will be more protected which will probably allow for the poa to take hold.  Why not just begin with this surface and manage it appropriately?

And finally, there are any number of lakes behind the dune lines along the coast.  I hardly see this as "manufactured".  It seems a perfect solution to utilize a lake for irrigation and retention of drainage during the winter months.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Department of Ecology was requiring it for runoff.  

I totally agree with Cos about Bent/fescue and when we say a bent fescue we mean a browntop bent normally.

Tom Paul,

I don't agree that sand capping fairways is minimalistic at all.  It is manufacturing something that is not there.  Nothing wrong with it though.  If they put in good depth of it then they might be able to have wall to wall bent/fescue on the fairways as well as the greens.

Brian.

ps. Dave Wilbur where are you?

[Scott_Burroughs]

rg,

You just don't get it, do you?  Every single course on earth has to be cleared of underbrush, even Sand Hills, to be able to plant grass.  No course on earth has underbrush and trees for fairways.  That is required on every course ever built.

Man made lakes are required for most new courses for irrigation issues, and this lake will not be part of the golf course, hence has nothing (again) to do with describing the actual golf course's amount of earth movement.

As far as new topsoil, again, done on just about every course around.  You can't have a golf course on pure sand, (you don't see any trees on the beach, do you?) hence links courses are a mix of sand and soil.  Part of the third course IS on sandy-soil, so it wouldn't be right to have a course partly sand-based, and partly not.  They are putting sand down, but NOT altering the natural rolls of the land -THAT is mimimalism.

My home course had virtually no land moved except for tees, bunkers, and greens.  Fairways are how the land was, yet there is sand-based soil in the fairways.  How'd it get there, when it wasn't there to start with?  It was put in during construction, as sand-based soil drains better and plays better.

Minimalism is not disturbing the natural contours of a site - exactly what C&C are doing.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Does anyone know when the spa will open at BD?

Hopefully right after I take my trip with the boys after C&C open, so then I can take my wife back for a visit.

Other than stirring the pot, I don't see your point. Clearly they had to do similar work at Hidden Creek, as it is full of Pine trees. If anything, it might be a new step in their evolution as leaders. I am sure they would have liked to manufacture the town dump away at East Hampton, and I have not seen any of C&C "weaker" courses (Notre Dame and Checheesee Creek come to mind) but maybe a little manufacturing is needed on some pieces of land.

I am still waiting to see my first natural green, so taking the literalist view, every course is manufactured.

[Brian Phillips]

I don't think rgkeller is an ass.  He does bring up some valid points.

That even the best minimalists such as C&C or Doak or whoever are not as minimlistic as we dream about.  

It all comes down to the definition of the word minimalistic.  

Being minimalistic is not just about the amount of earth you shift there are so many other factors.

From the sounds of it they are not shifting much around but they will be shifting a hell of a lot of sand in....that is not minimalistic at all....it is manufacturing a growing medium that is not there at present.

Brian

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
I don't agree that sand capping fairways is minimalistic at all."

Brian:

Maybe you don't agree that sand-capping is minimalistic but I think it certainly can be since in theory the way I'm speaking of it it isn't changing the natural contours other than probably just raising what's naturally there somewhat. I'll tell you what though, I sure do wish Donald Ross knew how to sand-cap our fairways and if he did (which he probably didn't back then) our natural contours with sand-capping the whole thing would've worked a whole lot better. It sure would've saved us a whole ton of headaches over the ensuing decades.  

[Tim_Weiman]

rgkeller:

I want to credit you for standing up and expressing a perspective that you had to know would upset people here. That doesn't mean I agree. In fact, I'll be quite surprised if the new course at Bandon doesn't turn out extremely well. But, at least you expressed your view and signed your name.

In contrast, we have this fellow "hp@hc" who saw fit to anonymously make a personal attack. It just goes to show that no matter how many times we make the point that this isn't appropriate, some people still don't get it.

[A_Clay_Man]

A great example of mistakes made, that involved NOT sandcapping, can be seen at Spyglass Hill. The forest was not only cleared but also burned, right there in the clearing. The combo of clay filled soil mixed with the ash made a surface which is damn near unplayable after little rain. The recent millions spent to attempt to fix the problem areas is but a band aid on a heart attack.

RG- How diligent would an architect be if they allowed for the poor planning evidenced at Spy? Pay me now, or pay me later.

Juxtaposed to Stevinson Ranch where after lots of rain, the course is as dry as a bone.

[RJ_Daley]

rgkeller, are you just expressing an underlying objection to the perception that many contributors to this site are big fans of Coore and Crenshaw and their teams work and that for the most part, they are viewed as "minimalists"?  Are you trying to call legitimate attention to the difference between their most famous "minimalist" project of SAnd Hills, to most of their other work where that level of minimalist ground work was not (could not) be accomplished?  Perhaps rg, your standard of using the term "minimalist" is only a Sand Hills or Eddie Hacket laying out of the links type of approach.  That is OK.  Just state that as your level of acceptance to what can be called minimalist, and we can move on with better mutual understanding.  

I for one think that Tom Paul's post #20, says it all about the difference in site usage of existing topography and soils, and what a minimalist thinks is the minimumly appropriate level of site manufacturing.  So far in their 15 year career as an entity, it appears that C&C and the boys do only what they must to make the land drain, tie into the natural surrounds, and not appear to be one big earthmoving, containment mounded, artificial landscape type project, yet use what is there to provide interesting golf.  

Let's allow C&C to describe their own work, and their design intentions rather than trying to define it for them, before they even really get started.  If they choose to call it minimalist after they get the thing finished, then critique them all you want on the finished product if it doesn't meet your "minimalist" definition.  But for now, let's cut them some slack and just say they have a work in progress, and it will be what it will be.  I'm pretty confident that it won't be one bit of wasted extraneous earth moving project more than it has to be.

[SPDB]

What I don't understand is why no one is paying attention to the point in the article about Keiser wanting a bunker style that is so opposite what C&C usually produce (although Rgkeller made an oblique reference to it). Assuming that Keiser is so enamored of Mac's australian bunkering that he wants C&C to employ it in the third course, will this condition hamstring their ability to produce the course that they see?

Just for comparison sake so that everyone knows what I'm talking about, here are some examples of what I think Keiser is trying to achieve:





Now consider "typical" C&C bunkers.



[imghttp://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/000004761.jpg[/img]

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

IMHO I have not taken any offense to what rgkeller has said.  He is stating an opinion.  Do I see any stupidity or lack of arch. knowledge...not really.  Do I see the need to label this project 100% minimalist....from what I have read it doesnt really sound truly minimalist...but the site sounds that it doesnt warrant a truly minimalist design....but I am just basing that on what I have read.

I agree with Phillips...I do not place capping of fairways with sand in the category of minimalism.  I understand that clearing is part of the process...have no problem there...but capping the contours with sand will be opposite of minimalism.  I am sure they will try to stay with the contours given but good luck, that is a tough feat even with the talent of C&C.

Becasue once you lift the grade in the fairway you have to feather the slopes to existing grade??  Thus its tough tieing back into the grades and tree lines w/out making the course look lifted or raised with slopes running off or views from fwy grade to the middle of trees.

Although they may be removing the grades then replacing with sand leaving the grades close to exisitng.....but this is a major earthwork project thus eliminating minimalism...plus you have to lose all that stripped soil and if you are to re-create the ex. grades you have to survey all those corridors.  It just keeps pointing away from minimalism.  Just an opinion since I have no real knowledge about the land or project or design.

When reading a few comments on here about rgkeller's comments it read like a group of bias fans protecting their team(kinda like Alabama fans)instead of just reading his text and looking at it for what it was, a comment that had some decent points.

This course may or may not be like the other two.  The site may warrant a course that has to have alot done (which argues that it will not be minimalist) in the construction process to give a "look" like it has been there forever.  I am sure it will be a good course but we all knew(from reading posts on the land) the land was not the same as given the first 2.

Thus the need to "manufacture" is evident.  But I would feel good about getting a "manufactured" C&C course over several other designers.

As far as Palmer for the seventh course??Thats funny.  At least rgkeller has a sense of humor!

[RJ_Daley]

Sean, if I could, I'd post some pictures of Thomas's bunkers at Riviera, that C&C remodeled/restored with Dan and Dave's work on the ground.  No, they didn't build them from scratch, but they achieve the same basic cut crisp edged look as a amintenance meld.  The only difference I can tell, is they don't get cut into the bowels of the greens at Riv.  But, that is what I imagine the testing is about as described in the article.  

[SPDB]

Dick -
I'm not saying it is beyond their ability, indeed at this point I think little is. That being said remodeling and building draw on two very different skills.

The problem comes from the fact that C&C has never chosen to build these types of bunkers, and my guess is that it is not because they think they couldn't do it, but rather because it is not their style to. Therefore, when somebody tells you to build something in a particular style it may draw you out of your comfort zone, or how you may conceive of something free from conditions.

[RJ_Daley]

Sean, I must disagree with you in whether the Aussie look is within their ability, or even technical comfort zone.  I think the only hinderance is their recognition that the Aussie look would cost more to maintain, if the soil and turf rootzone even permits it.  In fact, I don't think the picture of Cuscowilla above is much different than the Oz example you posted first.  It is just that the lip is not mowed with a spaded edge cut.  The turf type and soil on the lip may or may not be of sufficient root knit that it would hold up for long however.  I certainly might be wrong on these points, however.  It is also my understanding that places like Royal Melbourne and Metropolitan and the likes in OZ do not maintain the lips so crisp all year, but trim and cut them so during the peak of their Australian tour that we get to see coming up in a month or so...  Can any Oz savvy natives comment on that?

[Michael Dugger]

Where has RGKeller gone?

Dude, you are wrong!

Laughable, really.

[Patrick_Mucci]

MDugger,

rgkeller is a pretty astute individual, very familiar with architecture, classic courses and minimalist designs.
I believe that his home course is both classic and minimalist.
Before you label him, and his opinions, perhaps you should learn more about both.

rgkeller,

You must be more careful when discussing "sacred cows" on this site, there are those who are very sensitive about C&C. The very thought that C&C actually use machinery in building their golf courses is barely, and only grudgingly acknowledged.

TEPaul,

In the context that you decree that sandcapping falls within the minimalist concept by preserving the topography, how would you classify the construction of Old Marsh ?

Would this not apply to almost every golf course in Florida ?

If the natural topography is maintained through massive earth moving, does that still allow the design process to be labeled minimalist ??

And, is this confirmation, that if you have the luxury of selecting absolutely ideal sites, you can be minimalist through your selection process, but when you have to work with a site that requires modification, you fall outside of the minimalist definition ?  

SPDB,

You seem to think that building those types of bunkers will be a challenge for C&C.  I think quite the opposite.  
They'll produce the desired product, easily.

Scott Borroughs,

Would creating a lake be disturbing the natural contours of thte land, or is that just confined to Rees at Sandpines ?

A Clayman,

How much of the soil problems at Spyglass can be scientifically attributed to the ash ?

HP@HC,

Would you tell us why you have determined that rgkeller is an ass ?  And why you chose to attack him personally, while hiding like a coward behind anonymity ?

[MargaretC]

Gentlemen:

IMHO, it is a bit soon to criticize the design of this new course; however, I do realize that most, if not all, of the negative comments are for the sake of sparring and tweaking.  

My husband and I absolutely LOVE Bandon Dunes.  It is hard for me to even imagine that Mike Keiser could go off the deep end to the extent that this new course would project a  "manufactured" image.    

Although we have spoken to Mike Keiser, we do not know him.  That said, the impression I have is that he knows only too well that he owns incredible land.  From this wonderful property he has created a magnificient resort.  To my knowledge, he has always worked collaboratively with every local and state agency, etc.  Wiithout question, Mike Keiser gets it and I seriously doubt that this 3rd course will be a disappointment.  

Everyone who golfs Bandon Dunes has a favorite course and favorite holes, but I have yet to hear that either course looks manufactured.  

Patrick:  I My comments have less to do with thinking that BD is a ...sacred cow... because, if this 3rd course disappoints me, I'll have NO problem criticizing its design.  However, until I either learn more details or actually see the new course, Keiser's track record deserves the benefit of a wait and see of the final product.  However, everyone is entitled to his opinion.  

P.S.  If there were another way to insure that this new course had proper irrigation within reasonable cost, I am sure that they would NOT "build" a lake.  Even so, all constructed lakes do not have to look "constructed" or out of place.

[Brian Phillips]

Gentlemen:


Everyone who golfs Bandon Dunes has a favorite course and favorite holes, but I have yet to hear that either course looks manufactured.  

Margaret,

That it a very good point.  I do not think that C&C will produce a course that looks manufactured but to say that capping fairways is minimalistic is pushing the word a bit too far.

Good luck to the team, I really mean that.  As MacKenzie said if it has to be moved at least move it so that it looks natural at the end of it -  something C&C seem to achieve very often.

Brian

[Patrick_Mucci]

Margaret C,

Where have you been, I've missed you.

I too feel that Mike Keiser clearly gets it, and is building a world class golfing destination.  And, my guess is, that he doesn't want his new courses to mirror the existing courses as it would diminish the attraction.

But, on the issue of lakes, one has to take into account the proximity of the ocean when evaluating how natural they are.

[JohnV]

From Ben Crenshaw's Website:

The company philosophy of Coore & Crenshaw is to work on a maximum of two projects at any time, giving their clients the most of their time and attention. While this limits the number of projects in the company portfolio, it allows the partners to choose the best sites that lend themselves to classic design, requiring a minimum amount of dirt to be moved.

Note that the quote says, "a minimum", not "the minimum."

There is nothing wrong with moving some amount of dirt as long as the basic properties of the site are kept intact.  I spent enough time in Oregon (23 years) to know that any area with trees will have heavy underbrush as well.  I also walked the Pacific Dunes site before the gorse was cleared and know how much the "minimalist" Tom Doak had to clear.  Clearing is essential to making the golf course.  It is even more so on this site as there is a forest there now.

As for capping some fairways with sand, that makes sense in order to create a consistent, firm and fast site.  Most of western Oregon is clay based soil.  You don't have to go too far inland to find and I'm sure they did.  Given the quality of work their shapers do, I doubt that anyone here would notice that they did this if someone hadn't written an article about it.  Yes, technically it might not be minimalist, but that is no reason to mock them for forgetting their values.  It sounds to me like they are trying not to modify the basic shape of the land as others would, just make the playing surface fit the requirements of firm and fast.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Okay Gentleman,
  I've read most of the posts and am going to give my opinion without knowing if it's been completly said or not. Some of you know that I work at Friar's during it's construction, but also have biult a course with my father closer to my home here in Michigan. Long story short capping of fairways are done for many reasons....including to provide a consistant rootzone for the grass to grow, a soil to allow for drainage without having to put french drains everywhere and also allows for the burrial of some debris that are missed or left behind.(stones, small twigs, wood chips, etc) Most, if not all golf courses are capped for these reasons alone. As for as C&C not being minimalist because of this, I HIGHLY disagree. There are many thins at Friar's that were man made, but given so much attention to detail, that you wouldnt know if unless someone told you. Secondly, I HIGHLY doubt that the bunkers at Bandon #3 will be like that of Royal Melbourne, Met Club, etc....C&C and Jeff Bradley's bunker work in particular is very famous on it's own. Jeff is a master and if he's not the best bunker guy in the buisiness, then I don't want to know who is. Like I commented in an earlier post when the announcement made that C&C were doing the course, "Can you image the bunker work the Jeff could do with another sandy site? Lastly, to comment on Poa spreading, golfers can spread poa from their shoes, so they could track it from one course to another. Poa will come with time, especially if bentgrass is planted and if the goal if for the course to look like it's been there a while, I think that they will just let the greens take their course and turn to poa. I'd be interested to find out if Troy Russell is going to try to get most or Eugene CC plugs for the new greens, that who be a TON of plugs, but would also effect the soil and even give laying, which is unwanted!!

[MargaretC]

Margaret C,

Where have you been, I've missed you.

I too feel that Mike Keiser clearly gets it, and is building a world class golfing destination.  And, my guess is, that he doesn't want his new courses to mirror the existing courses as it would diminish the attraction.

But, on the issue of lakes, one has to take into account the proximity of the ocean when evaluating how natural they are.

Ah, Patrick, Patrick, Patrick, I'm sure that you've missed me as much as you've missed a bad case of _____!    [You, of course, know that I jest about the bad case of ____!]

Seriously, it's very, very nice to be missed!  Thank you!  

Since my return to work and the return to school for 3 of our 6 children, actually, 4 of our 6 counting Dunn's entry into pre-school 3 days per week, I've had little time to even lurk at this wonderful site.  

...But, on the issue of lakes... I do hear what you're saying.  It does seem weird that there'd be a need to "create" a lake so close to the ocean, but, since I know very little about golf course design AND irrigation, I still must defer to Mike Keiser's track record.  I know zip about "C&C" but know that Keiser is paying the tab.  For now, that's good enough for me.  

P.S.  I've missed you AND this site!  

[hp@hc]

rgkeller

Apologies for my earlier post.  

My original sentiment was that to build ANY golf course you need to move and shape, clear and create.  I look to my own golf clubs, which sit in among the dunes.  We STILL had to clear, reposition sand banks, protect bunker faces, fill collection areas, and dictate playing lines, to a certain degree.  This all involves work, but can still be viewed as minimalist.  While I agree that a course can be "found", to make it playable for the masses a few things have to be tweaked, to make it flow.  I would say that "holes" have been found, but doubt that 18 holes that flow have been "found"

Anyway, upon reading the entire thread again, and those posts since my last one, I do in fact believe you have some validity to your opinions.  Although I am anonomous, due to the fact that I am employed in the golf industry, I will admit when I rush to judgement.  To rg, I say SORRY

[Scott_Burroughs]

Patrick,

I said that nearly every course built today has a drainage
lake/pond.  Hidden Creek has one, but it's not part of the
course.  Texas Tech and Sandpines have one and ARE part of
the course.  I believe the Bandon #3 pond would not be part
of the course.

Based on his posts, rg seemed to be saying that minimalism
was simply throwing grass seed down and sticking tee
markers in the ground.  None of this is possible without
clearing.  Even all of Friar's Head's "potato farm" part of the
course was completely cleared of at least the top part of the
soil so grasses could be planted here:

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()