Article on new course at Bandon Dunes

« **Reply #50 on:** November 17, 2003, 03:13:12 PM »

Quote from: hp@hc on November 17, 2003, 02:55:24 PM

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...

...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 $:-\$

hp@hc:

At the risk of appearing a bit too nit-picky, virtually all opinions have validity, at the very least by the person who expresses the opinion. You or anyone else may choose to express your right to disagree, but your disagreement does not invalidate the opinion to which you disagree.

Well, can you tell that I have spent the better part of this otherwise wonderful day with malpractice attorneys?

« **Reply #51 on:** November 17, 2003, 03:20:22 PM »

margaretc

I choose to disagree with you

« **Reply #52 on:** November 17, 2003, 03:36:40 PM »

Pat/Dick
I never said that building bunkers would be a challenge for
C&C, or beyond their ability, see my post. Pat, I know you
never read posts before responding to them, but Dick, I'm
ashamed of you.

.

I only say that adhering to a specific style of bunker probably
hamstrings an architect's creative ability.

To illustrate, substitute "Fazio bunkers" for "Royal Melbourne."
Could they do it? Sure. Like I said, in my opinion, there is little
that this duo and their supporting cast can't accomplish.
I'm just not sure why Keiser is conditioning that a certain
bunker style be used. Why not let them build C&C bunkers?
style be used.

« **Reply #53 on:** November 17, 2003, 04:10:14 PM »

I guess it would be most instructive if someone that is actually in on the project would explain if there is a desire to build the bunkers in a certain style or have the boys do them according to their own natural inclinations. I simply believe that Jeff Bradley, or Axeland and Proctor, or James Duncan or whom ever they put together on this team can do it either way. If Mr. Kaiser has an idea that a heathland look with Aussie style bunkers would be a refreshing diversity for his resort package of golf, then I have no doubt that C&C or Doak, Hanse, or DeVries or other well known bunkermeisters can do the job, IF THE SAND/SOIL and TURF characteristics are found to be conducive. My own personal opinion is that an Aussie style, with proper maintenance understood upfront, would be a smash hit.

« **Reply #54 on:** November 17, 2003, 04:30:06 PM »

Pat- It was explained to me that ash creates an impenetrable layer. The kind not conducive to percolation. Upon learning of the clear and burn method used at Spy, it is my own theory that the ash has contributed to many of the troubled areas. Especially the areas where one would not expect the magnitude of trouble that does exist. i.e. middle of a slopes

« **Reply #55 on:** November 17, 2003, 04:54:50 PM »

hp@hc,

Nice to see your apology to rgkeller. We can debate like crazy, but it's nice when we can remain gnetlemen and ladies - thanks to MargaretC!

The more we show some class, the more GCA will grow.

Thanks for being thoughtful.

« **Reply #56 on:** November 17, 2003, 05:08:36 PM »

Quote from: hp@hc on November 17, 2003, 09:59:40 AM

rgkeller

You're an ass

No disagreement from me, but I fail to recognize what point your observation makes vis a vis Brandon Dunes new third course.

« **Reply #57 on:** November 17, 2003, 05:12:35 PM »

Kind of funny, if you think about it - Patrick is dead set against judging a course based upon photos, yet is defending someone judging architects based on a article written during the early stages of construction!! Just goes to show you, it's not about rules, it's about trust. Most of the folks on this site trust both C&C & Mike Keiser - I'd say they've earned that much.

Also, I'd be curious to know if C&C considers themselves to be minimalists. I recall Tom Doak saying he doesn't consider himself a minimalist, though others generally do; I think he says he does what's necessary to get a good result.

Doesn't one of Ran's profiles, I think it's Talking Stick, compare C&C bunkers to the Sandbelt bunkers? I'm going to have to go check...

...Nope, just checked, bad memory. Sucks getting older.

« **Reply #58 on:** November 17, 2003, 05:12:49 PM »

Quote from: SPDB on November 17, 2003, 11:21:32 AM

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?

Certainly if C&C deliver the "Austrialian bunkering" desired by the owner than Mr. Keiser should get equal credit as the architect with Mssrs. Coore and Crenshaw for the BD's third course.

« **Reply #59 on:** November 17, 2003, 05:17:14 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on November 17, 2003, 10:01:11 AM

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!

All of my facetiousness is entirely natural and, one might say, even minimalist.

« **Reply #60 on:** November 17, 2003, 05:22:10 PM »

Quote from: RJ_Daley on November 17, 2003, 11:20:21 AM

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.

What a "minimalist architect" is, it is certainly not one who strips the existing land bare, builds a lake and replaces the earth with excavated fill.

Add building bunkers to order from the land owner to that list.

« **Reply #61 on:** November 17, 2003, 05:30:12 PM »

Hope you're not serious about requesting a certain bunker look resulting in course design credit. If Mike Keiser is as great to work for as Tom Doak says, I doubt he's demanding anything - besides a great course.

« **Reply #62 on:** November 17, 2003, 05:36:27 PM »

RGKeller,

Ok, so you are going to design and build the third course at Bandon. What do you propose is done about the poor soil?

Pine Valley has a pond
Shinnecock Hills has a pond
NGLA has a pond
Seminole has a pond

Everyone who has looked at that property has commented that it is inferior to the first two pieces of land.

I'm sorry, too, if I was harsh, but you seem to be on a witchhunt.

Minimalism does not avocate altering the landscape. Minimalism advocates using as many natural features as possible in the final product. Where one must create, a minimalist will do whatever is necessary to get a good final product. Move a bunch of dirt? Yes. Reshape the terrain? Yes.

And then the question is how well do the natural features mesh with the created ones. If you can't tell which is which, the designer has done a great job.

What do you propose ought to be done out there in Bandon???

If you are a friend of Pat's you must be on a witchhunt for the dreaded Coorshaw, as he so eloquently put it on another thread.

« **Reply #63 on:** November 17, 2003, 05:56:10 PM »

What I would propose at BD is to let the place remain with the two great golf courses it presently enjoys, courses with characteristics truly unique to the property.

Whacking up some less suitable land to create more tee times does nothing to enhance the stature of BD, although I suspect it will do much to enhance its revenue stream.

« **Reply #64 on:** November 17, 2003, 06:00:06 PM »

Quote from: mdugger on November 17, 2003, 05:36:27 PM

RGKeller,

If you are a friend of Pat's you must be on a witchhunt for the dreaded Coorshaw, as he so eloquently put it on another thread.

As you may have suspected, I have no friends.

« **Reply #65 on:** November 17, 2003, 06:02:37 PM »

Mr. Keller -

Have you seen the land in question?

Haven't some noted writers commented in the past that the land your wonderful club was built upon was less than desirable? Surely if it had never been built the golf world would be lesser for it.

The Palmer comment was kind of funny, but likely couldn't be further from the truth.

« **Reply #66 on:** November 17, 2003, 06:02:58 PM »

"Whacking up some less suitable land to create more tee times does nothing to enhance the stature of BD,"
Who said ANYTHING about the land being less suitable? Just because the land isn't right next to the ocean makes it inferior? I think you'll be surprised.

« **Reply #67 on:** November 17, 2003, 06:06:01 PM »

RG, The major problem that I see with Bandon is that with two courses on the coast, most golfers get so beat up by the wind they have trouble playing 36 holes a day while walking.

Without putting words in anyones mouth, I truly believe that Keiser has been looking for a way to build a third course to give players a break from the elements. I for one am looking forward to playing one of the coastal beauties in the morning and retreating to the forest in the afternoon.

I also doubt that the third course will be substandard to the other two in any way except the view. The golf experience will still be valid.

I spoke with a friend who got back from Bandon last night. He said the work on the new course was pretty obvious and that the resort will add another 70+ units by the time the C&C track opens.

« **Reply #68 on:** November 17, 2003, 06:12:09 PM »

Quote from: George Pazin on November 17, 2003, 06:02:37 PM

Mr. Keller -

Haven't some noted writers commented in the past that the land your wonderful club was built upon was less than desirable? Surely if it had never been built the golf world would be lesser for it.

I have never heard or read such a comment about GCGC. Do you have a reference?

« **Reply #69 on:** November 17, 2003, 06:12:58 PM »

Quote from: rgkeller on November 17, 2003, 05:56:10 PM

Whacking up some less suitable land to create more tee times does nothing to enhance the stature of BD, although I suspect it will do much to enhance its revenue stream.

RGKeller

Yes, Mike Keiser should take one for team here at GolfClubAtlas. Rather than invest his profits from Bandon into projects such as Barnbougle Dunes in New Zealand, he should run his business to satisfy you, keeps profits low, maybe even a loss, and continue to invest his own capital in risky projects such as Barnbougle so that we can continue to critique him.

I just don't understand Brad Klein when he says that GolfClubAtlas is full of s**t. What is he talking about.

« **Reply #70 on:** November 17, 2003, 06:16:02 PM »

Quote from: Cos on November 17, 2003, 06:06:01 PM

I spoke with a friend who got back from Bandon last night. He said the work on the new course was pretty obvious and that the resort will add another 70+ units by the time the C&C track opens.

Of that, I have no doubt. Another 70 rooms per additional course seems about right.

How many rooms does Pinehurst have now?

« **Reply #71 on:** November 17, 2003, 06:17:49 PM »

I believe early on there was criticism from Darwin, as well as another prominent architect. I'll have to do some digging, but perhaps someone else will remember first.

« **Reply #72 on:** November 17, 2003, 06:33:38 PM »

"Yes, Mike Keiser should take one for team here at GolfClubAtlas. Rather than invest his profits from Bandon into projects such as Barnbougle Dunes in New Zealand, he should run his business to satisfy you, keeps profits low, maybe even a loss, and continue to invest his own capital in risky projects such as Barnbougle so that we can continue to critique him."

I suspect that the majority of posters at GCA will applaud anything that Mr. Keiser undertakes.

« **Reply #73 on:** November 17, 2003, 06:33:43 PM »

Keller,

You are being ridiculous. To pick on Keiser and try to call him out for the way he is choosing to run his business is, quite frankly, low down B.S.

As I look around at the next 25 million dollar desert course or another TPC I can't help but feel Mike Keiser is quite a bit different from most developers.

I wish I could understand why you are so against this project. Do you have a concern in the world for all of the other projects we see happening around the country, or the basic state of gca in general?

Maybe you do hate all the other projects as well, for surely they are in the name of money grubbing if what Mike Keiser is doing with this third course is all about the almighty buck!

I think it's pretty weak. Keiser is one of the good guys, and so is Coorshaw. Granted, the land isn't as great as the first two courses, but it's still going to be a damn good product!

It'll be a great golf course, not to sell housing lots. NOt to win awards. Not to churn out a million rounds a year........it's about the golf experience. GOLF, just the golf.

« **Reply #74 on:** November 17, 2003, 06:49:11 PM »

Quote from: hp@hc on Today at 09:59:40am
rgkeller

You're an ass

Reply from rgkeller;

"No disagreement from me, but I fail to recognize what point your observation makes vis a vis Brandon Dunes new third course."

I don't know rgkeller but now I know the guy was probably being somewhat facetious about the way he was going on about C&C's project and the future of Bandon and its 7th course being a Palmer and so on. At any rate his last post quoted above does show a fine sense of humor---something this website can always use more of! I don't know who you are rg, but you're OK with me!

News:

MargaretC

hp@hc

SPDB

RJ_Daley

A_Clay_Man

Tim_Weiman

rgkeller

George Pazin

rgkeller

rgkeller

rgkeller

George Pazin

Michael Dugger

rgkeller

rgkeller

George Pazin

Anthony_Nysse

W.H. Cosgrove

rgkeller

Mike_Sweeney

rgkeller

George Pazin

rgkeller

Michael Dugger

TEPaul