[Michael Moore]

Mr. Mucci -

Five sets of tees are aesthetically displeasing and a strange illustration of the American phenomenon of isolation as a result of our quest for abstracted equality, but I do not frown upon them from an architectural standpoint.

It is the near-symmetrical length of the nines that I find to be creepy. It implies to me the strict application of a formula.

Set me up at Atlantic, I need to check out these mounds for myself.

[TEPaul]

Listen, Pat--

At the moment I'm in complete agreement with you that all Golfclubatlasers should and must be completely aware of the FACTS--certainly as they relate to Atlantic and Rees. Nothing else is acceptable!

As I make it today there are 1435 members of Golfclubatlas so I expect you to set all of them up for a round or two of architectural analysis of Atlantic.

Just for travel convenience and such I think a Saturday in the beginning of June would do nicely for all of them.

That shouldn't be a problem, should it?

Could you get back to us by tonight on that? We all have important and tight schedules to juggle, you know!

[Tim Weiman]

G Tiska:

You mentioned that the permitting process at the Atlantic took 5-6 years, but didn't mention the same for Friar's Head.

My understanding from Bill Talmadge is that they were at it a lot longer (and spent sven figures in the process).

What is your understanding? Was the time required to permit construction at Friar's Head, in fact, quite a bit longer than for Atlantic? Or did I misunderstand Bill's comments to me?

[G_Tiska]

Tom,
Pat does not speak for me. I was out on the course [checking the routing hahaha]
Without going into details our routing was affected by enviromental issues, certain areas had to be used and other areas couldn't be touched. To ignore restrictions as far as routing goes is foolish. Atlantic also had to deal with these same issues. One must know all
Comparing the routing of The Bridge, Atlantic or even East Hampton  to Maidstone, NGLA or Shinnecock can not be done!
The 8, 9, 13 and 14 holes at Maidstone would NEVER get built today.
 Just look at Frairs Head restrictions along the bluffs. Do you think 15, 16 and 17 would be better holes if C&C were allowed to clear to the edge. It may have even affected their routing plans.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

GTiska
When judging a routing what are the most important critieria you consider?

I don't think anyone compared the routing of the Bridge, Atlantic or even East Hampton to Maidstone, NGLA or Shinnecock. You were asked to compare the routing of the Bridge to Friars Head. Is there an inherent problem with the routing of either the Bridge or Friars Head which prevents you from analyzing them? One more try, given that both courses were effected by environmental restrictions and only looking at the courses in their completed form, what are the similarities of the routing methods and what are the differences?

[Jeff Williamson]

What ever happened to Jeff Williams?

[Michael Dugger]

May your own intuitions speak to you about Sand Pines

The following are pictures of the land surrounding SandPines, if only I had a pre-construction picture of the course.

[Michael Dugger]

Ok, now I've got it working

The following are pictures of the land surrounding SandPines, if only I had a pre-construction picture of the course.















instead we get this?

[Michael Dugger]

The following is the course description from the SandPines home page....

"Nestled amidst the windswept sand dunes and towering pines, golf does not get any more breathtaking than Sandpines Golf Links. Sculpted by nature, this wonderful scene provided a delightful canvas for world-renowned golf course architect Rees Jones to create a magnificent array of holes.

Bringing the natural feel of the pine forest and crystal blue lakes into play on the outward nine gives one the feel of golf commonly found on the Monterey Peninsula or the woods of the Carolinas. The inward nine takes you back to golf's more traditional arena - the links land. Using the natural lay of the land, Jones brought the dune element to the forefront of the game from tee to green. Windswept yet generous, this track offers beginners and experienced golfers alike a chance to challenge their skills and indulge their senses."

Sounds like as much B.S. as the article that started this thread.

[Jeff_Lewis]

I confess to being a bit nauseous after seeing those photos. Can anyone speak to the land's original look? Was the terrain really mangled this badly? Does the ASCGA have the ability to pull a license?

[RJ_Daley]

George Tiska, I don't mean to be demanding, but I really would like you to address my post #181 on page 8.  Did you observe different mindsets at the outset of the routing and design-construction process relative to the architects egos?  AS I hint at not so subtally, I think Rees can't help himself.  I think that he has his own expectation of himself and his hallmark signature style to take precedence over the quality and uniqueness of the land and what it may offer or suggest.  I don't see that mind set in Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw or any of the constructors I know that do or have worked for them.  

Mike Moore, I too think the symetry of the 9s is too "perfect" as I was speaking of that term..."perfect"... many pages ago.  This notion of everything must come out"perfect"; the turf, the edges of the bunkers, The bunkers dimensions for accepting sand pros, the number of RtoL - LtoR doglegs, the distance of returning 9s to clubhouse, the generally consistent width of fairways, the distance of bunkers from the tee, the % grade of the greens, the average height of containment mounds, on and on ad nauseum.  In looking at the web site, it appears the course at Sand Pines has apparent strategy and difficulty of play.  But, rather than find it on the land, it does seem imposed.  That symetry doesn't happen in nature, and that is why Pac Dunes doesn't have much symetry, yet from all accounts the strategy still was found and developed, of course.

[Jerry Kluger]

I was looking a Sandpines and the comparisons to the great Hamptons courses and then we look at Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes and perhaps World Woods.  Fazio did a great job at World Woods and showed that at times he doesn't have to see how much he can change things in order to build a good golf course.  Does this point us back to one of Pat's original points in that the developer often dictates what he wants and even Fazio can minimalize the amount of change in the land.  I think the question is whether Rees could have built, or would have built Bandon Dunes or World Woods if the developer told him that is what he wanted.  Fazio seems to be flexible enough to do it but would Rees be; I think from the previous responses that most GCAers don't believe that he would.

[Tim Weiman]

Dick Daley:

Like others, I'm sickened to see mduggers Sandpines photos. But, I still can't help think that guys like Mike Young will accuse you of personal attacks ("can't help himself) on the architect, Rees Jones.

I'm wondering if it might be better to simply ask whether Rees had the skills to work with the material mdugger has shown us? Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. I don't know. But, I am inclined to wonder if all this modern earthmoving undermines the ability of certain architects to handle environments like that in Florence. In other words, when the assignment calls for something totally different than multiple bulldozers, maybe certain guys just don't know what to do?

Maybe Pat Mucci is right. Maybe the fault lies with the developer for hiring Rees in the first place. This just might not have been a good match for his skill set.

[Andy]

How about thi.  Is it possible that this is the scenario:  Rees Jones is hired by a very strange Japanese owner to build a golf course onfantastic land.  A combination of things happen, owner intervention and Rees maybe blowing the assignment and not doing his best work, and the golf course turns out not so great, though early critics gave it decent marks.  Personally, I think it is awful COMPARED to the land, which seemed really good, but is still probably a better course than 75% of stuff existing today.  Now, is Rees hired to only build a course that is in the Top 4,000 courses in America, I think not, but still, it is not the worst course ever built.  I DO think it turned out poorly, but, I do think Rees Jones has done some very good work, though clearly his style is not popular here.  I have also heard that owners feel he is very easy to work with, and, tried to incorporate their comments and desires into his work.  Anybody think this is maybe a more rational middle ground?

[RJ_Daley]

Tim,  I am not of the mind that Rees doesn't have the skill set to do something in harmony with the natural wonderland that the pictures depict.  Come on, let's be real, the man has designed and supervised construction of golf courses in every kind of terrain and under every sort of engineering circumstance all over the world.  He damn well technically could do a golf course to harmonize with the land and find the route and natural features to utilize for the strategy.  It is the self image, the personal trademark-signature, the ego that gets in the way, IMHO.  I will go so far as to say that 90% of constructors that have worked a few serious projects would have the skill set to work with that perfect of land.  How many of them would have character and wisdom enough to put their egos aside and create something of true harmony and beauty and golf design quality is another matter.

[Slag Bandoon]

Michael, Terrific pictures.  Breaks my heart to see what once was there.  I'd rather SandPines was never built at all.  I mean that sincerely.   We can never go back to what once was there and discover what nature built.  Forever ruined rare land.  Absolute travesty that gives golf developement a bad name.  

  Dare I drone on about "Worth Ethic" ?

I have seen where the sand is encroaching from the OB virgin land onto the course.  It's beautiful man.     (Tears of joy)

"But will these changing times
Motorways, powerlines
Keep us apart?
Well, I don't think so,
I saw some grass growing through the pavement today."   IA

Jack In the Green - Jethro Tull  

[Michael Dugger]

Andy,

Yeah, sure, that's a very fair reasoning behind Sandpines.  

The fact remains, however, that what it is that pisses us off isn't the reality of Rees Jones design style.

I've fully accepted what he's all about.  

The problem is horseshit magazine articles, completely inaccurate and fabricated course descriptions and this notion that Rees Jones "works with the land"  

In a sense, every golf course architect "works with the land".
So I suppose Rees does as well, but he just isn't an artist.

At least not a golf artist.  Not in the same way that Tom Doak is, Mike DeVries is, Coore and Crenshaw is, Dr. Mackenzie was and George C. Thomas was.

I'm inclined to think he's not the artist the above mentioned folk are because of the developer of the courses he's designed.  I'm inclined to think it's not because of environmental restrictions.  I'm inclined to think it's not because of the budget.  In the case of Sandpines, I'm inclined to think it's not because of the property.  

[Andy]

mdugger:

Yep, have to agree with you on the way articles are written.  I always love the "I work with the land comment", as it comes from guys who move 3 million yards of dirt on a job as well as the ones who actually mean it.  I think anyone who says that should really mean it, and I do this C and C, Tom Doak, and others try more than some to do this.  I will still say Rees has done some good things, and while he may not be my favorite architect, I have never played one of his courses and just said it was the worst thing I ever saw.  I HAVE said that about a couple of other architects, who in fairness, probably did these projects early on, and didn't have much choice.  There are some pretty pathetic things done in the golf world by designers/architects, but I can't say anything I have seen from Rees would fall to that category, or, even below "ok".  I do realize that is you look at the dunes land in Oregon and then Sandpines, it might make you ill, as it clearly turned out pretty bad.  But, it still is an "ok" course, maybe a 4-5 out of 10, and still better than MOST.  Belive me, however, I do understand it could have and should have been better.  

[G_Tiska]

Tom,
I can't comment on Frairs Head restrictions because I don't know what they were.
I think Rees did a tremendous job with the routing at The Bridge. Having first hand knowledge of what he could and couldn't do. But the Rees bashers know more than me!

[Slag Bandoon]

In a sense, every golf course architect "works with the land".
 

In the case of SandPines...it's been "worked over"... like legendary Baltimore Colt Art Donovan givin' a quarterback "the bizness" under a pig pile.  

[Self Interest]

George Tiska,

Have played your courses and found your conditioning has been superb at both Bridgehampton and Easthampton, but I would really appreciate your refraining from defending Rees Jones when he is so obviously in the wrong. Tell me that it was ten years ago when he mangled Sandpines and that he learns from his mistakes, but don't try to tell us that this isn't one of the tragedies of golf course architecture in the past hundred years. Rees has a reputation for under-utilizing great property. That reputation existed before this thread. All this photographic evidence merely confirms that reputation.
Given your relationship to Rees, you are simply too self-interested to be credible.

[G_Tiska]

RJ Daley,
In response to your post. C & C and Rees go about all aspects very different.
As far as Rees being full of himself, That's untrue. If you think C&C and their shapers don't have an ego. You have blinders on!!

[Tim Weiman]

Dick Daley:

I know that Rees Jones has a large portfolio, but I'm not aware of a project where he has been given land like mdugger documented for us AND produced something worthy of such a site.

Unless someone shows me that, I'm inclined to wonder whether the skills are really there to deal with such a property.

I also don't know how to deal with your suggestion that something like Sandpines was an exercise in ego. Doesn't it seem that people like C&C have won far more praise for restraint than Rees has ever gotten for massive earthmoving? Or am I just biased?

[G_Tiska]

Self Interest.
Why don't you put a name to your thread, A Coward!

Nobody played East Hampton when I was the superintendent there, so please get your facts straight

[Michael Dugger]

On the 'Rees' Pieces' thread of a couple of months ago, I said that I would be thrilled if Rees did something that shut me up.  

I really would.  

I have a hard time believing that considering all the work the guy gets, and has had in the past, that he hasn't had the opportunity, piece of land, budget, lack of developer involvement...etc......I.E. TOTAL FREEDOM to do whatever he wishes.  

Even in this situation I suspect we'd get a Rees Jones signature design.  

I so dearly and truly want him to "knock my socks off", I really do.  

Pete Dye did it at Whistling Straits
Tom Doak did it at Pacific Dunes
C & C did it at Friar's and Sand Hills
DeVries did it at Kingsley Club
Kyle Phillips did it at Kingbarns

Now I know that there is going to be a certain someone out there who is going to say, "good job mdugger, everyone knows these are some of the finest designs in the past ten years."

To that I would reply.....it's not just these courses that I find to be in harmony with nature.  It's not just those in the top 100 that knock my socks off.  

I think Mike Strantz has done some very nice things at the Tradition, both Stonehouse and Royal New Kent.  I really, really like some of Fazio's stuff, like Wild Dunes and Black Diamond.  Not every course that is in harmony with nature is going to rank in the top 100.  

But why aren't they?  It's probably because they don't possess the strategic options that Pat Mucci is constantly referring to.  Or perhaps it is because they are in poor shape, aren't built on enough land, have safety issues or logistical drawbacks.

Go ahead and rip up the courses I just mentioned above.  They very well may lack strategic options, or good conditioning, but they appeal to my sense of "the roots of the game"

They are still golf courses that are fitted into the existing terrain.  Not something that is "impressed upon" a landscape.  

I understand completely that from time to time we don't have a choice.  

TPC West, Whistling Straits, Shadow Creek, etc.  But, on those pieces of land that the architect does have a choice; to 'rape it, shape it and grass it', as Doak mentions in Anatomy...is a shame.  

        

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()