Pat Mucci:
Our discussion of golf courses frequently blurs the distinction between two analytical perspectives:
a) final product
b) project
“Final product” is the perspective most people have about a golf course. They visit and/or play the course after the permitting, design, construction and grow in phase have all been completed. At that point, a person makes a judgment about how good they think the course is. Each person makes his/her own judgment based on whatever criteria they deem most important. For our purposes at Golfclubatlas, we can only hope they articulate what encouraged them to reach the conclusion they did. Pat, inevitably there will be people who place more or less value on certain features than you do. That is what opinions or taste is all about. To each, his own.
The “project” perspective is something entirely different. It takes into account the many aspects of permitting, design, construction and grow in. It also takes into account the vision of the project sponsor. Personally, I find the “project” perspective interesting. But, we have to be realistic. Very few people here will have insight into all the details that make up the “project” perspective of any course. That requires “inside” knowledge that most people here don’t have or have only in the case of a few golf courses.
It is important to keep in mind that while the “final product” and the “project” perspectives are very different, both are valid. The trick is to avoid getting confused.
Let’s take a real life example I am very familiar with. A while back Tom MacWood offered the opinion that Tom Fazio did not utilize the “natural features” of Sand Ridge referring, amongst other things, to the large quantity of wetlands on the property. I knew from my knowledge of the course and the design process that Tom was justified in making his comments from a “final product” point of view, but probably not fair from a “project” perspective.
I say that because Tom is correct that the final routing plan does not, generally speaking, incorporate the wetlands in the strategy of many holes. However, it is clear from other routing plans Fazio prepared that he wanted to do far more of what Tom MacWood would have preferred seeing in a “final product”. The permitting authorities just never gave approval. Period.
So, Fazio went forward making the best of the situation. Moreover, he never blamed anyone for the situation. Indeed, at a member meeting he made no mention of any permitting restrictions placed on the final routing. He took sole responsibility for the final design.
In my view, the distinction between “final product” and “project” has become blurred in the case of Sandpines. Everything I’ve heard is that the final product is disappointing. The biggest complaint seems to be the artificial looking nature of the course, but, in fairness, Slag Bandoon made reference to other issues.
That’s the “final product” perspective.
When it comes to the “project” perspective of Sandpines, I have observed far less clarity. Our friend mdugger began this part of the discussion by presenting pictures of the area surrounding Sandpines. I took that to mean there was some very interesting land near the site Sandpines was built.
No comment was offered on whether the best site was found or what the permitting restrictions may have been. That’s important. If we are going to discuss the “project” perspective, that would be the appropriate place to start.
Nonetheless, thanks to your premature comments about “fraud”, controversy developed about the actual land Sandpines was built on before construction. Despite Mike Erdman’s comments, we are still woefully short of understanding what existed on site prior to construction. Exactly how good or bad it was remains open, in my judgment.
Another issue that remains open is the options and the cost of preserving whatever natural features existed on this site. We’ve heard speculation that money was tight, but nothing really definitive. Nothing that helps us evaluate Sandpines from a “project” perspective. Nothing that furthers our knowledge of golf course construction/design when confronting the so called “oblique dunes”.
For all this, I’ve concluded we really don’t have much to go on when it comes to evaluating Sandpines from the “project perspective”. We can observe the “final product” and report our findings, but we don’t have much to do on to evaluate the performance of each member of the Sandpines project team..
You seem fixated on the notion that people are somehow being unfair to Rees Jones. I don’t make that assumption. We need folks like Tommy to look at land like that found in Oregon and dream of the best possible golf course that could be built. I see nothing wrong with pointing out that Sandpines falls short. How else are we going to inspire great courses to be built?