[George Pazin]

That's interesting, Kyle.

I generally have the exact opposite take on virtually all Sandpines discussions (which I'd even be willing to extend to virtually all Rees discussions):

Those criticising are usually very specific in citing their likes and dislikes, and those criticising the critics seem to just try to shout them down with rationalizations, excuses, or cries of bias, as though no one could have those critical thoughts on his own.

[Kyle Harris]

George,

Having not been privy to prior Sandpines discussions I am going off this thread and this thread alone. The discussion hasn't gotten too far from "dumb and fake" but this course is obviously something of a pariah here so I may be just out of context.

I'll blow holes in Jones architecture all day, I put up with it daily at Lookaway all through my High School summers.

[Garland Bayley]

Question Jordan,

You did not like 5, you did not mention disliking 17. Both are par 3 carries over water. Why didn't you mention 17 in the same vein as 5?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I'm on a binge.

Dr. Klein, I tried, I really did try....

Sandpines problems are that--and in Rees defense--it was probably a very difficult site to work with. Talk with Dave Axland, Bill Coore or Jeff Bradley, and they will tell you how hard it is to shape something, only to come back the next day to see that the wind had blown it away, even after dumping all kinds of water on it to get the sand heavy enough not to blow away. (This is done at most construction sites for those not in the know. That's what water trucks are actually for)

But the major problem is that little creativity went into it. The routing didn't utilize the better features of the site. It looks as if they spent all of about ten minutes routing the place. They went with a formula that might work back east, by using native dune grasses to try to cover up all those millions of man-made perfectly symmetrical containment mounds. It's just up and back, up and back, up and back throughout the entire round to flat greensites of little interest. The only interesting green contour on the entire course is on #6, and it doesn't work with the hole itself. One day I sat on the hill just above 18 green, looking for some semblence of good work in that vast carved-out pit. The only thing I could find is one of the better holes there, #16 and how the tall natives couldn't contain the look of all those Rees Pieces mounds. It just didn't look natural, fell natural unless you have the artistic sensibilities of a ox in heat.

Try comparing Sandpines to say Astoria which has a similar back and forth nature to many of the holes. The difference is that the quirkiness of using natural features such as greens sloping with the slack of the dunes; playing tee shots from the top of rather large dune lines into those trough-like fairways is fun and quirky and enjoyable. Your feeling the dune-line nature of the site itself. Sandpines, well its man-made--all of it. They site deserved a better golf course then what was built there.

And I'll tell you this--really simple too. If I'm Rees Jones and I'm sick and tired of the fat electrician from Southern California ragging on my course on the Oregon Coast, then I'd send the associate who was responsible for Olde Kinderhook and this other new course in Texas or somewhere that I hear is really good and do a complete remodel for free. Redesign the entire course and strategies, because you see there are other neighbors less then 45 mins. to an hour away that blow it away and people aren't even batting an eye about wanting to go see Sandpines when they drive by  on their way to and from Eugene. (Sort of. It would be about a mile and a half the opposite direction)

It's really simple Rees. Rebuild it and they will come...

[Jordan Wall]

I'm not gonna quote everything you said Pat but I didnt just not like because others told me it wasn't good.

I actually really didnt like the course.  There were so many holes that could have been better and so many decent holes that could have been great.

BTW, contrived would mean the features are not natural and were put there against the will of the land.  Pretty much it would have been better not man-made, but left instead more natural.

Hole 1 did not have a good appearance.  First of all, it is right by the range and is only separated by these big mounds that shouldn't even be there.  It seemed all the mounding looked exactly the same, which is bad because they looked really contrived.  Plus, the hole is straightaway and boring with little or no character.

On hole 2 I thought the water was out of place.  I thought it would have, and could have been better if it was a sandy dcrub and it forced you to have the option of carrying it farther to have a better angle to the green or something.  Also, there used to be bunkers right of the green which left a testy bunker shot but now it is just fairway, so it makes the chip lots easier and with lot less skill and strategy.

Hole 5 was just a hole I didn't like.  The water hazard and houses around the hole really made it look visually bad.  The green is not very interesting and pretty flat, and the bunkers are to far from the green to legitimatelly go into them.  There is a lay-up area to the left, but even to get to there you have to carry 160 yards over water...safe, I really dont know about that...

And 11, well, it was totally contrived as well.  What was originally two nice and deep bunkers to the let of the green is now a man-made grass pit that is eight feet deep.  It wouldn't be so bad except it looks totally horrible.  Also, yes, the green is skyline but the tiers are boring.  Sure, the green has three tiers, but they aren't very difficult and it is easier then it should be to two putt from one end of the green to another.  A very questionable hole, not one I particularly like or enjoyed.

[Jordan Wall]

Sounds like you enjoyed it.[/color]

I did like it, but I thought it was a very very poor course with the land it had.[/color]

Bunkering was OK, but I was really dissapointed that the main bunkering didn't actually come from the dunes.  

What does that mean ?[/color]

It means instead of making bunkers the dunes should have been used as the hazards instead.[/color]

The greens were decent, say for the fact they were frozen.  


What does the fact that the temperature was below freezing have to do with the contouring and architecture of the greens ?[/color]

I said they were decent.  You just couldn't play shots on the contours (like hitting a shot using the slope of the green) because they were so firm everything bounced off the beack of the green.[/color]

I was totally bummed when I got to hole seven and to the left of it I saw huge sand dunes for a long ways but not at all used.  

How could they be used if they're not on the property ?

Are you familiar with oblique dunes, their shifting nature and the difficulty in stabilizing them ?[/color]

Its easy to use them.  Extend the boundaries of the course.  And I dont care how hard it is to move nature, because it would have been worth the work rather then creating a semi-crappy course[/color]

Tell me, what went wrong here

It's simple, you were predisposed by others and didn't think for yourself.[/color]

not true. not true. not true.[/color]

[Garland Bayley]

...
Hole 1 did not have a good appearance.  First of all, it is right by the range and is only separated by these big mounds that shouldn't even be there.
...
On hole 2 I thought the water was out of place.
...
The water hazard and houses around the hole really made it look visually bad.  ...
well, it was totally contrived as well.
...

There is more to golf than aesthetics, which seem to dominate your posts. Your post above was a little better. Have you read Shackelford's Grounds for Golf? If not, he's a good writer and I bet you would enjoy it.  He even gives you homework. Designing holes on topograpical maps he provides. See, some homework can be fun too.

[Jordan Wall]

Strategically then I will tell you why I didn't like those holes.

#1 had fairway bunkers on the right side, which is pointless because the best angle to the green is from the left.  The hole is completely straight, to an uninteresting green and green complex.

#2 had fairway bunkers in front o the water  This seemed weird because if you hit a bad shot you deserve to go into the water (which I still think shouldnt be there...)and not get caught in a non-deep bunker 110 yards from the green.  The bunkers right of the green are gone and is now an easy chipping area which takes away many strategic shots, since your bunker shot would be going towards the water (which still should be there...)

On the other hand I like the books of Geoff Shackelford and will read that one.  Thanks for the tip!!

[Kyle Harris]

Jordan,

The 18th Hole at Rolling Green Golf Club has bunkers on the inside of the dogleg, yet the best angle of approach is from the outside of the dogleg. Perhaps those bunkers existed to fool the golfer?

There can also be a variance of punishments for different shots, so the examples you cited alone should not necessarily go against Sandpines.

I think you may be better off analyzing the big picture of the course and how these specific examples fit with the flow.

[Garland Bayley]

Strategically then I will tell you why I didn't like those holes.
...
#2 had fairway bunkers in front o the water  This seemed weird because if you hit a bad shot you deserve to go into the water (which I still think shouldnt be there...)and not get caught in a non-deep bunker 110 yards from the green.  The bunkers right of the green are gone and is now an easy chipping area which takes away many strategic shots, since your bunker shot would be going towards the water (which still should be there...)
...

The bunker in front of the water? Perhaps he put it there to keep high handicappers (the primary ones going that direction) from suffering the extra penalty stroke. It's a short par 4! What are the risks and the rewards of the water hazard? Why is there that little bunker off the end of the dogleg? I think those are better things to think about than the bunker in front of the water hazard.

[George Pazin]

Strategically then I will tell you why I didn't like those holes.
...
#2 had fairway bunkers in front o the water  This seemed weird because if you hit a bad shot you deserve to go into the water (which I still think shouldnt be there...)and not get caught in a non-deep bunker 110 yards from the green.  The bunkers right of the green are gone and is now an easy chipping area which takes away many strategic shots, since your bunker shot would be going towards the water (which still should be there...)
...

The bunker in front of the water? Perhaps he put it there to keep high handicappers (the primary ones going that direction) from suffering the extra penalty stroke. It's a short par 4! What are the risks and the rewards of the water hazard? Why is there that little bunker off the end of the dogleg? I think those are better things to think about than the bunker in front of the water hazard.

Garland, you seriously think the high handicapper would rather face a long bunker shot over water than hitting it into the water and taking the drop on the previous shot?

Better come up with another reason for that bunker.

[Garland Bayley]

George,
I'm not concerned about the bunker. There are a lot of bunkers that aren't generally in play at TOC and elsewhere. I was just trying to get Jordan to look at other aspects of the hole than that bunker.

However, to address your point. I suspect a high handicapper, once he is in the bunker, will try to hit out sideways into the fairway leaving an open shot to the green lying two. That is better than dropping behind the water hazard lying two and still being faced with carrying the water hazard.

[Michael Dugger]

I don't get fired up about Sandpines because it is in my home state, but I am sure I am more familiar with it because of such.  

If a great piece of land is disgraced anywhere across America I am going to snivel about it, but especially good dunesland.

Tommy did a nice job of summing it up.  Up and down, back and forth.  I am sure it was a tough piece of property to work with, but was it THE TOUGHEST EVER???  I highly doubt it.

There is not one hole with a crossing hazard of some nature.  A guy cannot see exposed sand anywhere ON THE PROPERTY.  Most tee boxes possess nothing but turf between them and the fairway.  You mean to tell me Rees could not have come up with ONE HOLE with a similar open expanse of sand between the tee and fairway a la #2 at Pacific Dunes?  

But of course there are the oblique dunes and the problem with sand washing away and blowing here and there.  Mr. Doak mentions a similar problem with sand blowing out of the hazards at Bandon and Barnbougle.  Perhaps with some thought, perhaps with some time spent studying the patterns of said sand dunes, Rees could have come up with something that allowed for open expanses of dunes, instead of everything being turfed over.  

The greens are incredibly boring.  Small, mostly circular and quite lacking in any siginifant undulation; surely, little undulation that impacts the strategic decisions one must make when playing the course.  

Fire at the stick, goes the thinking, there is no reason not to.

The property is quite spacious.  It possess great views.  It's sand based.  It is, after all, SAND DUNES COUNTRY.

I am sure I will play it a time or two more again in my life, but that will only be because other people, placing more importance on VARIETY than quality, will drag me along.

The problem is pretty much the exact same as what someone else described at Ocean Forest.

Great piece of land--tremendous potential--but an overall underwhelming golfing experience.

Of course, where it all went wrong pertain to budgets, permits and the desires of the owners.  It can't be the architect.

I wish they'd blow the whole thing up and start over.  I wouldn't miss one single thing about it.


 

[George Pazin]

What more do you guys want from Jordan? He's already offered more meat than 75% of the people who post reviews of courses along the lines of "Hole #4 was a 430 yard dogleg right par 4 that I bogeyed after hitting a 9 iron approach shot."

He doesn't like the bunker and he told you why. His reason is perfectly fine, if not necessarily the same as why you may or may not like the bunker. Perhaps you could offer an opinion of your own, rather than nitpicking his apart.

And if you think a high handicapper is going to be pleased chipping out sideways to go around the hazard he just duffed it short of, you don't understand high handicappers very well.

[Garland Bayley]

...
And if you think a high handicapper is going to be pleased chipping out sideways to go around the hazard he just duffed it short of, you don't understand high handicappers very well.

I guess you are saying that high handicappers are high handicappers, because they are so inept that after hitting a terrible shot into the bunker they will go ahead and shoot for the green and hit a terrible shot into the water.

In a sense, I have been been saying what I think about or like about the hole. E.g., there is risk in driving next to (or across) the water to gain a closer approach. I have been trying to draw Jordan out and have him draw some conclusions somewhat on his own. I believe it is called the Socratic teaching method.

[George Pazin]

High handicappers are indeed notoriously bad decision makers, but in this instance, they might be justified. After hitting a poor tee shot into a bunker in front of a water hazard, does anyone really want to stand around and watch a poor bunker player hit out sideways and hopefully be able to execute that well enough to circumvent the hazard? Most would probably just go for the green and drop it somewhere on the other side after screwing up the shot. It just strikes me as overkill.

As for the socratic method, I've never been a fan - it strikes me more as the condescending method. Fine for law school professors, not terribly well suited to internet discussion groups.

 

[Garland Bayley]

...does anyone really want to stand around and watch a poor bunker player hit out sideways and hopefully be able to execute that well enough to circumvent the hazard? Most would probably just go for the green and drop it somewhere on the other side after screwing up the shot. It just strikes me as overkill.
...

Talking about condescension ...
 

[George Pazin]

It would be condescending if I weren't one of the aforementioned golfers. I'm one of the few admitted high handicap golfers on here, though I hope to be a mid handicapper by the end of this upcoming season (don't we all, I suppose).

 

[Kyle Harris]

Personally, I have no problem with the Socratic method if it is used correctly.

It requires the employer of the method to be extremely well-versed in the subject and to have a large big picture view. Every question must open up new avenues to this big picture. It requires a stated thesis and an extremely patient teacher.

[Jordan Wall]

Garland,

Why, I am confused, is the bunker in front of the water actually good??

It would be better if the water posed a risk reward thing instead of putting useless bunkers in front of it (you wanna talk about wasting money??).  Say, since the water hazard was put there when it shouldnt have been, why not at least use it for the ideal angle and length approach shot, like cutting off as much water as you can to have an easier approach.  As of now the only reason I could see for the water hazard being there is for a distraction.  Yet, the funny thing is, a big sand dune would have made for a more interesting hole and a much better distraction.

[Garland Bayley]

George,
I am a high handicap golfer, and I would be hitting out sideways from the bunker. If playing golf amonst the Douglas firs of the Pacific NW has taught me anything, it is to hit out sideways.
I would also expect my playing partners to be patient with me while I followed the rules of golf, which includes dropping behind the water hazard if I hit from the bunker to the water.

Also, your sights are too low. I plan on being a low handicap golfer.

[Kyle Harris]

This is the hole in question:


Now, the high handicapper may be trying to cut the corner a bit by bringing the bunker into play to get the shorter shot in - over the water.

"The nature of golf is to challenge a hazard and in doing so, reap a reward."

Seems to be just that. An equal tee shot down the right side gives someone a 30 yard longer shot.

Looks like choices here, people.

[Jordan Wall]

[Tommy_Naccarato]

The natives are getting restless--How come everytime we talk about Sandpines someone has to pull out the dreaded and disgusting "Half-Cape" 2nd hole which is a Patrick Mucci favorite at Sandpines?

I fould it to be in Cirbian-terms, Anti-strategic.

Do you want to know how many times you can play this very same hole on every Palmer course from here to Latrobe?  Yes, I know it's Rees that did this, but the associate that got stuck laying Sandpines out must have worked as an intern at Palmer & Seay. The only thing missing is the beach-bunkering.

Cal Olson loves this type of hole and uses it quite frequently all the time. (as far as templete holes go)

[Kyle Harris]

Tommy, hate to go against Cirba here and yourself as you know I have a profound respect for you and your opinions...

BUT WHAT THE HELL?

I've never seen it or played it. But from the yardages presented in that diagram and Jordan's picture seem to indicate a slew of choices to be made.

Jordan tells me the green slopes such that an approach from the left is more preferred. This brings the bunker and water into play.

You can choose to forego an favored approach by bailing right.

Seems to be choices to me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()