News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jay Flemma

Not so wild about wild dunes?
« on: April 15, 2006, 03:51:54 PM »
Guys, I was underwhelmed by the links course at wild dunes.  What's everybody think?

I wrote it up on my website.  Here's the skinny:

In the book The Greatest Golf Courses in America, Wild Dunes is listed beside Augusta National, Pinehurst, Oakmont, Baltusrol, Pebble Beach and Oakland Hills.

I respectfully dissent.

As most of you know, I swear by every course Mike Strantz has done, and Strantz worked on this project, but as usual, Fazio diluted most character out of the property and succeeded in marketing it nonetheless.

Located on the Isle of Palms, the course sits on the sandy soil that is the holy grail of all the great designers, yet underwhelms through flat greens, mundane hole design and too much “Florida-style” palm trees, ponds and a collection of holes that look and play the same. By the time the player gets to the “money shot” – the last two holes which play along the sound, the ordinariness of the other sixteen fail to turn the tide of opinion. Two great holes do not make a golf course, not even on the seaside.

Fazio once again proves a slave to the doctrine of symmetry, the doctrine of framing, too much water, way too much out of bounds and flat featureless greens.

Don’t get me wrong, there are some inspired moments. The excellent par-5 fifth features a Strantzian blind shot over enormous bunkered dunes to a green set high in a tree-sheltered dell. This terrific hole washed away the bad taste of the preceding three, all overly narrow holes guarded by dense marshy scrub. But while the penal nature of the start fades as the course progresses, the rest of the front nine is lackluster. The short par-4 ninth is a puzzling folly, featuring a blind pond guarding the left side of the fairway. (A blind pond?! Why?)

Few greens and fairways have any undulation, despite being built on excellent terrain for golf. One exception is the really short par-4 10th, which despite being quirky looking actually works from architecture standpoint with several landing areas amid heaving swales in the fairway. 12 and 13 are also good holes, playing among natural looking sand dunes.

Guarded on all sides by out of bounds and houses and looking particularly unnatural, the course looks and plays nothing like its contemporary sister Fazio work at World Woods. It’s hard to believe those two courses were built by the same designer at roughly the same time.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2006, 03:53:08 PM by Jay Flemma »

PThomas

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2006, 04:33:19 PM »
definitely NOT a great course, I agree Jay

for me, it doesn't pass the Dave Marr test:  would you tell a friend to get off the freeway to play it?  imho, no
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Tony Ristola

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2006, 04:52:55 PM »
I haven't been there, but was flipping through some 20-25 year old golf magazines the past few days. Looked at a photo of WD's 18th green and thought...well there's a boldly contoured green.
Hurricanes have wreaked havoc there...What is the 18th green like today?
« Last Edit: April 15, 2006, 04:53:44 PM by Tony Ristola »

Jay Flemma

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2006, 05:19:26 PM »
Tony, the 18th green was great!  It was the REST of the course that underwhelmed.   Here's what I wonder...after Hurricane Hugo destroyed 17 and 18, strantz went back and redid them...I wonder if HE redid the green.

The rest of the greens are much smaller and have little contour...theres the odd green here or there with a sloipe or two, but after seeing this in countless magazines and in the book "greatest courses of the US" I was expecting a world class round.

It was really ordinary.

wsmorrison

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2006, 05:47:01 PM »
I found next to nothing to recommend the course.  I played it the day after Yeamans Hall and it was a huge letdown.  Then again, many courses would have been.  I am usually very good at remembering holes.  Not at Wild Dunes because there wasn't anything memorable--at least to me.  My friends didn't think so either.

Mike Hendren

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2006, 08:31:18 PM »
Jay,

Agree regarding the 10th. Not unlike playing up a ski jump.  A very unique short par four in my experience.  

Wild Dunes has lost its lustre and I could not disagree when the assessment on this thread.  

One must remember, however that this golf course is over 25 years old and represented a significant departure from prevailing architecture and design at that time.  The dunes holes 10-14 and 17 and 18 caught the eye of a lot of people, reminding them of the potential of designing and constructing holes among dunes and down by the water - a universal appeal that was generally disregarded during the previous _______ years.  

Surely it is no coincidence that a photograph of the 18th graces the front jacket of the 1987 edition of Cornish and Whitten's THE GOLF COURSE.

I played the course when there were no condo's in sight and it was a breath of fresh air and an early lesson in golf course architecture.  

Easy to pen "what might have been."  I believe it is a important golf course in the evolution of architecture in the U. S.  

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

W.H. Cosgrove

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2006, 08:43:46 PM »
I must think that before condos and Hugo,Wild Dunes could well have been a more interesting course.  I remember it as feeling like playing down the streets of NYC.  Condos and houses everywhere.  Canyon like in spots.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2006, 10:14:13 AM by W.H. Cosgrove »

Tom_Doak

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2006, 08:33:43 AM »
Jay:

I totally agree with what Mike Hendren said.

Wild Dunes is a great example of how much golf architecture has really changed over the past 25 years.  I played it first when I was working at Long Cove in 1981, and it was a really cool and unusual design for that day and age, for the reasons he states.

The restoration after the hurricane was well done; they put most everything back except the many trees which were lost and which gave it a more isolated feeling.  What has changed is the development around it -- really claustrophobic in spots -- and the fact that so many newer golf courses have taken its inspiration and pushed further.

Wild Dunes is to Tom Fazio's work what High Pointe is to mine.

Jay Flemma

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2006, 08:53:20 AM »
MIke and Tom:

Fair enough...back in 1981, it may have broken ground.  I saw a few Strantzian moments too...most notably 5 and the mound in front of the green on six...

But so many holes look like everything else in Florida...numbers 1 and 9 for example.  Were blind ponds OK then?  I cant see how that could have been accepted or liked even back then.

10-13 are fine, but what about 14 and 15?  Again its back to Florida.

Now I was 12 years old in 1981 and my experience with golf was nothing but dreadful munis.  Since we had never heard of a daily fee course then, I can see how it would be impressive then...but even taking it in its heyday, there is no way it should have been mentioned in that Greatest golf courses book next to the courses I mentioned above.

For my purposes on the project on which I'm working, I have to lok at every course with an eye toward 2006, not 1981...and the hallmark of a truly great course is that it stands the test of time.  Crystal Downs didnt lose its luster or become out of date/out of vogue after 25 years.  Neither did Merion, Augusta, etc.  Rawls course wont get old.  Neither will tobacco road, Pac dunes or sawgrass.

Finally, if you distill the design down to the greens and the routing here's what is inescapable...once again, it's doctrine of symmetry and framing...nothing we didnt know then, and something passe now. Also, with very few exceptions, the greens are mundane.  Finally, noone has refuted the fact that it looks strikingly similar to Amelia Island Plantation.

Also, the first hole...a throwaway.  A great first hole offers a statement of identity.  What does 1 say?  Something completely different from many other holes.  Now maybe that is part of the draw for some...I just dont think it breaks the concept for a good purpose.


Tom perhaps would a good analogy...in terms of routing and greens, not career path...be High Pointe is to you as Crystal Downs is to Mackenzie?

paul cowley

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2006, 08:59:36 AM »
Tom ....is High Pointe the course that a couple from the Love group visited a good ten+ years ago?
I seem to remember that the older gentleman of the two was underwhelmed...... which as usual served to pique my interest ;).

...oh, BTW I was standing on Jesus mountain [Mt Jesus?], last week....tried to give you a call but cell service has yet to come to the Mt.....interesting site.

Looks like you got your first 50% about right :).
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2006, 12:15:11 PM »
Wasn't Wild Dunes also George Fazio's as well? (Or was he just a name by that time?)

The missing in action Tim Weiman and I have talked extensviely about Wild Dunes, telling me of how at one time it was something to shout about until the housing and subsequent redesign for more housing and hurricane damage. A really romantic notion of a great golf site.

Tim where are you when we need you? :'(

Peter Sayegh

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2006, 01:57:11 PM »
Jay,
     Check p. 786 of this forum and you'll find some of your criticisms were expressed back then. Sounds like little has changed-regrettably. :(
                                            Peter

Tom_Doak

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2006, 02:46:54 PM »
Jay:

Hindsight is 20/20, which is why I am less of a believer than some people about the benefits of today's Golden Age.  Twenty years ago Wild Dunes was an example of the new golden age.  Crystal Downs was unknown or forgotten in 1955.  And The Rawls Course will probably not be highly regarded outside of Lubbock in another twenty years.

Paul:

Yes, it was High Pointe that Mark and Bob visited back then.

Sean_A

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2006, 04:28:29 PM »
Tom D

Thanks for putting things in perspective.  For sure much of what is heralded as great today will be back page news in 25 years.  Such is the nature of functional art.  Great today gone tomorrow.

Ciao

Sean
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Tom_Doak

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2006, 04:37:26 PM »
Sean:  Hopefully none of these courses will be "gone" but just will have outlasted all the hype and shown they have a place in the market.

And it's just possible that a few of the wonderful subtle courses which have been ignored by the magazines in recent years will actually be much more highly thought of than they are today.  

Sean_A

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2006, 05:09:59 PM »
Tom

As I tend to go for more subtle courses I couldn't agree more with your sentiments.  Trouble is I don't get to see many new courses in the US subtle or not.  Additionally, a few of the newer courses I have really liked have been far from subtle: Tobacco Road and Carne being the two jump out at the moment!

Ciao

Sean
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Anthony Butler

Non Golfer's Perspective on Rawls Course
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2006, 05:25:33 PM »
Quote
Hindsight is 20/20, which is why I am less of a believer than some people about the benefits of today's Golden Age.  Twenty years ago Wild Dunes was an example of the new golden age.  Crystal Downs was unknown or forgotten in 1955.  And The Rawls Course will probably not be highly regarded outside of Lubbock in another twenty years.

Tom, a work colleague of mine (non-golfer, graphic designer) who grew up in Lubbock, when asked about the Rawls course, said it was the 'most interesting looking thing' to appear in Lubbock for years. This gentleman only visits his family in Tx. about once a year so he's seen the development only once or twice. Not sure what that portends for the longevity of your course designs in general.

On the other hand, I'm sure you probably feel lucky to be getting properly recognized and compensated for your work while you are still with us...  I'd say that 'history will be the judge' but the guy who's using that line of argument right now is only doing so because everyone thinks he's totally f___ed things up right now. :)
« Last Edit: April 17, 2006, 12:05:15 AM by Anthony Butler »
Next!

Brad Klein

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2006, 06:07:49 PM »
Flemma's comments miss the main point of what makes Wild Dunes so disappointing. Cosgrove's onto the major point: Wild Dunes has been been completely overrun with real estate, high rises, and condos overhanging tees and the rough alongside fairways. The last two holes were wilder before Hurricane Hugo destroyed them and they had to be rebuilt closer in shore. And whatever drama the par-5 18th holds is ruined by the towering high rise behind the green.

Losing all of those oaks from Hurricane Hugo destroyed the original marine foresty (Cypress Point) character of the place, and the real estate sprawl completed the slaughter. Compared to most non-Pete Dye design at the time, Wild Dunes was innovative. Now it's little more than a baseline for decent, functional, high-traffic design but in 1981 -- more than a decade before World Woods --  it was innovative for its shots, the feel and its remote setting.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2006, 08:20:51 PM by Brad Klein »

Jay Flemma

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2006, 06:43:46 PM »
Well, Brad...its a lucky thing for us you were here to educate us all.

As I've told you before Brad, and you missed the point, I dont work for you.

GCA is no place for you to air your and my unfinished business...and that's all you are doing when you get chippy with me.

Had you read my piece carefully, instead of looking to criticize, you'd have seen my comments about the houses.

And keep a civil tone with me...no exceptions.  This is  a group of gentlemen and collegues sharing ideas.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2006, 08:25:41 PM by Jay Flemma »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2006, 08:35:38 PM »
Quote
Jay Flemma

Well, Brad...its a lucky thing for us you were here to educate us all.

As I've told you before Brad, and you missed the point, I dont work for you.

GCA is no place for you to air your and my unfinished business...and that's all you are doing when you get chippy with me.

Had you read my piece carefully, instead of looking to criticize, you'd have seen my comments about the houses.

And keep a civil tone with me...no exceptions.  This is  a group of gentlemen and collegues sharing ideas.


Jay,
What so bad about Brad stating a point and disagreeing with yours? You sound pretty defensive...

« Last Edit: April 16, 2006, 08:54:55 PM by Thomas Naccarato »

paul cowley

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2006, 08:48:16 PM »
tommyn...who is that green shirted dude with that gi-tar hanginn on the left side of you?
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Jay Flemma

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2006, 08:51:24 PM »
Its not what he said.  Its the way he said it.  This is the second time this week he was rude to me.  He drastically changed his post after I responded to him so it wouldn't look as rude as it was.

No, he is attacking me for reasons completely peripheral to GCA.  

If he said, "Jay I see your point,l but I feel that this is the reason..."  I would not have a problem with it.  But mere days ago he viciously and wrtongfuly attacked me because in the middle of my work day in my law office, I accidentily forgot to say Geoff Shackelford found a piece in a Logan article.  I asked Ran to take the thread down to avoid a fight with him, and whaddya know, he takes another potshot today.  No...he is attacking me just to throw his weight around.

This is NOT a GCA matter Tommy.  If he wants to discuss "him and me" I'm all for it, but not here.  Our fight is not GCA business.  But if he's gonna attack my honor, he's gonna get it right back.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2006, 08:54:42 PM by Jay Flemma »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2006, 08:59:47 PM »
tommyn...who is that green shirted dude with that gi-tar hanginn on the left side of you?

Paul,
That is a picture of Steve Hackett, a guitarist who does more then photograph well. He's the former guitarist of Genesis. (sorry for the quality of that photograph, but I liked the colors, plus there is only so much one can get into 65 x 65 pixels!)

Jay,
Great, then at the very least try to keep the fight architecturally related, which I have to tell you Brad doesn't seem like he crossed any line here. He only respectfully disagreed with you. At least to me he did.

Cheers

Jay Flemma

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2006, 09:03:12 PM »
Tommy, since you dont know the prior history he and I have, with great respect, I know the truth to be different.

He can disagree with me all he likes...its his tone...which he changed from his earlier post coupled with his rude conduct this week that tell the real story.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2006, 09:04:19 PM by Jay Flemma »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Not so wild about wild dunes?
« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2006, 09:08:26 PM »
Jay,
The Sopranos are on. Enjoy the show and don't spoil it for me because I won't see it for another three hours!


Tags: