Nantucket Golf Club

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Are you comparing the Bozo's on this site, including myself, to professional architects ?

I don't have to have played the old 12th hole at Garden City to know that I don't like the present one.  It is totally out of context with the other 17 holes, and the crown on the front right side of the green catapults well hit shots into an improperly designed bunker or over the green.  The front left quadrant of the green is useless for cuping.  The bunkering is substantively different from the bunkering throughout the rest of the golf course.  It's a bad hole, in the context of the rest of the golf course.  Somewhere else, it might be a good hole.

In concept, I have no doubt that you, TEPaul, Tommy Naccarato, Ran and many others could create a green and green site that would be an improvement over the existing green, if politics and money weren't involved.

That we would probably opt for a green that no longer exists, isn't surprising.  At one time it did exist, and it was more in the style of the other holes at GCGC.  Photographic evidence can assist one in restoring a green or hole long ago removed.

I've also never played the original greens on # 5 or # 14, but I know I'm not fond of the current greens on these holes as well, and would like them restored to their 1936 condition.

[Mark_Fine]

Been out playing again and haven't had time to post.  TPC @ Sugarloaf, Shark's Tooth, Camp Creek, Burnt Pine, Southport & Ainsdale, Hillside and Royal Birkdale to name a few of the better ones.  

Nantucket was discussed a while back and I made quite a few comments.  Wish I knew how to pull them up again.  Only have a second but I will say the course is good but not a Top 100 design.  A 6 at best on the Doak scale.  The land is really not all that interesting and most of what Rees did is "built".  Some very marginal holes.  Nothing really all that interesting and/or inspiring.  

Newport is the best of the three Matt talked about.  Plays much more like a links than Newport does.  Carnegie Abbey is quite interesting as well and has some of the wildest greens I've ever seen.  Several I have heard are being toned down.  
Mark

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I don't think I asked you to compare anyone to the 'bozos' on this site, I just asked how architects judge holes that are simply lines on paper without playing them?

Its one thing to state you don't like the current 12th, another to promote the re-construction of hole you've only seen in photos. You do like the concept of the old 12th don't you? I do.

I agree with you that it is bad form to make a judgement on an entire golf course based on a photo or photos.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

My take on Nantucket was to give a bit of perspective on what an architect has done -- past and present. I believe Rees Jones has evolved in his latest designs and have made the case through specific instances and references. I'll say this once again -- I don't shuck for any architect and have pointed out a few designs by Rees that I believe are far from what he is capable in producing.

Please do not use the word "conspire" because I have not implied or suggested that about people who have different opinions about golf courses -- specifically Rees Jones courses. All I asked was to get a sense from people about new courses that have opened in the last ten years that they believe are beyond Nantucket. It helps me understand what a person may favor and what elements they do not. Nothing more and nothing less.

I enjoy it when people have differences of opinion -- and yes, Tom, I do try to explain why I feel the way I do about elements within any golf course without resorting to throwing labels such as bias into the mix. Please refrain from "spinning" the discussion in that direction when I have not done so.

I agree with Mark Fine in the relative Doak scale position about Nantucket. I believe the course is clearly a step from what Rees Jones has done with "over-the-top containment mounding" you see at Atlantic and a few others. I'm not suggesting Nantucket be held up for sainthood, but it's a good test of golf and when conditions stiffen can be quite taxing on the player who is struggling. Could a design been accomplished that is better than what is there now? Possibly. But no one can say for certain because discussions of this type are often repeated concerning many, many courses through the USA. That's what makes 19th holes so interesting.

RC Stanfield:

Thanks for your response but I still have to question how you can say one person's opinion of a course is above another if you yourself have not played the course in question? I am sufficiently "removed" and not "blinded" from the architect being discussed to form my own conclusions. Clearly, others have their own opinions about Nantucket, but I would think you would hold your own conclusions until you have played the course. Would that not be fair?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

As I've frequently stated on this site, professional architects possess a talent to see things that most of us are incapable of detecting or visualizing, as in the site that was transformed into the golf course at YALE.

You can't seriously compare the use of photos to extrapolate and analyze a golf course, made by rank amateurs on this site, to the creative process of uniquely talented men.... professional architects.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I'm sure you know I have no doubt that playing a golf course is much better in familiarizing yourself with the course and it's architecture than looking at photos of the course or any hole and playing a course many times is obviously better than playing it once or twice.

Clearly no one of us will really debate that with you. But if you think there is no value in seeing things about a course's architecture from a photo I really do think you're wrong about that particularly if it's a matter of a critique involving something like large nonessential containment mounding on or down a hole or a bunker or a series of them that just aren't very attractively done.

I'm mean come on Pat be realistic with yourself, if you can see these things clearly in a photo and they don't look good at all do you truly expect them to change when you get there and tee it up?

The only thing that photos lack is when they clearly don't show something about a hole. But when they do it's not going to change when you get there. You might be forgetting that I've looked a plenty of photos and then played courses and played courses and then looked at photos a good deal in my life. If the photos are good I really do know what I'm looking at and it's my experience it does not change when I get there and play the place. There is nothing like playing a course but there are definitely things anyone can see in a photo that just are not going to change in person!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
Didn't you say "I don't rate architects -- I rate courses, but I guess it's fashionable for some to think that if you defend a particular course then you must be biased in favor of a particular architect." Every time a Rees' golf course comes up for debate you like to point to his entire portfolio and how it has evolved in your opinion - isn't that rating a golf architect or at least rating a number of the golf architects works against one another? I wouldn't call you an oppologist --- but is it always neccessary to take his entire body of work into perspective, especially if like you say his work has improved - let sleeping dogs lie. I think most on this thread wanted to stick with Nantucket.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

There you go again, taking an extreme position, and attaching my alleged support for it.

Photos are limited due to their two dimensional nature, they
have a difficult time providing depth, especially in revealing contours.  On putting greens, they certainly can't show how soft or hard the green is, or how fast it putts.  Photos are limited in the knowledge they can provide, and anyone that says that they can evaluate a golf course solely through photo analysis is kidding themselves.

Have you read "Scotland's Gift" by Charles Blair MacDonald ?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

Let's be very clear -- I have made my points clear on the merits of Nantucket -- specifically. When people say that Rees has not made any improvement in terms of containment mounding and other architectural elements he has done I believe it's fair game to point out that is not true given what he's designing now versus courses from a few years back.

You don't see that as being relevant -- I do.

Just because Nantucket is not the second coming of SH or NGLA it's still a wonderful course. I also believe that when others see other more recent Rees Jones courses such as Olde Kinderhook and The Bridge they will see even more evolution in his design style.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You're going to have to remember I wasn't born yesterday and I really do know what I can and can't see in photographs vs seeing a course in person, or playing it! Why? Because I've done it both ways many times. And again, I'm not saying and never have that looking at photographs is as good as playing a course or seeing it in person. But if you're saying looking at photos is worthless, then again I'm disagreeing with you. Possibly it is to you but it's not to me.

Yes, seeing green contours in photos is hard to do but you can build up some experience in how to identify them in photos. Photos tend to flatten out things like green contours and sometimes a lot. Photos generally tend to telescope golf holes (from the wrong end of the telescope unfortunately).

But if someone shows me photos or bunkers that are close and clear, shows me good photos of holes and parts of them, or most of all shows me photos of holes that have containment mounding running down both sides of them I sure as hell can see that and analyze it. Matter of fact to apply the fact that photos tone down green contours, that logic can also be used with containment mounding. Photos can tone that down too and so when you get there and play the course they can be even worse than they appear on the photo, and generally are!

And if you think what I'm saying is taking an extreme position, My God, I can't imagine what you'd think if I really did take an extreme position.

And yes, I have read "Scotland's Gift".

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
I re-read your original post - the first post in reponse to the original question - and you start off by comparing the course to Rees other designs. Isn't that rating an architect? And no one had mentioned anything about mounds. I also re-read all your posts I'm still looking for specific details on the merits of Nantucket other than it is an improved departure from his other designs. (I take that back you did say there were plenty of good holes and opportunity for the ground game) Never mind.

Do you think the course succeeds in integrating the natural attributes of the site?

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

Matt, I never made any opinions about Nantucket, quite frankly I do not know why I have been subjected to the point that I feel like you think I am attacking you and your methods of critique....do not get me wrong.  I enetered this thread to see about Nantucket instead I posted thinking that you were talking more about the evolution of Rees Jones Design.  I have no problem with Rees Jones nor Nantucket since I have played very few of his designs including Nantucket.  I just enjoyed Biehl's post so I gave him kudos and stated that I feel that to critique a course should be more than who the architects is and how he has evolved to that point.

You are right though when you say that I need to play that course to understand his evolution, or maybe not, that is for me to decide after playing it, which will probably be awhile before my blue collar gets to Nantucket.  Cheers, I do enjoy the passion that you have for Rees' evolution as a designer, I am sure if I have seen more of his designs I would develop a simialr affinity.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Look, in discussing the particulars of Nantucket or any other course Rees (or anyone else) has done the thing that personally interests me the most is the whole subject of "containment mounding".

Rees is clearly one of the three best known architects in the world and "containment mounding" was one of the primary architectural features he was known for--whether people thought it was good or bad, then or now. Basically Rees  became know as the "King of containment mounding".

I'd just like to do a little analysis of that subject and have a discussion about that alone, period. For now, I don't even need to know how well any of Rees's courses play, I don't want to have another dumb debate either about the pros and cons of playing a golf course vs looking at photographs, particularly since basically all I'm doing is asking you some questions relating to containment mounding, and specifically relating to Nantucket G.C. and would it be a better course if he did not do containment mounding on it? And why and how much so? I'm not even interested in discussing how great a course you think Nantucket is otherwise and I'm making no suggestions or pronouncements about that at all. But if you'd like I will subcribe for now to whatever you say about how great it may otherwise play!

Why do I want to know about containment mounding? Because basically I've never seen containment mounding (particularly all along the bodies of holes) that I thought was any good. Not good architecture, in other words. Very bad, in other words! It cuts off many great natural lines near, medium and far, great vistas, occasionally sometimes cuts entire treelines almost in half etc, etc! Basically completely distorts even an attempt to blend architectural lines into natural "site" "lines" before it can even begin!

Furthermore, since Rees was successful and famous many others copied that "containment mounding" look! And I'm not singling out Rees either. Pete Dye might have done it too and I can't see that his would be any good either.

I have a feeling too that courses with excessive containment mounding that was not done for some really overriding reason are going to be looked at soon as indications of an era in architecture that was basically a real failure in a look and style in architecture. Maybe even a great example of the last and best example of really site-unnatural golf architecture! It may even become similar to that era of the very modern  artifical ersatz look in residential architecture that is almost worthless now and much to be avoided in the resale market.

And I agree with you about Rees's evolution away from that extraordinary look--he does appear to have very much evolved away from it with courses like Old Kinderhook and maybe The Bridge too. I would even love to hear your take on exactly why he may have evolved away from that look. Could it be because he can see now for some reason that it was never a good element in architecture? I would suspect so!

I'm very glad to see him doing some courses now that don't include containment mounding--many of us were hoping that would happen with him.

There is a short section in the back of Cornish and Whitten's book that lists various architectural ideas and elements in America that were tried and did not work well at all--had no staying power at all--very little timelessness about them! I feel that the excessive containment mounding that Rees became so well known for, and that others did too, may be on that list some day soon. Maybe that's why he apparently doesn't do it anymore!

What do you think about that--and particularly about Nantucket, but only relating to that? What if that does happen with containment mounding--if it becomes an example of a bad look in architecture? What will happen to so many of those courses that were done that way? Will the courses eventually start of bring in dozers and trucks and start to haul the containment mounding away someday, or try to minimize it just to make the courses look better and more natural?

I already told you how I feel about it but I'd love to hear how you feel about it! And this time I'm not going to get into any discussion about it with analogies about standing on the 10yd line of a football field or whatever that was that Pat was trying to say on the Bridge/Easthampton topic about containment mounding! No more of that for me!

[Matt_Ward]

RC:

Nothing personal -- appreciate your comments. Don't know if you live in the Mass area but would recommend two other Rees public courses that I have heard good things about, though I haven't played them yet. Both are fairly new and you are correct -- access to Nantucket is not that easy during the height of the season.

Try Pinehills GC in Plymouth (Rees Jones Course) and Blackstone National GC in Sutton. Would be interested in getting your assessment of these two layouts. I'll be playing both of them later this summer.

Tom MacWood:

To answer your question I believe Rees did a good job integrating the natural attributes of the site. Could it be better? No doubt. But I agree with Mark Fine that the land is fairly basic -- would be interesting to know if any other architect's were in play in getting the opportunity to design the course?

Tom, I never placed Nantucket in the league with SH and NGLA but the layout does test you and the integration of the air and ground games is provided for on a number of holes. Let me answer your question another way ... Rees did not treat the site in a like manner with earlier designs where containment mounding becomes intrusive and sticks out like a sore thumb. Of course, there are some people (maybe yourself?) who view any aspect of man's hand with an adverse reaction. I did not see Nantucket that way because I do know the player is tested from a shot value perspective which I place at the top of my rating list. Does the course have the natural memorability and esthetics that others would want. That's harder to say. I thought it did but not in the same league as you would find say at a Fisher's Island.

One plus I will say about Nantucket is that the routing has bee done to maximize the wind patterns that come through the site. You won't get downwind or headwind conditions on all of the longer holes. I would give the course a slightly higher score than Doak scale 6 as Mark mentionsm but I agree with him that I would not include it in my personal top 100.

Hope this helps ...

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
Who has an adverse reaction to any aspect of the hand of man? I believe it is possible to create interesting man made features while also utilizing a site's interesting natural features and melding them together (or in some cases contrasting one with the other). Why do you think the engineered designs of Langford and Raynor work as well as the minimlists types like Park and Colt? I think it is because they all sought to maximize the interesting features of the site - and isn't that the essence of routing? That is where I feel Rees dropped the ball, which is ashame because I actually believe his distinctive style is an attribute (as long as he avoids the use of perfectly circular features and containment mounding) - especially in this day and age when too many styles look the same.

Are you aware of the prevailing wind patterns on Nantucket?

I was familar with that area of the island prior to Nantucket and I know Mike DeVries visited the site before an architect was chosen - possibly with Fazio. He had a similar opinion of the site's potential and if I recall correctly he was disapointed by the extensive earth moving.

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

That's such a good question and one definitely worth asking now--and I'm very happy you did! It you hadn't it inevitably would come up throughout, and probably wreck, what hopefully can be a good, decent and civil discussion on the general subject of "containment mounding" as a feature in architecture both in the past and in the future.

Frankly, I'm not certain exactly how to answer you or describe or define exactly what containment mounding is and isn't. But the fact is that it's true, I believe, that Rees became known as "The King of containment mounding" so whatever it was he did on almost all his courses, until recently, that have "containment mounding", should be quite easy to explain and define.

The containment mounding that I've seen which I find to be generally obnoxious are those enormous walls of earth that are piled up all along some holes that define and separate those holes into individual entities.  

I haven't seen Twisted Dune (since mid construction) but it appears there that the site was shaped with just that, sort of huge twisted artifical dunes and the course was routed and woven through them. I don't think I would even remotely call something like that "containment mounding". And I can't see that anyone would call things like "chocolate drops" containment mounding.

What does "containment" mean in this context anyway? Probably walls of earth that separate and "contain" individual holes!

But you're smart to ask for a defintion first! I can hardly wait to see what Pat Mucci's reaction to your question will be! I just hope he doesn't start on the 10yd line!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

There you go again, creating extremes.  When did I ever say that photos were worthless ?  I've never said that.

As I stated to you, I've seen a gazillion photos of Augusta, countless hours of tape and TV, but none of that prepared me for what I experienced when I actually played the golf course.  A few, or many pictures just aren't sufficient to make an intelligent, global evaluation.

I'm glad you've read "Scotland's Gift".  Could you go back and reread page 205 for me ?  Especially that part toward the bottom of the page, the next to the last paragraph.  
After rereading that page I'd appreciate your thoughts on evaluating a hole or golf course.              

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Good questions.

Clearly, you'd have to ask Rees directly why he has modified his style but I think it's fair to say the answer is straightforward -- containment mounding carried to any excess is absolutely hideous. It's an attempt to keep all balls "in play." I don't believe course designs lend themselves to keeping everything within a certain boundary but I understand the rationale -- it's the rote execise of seeing it time after time that becomes utterly predictable and in many instances clearly unnecessary. This pattern has been followed by quite a few architects (thanks Tom for stating that!) and many types have found themselves into new daily fee courses and those from the last 15-20 years.

Tom, I am not a fan of this style -- whether it be Rees or any other architect, because it has a clear tendency to become an eye-sore. The strategic merits of "containment mounding" are also subject to fierce debate as we have witnessed here on GCA. I often think of excessive "containment mounding" as a means to package golf holes as you would do with containers for food items in your refrigerator.

I am not a professional architect but I believe Nantucket could have been improved with less "containment mounding" that is there now and possibly have added more wild / natural elements brought into play with the native grasses and the like. I'm sure some people could make a case that Nantucket is too refined ... too cultured and needs a more rough-oriented perspective to give ita true "links like" character comparable to what you find on the Eastern end of Long Island. I also believe "containment mounding" when carried to extremes doesn't encourage golf from different angles since it has a tendency to funnel all balls to particular spots. That's just my armchair analysis.

My guess is Rees has heard this criticism from a number of different sources and is now entering a less forumlaic style that many people have routinely identified with him.  Courses such as Olde Kinderhook and The Bride still have vestiges of "containment mounding" but it's far less abrasive as you would find at older courses he has designed such as Atlantic and worse yet the new Tattersall in PA. I credit Rees and other architects who do some real introspection and begin to examine their body of work and see how they can improve upon it. Changing course (no pun intended) is not a weakness in my mind -- it reflects a sober review of what designs will really stand the test of time far longer than my lifetime and others. I believe Rees, as well as many architects, really want to have designs that will still be here 100 years from now.

I fully understand Tom MacWood's take on how, in his mind, Nantucket could have been improved from what is there through closer linkages to existing terrain and the bolstering of natural elements unique to Nantucket Island that could have been enhanced. Just keep in mind, I think there is a tendency to get caught up with the intrinsic "touchie feelie" and sometimes deflate the shotmaking that the course provides. Nantucket does not suffer foolhardy play particularly when the daily wind kicks up from any direction. In the end analysis, Nantucket has body but does it have soul that will carry its name far along in the years ahead? I believe that is the bigger question and "containment mounding" lies at the center of that discussion.

I do believe this style (should it be called that?) has lived far beyond what it was meant to do. Given the number of courses connected with housing sites you still see it being used and I'm sure it will never be completely abandoned. Courses with excessive elements of "containment mounding" I am confident will give serious thought in the years ahead to decide whether they wish to modify or even remove it. Courses that have limited rounds and those that don't have close property lines to housing or other such related elements can clearly do modifications if they desire to pursue it.

Hope this helps ...

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Excellent post! As far as I'm concerned you went through the subject extremely well and I don't need to ask anymore about it on Nantucket G.C. or any other course.

I just might run into Rees if I'm lucky in few weeks and just might ask him, particularly if he opens by asking as he did last year; "What the hell's going on on that Goddamn Golfclubatlas and why aren't you defending me more often?" At which point I'll say; "Defend you? What are you talking about? I'm your biggest supporter, other than Matt Ward, particularly since you've broken free of this containment mounding business into the sunslit uplands of unfettered architectural expression chocked full of strategies and naturalness! And by the way why did you break free of that containment mounding business?"

Actually Matt there's a frightening typo of yours in your last post when you referred to "The Bridge". You called it "The Bride". As I understand it "The Bridge" went through  mindbending hoops of permitting and eco-terrorists for many years and just when it was breaking through into the sunlit uplands and nearing opening the poor principle got into one helluva a divorce wrangle and the club got hung up in the divorce proceedings.

So do the poor man a favor and hit the "modify" button and change "The Bride" to "The bridge"!

Pat:

Sorry you still think I'm being extreme. I didn't think I said that you thought photos were worthless. I thought I asked you if you thought they were. But if I did say you said that it was probably because you said none of us could "assay" without "play" ("You have to play to assay"). Most of us took that to mean we couldn't say anything about a golf course unless we played it, according to you.

I'm not trying to give a "global evaluation" of a golf course anyway. All I said on a few of the past topics is some of the holes at Old Kinderhook looked really good, some of the holes looked good at "the Bridge" and on one of "The Bridge" photos and some other course that a "containment mound" looked really bad.

And guess what, it looked just as bad when I saw it in person before I saw that photo and it will look just as bad if its still there when I go back or look at that photo again. That may not be a "global evaluation" of any golf course but when I see a really bad looking containment mound in a photo I know I can "assay" it well enough to know it will probably look even worse when I go see it in person or even hit 360 shots from it from every conceivable wind position!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Oh yeah, "Scotland's Gift". I believe it was Gil Hanse's book. I could go over there and get it again or you could just tell me what's on p. 205 that you're referring to and I would be more than happy to comment on it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'd rather not deprive you of the joy of rereading page 205, especially the next to last paragraph for yourself.    

I also need your mailing address, please email it to me at
PMJRMMM@optonline.com

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I have never seen anyone change email addresses half as much as you do!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I have to, to keep Rees, Fazio and Coore & Crenshaw from asking me for consulting advice all the time.

I do have a family and business that I devote a considerable amount of time to, and I can't be constantly chased by these wannabes seeking my time and advice.  It ain't easy I tell you.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
My version must be different than your version because there ain't anything on page 205 that would add interest to this topic.

But since we are discussing the analysis of photos, what is your opinion of anaylsing old photos like the old 12th GCGC. You seemed to have studied old photos of that hole very carefully and ultimately came to the conslusion that is was worth trying to restore. What is your opinion of the old 12th? And how does your opposition to photographic analysis jive with that process?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The current 12th hole is totally out of context with the rest of the golf course.

One could redesign the 12th hole by just incorporating the repetitive "formulaic" design features found throughout the golf course.  The result would be a substantive improvement.

Aerials of the course in 1936, before the hole was altered provide its exact location relative to the other holes, and can provide its internal and external configuration, but they don't provide any hint of playability.

Tom Paul,

Please pardon my typo, it's page 295, sorry      

Tom MacWood,

Ditto, it's page 295.  What do you think CBM thought of photographic analysis of a hole or golf course, based on his comments on page 295 ?