Old Marsh - Old Mounds ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Many on this site have maintained that Pete Dye did some of his best work early in his career, others have asserted otherwise.

Last week I played Old Marsh four (4) times, once with Ran in
two hours flat.

What struck me about Old Marsh this last week was the incredible number of MOUNDS throughout the golf course.  Containment mounds, greenside mounds, framing mounds, bunker mounds, and blocking mounds.

I don't recall anyone every being critical of the mounding at Old Marsh, or Pete Dyes use of mounds.  Yet, there they were, all over the place, on a flat Florida golf course.

So the SPECIFIC question is, why hadn't this erudite group ever been critical of Old Marsh's mounds or Pete Dye's extensive use of mounds at this golf course ?

Or, are all types of mounds acceptable for use by certain, favored architects ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,
I seem to remember reading somewhere that mounding at OM was done to deflect all surface run-off into retention ponds as no water, even rainwater that fell on the course, was allowed to drain into any of the surrounding wetlands. Could this be a reason for all the mounds?

[Paul Richards]

jim:

that strikes a chord with what I remember.

Dye talks about it in his book "Bury me in a Pot Bunker."

[bm]

I dont think you would need mounds to divert drainage water (a simple pitch at 2% will do it). He either had other ideas, strategy (blocking views, diverting shots) or just liked mounds at that time.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I turned down my only invitation to play Old Marsh, so I can't comment specifically on that venue.

However, on your broader question about Pete Dye and mounding, I'm guessing people just accept a heavy dose of artificiality as part of Dye's style.  You either like it or you don't.

Initially, I didn't like the Dye style at all.  He was the exact opposite of the Mackenzie style I prefer.  But, eventually I changed my view and came to accept Dye as he is: mounding, excessive earth moving, artificiality galore!

I hate it if everyone adopted Dye's style, but I will accept one guy doing what he has done.

[guest]

the water doesn't need to drain very far at old marsh  water water everywhere forced carries water lined holes forced carries and more water lined holes inbetween water holes  is there a course with more water

[Paul Richards]

Pat:

Also remember that the "style" of the times when this course
was built was mounds, chocolate drops, etc.  See
Loxahatchee and others as proof.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I've never seen Old Marsh. The lone photo I've seen is always the shortish par-4 with mounds blinding the green - there is similar hole at Long Cove - I don't recall seeing any containment mounding in that shot, but from that photo the course doesn't look too appealing. Should the course be criticized or is this a round-a-bout way of defending Rees by illustrating a double standard - kind of like your Beau Desert post?

Do you consider Old Marsh early in Dye's career? Which of Dye's periods do you prefer?

[BillV]

This is one demanding, penal golf course.  Not a lot of golf joy here, not one of Pete Dye's more fun courses.  Very limited by the wetlands, it is pretty unidimensional.  AS I haveposted on this course before, lots of forced carries and hazard lined fairways, a bitch in the wind, but not without merit.

A propos the Rees topic and the mounding (Elsewhere this a.m.) the mounding here is about as natural as a twenty-something fresh from the plastic surgeon in a tight sweater.

The worst mounding I have ever seen is the back nine at Ogeechee / Ford Plantation.  Unbelievable, and it is Dye!  There is one mound there that needs a flag on top of it for whomever has been brave enough to scale it.  Perhaps it should be called Mt. Dye.  Wish I had a picture to post.

Addendum:  It was once on GD's top 100.  

[BCrosby]

Pat -

I've played Old Marsh about 10 times.  I hated the mounds the first time I saw them.  I disliked them even more the last time I played them.

Unless I have to go back for business reasons, I won't.

My understanding from one of the original investors is that the development was not very successful.  He thought it was due in large part to the perception that the course was no fun for the weaker golfer and too tricked up for stronger golfer.

I didn't argue with him.

Bob  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy and Paul Richards,

Most of the mounds have little to do with drainage.
Inverted catch basins serve that purpose, creating interesting lies, and too much relief.  BM is correct on the issue.

Tim Weiman,

Don't turn down your next invite.  Old Marsh is a very good golf course, in excellent condition, with some nice winds to make it more interesting.

Tom MacWood,

You keep harping on Rees Jones, try to not to let your bias redirect your thoughts, causing you to drift from the posted subject, be it Boca Rio or Old Marsh

Old Marsh is a very good golf course despite the impression you received from the pictures you viewed.  One has to see it, or better yet, play it to get a genuine feel for the golf course.

Despite the abundance of various shaped, located and sized mounds, I assess Old Marsh as a very good golf course.
The tactical or strategic merit is very strong in my opinion.  

Yet, on this site, there seems to be a predisposition against any form of mounding, and especially the types of mounds found at Old Marsh.

Even though Old Marsh is populated with mounds the golf course and its strategic merits shine through.

I do understand that the St Augustine grass on the mounds will be replaced with another strain, due to the St Augustine's tendency to hold a ball on a slope, or have it nestle down, making advancement difficult.

Why, at Old Marsh, have the abundance of mounds, not diminished the playability and strategic merit of the golf course ?

Personally, I prefer Pete Dye's exclamation points to his periods.

Bill V,

I don't find the carries heroic, and the fairways are generous at 50 to 70 yards wide.  The par threes are tough, and water can be a hazard if you take the riskier shot, but there is ample room to play it safe.

Perhaps the surrounding homes, and ever present water scare or turn-off more people than the merits or demerits of the golf course.

Hole by hole, I think it is terrific.

But, that's just my opinion.

[Paul Richards]

Patrick:

Like you, I enjoyed Old Marsh.  

However, if the wind is howling, there are a few carries
from the back tees that most normal golfers cannot make.

I guess that's why Pete put forward tees in ....

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I didn't mean to imply anything negative about Old Marsh.

The invitation came when I was living in Southern California and I just couldn't make the timing/logistics work.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Sorry, my mistake. No need for name calling.

I mistakenly thought since you have many times in the past defended Rees and his mounds, and since your last thread regarding mounds - the Beau Desert mound - involved you pointing out that had it been designed by Rees it would have been roundly criticized, I logically concluded this thread was another attempt to point out a bias or double standard. Infact you concluded your intro to this thread by asking, "why hadn't this erudite group ever been critical of Old Marsh's mounds or Pete Dye's extensive use of mounds at this golf course? Or, are all types of mounds acceptable for use by certain, favored architects?" Since the architect who is seems to be most often criticized for mounds is Rees, I again logically thought maybe you were trying to point out a double standard for the "favored architects" - its hard not to draw that conclusion. I thought I was on subject, perhaps you should have rephrased the question.

Or better yet explain why you think the mounds at Old Marsh work, isn't it much more instructive than name calling or blindly accusing others of a double standard? Why do you think the mounds are effective? Articulate your view of their architectural merit.

One correction Pete Dye's early period includes courses like Crooked Stick, The Golf Club, Harbour Town and Casa de Campo, from about '64 to '71. Old Marsh was built in 1987 or sixteen years after this early period - and is probably part of his exclamation points period, whatever that is.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Apology accepted

Without seeing the incredible amount and variety of mounding at Old Marsh it is difficult if not impossible for anyone to get an accurate understanding of the golf course.
 
I would suggest that the extensive mounding is like nothing you've ever seen, and you can throw in Rees or Fazio if you like.

I have always favored the side of playability.  I think it overcomes features removed from the line of play, despite their relative attractiveness or unattractiveness.  But, many on this site have objected feverishly to any type of artificial mounds, yet, never have I heard one word of criticism toward Pete Dye's work at Old Marsh where mounds are in incredible abundance.  Why do you think the site has been silent ?
Especially at a golf course that could be the most mounded golf course in the world ??

Old Marsh is unique.

Some mounds are containment mounds, as on the left side of hole # 5, # 6, #7, others form unique visual and physical obstacles, as at the front of hole # 5, # 2 and # 1, others offer difficult challenges around the green such as hole # 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., etc..

I don't think mounds are inherently bad design features, and Old Marsh would seem to be an ideal example of where extensive mounding, that doesn't fit in with the natural terrain, doesn't detract from the playability and look of the golf course.

I think, before drawing any conclusions, or developing any theories, that you really have to see Old Marsh, preferably play Old Marsh, to get a true picture of the incredible mounding, and the strategic merits of the golf course.

Everyone has there own preferences on golf courses, their own internal ranking or rating system, but if the Bear's Club made the top 50 modern day courses, and Old Marsh is absent the list, I think the ballots must have been mixed up.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I think you may be suffering from selective memory or maybe overstating the case to make a point. The mounding at Whistling Straits, the Irish, Mystic Rock, Bulle Rock and the 'new' Crooked Stick have all been criticized by members of this 'erudite' group. Do you think your statement that there are some on this site who object to any kind of artificial mounding is inaccurate or is - at least - an overstatement? Who exaclty are you referring to, no need to dance around the subject?

I'm not interested in drawing any conclusions, I'm interested in your conclusions. You've described the types of mounding Dye used at Old Marsh and that mounds are not inherently bad, but why do you think these mounds are effective? Why do you like them? Is it the way they are worked into the design and effect play, their aesthetic/visual quality, the way they break-up the flat site,...or some other reason(s)?

What are examples of mounds that you don't care for and why don't you care for them?

In my view some of the best mounding ever created was done by Stanley Thompson. They have an angular look, an almost sharp-edged or broken quality that looks very natural. In combination with his bold bunkering they function to create great strategic and visual interest. The mounding at Old Marsh, and some of the mounding at Dye's other courses of this period, has a similar quality. Would you agree?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

If you could confine your response to the specific case study,
Old Marsh, you will see that the facts reveal that Pete Dye was never criticized for the excessive, out-of-sync with nature, mounding he created at this site.  Yet, the course is terrific, in my opinion.

I realize you've never seen or played Old Marsh, so perhaps you should take a pass on this thread, and let those with first hand experience debate the issues related to OLD MARSH, unless of course you prefer to continue to discuss and debate the features, merits and demerits of a course you've never seen.  That doesn't seem logical, but.....it wouldn't be the first time.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Answer the questions, if you are able.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Stick to the subject, if you are able.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I re-read your original post and I think it is pretty clear this thread is about Old Marsh, Pete Dye, mounding and the lack of criticism of those three. What exactly is off subject with these questions?

1)Do you think your statement that there are some on this site who object to any kind of artificial mounding is inaccurate or is - at least - an overstatement? (A question regarding/ repeating your exact quote)

2)Who exactly are you referring to, no need to dance around the subject? (Asking for clarification of your exact quote)
 
3)You've described the types of mounding Dye used at Old Marsh and that mounds are not inherently bad, but why do you think these mounds are effective? (Asking you to articulate your opinion of Old Marsh's mounds)

4)Why do you like them? (Again asking you to articulate your opinion of Old Marsh's mounds)

5)Is it the way they are worked into the design and effect play, their aesthetic/visual quality, the way they break-up the flat site,...or some other reason(s)? (Trying to help you articulate your opinion)

6)What are examples of mounds that you don't care for and why don't you care for them? (Trying to get some reference as to your opinion of good and bad mounds)

7)The mounding at Old Marsh, and some of the mounding at Dye's other courses of this period, has a similar quality. Would you agree?  (Asking if we might have a common view of effective mounding)

Forgive me if these questions are too difficult, it wasn't my intention to embarass you with questions you are unable to answer. I was simply trying to explore the subject in more detail.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

In what context would you evaluate my answers ?

You've never seen Old Marsh !

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

The first two questions are not specifically related to Old Marsh. They are general questions asking for carification of your comments on this thread about some of the members of this DG.

The next five questions are asking you to specify why you like these mounds and your general opinion of mounds. Your answer will be evaluated in the context of the thousands of other mounds I have seen - including many created by Dye.

If I had seen the course or I could read your mind, I wouldn't need to ask the questions. Aren't you interested in sharing your experiences and views with those of us that have not been to Old Marsh or don't know what your opinion of mounding? You've never had difficulty sharing your views of NGLA or Garden City or Atlantic, please forgive me if I am taking you into unchartered territory.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

1    Anything not related to Old Marsh
1A  No
2    No need to be coy
3    I answered the question, but you missed it.  It had to do
      with removal from lines or play, and I'll add the      
      presentation of a pseudo hazard in a land of water & sand
4     I didn't say I liked them
5     Keep trying
6     A Hole by Hole, Location by Location explanation would
       be futile with someone who has never seen the golf
       course and has no frame of reference
7     Unlike you, I can only make specific comments on golf
       courses I've played, and the mounds at Old Marsh bear
      no similarity to the mounds I saw at Crooked Stick
8     How can you embarass me regarding Old Marsh when
      you are globally and specifically ignorant on everything
      on that particular golf course.

Perhaps your debates would be better served on issues where you have experience, expertise, and an understanding of the topic, and can express your viewpoints based on facts not speculation or conjuring.  

Subjects like Jewish courses or unfair criticisms of Rees Jones seem to be your bailiwick, perhaps you should leave debate on golf courses to those who have actually experienced them.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Regarding Point #6, I agree it probably makes no sense to go through each hole at Old Marsh.  Most likely, very few people here have seen the course.

But, I would encourage you to select two or three examples worth highlighting.  That will make the discussion more meaningful for everyone, don't you think?

[BCrosby2]

Pat -

I can't let this thread fade away without putting in my two cents.

As I mentioned, I've played OM about 10 times.  Most of those were with a group of guys I've played golf with for years.  I played OM last about 7/8 years ago.

It is a misbegotten golf course.

Everyone in my group left OM disliking it, and that included a couple of the initial investors in the project.

First, the weaker golfers lost sleeve after sleeve of golf balls.  This same group will play a Ross course for weeks and lose very few.  There was a thread once about how judiciously the golden agers used water hazards.  As with so many other things, they were right to not overuse water as a strategic feature.  Dye never learned that simple lesson and OM is Exhibit A.

The mounds.  I don't get your affection for them.  

They are extraordinarily artificial looking.  True abominations on a course in S. Florida.  You don't agree?  Do you think they blend, somehow, with the surrounds?

As for their strategic role, when not used to artificialy frame fairways, they front greens (no.1, no.5?(the hole with the indian burial mound just in front of the green), no.10) forcing aerial approaches into those few greens not directly bordered by water.  With the wind blowing at 20mph+ every day, Dye is forcing me to hit the dumbest possible shot under the circumstances.  With no real options.  What is it, specifically, you enjoy about hitting those kind of  approach shots in the ever present south FLA tradewinds?

Let's get back to the indian burial mound hole.  5? (Sorry, its been a while.)  Totally blind approach to a green bordered by water.  Now I enjoy a blind shot as much as the next guy.  But a blind shot that must be hit very high to clear a very large mound to a green bordered by water while fighting the FLA tradewinds is not my idea of fun.  Or strategy.  Or even an interesting quirk.  It's silliness.  Maybe it's architecutral ego run amuck?  Whatever it is, I don't want to revisit it anytime soon.

We might talk about some other holes.  

But the real bottom line for me was that - wide fairways or not - my friends with handicaps higher than 8 lost golf ball after golf ball at OM.  The mounds gave them fits.  Even slight misses are severely penalized.  The mounds in front of and around greeens, the water, water everywhere - made interesting recovery opportunities virtually non-existent for them.

After a couple of days, they dreaded playing the course again, and their dread colored the whole trip.  Hell, I dreaded watching them suffer through it and I was taking most of the money.  It was no fun.

No golf course should have that effect on average players.  Boring courses, badly maintained courses, even Fazio courses would have been a better choice for my friends.  In the end, it seems to me, their unhappiness is also an architectural failure.

I don't know what has happened to OM since my last visit.  I've heard the development has not done well and the course is a reason often given.  That would be consistent with my friends' experience there.

Bob