Are you ready for a really controversial thread ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I understand the question, but I don't think it's rooted in reality.

Alex, you clearly don't understand the question.

You're not in the same zip code

Most recognize that Rees Jones has never built something like this, and the fact that he is criticized on here may have less to do with bias than you believe.

People have brought up the routing issue with this hole. People have mentioned that 16 Red may be too difficult with a front pin.   I don't think anyone is immune to criticism, and if you feel that you are free of bias then say what you think should be said about the hole.
How many times do I have to tell you it's NOT about the hole, it's about a feature.

Clearly, you don't understand the question

[Phil McDade]

We can't forget the fact that this is a 36-hole routing built by two different architects working together and at the same time to stitch together a cohesive, intertwined routing. Has this ever been done before? It's amazing that they were able to get it to work with only a couple of these disruptions.

And a significant distinction with Erin Hills, which had an enormous canvas upon which to work, double the space of most courses, and only one 18-hole course to develop. Apples and oranges?

Phil,

Perhaps makes Erin Hills all the less impressive when put in that light.  Did they take the "let's not move a teaspoon of dirt if possible" thing too far?  Did they try to do what Tom did on this hole 18 times at the expense of a routing that was a pleasant walk (but now has no carts)?

Jud:

I think that's a fair argument. The original version moved very little dirt, save for some green shaping. Lots of stuff -- the tiny tea-cup green of the 2nd, the esker runway tee of the 3rd, the very large rolling hills of the 8th and 12th, the high funk of the 15th -- all that's original, and in a lot of ways, those are some very good holes. But, to me, Erin Hills is a combination of some really good holes, followed by some "eh" holes, followed by some great holes, followed by more "eh." I find the current 17-18 finish pretty much a letdown, save for the pretty cool green site of the 18th (although I don't think that backside falloff or the big depression in front will come into play all that often).

Again, I'm not overly critical of EHills as a solid test of golf -- I thought it was great during the US Amateur, after a very dry summer here. But to me the pieces just don't fit, and I think the eternal question of the place will always be (given the expanse of land, and really cool land there): was there a better routing out there? For instance, I do know of one routing that had holes 4 and 3, and portions of 2, running the opposite direction. Those are pretty natural corridors for holes, with some really cool features on 2 -- would reversing them have led to better holes, and thus a routing considerably different than the one they have? Who knows...(Dan Moore, who has studied the course extensively, once suggested he thought the course might be missing a truly great long par 3, and wondered if it was somewhere out there, and by that I think he meant: not in the land remaining, but in its original blank slate.)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Perhaps it's that the question wasn't clear.

Depends on whether one possesses reasonable intelligence or if they're just a moron

Why don't you try to clarify what was bouncing around your fertile mind in the OP?  

How many hints do I have to give you ?

BTW, you're welcome for the OP picture.  

It's a great photo,..... inspirational

Vis-a-vis the original state of the land that Doak worked, just in case you don't accept Tom's word, here is a December 31, 2009 aerial that clearly shows the pond and the spoils piles and even the low spot where the green was sited.

And you think the entire site looked like that ? ? ?
Please, it's obvious that you don't understand the term "site", or the fact that Tom stated that Florida would be his 47 guess




And, here's a link to a Keith Rhebb picture of the hole early in construction.  The "dunes" are undisturbed.

So, it's your position that the entire site was "dunes"

Fact is, it's not a natural landscape, it's not typical of the terrain in the area.

Or, do you think that the area surrounding Shadow Creek looks like........Shadow Creek ?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithrhebb/5271285207/in/set-72157624336297903/]http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithrhebb/5271285207/in/set-72157624336297903/]http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithrhebb/5271285207/in/set-72157624336297903/

[Patrick_Mucci]

As to Rees not being able to design this hole Tom Doak hit the nail on the head.

I'll never forget all the criticism of Tom Fazio, and how he couldn't design anything classic or minimalist, that he could only design in his "style"

And then he created the 10 hole short course at Pine Valley and shut all the "morons" up

[Philippe Binette]

The issue is not whether architect A can built a course like architect B, it's whether they CHOOSE to do so or not.

It's not because a hole looks great that it's a golf hole. It's like some greens with very complicated contours that most people would go WOW, what a natural green...

but does it play well, is the green coherent with the strategy of the hole, does it influence play.... or is it just a bunch of contours in the wind..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Philippe,

The intent of the thread was to focus on the mounds, something Rees has been criticized for.

The mounds pictured are rather severe.

One could claim that they're out of sync with the local natural terrain, or that they're highly manufactured and not like anything found in nature, and thus out of place.

I happen to think the hole looks great if you just confined the hole to the green and bunkers.
The unnatural mounds add a distinctive flavor.

If Rees designed this hole, all hell would break loose over his use of "mounding"

And all the praise heaped upon Tom would turn to criticism and scorn directed toward Rees, yet, they're the exact same mounds.
They didn't change.

What changed was your perspective on architecture based on the architect.

So, how discerning and objective are you when it comes to evaluating architecture if your opinion is heavily influenced by who the author is ?

I wonder what would have happened if after completion of the two courses, no one knew who the architects were ?


[/quote]

[Frank M]

I can't help but notice how much the setting sticks out like a sore thumb. Almost feels like the golf course equivalent of a theme park with all its roller coasters built in the middle of nowhere. This picture depicts a more definite "spoils" feel than "dunes."

[Alex Miller]

The dunes, or for the purposes of this thread "mounding" is large, but it's also devoid of symmetry and full of randomness. It still appears natural to the site, and at the very least mature. Rees Jones' mounds look placed due to their smooth surfaces and often symmetry to the hole they surround.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Alex,

Any claim that those mounds look natural erodes your credibility and/or powers of observation

[Phil McDade]

Alex,

Any claim that those mounds look natural erodes your credibility and/or powers of observation

Patrick:

What's the difference between mounds left by a phosphate mining company and those left by glaciers?

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,29760.0/

[Matthew Sander]

Pat,

Any criticism of Jones' mounding has been directed at mounds he built. Mr. Doak did not build those mounds. If you can find record of someone criticizing mounds Jones used that were pre-existing landforms, then you may be on to something.

[Alex Miller]

Alex,

Any claim that those mounds look natural erodes your credibility and/or powers of observation

I said they appear natural to the site. The site was a former mine.

[Philippe Binette]

The mounds at Streamsong were there to start with, if I'm right and Tom Doak used it and the bunkering was developed according to the site.

Other architects might have used it, or not, or differently.

Is the hole built the best it could be, that's left to wonder... others could have built something different or better... we'll never know.

Could Rees have built a good looking hole out of this, in the eyes of most golfers definitely...

is this hole all about setup ? probably not but the setup helps.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Any criticism of Jones' mounding has been directed at mounds he built. Mr. Doak did not build those mounds.

No, a heavy equipment operator did, but he left them intact, which is tantamount to building them

If you can find record of someone criticizing mounds Jones used that were pre-existing landforms, then you may be on to something.
I don't believe that one person criticized those mounds.
Instead, some claimed they were natural to the site. which is patently absurd, they're not natural to the site, a heavy equipment operator created them from the natural site when he altered the natural site in the course of the mining operation.

If someone would have argued that the cost to modify or eliminate them was prohibitive, I'd readily accept that, but no one did.

As I said, I happen to like the sharp contrast they provide, but that's not the issue.

[Jason Thurman]

Pat,

I think what I have a hard time reconciling is why it's ok for a course to utilize manufactured features that had already been constructed before course design began, but it's not ok for an architect to manufacture those features.

It also raises the question of what obligation a designer who believes in minimalism and naturalism has when taking over a site already in a completely unnatural state. To me, that obligation depends on the state of the site. There are a few mom and pop public courses I grew up on that were built on tiny budgets on old farmland. They'd been graded dead-flat, and they featured huge rectangular manufactured retention ponds everywhere. Even though almost no dirt was moved during construction, they're hardly minimalist or naturalist. Everything about the course looks completely unnatural.

Looking at a site like Streamsong though, it seems it would've been a tragedy to attempt to "restore" the original character of the land before construction commenced. I don't know if we can call the RESULT minimalist or naturalist, but certainly the construction philosophy could be described as such and coupled with a highly manufactured site, it looks to have created a unique golf experience.

What's the difference, though, between an architect taking over a manufactured site and maintaining its character as much as possible as opposed to an architect taking over a dull but natural site and completely manufacturing new character? Ignoring the aesthetic styling and difference in clientele and maintenance budget, etc, the construction process for Streamsong looks a lot like the construction process for Shadow Creek, just with different people driving the bulldozers. Is one preferential to the other, and if so why?

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

I'm curious if you have any other examples of pre-existing unnatural features that were incorporated into a course.  

If we're going to discuss a perceived architect bias, it only makes sense to compare what Tom did at Streamsong to what others have done with similar pre-existing conditions.  

Off the top of my head, here are some other brownfield/reuse sites:

Chambers Bay
Any landfill course
The Highlands of Elgin (as noted by John Kavanaugh earlier in the thread)
Quarry at Giants Ridge
Old Works
Harbor Shores
Victoria National
Tobacco Road
Lost Dunes
Savannah GC - the bunkers were adapted batteries built by the Confederate Army.

Any discussion that does not have an equal starting point on both sides of the equation is moot.

As an aside, Streamsong appears to be one of those rare incidences of prior use creating a site that was better for golf than if it had been left in its natural state.

Sven

[Bryan Izatt]

Perhaps it's that the question wasn't clear.

Depends on whether one possesses reasonable intelligence or if they're just a moron

You are speaking of he who created the elliptical question, aren't you!   

Why don't you try to clarify what was bouncing around your fertile mind in the OP?  

How many hints do I have to give you ?

Why do you have to hint?  Why can't you just ask the question?  I see you've now seen the error of your ways and explained that it's the "mounds". 

BTW, you're welcome for the OP picture.  

It's a great photo,..... inspirational

Vis-a-vis the original state of the land that Doak worked, just in case you don't accept Tom's word, here is a December 31, 2009 aerial that clearly shows the pond and the spoils piles and even the low spot where the green was sited.

And you think the entire site looked like that ? ? ?

No.  Why, do you?  Aren't you breaching Mucci's first law here - commenting on a place you've never seen or played?   

Please, it's obvious that you don't understand the term "site", or the fact that Tom stated that Florida would be his 47 guess

It seems you are more intellectually challenged than usual if you're not sure what "site" you're talking about.





And, here's a link to a Keith Rhebb picture of the hole early in construction.  The "dunes" are undisturbed.

So, it's your position that the entire site was "dunes"

No.  Is it yours?  Have you seen the entire site?  Your comprehension skills are sinking to sub-moronic levels. The undisturbed "dunes" are the ones in the linked picture.

Fact is, it's not a natural landscape, it's not typical of the terrain in the area.

How do you know?  Have you been there?  There is mining for miles around.  I'm sure if you go and look you can find similar mined terrains in the area.  Of course, that wouldn't be in Bowling Green, as you had earlier stated.   

Or, do you think that the area surrounding Shadow Creek looks like........Shadow Creek ?

Don't know.  Haven't been there.  Have you?  I wouldn't pay the price.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithrhebb/5271285207/in/set-72157624336297903/]http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithrhebb/5271285207/in/set-72157624336297903/]http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithrhebb/5271285207/in/set-72157624336297903/

[Bryan Izatt]

Frank,

To each their own, but I think you should hold off your "sore thumb" theme park judgement until after you've actually been there.  The hole and the course fits very nicely on the topography there when the course was designed and built, IMHO.  Feel free to differ after you've seen it.

Patrick,

And, here's a link to a Keith Rhebb picture of the hole early in construction.  The "dunes" are undisturbed.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithrhebb/5271285207/in/set-72157624336297903/]http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithrhebb/5271285207/in/set-72157624336297903/]http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithrhebb/5271285207/in/set-72157624336297903/

I can't help but notice how much the setting sticks out like a sore thumb in the flickr photo provided. Almost feels like the golf course equivalent of a theme park with all it's roller coasters built in the middle of nowhere. This picture depicts a more definite "spoils" feel than "dunes." 

I'll be there in the next few weeks and will judge for myself.

[Frank M]

Bryan, I don't disagree, it's an observation of a photo, not a judgment of a golf course. In fact, I specifically said I will withhold judgement until I visit in a couple of weeks.

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

Any criticism of Jones' mounding has been directed at mounds he built. Mr. Doak did not build those mounds.

No, a heavy equipment operator did, but he left them intact, which is tantamount to building them

You're reaching new levels of illogical logic!  So, you're saying that Doak should have filled the ponds and leveled the ground to some pre-mining topography!    Does anyone even know what the site looked like before it was mined?

If you can find record of someone criticizing mounds Jones used that were preexisting landforms, then you may be on to something.
I don't believe that one person criticized those mounds.
Instead, some claimed they were natural to the site. which is patently absurd, they're not natural to the site, a heavy equipment operator created them from the natural site when he altered the natural site in the course of the mining operation.

So, could you please tell us exactly who those "some" are so that they can be outed for their lack of understanding of your hair-splitting point.  They were natural (i.e. already existing) to the post-mining, pre-design topography, if you want to further hair split. I doubt that there is a single person on this board who has driven in there and played the course that would think that the "dunes" have been there for a 100 or a 1000 years.

If someone would have argued that the cost to modify or eliminate them was prohibitive, I'd readily accept that, but no one did.

Why didn't you?

As I said, I happen to like the sharp contrast they provide, but that's not the issue.

What is the issue, other than your desire to create debating points?  

[Jud_T]

I'm with Sven.  Comparisons to Shadow Creek, or the Rawls Course for that matter,  make no sense.  My understanding is that this was an area that was mined years ago and has been subject to wind, erosion and natural growth for a number of years since.  Then Tom, Bill & Ben came in and made something out of a unique landscape.  One might say Shadow Creek fits right in with the indigenous adult Disneyland nature of Vegas,  but it's a completely different animal as all the man made artifice was done specifically with golf in mind.

Sven, you can add Willow Hil, Bay Harbor and Harborside (?) to that list although perhaps it's best to exclude landfill courses and stick to mining sites.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Philippe,

The intent of the thread was to focus on the mounds, something Rees has been criticized for.

The mounds pictured are rather severe.

One could claim that they're out of sync with the local natural terrain, or that they're highly manufactured and not like anything found in nature, and thus out of place.

I happen to think the hole looks great if you just confined the hole to the green and bunkers.
The unnatural mounds add a distinctive flavor.

If Rees designed this hole, all hell would break loose over his use of "mounding"

And all the praise heaped upon Tom would turn to criticism and scorn directed toward Rees, yet, they're the exact same mounds.
They didn't change.

What changed was your perspective on architecture based on the architect.

So, how discerning and objective are you when it comes to evaluating architecture if your opinion is heavily influenced by who the author is ?

I wonder what would have happened if after completion of the two courses, no one knew who the architects were ?

Pat,
I recently spent 4 days at Streamsong and played both courses. I think there will be a lot of people (non-GCAers) who will play out there and not know the architects. And I think most of those players are going to like the courses. They are very, very good, and to think people think that only because they might know who designed/built them is a severe reach. The bottom line is the courses are excellent.

As far as your mounds theory, its just that a theory. The land forms shown in the photo are most definitely not natural, and no one thinks they are. But they were existing land forms the architects used to come up with some very cool golf. What you call mounds, is actually a very large land form that I would call a lot more of a ridge then a mound. And while not natural, it does have the benefit of many years of natural forces influencing how it looks. The mounds I see criticized, and the mounds I personally do not like, are symmetrical, smoothed off, all similar in height, style, and size. The land forms at Streamsong are dramatic, wild, edgy, severe, totally random. You love to get on people who make comments about courses they've never seen. I suggest you go see Streamsong before you take another bite out of someone who has been there and who has played on, around, and thru those very cool land forms.

[archie_struthers]

 


I'm starting to see a disturbing trend here, that people have to defend Tom Doak for building a course with mounds created by human hand . Who cares if the hole is fun, requires good shots and has strategy . Are you saying if its not minimalist it can't be good.  Guess I take umbrage in that the golf course I designed and built is anything but, but certainly is fun to play and requires skill and some mental acuity to score well. . Of course I'm prejudiced but it looks nice most of the time.  Given we moved four million yards of dirt , does it have to be bad ?  For all intents and purposes we "mined " the site , selling off the material to mitigate costs of construction. It isn't quite the finished product I wanted , but having played lots of really , really fine courses, I still enjoy it, as do many others.

Tom Doak obviously has the talent to build a minimalist course that is really good, or one that isn't minimalist that's really good. Pat smoked out a bunch of you on this , and knew he would.  Didn't take much chum to bring you to the surface.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Archie,
Aren't most people just saying Doak/Coore used the land they were given to build a cool course? How is that defending his use of existing land forms? You think it better to knock them all down and start from scratch? We do what we have to do to build good golf. If the land works as is, you use it. If you have to sell off resources and move some dirt around to make it happen, you do it. I'm not following your point.

I think Streamsong would have been well received had we never even know who designed/ built the golf courses. And I don't see how that theory is any more far fetched then Pat's theory that we would be critical if someone else did the work.

[jeffwarne]

Pat,

Any criticism of Jones' mounding has been directed at mounds he built. Mr. Doak did not build those mounds.

No, a heavy equipment operator did, but he left them intact, which is tantamount to building them

If you can find record of someone criticizing mounds Jones used that were pre-existing landforms, then you may be on to something.
I don't believe that one person criticized those mounds.
Instead, some claimed they were natural to the site. which is patently absurd, they're not natural to the site, a heavy equipment operator created them from the natural site when he altered the natural site in the course of the mining operation.

If someone would have argued that the cost to modify or eliminate them was prohibitive, I'd readily accept that, but no one did.

As I said, I happen to like the sharp contrast they provide, but that's not the issue.

Pat,
The difference is the course was PLACED on a landscape that was previously modified, making the best use of some unusual landforms.
Which,coupled with the sandy soil, was the whole point of choosing the site, and what made it so unusual.
For clarity's sake, let's call them moundtains

Leaving the "moundtains" intact and placing the course in/amongst the landforms IS NOT tantamount to building them.
When you see them, you'll see why (hopefully)  they could not/would not have been built.(and why calling them mounds is inaccurate)
No equipment involved in building a golf course could've moved THAT MUCH DIRT in a reasonable, affordable timeframe to build this course.

Shadow Creek was constructed out of a barren desert at extreme expense, Streamsong was placed and built amongst a scarred,unusual,previously man altered landscape, and there are natural elevation changes in this part of Florida as well.

If Rees, TF,JN Tom Doak, Bill Coore, or any other architect had "built" those "moundtains", yes they would be criticized as it would IMHO, be an irresponsible/inefficient
use of the client's money

edit: unless they could find a way to sell excess material to fund the project (a la Archie)
but then they'd be miners......