Are you ready for a really controversial thread ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jud,

If you'd like to start one of your very infrequent threads on who's a better architect and why, please feel free to do so, nobody is stopping you.

Some, like Archie Struthers, understand the gist of this thread, others, such as yourself, don't.

[archie_struthers]

  :

Actually, I'd be shocked if Rees would ever ok dunes that looked so raggedy and random as the ones we built at Twisted Dune. But we digress.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

Mounds can serve many purposes, financially and aesthetically, and few understand those uses, confining them to aesthetics rather than function

[Greg Tallman]

Jud,

If you'd like to start one of your very infrequent threads on who's a better architect and why, please feel free to do so, nobody is stopping you.

Some, like Archie Struthers, understand the gist of this thread, others, such as yourself, don't.

Pat, In fariness Jud understands perfectly but does not buy into the premise.

When you boil things down this thread is not all that different than the college football thread.   

[Chris Shaida]

Archie,

Mounds can serve many purposes, financially and aesthetically, and few understand those uses, confining them to aesthetics rather than function

There seems to be some sort of reading comprehension problem here since we have clearly established that since the site of this course is the state of florida and that since in this state a pile of dirt 80 feet high has been called a 'mountain' for a very long time we should be talking about 'mountains' not 'mounds.'

Having cleared that up I am eagerly awaiting enlightenment on the 'financial' purposes of mounds mountains.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

Mounds can serve many purposes, financially and aesthetically, and few understand those uses, confining them to aesthetics rather than function

There seems to be some sort of reading comprehension problem here since we have clearly established that since the site of this course is the state of florida and that since in this state a pile of dirt 80 feet high has been called a 'mountain' for a very long time we should be talking about 'mountains' not 'mounds.'

Having cleared that up I am eagerly awaiting enlightenment on the 'financial' purposes of mounds mountains.

Chris,

Since you're so obviously ignorant on the "financial" purpose of mounds, and oblivious as to why the ODG's used them in good numbers, I'll direct you to the "courses by country" section of this website, specifically, Boca Rio, and the "financial" purpose of mounding.  After reading the review, let me know if you still don't understand the "financial" purpose and I'll try to help educate you further.

In brief, the answer is, for the very same reason that the spoil piles were left on site at Streamsong.
The cost to truck excavated dirt, off site, is prohibitive.
It's "financially", far more efficient to find a purpose for excess dirt/spoil on site, for a variety of purposes, including the creation of acoustical and visual barriers and to bury debris that can't be placed underground.

Historically, the ODG's created debris mounds, most right on the holes where the debris was originally located, since the cost to take the debris off site, or even to another location on site was prohibitive.

The next time you want to try being a smart ass, be prepared to learn how much you don't really know.

[Chris Shaida]

Pat,

As I said, I was eagerly awaiting enlightenment...and that continues to be the case.

[hhuffines]

I doubt Chris needs much help with anything financial, but while we're at it, how bout explaining what it means to get your RACTS right at the same time you're degrading another man's reading comprehension?  (See your post #198). Or do you also say "rut roh" when something bad happens?

[Eric Smith]

Pat,

As I said, I was eagerly awaiting enlightenment...and that continues to be the case.

Chris - might as well sit back and enlighten another cigar while you're at it!

[archie_struthers]

  ?? [url]


Ok , we've wandered here from the question as to architects and their perception on site, and I've never been an apologist for Pat, as he certainly is capable defending his assertions, right or wrong . LOL.

  But.


Mounds such as those built that Tom used at Streamsong are expensive to build from scratch but can serve many purposes. As Pat said , they can muffle sounds and mask movement, thus allowing a tee to be built in close proximity to a green site ,  which shortens the walk and makes almost all here quite happy    

. They can certainly muffle sounds from the outside world, making the golf course quiet and surreal in doing so, much like acreage and foliage do the same at Pine Valley and Augusta , to name just two p respected venues. We play close to a busy road on the 18th hole at Twisted Dune and I defy you to hear or see it without climbing to the top of a "mountain" .  It also protects cars from a wayward shot , but remember these walls of dirt are a great deal bigger than most , being tall and quite wide.  Growing grasses and shrubs on them adds to the muffler , and look quite nice to,a Scotsman.

Personally, my experience is if you cut down to build them , they  far more pleasing aesthetically, mirroring the glacial affect . Never liked the look of Loxahatchee, though I understood the reasons why they were used. The look of Streamsong or Bayonne  is far nicer. At Bayonne they allowed for some great holes on limited acreage, the layering effect of the heights allowing safety despite proximity.

As to finances and dirt, where it not for some dirty political intervention as the "middleman" in our deal , we wold have reaped great economic reward selling the waste product. (clean fill)..  But that's a story which brings back too many bad memories , and no doubt would cause me further grief with the ruling class if we unearthed the bones.  A cliiffs notes version would be that we sold over 2,500,000 tons to fill the H-tract where the Borgata now stands. The state  paid  almost $6 a ton for the fill, we got $1.65 to dig it , load it and 1.65 a ton to ship . The middleman made more than the provider. A lot more.

[Bryan Izatt]

Steve,

How dare you defile and desecrate my picture like that.      You should never listen to that Arble guy about bunkers.   

Sean,

I will accept that the water might be called "eye candy" but how could you NOT build a green on this spot? I suppose you might even call the large dune behind and left of the green "eye candy." So what? It is an awesome setting for a green complex, right?

What has not been mentioned is the tremendous movement of the green.That is what stands out to me as being the key challenge of playing the hole well, plus the front left bunker. The rest of the landforms are just pleasant distractions.

Bill

I was being a bit sarcastic.  It seems all archies want to build bunkers next water these days.  Its a bad trend and very difficult to pull off aesthetically.  If water is there, use it well, not just for eye candy.

I can understand the bunker to the right which mitigates against indiscriminate shots kicking in from that direction and enhances hole locations on the side of the green.  The back left bunker is a bit odd looking, but I can see its value in creating fun hole locations on the left of the green. For overly cautious tee shots which now must come out of that bunker toward water with a fall-away front of the green looks to be solid design.  Still, for me there is a fundamental flaw with the forward bunker - it is unnecessary and eliminates the prime reason for the green site.  I expect it may be there to balance the "scene".  Which means the primary question could be sand or no sand?  If there is to be sand, aesthetically, to balance the scene three is best.   It may be reasonable to get away with one.  Strategically, the back bunker can go because chipping from the swale accomplishes virtually the same thing as the bunker - in fact for me, I would prefer to be in sand.  However, aesthetically, if there is to be one bunker, that is probably the best place for it, but I think the right side, strategically is the best place.  

No question the the best part of the hole is the green.  It looks very fine!

It would be interesting if someone could photo shop the other choices of

1. No bunkers

2. No bunker up front - which I think will look weird

3. Only back left bunker

4. Only right bunker

I ask this again and again, why do archies stick bunkers next to water?

Ciao

Just for fun:

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

As I said, I was eagerly awaiting enlightenment...and that continues to be the case.

Then my suspicions regarding your ignorance are confirmed

[Patrick_Mucci]

I doubt Chris needs much help with anything financial, but while we're at it, how bout explaining what it means to get your RACTS right at the same time you're degrading another man's reading comprehension?  (See your post #198). Or do you also say "rut roh" when something bad happens?

Hhuffnes,

Only a "moron" would equate a typo with "getting your facts right" !

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

Agree about Bayonne, where a three dimensional golf course was created and the use of mounds quite creative.

On a flat site that was 10' ASL, the mounds, from the moment you drive in the front gate, have multiple functions, from safety, to acoustical and visual.

Eric was incredibly creative with Bayonne, probably more so than Fazio at Shadow Creek.

7,000,000+ cubic yards is a lot mounds 

[Bill Brightly]

Steve,

How dare you defile and desecrate my picture like that.    You should never listen to that Arble guy about bunkers.  

Sean,

I will accept that the water might be called "eye candy" but how could you NOT build a green on this spot? I suppose you might even call the large dune behind and left of the green "eye candy." So what? It is an awesome setting for a green complex, right?

What has not been mentioned is the tremendous movement of the green.That is what stands out to me as being the key challenge of playing the hole well, plus the front left bunker. The rest of the landforms are just pleasant distractions.

Bill

I was being a bit sarcastic.  It seems all archies want to build bunkers next water these days.  Its a bad trend and very difficult to pull off aesthetically.  If water is there, use it well, not just for eye candy.

I can understand the bunker to the right which mitigates against indiscriminate shots kicking in from that direction and enhances hole locations on the side of the green.  The back left bunker is a bit odd looking, but I can see its value in creating fun hole locations on the left of the green. For overly cautious tee shots which now must come out of that bunker toward water with a fall-away front of the green looks to be solid design.  Still, for me there is a fundamental flaw with the forward bunker - it is unnecessary and eliminates the prime reason for the green site.  I expect it may be there to balance the "scene".  Which means the primary question could be sand or no sand?  If there is to be sand, aesthetically, to balance the scene three is best.   It may be reasonable to get away with one.  Strategically, the back bunker can go because chipping from the swale accomplishes virtually the same thing as the bunker - in fact for me, I would prefer to be in sand.  However, aesthetically, if there is to be one bunker, that is probably the best place for it, but I think the right side, strategically is the best place.  

No question the the best part of the hole is the green.  It looks very fine!

It would be interesting if someone could photo shop the other choices of

1. No bunkers

2. No bunker up front - which I think will look weird

3. Only back left bunker

4. Only right bunker

I ask this again and again, why do archies stick bunkers next to water?

Ciao

Just for fun:

Thanks for the photoshop showing the hole without bunkers. I trust most on this site feel that the contrast of the whites sand adds great beauty to the hole. But maybe a links purist likes it better without bunkers and the introduction of a possible run up shot with random bounces? From a golfing perspective, this hole seems to be all about the green and the front left bunker, while the water and mound serve to make it a great "picture."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

I think it looks like a great hole with and without the bunkering.

Bryan,

What would it look like without the jagged mounds ?

Thanks

[Brad Isaacs]

IS the question behind the statement a comment on minimalism?  THEY MOVE DIRT but just make it look like they don't.........