[David Ober]

"Maybe someone smarter than me will figure it out someday, but then they would have to get the California Coastal Commission to say okay."



Kalen:


As it turns out, they had a half dozen architects do plans for the property, and decided that mine was the most practical solution.  But I'm still grinding away on it, thinking there ought to be a better solution for the current 5-6-7.

Tom, is there a way to fit a par 3 in the corner behind 4 tee with a tee box to the left of 1 green? Does that open up room to do other things in any way?

[Kalen Braley]

"Maybe someone smarter than me will figure it out someday, but then they would have to get the California Coastal Commission to say okay."

Kalen:

As it turns out, they had a half dozen architects do plans for the property, and decided that mine was the most practical solution.  But I'm still grinding away on it, thinking there ought to be a better solution for the current 5-6-7.

Yea that little corner does seem to be troublesome.

Could the driving range be moved so it takes up the space of the current 18th hole more or less, and then use that space for holes?

[Alex Miller]

Routing wise I don't see the issue with 5 & 6 (though David's suggestion is one I actually did on my own last night as I tried to piece together a routing for fun). #7 is a great place to tee off from, or rather somewhere along #6 would be. I think a hole playing toward #3 and ending near the beginning of that fairway would create a really fun par 4. I can post if there's any interest...


Curious to see if #8 and #9 remain... personally I wasn't able to figure out a way they could be eliminated as I think they're two of the weaker holes, but no doubt can be improved on the ground.

[Alex Miller]

"Maybe someone smarter than me will figure it out someday, but then they would have to get the California Coastal Commission to say okay."



Kalen:


As it turns out, they had a half dozen architects do plans for the property, and decided that mine was the most practical solution.  But I'm still grinding away on it, thinking there ought to be a better solution for the current 5-6-7.

Tom, is there a way to fit a par 3 in the corner behind 4 tee with a tee box to the left of 1 green? Does that open up room to do other things in any way?

Routing wise I don't see the issue with 5 & 6 (though David's suggestion is one I actually did on my own last night as I tried to piece together a routing for fun, except I have a short par 4 from #2 tee to #4 green). #7 is a great place to tee off from, or rather somewhere along #6 would be. I think a hole playing toward #3 and ending near the beginning of that fairway would create a really fun par 4. I can post if there's any interest...


Curious to see if #8 and #9 remain... personally I wasn't able to figure out a way they could be eliminated as I think they're two of the weaker holes, but no doubt can be improved on the ground.

[Matthew Petersen]

Just to throw some predictions out there, I'm assuming holes that stay in the same corridor include 1 (get the road-adjacent land out of the way), 6 (it's a par 3 on a cliff, not sure why it would go away), and 10-13. I don't know what the other 3 would be. My guess is that the 450 yards of cliff used by hole #14 get divided up differently.


I also predict that 18 green will not be an island in the currently-existing lake. 

#14 might be my least favorite hole that I've played in CA.

I would enjoy the hole (a bit) if the fairway weren't so severely canted making so many tee shots roll into the left rough.


As is, I definitely agree with you.

That hillside ruins the hole in multiple ways. It is too severe, as you say, so virtually all shots roll to the left rough. It's also so sever that even though the hole is oceanside you'd never know it ... you can't see the ocean from the hole. It's just such a sad waste of a hole.


It feels like everything about that landform would work better if played in the opposite direction. From the area of the green you at least have some slight ocean views (as you do around the 6th green) and a tee box could probably be pushed a bit closer to the edge to maximize that. Meanwhile, a hole playing NW could either be a downhill par 3 with a mega reverse redan slope, or a downhill par 4/5 shot (perhaps with the hole heading off in the direction of the 15th fairway) where the player could either choose to drive over trouble at a dogleg corner or use the slope in the fairway to their advantage.


How it would work in terms of routing to reverse that hole, though, I haven't really looked at. I just know that it felt like the most awkward part of the property to me and while part of that is just topography (the coastline there is just weird and it is unfortunate that you can be 10 feet from the beach but not be able to see the ocean) there must be a better hole that can occupy that spot.

[Daryl David]

This just might become the first crowdsourced routing. 

[Bill Brightly]

This just might become the first crowdsourced routing. 

Yes, and it must be bothering TD that y'all are taking stabs at the re-routing and he really can't comment!

[Tom_Doak]

This just might become the first crowdsourced routing. 

Yes, and it must be bothering TD that y'all are taking stabs at the re-routing and he really can't comment!

Well, I've already addressed many of the problems discussed, and it's not like I've asked for help.  So if everyone just decided on their own to shut up, I wouldn't be offended.


But I won't really know as this will be my last look at the thread.

[Matt_Cohn]

But I won't really know as this will be my last look at the thread.

Guess this is our chance to talk $#!& about Tom!


But I would enjoy seeing the various armchair routings that people have put together. It's a rare chance to see what we'd do without knowing what the professional will actually come up with.

[David Ober]

This just might become the first crowdsourced routing. 

Yes, and it must be bothering TD that y'all are taking stabs at the re-routing and he really can't comment!

Well, I've already addressed many of the problems discussed, and it's not like I've asked for help.  So if everyone just decided on their own to shut up, I wouldn't be offended.


But I won't really know as this will be my last look at the thread.

Wow, Tom, do you really expect those of us who have played that course 50+ times not to chime in on a course that we enjoy? On a site dedicated to ... golf course architecture?

[Brock Lynch]

Sandpiper has great potential. There are some very good holes, some decent holes, and some dreadful holes. Its weakness is the routing. It doesn't take advantage of the cliffside holes very well. The terrain close to the ocean is pretty good but get away from the ocean and it. is pretty flat. I will be interested to see what Tom does. It needs much more than a facelift.

+1

[Brock Lynch]

This just might become the first crowdsourced routing. 

Yes, and it must be bothering TD that y'all are taking stabs at the re-routing and he really can't comment!

Well, I've already addressed many of the problems discussed, and it's not like I've asked for help.  So if everyone just decided on their own to shut up, I wouldn't be offended.


But I won't really know as this will be my last look at the thread.

Why comment at all?

[Alex Miller]

I for one was excited to hear that there may be some work done at Sandpiper, so I made a routing in powerpoint just for fun. Here it is... I think the routing is fairly obvious, same 1st, 9th, 10th holes with some updates on the ground, though I like #1 as is quite a bit. That damn 13th tee was tempting me to put a green there, but I think it's just too small an area and I doubt it would work. Perhaps a gazebo and dedicated wedding area?

[Joe Perches]

Perhaps integrate the Ellwood/Barnsdall service station ( https://goletahistory.com/ellwood-gas-station/ ) as part of a new clubhouse with a much smaller driving range so that the driving range area can be better utilized for the golf course layout.

[Alex Miller]

Perhaps integrate the Ellwood/Barnsdall service station ( https://goletahistory.com/ellwood-gas-station/ ) as part of a new clubhouse with a much smaller driving range so that the driving range area can be better utilized for the golf course layout.

People have suggested moving the range, but I'm curious as to why. What land is worse than the range that should be swapped?

[Kalen Braley]

Perhaps integrate the Ellwood/Barnsdall service station ( https://goletahistory.com/ellwood-gas-station/ ) as part of a new clubhouse with a much smaller driving range so that the driving range area can be better utilized for the golf course layout.

People have suggested moving the range, but I'm curious as to why. What land is worse than the range that should be swapped?

I don't know about "worse", but if the pond can't be modified and must be left as is, that spot may be better used for the range to open up an area that is currently surrounded by 4 holes, 2 on each 9.  Who knows what other combination of possibilities may arise by having that available.

[Matthew Petersen]

Perhaps integrate the Ellwood/Barnsdall service station ( https://goletahistory.com/ellwood-gas-station/ ) as part of a new clubhouse with a much smaller driving range so that the driving range area can be better utilized for the golf course layout.

People have suggested moving the range, but I'm curious as to why. What land is worse than the range that should be swapped?

The land isn't necessarily any better or worse for golf, but the section which is currently 2/3/4/8/7/most of 5 seems to be the low point of the property relative to the cliff and the portion of the course that really lacks any kind of views out toward the ocean. I can understand wanting the clubhouse to have a nice view, but it seems sort of a waste for the driving range have a great view at the expense of multiple holes on the course (if there's a way to avoid it).

[David Ober]

Perhaps integrate the Ellwood/Barnsdall service station ( https://goletahistory.com/ellwood-gas-station/ ) as part of a new clubhouse with a much smaller driving range so that the driving range area can be better utilized for the golf course layout.

People have suggested moving the range, but I'm curious as to why. What land is worse than the range that should be swapped?

The land isn't necessarily any better or worse for golf, but the section which is currently 2/3/4/8/7/most of 5 seems to be the low point of the property relative to the cliff and the portion of the course that really lacks any kind of views out toward the ocean. I can understand wanting the clubhouse to have a nice view, but it seems sort of a waste for the driving range have a great view at the expense of multiple holes on the course (if there's a way to avoid it).

Why doesn't tom simply shave the cliff down to where more holes have a view of the ocean??? Eazypeazy!!!

[Matthew Petersen]

I for one was excited to hear that there may be some work done at Sandpiper, so I made a routing in powerpoint just for fun. Here it is... I think the routing is fairly obvious, same 1st, 9th, 10th holes with some updates on the ground, though I like #1 as is quite a bit. That damn 13th tee was tempting me to put a green there, but I think it's just too small an area and I doubt it would work. Perhaps a gazebo and dedicated wedding area?

This is very interesting. I quite like your new 16th hole, not surprisingly per my diatribe about current 14 earlier in the thread. I haven't taken the time to play around with a routing and maybe it's inevitable that you have to change a lot if you want to get rid of the 14th but in general my issues with Sandpiper haven't been much about the routing. There are several holes that I feel sit quite nicely in spots, even beyond the usual suspects (1, 2, 7, 16, 17), but they aren't necessarily great or even good holes because they aren't especially well designed. Then there are a lot of holes that are whatever in terms of where they sit (8 or 9 or 4) but there's nothing specifically holding them back from being good holes, either, if a talented designer has the opportunity.


Were you invested in blowing (much of) the whole thing up or was that inevitable based on 1-2 changes that you particularly wanted to make?

[Alex Miller]

Perhaps integrate the Ellwood/Barnsdall service station ( https://goletahistory.com/ellwood-gas-station/ ) as part of a new clubhouse with a much smaller driving range so that the driving range area can be better utilized for the golf course layout.

People have suggested moving the range, but I'm curious as to why. What land is worse than the range that should be swapped?

The land isn't necessarily any better or worse for golf, but the section which is currently 2/3/4/8/7/most of 5 seems to be the low point of the property relative to the cliff and the portion of the course that really lacks any kind of views out toward the ocean. I can understand wanting the clubhouse to have a nice view, but it seems sort of a waste for the driving range have a great view at the expense of multiple holes on the course (if there's a way to avoid it).

Why doesn't tom simply shave the cliff down to where more holes have a view of the ocean??? Eazypeazy!!!

   I'd think the best land is what's most important, as is routing a course that uses the land rather than maximize viewz -> see Trump National LA.


The land that 2-4 is on is actually really interesting, unfortunately the most interesting feature is missed as you hit over the ditch on the second shot at 2 and on the drive at 3. And some good hillocks dotted around in that corner.

[Alex Miller]

I for one was excited to hear that there may be some work done at Sandpiper, so I made a routing in powerpoint just for fun. Here it is... I think the routing is fairly obvious, same 1st, 9th, 10th holes with some updates on the ground, though I like #1 as is quite a bit. That damn 13th tee was tempting me to put a green there, but I think it's just too small an area and I doubt it would work. Perhaps a gazebo and dedicated wedding area?

This is very interesting. I quite like your new 16th hole, not surprisingly per my diatribe about current 14 earlier in the thread. I haven't taken the time to play around with a routing and maybe it's inevitable that you have to change a lot if you want to get rid of the 14th but in general my issues with Sandpiper haven't been much about the routing. There are several holes that I feel sit quite nicely in spots, even beyond the usual suspects (1, 2, 7, 16, 17), but they aren't necessarily great or even good holes because they aren't especially well designed. Then there are a lot of holes that are whatever in terms of where they sit (8 or 9 or 4) but there's nothing specifically holding them back from being good holes, either, if a talented designer has the opportunity.


Were you invested in blowing (much of) the whole thing up or was that inevitable based on 1-2 changes that you particularly wanted to make?

Hey Matthew - not necessarily invested in blowing it up (which, btw of the 19 existing greens 12 are nearly in the same spot) but I thought there were so many holes that didn't take advantage of what is there that it seemed like more was more.


We had the same thought regarding 14, and in making that part of the change it made sense to turn 13 around too and provide more of a crescendo prior to the finish.


I fear the current second is not workable into a good hole with the trees or lack thereof (imagine the complaints if the hole stayed and the trees did not). It's also too penal for my liking. The new 2nd in mine is a short par 4 that would be more fun and have a sightline up the current 5th, which is a view I'm fond of.


Agreed that the routing is not the weakest part of Sandpiper, and I sure hope that work on the ground can help because 8 and 9 are two of my least favorite holes there and I have them routed pretty much the same. But to me it seemed a necessary sacrifice for improvement elsewhere.

[David Ober]

I fear the current second is not workable into a good hole with the trees or lack thereof (imagine the complaints if the hole stayed and the trees did not). It's also too penal for my liking. The new 2nd in mine is a short par 4 that would be more fun and have a sightline up the current 5th, which is a view I'm fond of.


Agreed that the routing is not the weakest part of Sandpiper, and I sure hope that work on the ground can help because 8 and 9 are two of my least favorite holes there and I have them routed pretty much the same. But to me it seemed a necessary sacrifice for improvement elsewhere.

The second hole is problematic because of that darned swale in the middle of the fairway. The bottom of that thing is always littered with divots. Is that something a "thoughtful" architect would take into consideration? Or is that not ever a factor?

[Matt_Cohn]

Matt, it's hard for me to see getting rid of 13. Yes, it's is a nice view going back the other way, but 1) you'd lose the current 13 tee area, and 2) it's a pretty cool hole the way it is now with the ravine in front. It would also give you three holes with the cliff on the left and none with the cliff on the right.


There are plenty of holes that could easily be replaced at Sandpiper but I wouldn't see this as one of them.

[Joe Perches]

The land that 2-4 is on is actually really interesting, unfortunately the most interesting feature is missed as you hit over the ditch on the second shot at 2 and on the drive at 3. And some good hillocks dotted around in that corner.

If anyone wants to play along with routing including topos, here's Santa Barbara county's website:
https://www.countyofsb.org/pwd/topogoleta.sbc
Unfortunately the course is split across 3 sheets, almost all of it is on sheet 38

The 5' topos that include Sandpiper are:
https://www.countyofsb.org/pwd/water/downloads/TOPOS/GOLTOPO/SHEET_37.pdf
https://www.countyofsb.org/pwd/water/downloads/TOPOS/GOLTOPO/SHEET_38.pdf
https://www.countyofsb.org/pwd/water/downloads/TOPOS/GOLTOPO/SHEET_46.pdf

[Alex Miller]

Matt, it's hard for me to see getting rid of 13. Yes, it's is a nice view going back the other way, but 1) you'd lose the current 13 tee area, and 2) it's a pretty cool hole the way it is now with the ravine in front. It would also give you three holes with the cliff on the left and none with the cliff on the right.


There are plenty of holes that could easily be replaced at Sandpiper but I wouldn't see this as one of them.

Matt I agree the 13th is a very good hole as-is (though not good enough that it's untouchable). It still is a forced carry approach without any real options for the player who can't reach in two.


Plus that pic above... looks like a fine hole is there to be found going the other direction as well...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()