What is wrong with Sandpiper (California)?

[Ronald Montesano]

In a concurrent thread, Sandpiper is brought up. There's nothing wrong with Sandpiper. Could it be better? Of course. Every course on this planet could be better.

I'd like to know what the tree house dwellers consider insufficient about Sandpiper.

I'm aware (search engine) of the previous threads on this course, but none of them directs itself to this point, and this point only. I believe that pointed, focused threads bring out our best.

Do your best to consider routing when discussing holes, holes when intimating putting surfaces, putting surfaces when mentioning trees, and onward. Problems in isolation are selfish.

Thank you very little.

[Tom_Doak]

Sandpiper has always been a course people think "should have been better".  They have 3/4 mile of Pacific coastline -- the same as at Pacific Dunes -- and half the rating on the Doak Scale.  Everyone assumes that a few simple routing changes could make it better.


The place has been under new ownership for 10 years now, and the new owner asked for proposals from every designer out there.  [Not everyone took him up on offering their ideas for free, of course, but a lot did.]  The project was tabled for several years, but during the pandemic, they called me and said they'd like to sign me up, because my plan looked the most likely to get through the permit battles with the local authorities and the California Coastal Commission.  I've submitted my plans now and they are just starting the process.


When people ask me how great a golf course I can build on their site the first day I'm out there, I may say that it has the right pieces to be something cool, but you never really know how great it can be until you solve the puzzle of the routing.  I'm convinced that there are some properties where there is no ideal solution, and Sandpiper might be an example of that.  There are certain things that are locked into place, and we will take it for granted that you're not going to be allowed to make a cut along the cliff edge so you can see the water better from inland, so the present 6th and 14th are never going to have the views you think they should.


I have done a new routing and we'll see if it gets passed -- probably 2-3 years down the road.  If not, we will just rebuild the bunkers and greens and make them more interesting. 

[Ronald Montesano]

If you can turn the 18th into the 18th at Pasatiempo, will that make people happy?

I can't wait to see that routing down the road. From my go-round back in 2015, I thought that (south to north) the 4-3-2-8-15-16 corridor was really neat, and had potential to be even neater.

[Gib_Papazian]

My son was in school right down the street in Goleta, so I spent quite a bit of time wandering around. Making a comparison, Sandpiper has incredibly similar *chi* to Torrey South . . . which is not a compliment. The reesdesign - if we're going to call it that - sucks weenie-whistles, so using Torrey as a cautionary tale, at least they know "what NOT to do." 


I've always had a hard time - unlike RT, Bobby and Rees - differentiating the style between Sr. Bell and Jr. Bell (yeah, different middle names, so just for this post) is difficult to separate in my head. I've played nearly all of their respective oeuvres multiple times and like courses designed by Uncle Bob Graves, with few exceptions all are competently done and worth a play, but nothing ever knocked my johnson into my watch pocket.


Sandpines suffers from the same drawbacks - a lack of motion and flow - as Torrey South; putting surface vapidity, awkward routing and a lack of surprise or endearing quirk. Anyone who has played both Brookside courses (in the shadow of the Rose Bowl) instantly groks the #2 course (6,000 yards) has wildly interesting green complexes and putting surface complexity.


So Billy had it in him to cough up something terrific . . . it was Emperor Tommy who pointed this out to me.


Along the same thought, I also used to think Damian 666 Pacuzzo's junk was cavalier incompetence and lack of give-a-shit, but both Monarch Dunes courses are absolutely outstanding in every way. Like Damian, Brookside #2 and Peacock Gap are full of interest - even if they lack enough length to keep a gunner like Jeff Fortson from sleepwalking to the course record.


My sense is that if TD could just rebunker Sandpines and redesign the green complexes (and lose most of the eucalyptus trees, yeech), the bland-as-oatmeal routing would not shriek so loud to the Treehouse hoi polloi.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have only played Sandpiper once and that was about ten years ago so I have mostly impressions. The course has some really fun holes. Ten through twelve I thought were good fun holes that gave the player a lot of choices. Thirteen and Fourteen along the ocean are ok I just did not find them compelling. If you can go for the green in two on 13 then it is exciting. The beginning of the round and the latter holes I thought were just boring with a lot of parallel holes. But if you want a nice day along the ocean you could do a lot worse. Doak 5.

[John Kavanaugh]

cavalier incompetence

I only scan posts that take longer to read than a midnight piss. Thanks for the laugh.

[Gib_Papazian]

Barny,


We are the same age and my midnight pisses take longer than a paragraph by Faulkner. You must have a better urologist than me.


Maybe I ought to learn to write midnight posts - pissing like a girl - sitting down . . . . better use of my time.

[Kalen Braley]

Ronald,

This post by Tom from nearly 2 years ago, does seem to indicate the what.

"One course where I beat my head against the wall trying to find a better solution is Sandpiper, just north of Santa Barbara.  It's got just as much frontage on the ocean as Pacific Dunes does, and better weather, but it's nowhere near the golf course.  A lot of that is because the inland parts are not beautiful sand dunes as in Oregon, but the coastal holes do not get as much bang out of the coastline as you'd expect.  I tried for quite a while to find a better solution, but eventually gave up on it.  Maybe someone smarter than me will figure it out someday, but then they would have to get the California Coastal Commission to say okay to it."

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67916.msg1625234.html#msg1625234


Sounds like he may have had an epiphany since then, and I think all of us would love to see the most gotten out of that site....even if means shoving some dirt around to "find" it.

[John Kavanaugh]

Barny,


We are the same age and my midnight pisses take longer than a paragraph by Faulkner. You must have a better urologist than me.


Maybe I ought to learn to write midnight posts - pissing like a girl - sitting down . . . . better use of my time.

The key to quick relief is to wait so long you put yourself in a literal pinch. The only drawback is that if you don’t turn on the light Jack’s coach will end up looking frightened.

[Tom_Doak]

Ronald,

This post by Tom from nearly 2 years ago, does seem to indicate the what.

"One course where I beat my head against the wall trying to find a better solution is Sandpiper, just north of Santa Barbara.  It's got just as much frontage on the ocean as Pacific Dunes does, and better weather, but it's nowhere near the golf course.  A lot of that is because the inland parts are not beautiful sand dunes as in Oregon, but the coastal holes do not get as much bang out of the coastline as you'd expect.  I tried for quite a while to find a better solution, but eventually gave up on it.  Maybe someone smarter than me will figure it out someday, but then they would have to get the California Coastal Commission to say okay to it."

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67916.msg1625234.html#msg1625234


Sounds like he may have had an epiphany since then, and I think all of us would love to see the most gotten out of that site....even if means shoving some dirt around to "find" it.

Kalen:


Actually, they called me to ask to use one of the routings I'd submitted ten years ago!


I did change it slightly before we submitted plans for approval.

[Pat Burke]

I last played Sandpiper in a tournament in the late ‘80’s. 
I love the place, but it was always that “almost” course to me.
14 is almost great. The green on the point is awesome looking, but never seemed to play right, and the layup was just awkward.  Always looked like a great green site to play to from the East with the arroyo guarding the right.


I don’t mind finishing on a par three, but 18 was just meh.  Big green, some slope, but nothing interesting.


I did love 10-11. 11 green was ok, but tough to screw up that setting. 

[Anthony Gray]

 It looks like it needs beat up a little. Add some elements that separate the holes more. Take some of the flatness away with some humps and bumps and contours. Add a shute that funnels the long hitters off the cliff.  Have the creek come into play more. Put in some bad bounces. At Pacific Dunes you don’t notice the other holes as much. Shorten the par 3 going at the ocean and pit in a multi teared green. A PB 7 shot. A Pete Dye switchback might work if there is an issue with the available area around the cliff. Back to back par 3s, one very long and one very short may be more interesting that a long par 4 on the cliff. Change the name to Piper Sands and have the bag drop/caddy master wear a kilt with a Hot Rod shirt. Crest some quirk like Gib said.

[Ronald Montesano]

The more I look at the scorecard (https://www.sandpipergolf.com/images/documents/sandpiper_scorecard.pdf) the more I think about the practice range and its location. In a redesign, that practice range gets relocated. Perhaps along the current 1st hole corridor, perhaps off on the southern perimeter.

The more I look at the current routing, the more I respect it. We're not talking about a massive piece of land here. Bell did a lot with this parcel of land. However, I've come to a radical (for me) conclusion. Read on!


I now think that 10 would be one hell of a way to start the day, and if I were compelled to use the current routing, I'd reroute the holes like this:

10, 11, 12, 18, 1, 4, 3, 2, 8 (tuck a little halfway food service area by current 8 green, 15 green, 16 tee)
16, 17, 13, 14, 7, 5, 6, 15, 9

I realize that this has convoluted moments, and has some switchbacks and some crossovers. I'd like to bring the 7th green down to the right, in the eucalyptus grove, to the side of the 5th tee, and bump the current 3rd tee a bit left, to lessen the safety issue there.

In this Ron Route, you bid farewell to the ocean at the 16th green, which ain't bad. You take that decent 18th out of the undeserved spotlight of the closing hole, and you swing a reachable par five (current 9) into the closing slot.

[Matthew Petersen]

or me, there's nothing wrong with the routing per se, the land itself is the drawback. I like plenty of holes out there--5 has a nice down then up and an infinity green with (sort of) an ocean view behind. The 7th tempts you to aim left at the green, because you can see it, even though it is very irresponsible to take that line. 10 is great. 11 is actually kind of a blah hole in terms of design, but routing a par 3 there was inspired. 12 is one of the course's few moments of quirk and is great. I like 16 and 17.


But for a course with so much cliffside frontage there's an awful lot of less than spectacular oceanside golf. That's not the routing's fault, though, so far as I can tell. Bell put 6 right on the cliffs. It could be a better par 3 but that doesn't change the fact that the way the coastline sits there doesn't make it very scenic. A better hole would help, certainly, but wouldn't solve the fundamental problem. 14 runs all along the coast but you can't even see the ocean. Maybe a bit of this gets solved if you played it in the opposite direction (you could see the ocean from a tee if it were where 14 green is), but it still wouldn't be Pebble Beach, or Bandon ... or even Torrey Pines.


So you have a golf course on the ocean where you don't really get to experience the cliffs or the ocean very much, but of course they still charge like a course on the ocean.

[David Kelly]

About 10-15 years ago, Sandpiper posted a huge routing map in their lobby of the plan that Johnny Miller's firm had done.  It seemed like the new course renovations were a fait accompli.  At the time there was talk of adding a high end hotel next to the property.  I think maybe the recession derailed the plans but am not positive (it could have been the CCC) as to why it didn't go through.


Anyway, Miller's renovations were pretty substantial and eliminated the holes that ran parallel to the coast in favor of a lot of tees and greens that were set at the cliff's edge, with the holes running perpendicular to the coast.  The problem, as has been touched upon here, is that the land rises as it gets close to the cliff which means that any skyline greens will only show sky as you have to walk all the way to the very edge of the cliff to see the shore.


Remembering Coore & Crenshaw's Dos Pueblos fiasco a few miles north of Sandpiper, I am skeptical that anything will get done with the California Coastal Commission being involved.

[Tom_Doak]

We do have a plan in process that changes the routing, but I’m sure the client would prefer that I don’t put it out there publicly.  We are not asking to do anything radical that involves a lot of earthmoving; that’s not practical with what lies underneath the site.


But, there are 18 holes there now and we are only asking to rehabilitate them. That’s not like asking for permits for a new course like Bill and Ben ran into.  It shouldn’t be that hard.


If it happens, it happens!

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I hope it all works out...

And I really like the new term/category for golf course work.

We have:
- Renovations
- Restorations
- Transformations
...and now "Rehabilitations".

GD will have a field day with this i'm sure!


P.S.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5wHe-B7JJ4 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I hope it all works out...

And I really like the new term/category for golf course work.

We have:
- Renovations
- Restorations
- Transformations
...and now "Rehabilitations".

GD will have a field day with this i'm sure!

It wasn’t meant as a marketing term.  The course is seriously in need of TLC after many years of deferring maintenance while they’ve been thinking about how to change it.

[Ronald Montesano]

I for one, cannot wait. I'm going to queue up for an exclusive interview, should it all come to pass.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I played a lot of tournaments at Sandpiper between 1988 and the early 2000's.  It was a very good course for consistently rewarding the most solid players. The big greens were severe in spots, but generally very bland back to front affairs, aside from the 10th which derailed many potentially good rounds.  The land has wonderful hilly terrain.  The biggest problem is the complete lack of strategic options and favored angles of attack on approach shots.  After having seen the amazing transformation which occurred at Hillcrest, I have no doubt that a great course could be a created on Sandpiper

[Jordan Standefer]

I always thought the land being used by the driving range could yield a good hole (or two).

[Ronald Montesano]

Jordan,


I'm with you (see earlier posts on this thread) regarding the driving range land.


I wonder if the pond fronting 18 was somehow original, or just a lazy way to have an irrigation pond on the course. I know that TD has mentioned its previous life as an oil refinery, which leads me to believe that it might have been a reservoir of sorts that could not be filled in. I'd hate to think that someone dug it, just for that purpose.


I laugh at the disparity between how I think, and how the great architects on this DB do the same. What I, the complete tyro, see as alternatives and options, pale in comparison to them.


If pressed, I would only say that three holes are sacrosanct and must not have their routing altered. Those would be current 10-12. Change 11 green, sure, but not the drop shot. Change 12 green, sure, but not the uphill slider of a tee shot. The rest of the course is tabla rasa, as far as I'm concerned.

[Tommy Naccarato]

Sandpiper will be in great hands with Tom, hopefully with little interference from Ty Webb and his Golf overseer. From my viewpoint, I think those two are complete fruit kückens…


Regarding the original routing and William F. Bell, count me as one that can see the differences between him and his more creative father.


When joining his father, the differences in the architecture changed quickly.  Ojai & La Cumbre are examples.  While both courses went to seed during the Depression, Ojai becoming a Army Air Corps base and La Cumbre becoming a field, little effort was made in recovering the original routings. (Brilliant routings at that!). La Cumbre needed a housing plan to drive it, despite plenty of area in Hope Ranch which to build on; Ojai had many corridors changed or vacated or even temporary structures built upon it, for instance the famed par 3 lost hole’s green became a horse corral.  The lost hole par 4 went completely to seed; a new par 3 hole was pinched in between the old 5th & 6th.  Every decision after the war that’s ever been made there has been a detriment to the once brilliant design.


A lot of these changes were WF Bell after his Dad became less active for health reasons when he joined the firm.


Back to Sandpiper…


I’ve played many rounds there like many here, I’ve studied the course numerous times.  It had one good hole for every two or three mediocre holes and the 18th is just a complete mystery why it was even built but I’ll more then bet it was someone from the owner/developer side of things wanting/demanding a par 3 water hole..

[Tom_Doak]

I wonder if the pond fronting 18 was somehow original, or just a lazy way to have an irrigation pond on the course. I know that TD has mentioned its previous life as an oil refinery, which leads me to believe that it might have been a reservoir of sorts that could not be filled in. I'd hate to think that someone dug it, just for that purpose.


I laugh at the disparity between how I think, and how the great architects on this DB do the same. What I, the complete tyro, see as alternatives and options, pale in comparison to them.


If pressed, I would only say that three holes are sacrosanct and must not have their routing altered. Those would be current 10-12. Change 11 green, sure, but not the drop shot. Change 12 green, sure, but not the uphill slider of a tee shot. The rest of the course is tabla rasa, as far as I'm concerned.

The pond on the 18th was not part of the refinery; it was created as part of the golf course.  I just hate the look of it, but the pond has to stay, because it is endangered frog habitat now.     My plan is to give the froggies a much wider berth from golfers.


10-11-12 will stay in place.  We are not allowed to change the 11th at all, because it's so close to the creek at the boundary of the course; so that kinda locks in the 10th, and the tee shot on the 12th.  I might do something different with the 12th green if we are allowed to.

[Tim Leahy]

Tom, any ideas for the 13th? I used to love that hole because of the risk/reward aspect of going for the green in two with that green perched out on the point.