Best/Worst Use of the Potential of the Land

« **on:** January 29, 2003, 11:54:21 AM »

The endless Cigar Aficionado thread brings up an interesting question. What courses do you believe represent the best realization of the potential of the land, and what are the missed opportunities?

I have often wondered what sort of course Tom Fazio would build at the Jupiter Hills site today if he had a second chance. Would it have a more raw, exposed sand type of look?

As Doak points out in his book. Seminole is probably the best example of a good result. Relatively limited land with an absolute home run of a golf course on it. Genius.

« **Reply #1 on:** January 29, 2003, 12:32:22 PM »

I'll chime, since I'm a big potential guy.

I always liked what Tom Doak had to say about Spyglass in The Confidential Guide. IMHO, I too would have liked to have seen the course work in and out of the 'linksland' more. The sectionalization of 1-5 and 6-18 lets me down.

Sandpines, no duh here.

While I've never seen it, a lot of people say a lot of nice things about Merion and Hugh Wilson's use of the property.

How about Ocean Trails? I don't know enough about it myself but does everyone think all of the potential was realized here?

« **Reply #2 on:** January 29, 2003, 04:58:41 PM »

Sandpiper near Goleta ca, has a couple of great holes but the rest of the course has little character on great land.

Certainly the preserve comes close to qualifying if not a far second to sandpines.

« **Reply #3 on:** January 29, 2003, 05:23:25 PM »

Talking Stick North, incredible design on featureless, flat desert. No housing at all really helps, plus truly inspirational bunkering and wide, strategic holes.

« **Reply #4 on:** January 29, 2003, 06:15:35 PM »

Jeff - correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Tom Fazio was barely in his 20s when Jupiter Hills was built. It was actually done by his uncle George with Tom and brother Jim relegated to, basically, mower duties. George so loved his 20 years as head pro at PVGC that he tried to mimic the NJ sand barrens and waste areas when he built Jupiter. George spent his last years at Jupiter living adjacent to the course, showing up at the pro shop on a daily basis. JC

« **Reply #5 on:** January 29, 2003, 06:46:30 PM »

In regard to Ocean Trails, I played it a few times (once before the 18th took a tumble into the ocean) and would have to say, given the lack of acres to work with, they made good use of the land. More memorable views than holes.

I would be curious as to Geoff S's take on it.

« **Reply #6 on:** January 29, 2003, 06:54:21 PM »

Jeff Lewis,

Spanish Bay.

Jeff, in what way did Tom Doak say that Seminole was a limited site ? I'd never heard anyone define the property in those terms.

« **Reply #7 on:** January 29, 2003, 07:01:18 PM »

Andy - I respectfully disagree. Ocean Trails is a spectacular setting built on a piece of real estate ill suited for a golf course. The views are unquestionable to die for but that's about as far as it goes. The routing is constrained and the sloping of the land too one-dimensional/directional to be considered a quality design. It's a course that seems to be saying to you, "if only I had some more breathing room...". I also believe that the impetus for the course was more real estate than quality golf, which is always a black mark as far as a golf course project is concerned.

JC

« **Reply #8 on:** January 29, 2003, 07:07:58 PM »

Jonathan:

All you said is correct. The thread, though, is about potential, and given what they had to work with, that was about all they could do. That course is shoe-horned into the land. I;m not sure what else could have been done except make it a 15-hole course...oh, wait, that's what they now have.

« **Reply #9 on:** January 29, 2003, 07:11:52 PM »

Andy - has Trump ressurected the ocean holes yet? I know there are previous threads about this but I don't remember the timetable. The irony is that the ocean holes are on some of the more level, better and "optionable" terrain.

JC

« **Reply #10 on:** January 29, 2003, 08:27:11 PM »

Many of the Aussies would have mentioned the Ocean Course at The National near Melbourne as one of the biggest missed opportunities...except they're all busy watching at Royal Melbourne right now!

Best use of not much...how about PGA West, Shadow Creek, etc.? Or was that land perfect because they could do anything with it?

« **Reply #11 on:** January 30, 2003, 01:03:09 AM »

Ballybunion Cashen

« **Reply #12 on:** January 30, 2003, 01:08:17 AM »

I'm going to commit an unpardonable sin and nominate Coomonwealth and Kingston Heath as two courses who have made the most of limited sites.

I haven't played either, just walked extensively, but, aside from the fact they are built on sand, they are fairly ordinary pieces of ground.

Smallish, rectangular, only a little movement but incredible.

Worst? Tie between Moonah Links and Royal Birkdale.

Matt Cohn,

You should remember Melbourne's weather before making outlandish statements like ... "they're all watching at RM now".
It may have been 44 degrees Saturday, it may have been 35 degress yesterday, but today... bucketing down. Royal Melbourne was under water.

Quote

Many of the Aussies would have mentioned the Ocean Course at The National near Melbourne as one of the biggest missed opportunities...except they're all busy watching at Royal Melbourne right now!

Best use of not much...how about PGA West, Shadow Creek, etc.? Or was that land perfect because they could do anything with it?

« **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2003, 01:17:41 AM »

Matt Cohn - You're right with your comment re: The Ocean Course at The National. So many people have said "just imagine what they COULD have built there"...

I'd agree with Mark's comment on Commonwealth and Kingston Heath. Not much rise and fall, and superb use of what's there. Carnoustie must rate up there in that regard too. Narry a bump as the Scots would say

Although the burns are a point of interest, and used to their fullest.

So too, do I agree with Mark's claim of Moonah Links as a missed opportunity to really build something truly spectacular, with such undulating sandy soil, less than a mile from the shore...

Matthew

« **Reply #14 on:** January 30, 2003, 01:48:49 AM »

Mark,

Leave Matt alone: his comment can be attributed to being "homesick" rather than anything else! I'm sure he wishes he was at RM.

« **Reply #15 on:** January 30, 2003, 07:15:34 AM »

Shivas- I can't help but comment on your apparent dychotomy. Spanish sucks cause they wrapped it around the hotel? And yet Pebble's the bomb? One of your favorite holes (#15 PB) is similar to Sb in that it jaunts around the houses similar to the hotel. If spanish bay had kept the course all on the oceanside it would look a like a back and forth muni, albeit with great dunesland and vistas. Not to mention the liability for all those errant shots would be bunched ergo lawsuits.

If we use Pat's argument from the cigar thread, How do we know that there weren't restrictions put on the design either enviro or principle induced?

I'd argu that the twelfth greensite at Spanish Bay is sooo good that Pat Mucci' s arguement loses right there. He'd have put the hotel there and that would be the worst use of an awesome natural features(ravine).
MY opinon so tell me where im wrong.

« **Reply #16 on:** January 30, 2003, 04:13:49 PM »

I feel bad there too Dave, but it's because of the spit and kleenex they put up and sold'em for Millions$. But the truth is it's only claustrophobic at the tee. And then comes, the short hole, ruined by condo, and then possibly the best hole on the course the downhill 14th. I think cascading down that hill is one of the warm and fuzziest feeelings and maybe the mediocre set-up (previous 3) is responsible for most of it in contrast?

I do want you to know I have thought about what I said about your idea for pot bunkers on 15. I think I was wrong and there are other examples on the course. Notably 7 and 17. SO, I think if they wanted to "modernize" the 15th and add a bunker or series of strategically placed line of charm bunkers, I'm for it.

« **Reply #17 on:** January 30, 2003, 06:30:36 PM »

Aclayman,

I don't know that you're wrong, but it would appear that most of the entire golfing world disagrees with you with respect to Spanish Bay and the locations of the golf course and the Hotel
and the opportunity lost on an oceanside site.

Regarding the impact of potential enviro restrictions you raised, you might get a hint at the answer by looking at the monstrosity of a hotel constructed on the site.
It might look nice and fit in, in Las Vegas.

« **Reply #18 on:** January 31, 2003, 07:10:49 AM »

I still don't see it and I sure as hell don't see them selling $500 rooms anywhere but on the ocean. I am secure in the minority, for the majority is always wrong. Especially in the golfing world

Besides, give me a diet of Spanish Bay everyday and i'm a very happy man.

The truth is we(locals) on the peninsula want the golfing world to stay away from SB. They can really ruin a place , ya know.

« **Reply #19 on:** January 31, 2003, 12:01:54 PM »

Pat,

What Doak does refer to is the brilliance of the routing and its use of the only two landforms on the property, the dunes on the east and west perimeters, for 3/4 of the holes. I think what is implicit in recognizing the brilliance of the routing is that it was a challenge given that the area between the two dunes is pretty nondescript, flat, Florida terrain. There really wasn't that much to work with to recommend the site other than the two dunes and the proximity to the water. He got 100% out of the potential of that piece.
But I will refrain from putting words in anybody's mouth in the future, Pat. Consider me approriately admonished.

News:

Jeff_Lewis

Michael Dugger

A_Clay_Man

Bill_McBride

Jonathan Cummings

Andy Lipschultz

Patrick_Mucci

Jonathan Cummings

Andy Lipschultz

Jonathan Cummings

Matt_Cohn

Jack Marr

Mark F

Matthew Mollica

Chris Kane

A_Clay_Man

A_Clay_Man

Carl Ingram

A_Clay_Man

Jeff_Lewis (Guest)

An Error Has Occurred!