[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Dugger,

I'm glad you finally got your bearings.

Those are oblique dunes aren't they ?

It's my understanding that golf courses can't be built on oblique dunes due to their seasonal shifting nature.

Is that true ?

If it is, don't you think it's disengenuous to post a picture of land/dunes upon which it's impossible to build a golf course ?

My second question is:

Did the developers own that nearby land ?

If not, isn't that dishonest of you to post pictures of land that wasn't owned by the developers, land that couldn't be used to build Sandpines ?

My third question is:

Did the Sandpines property look like this, or was it different ?Was it heavily treed property ?  If so, how could you be so disengenuous as to mislead the viewer into believing that the Sandpines property had these features ?

I would have thought some maturity would have brought you some integrity, but, I guess I was wrong.

And, don't try to weasel out of your intent to disparage by claiming that you added the words, " dunesland next to Sandpines"   You're implied message is loud and clear.

At least Mike Cirba posted pictures of the actual golf course and didn't try to mislead others as you've again, tried to do.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Didn't Dugger try this before?  Thanks Pat for trying to set the record straight again.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
That indeed is the dunes right next to the 7th hole at Sandpines. The very same land that Sandpines was built on. This is exactly what Sandpines used to look like before it had a golf course on it.

As I have stated before--building a golf course on sand dunes like Sandpines was a heavy task--there is no doubt about that. But it was feasible to do so at this site.  The routing alone is enough to regurgitate back on to the plan table which it was conceived. Little attempt was made to utilize the value the dunes had--instead a huge pit with finishing holes reminscent of golf in Palm Springs.

While the land, lower down, with dune grass growing out of it is much more hospitable to golf, from my understanding all of the similar stuff at Sandpines was projected for housing. In fact, that maybe some of it which you see in the picture. To much lower and your getting into the lands that flood every year which Rees didn't research the water table while designing his existing Sandpines course. This is why those holes near there flood most evey year

Regardless, the course is lacking in every sense of the word for the environment it is in. The architecture, from the thousands of Rees Pieces mounds, to the routing and to the actual individual character of the holes themselves, is severely lacking--its without doubt a huge missed opportunity, but what would one suspect from those offices in Montclair?

I would have given a left testacle for them to have built something good in my family's adopted summer home--what they built was something with little substance that would challenge one to drive to the Oregon Coast to play it.

Somehow they got that part right just 45 minutes South.

[Mike_Cirba]

JBergan;

I've played Arcadian Shores which is very early Rees (1974), just after he went on his own.  

I like it a lot and it's one of my favorite of his courses.  Some of the bunkering there is terrific, visually and functionally, and there are a nice assortment of holes.  

Even better is the course he did for his dad at Montauk Downs in 1968.  Some really good stuff and he didn't let the "architecture" get in the way of the course, if you know what i mean.

Another of his earlier courses I liked was Eagle Lodge (1982), which no longer exists and is now the site of The ACE Club, which we've discussed here before.

Somewhere around 1985-6, though, I think Rees got slipped some acid by some ex-hippies hanging around on the beach near Maidstone.  

There is a super course near Albany, NY called Olde Kinderhook that he designed in recent years, but flashes of his early promise are few and far in the past 20 years, based on what I've seen.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

That indeed is the dunes right next to the 7th hole at Sandpines.

I"m aware of that.  You'll recall that I went out of my way to visit and play Sandpines.[/color]

The very same land that Sandpines was built on. This is exactly what Sandpines used to look like before it had a golf course on it.

That's not true.  Sandpines was heavily wooded in a good portion of the land.   And, the dunes didn't extend all the way throught the property.[/color]

As I have stated before--building a golf course on sand dunes like Sandpines was a heavy task--there is no doubt about that. But it was feasible to do so at this site.

I'd disagree with you regarding feasability.  And, I believe an architect or engineer already stated that the destabilized nature of the dunes prevented building a golf course on them.

Didn't the original developer go broke ?
Is your definition of feasibility a function of an unlimited budget ?[/color]

The routing alone is enough to regurgitate back on to the plan table which it was conceived.

Holes 2 through 6 are fabulous, and cut through the trees which are majestic at 60 + feet tall.  Other holes are terrific as well.

Do I like the mounding, NO.  But let's be honest on our respective presentations.[/color]

Little attempt was made to utilize the value the dunes had--instead a huge pit with finishing holes reminscent of golf in Palm Springs.

And where would you have put the water retention resevoir ?[/color]

While the land, lower down, with dune grass growing out of it is much more hospitable to golf, from my understanding all of the similar stuff at Sandpines was projected for housing. In fact, that maybe some of it which you see in the picture. To much lower and your getting into the lands that flood every year which Rees didn't research the water table while designing his existing Sandpines course. This is why those holes near there flood most evey year.

The land to the west has houses on it.  Houses not associated with the golf course.  And, the holes to the west are amongst the best on the golf course.[/color]

Regardless, the course is lacking in every sense of the word for the environment it is in. The architecture, from the thousands of Rees Pieces mounds, to the routing and to the actual individual character of the holes themselves, is severely lacking--its without doubt a huge missed opportunity, but what would one suspect from those offices in Montclair?

Probably the same thing I'd expect from Dr MacKenzie with his offices in California and his project in Augusta.
Just how many times did MacKenzie visit Augusta during planning, and more importantly, during construction.

With respect to the mounding, I've already indicated that I didn't like it, except to buffer the industrial/commercial neighborhood to the East, and homes to the South[/color]

I would have given a left testacle for them to have built something good in my family's adopted summer home--what they built was something with little substance that would challenge one to drive to the Oregon Coast to play it.

Somehow they got that part right just 45 minutes South.

For you to equate the site at Bandon, sitting high up on a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean, with no commercial or residential complexes bordering the property and Sandpines
is mind boggling, and erodes your credibility.

You know better.[/color]

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
Just so you can see that Michael Dugger did get this picture right, I'm going to use your aerial just so you could see it, and I'm assuming this is where Michael's image was taken. Michael will have to verify this to make sure its accurate. Tha is the 7th fairway what you see carved out there. This will also show you how much natural shape was used in design of the course. That is unless alien life from another planet landed here at one time and created all of those mounds.



Please show me where the water rentention ponds are at both Bandon and Pacific and Trails.  The fact is that they have utilized natural water in and around the area. The point being is that they aren't on the course per say--more OUT of the architecture. And this is my contention--for the amount of money that was spent building those inane mounds and digging the pit that the rentention lake was built in--they could have built something far better and more sensible--remember that this was a bit dug very deep in the center of the property.

That being, Pat, would you, given your experience at Boca Rio, build a golf course exactly like this on the same piece of property? Those holes which you speak of, the lower holes are a total of three. Thats on sandy till which they were located. Ted Robinson Jr. could have built something good down there, it was that good.

Why was Florence and Sandpines not a success ala Bandon? (I assume thats what your asking.) Ultimately, it wasn't a world class golf experience. Its been nothing but a black eye for the wonderful seaside town of Florence. Not at least what the . The original owners thought they were building something monumental, and I feel sorry for them because they relied on the Open Doctor to build them the best course money could offer. It was good money. They didn't know much about golf or architecture or even building on such a site. Heck, they still to this day have yet to build a clubhouse!

People don't even come back for a return visit when they're in Bandon, and I'll tell you this, Florence as a town is a probably better to hang around then Bandon.

That's how much of a disaster this course was from the start. Bad planning, bad advice, bad design. Is Rees to be applauded for such a job where by your account, he got three good holes on land that was infallable? The site was a VERY GOOD site for golf. Instead what they got was straight fairways and rudimentary greens with billions of Rees Pieces mounds, most of them covered in the grasses that wouldn't expose what a hack job Rees Jones did here. Mind you that this was Rees first job West of the Mississippi. This fact alone as well as the difficulty in getting to Florence should tell it all.

Simply put, they hired the wrong guy!

As far as my credibility, Pat, take it for what it is. Personally I don't think much of the whole credibility thing. It involves too much ego, and personally I have other bigger things to worry about.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

Just so you can see that Michael Dugger did get this picture right, I'm going to use YOUR aerial just so you could see it, and I'm ASSUMING this is where Michael's image was taken. Michael will have to verify this to make sure its accurate. Tha is the 7th fairway what you see carved out there.
Please point out the the 7th fairway is the northern property line.[/color]

This will also show you how much natural shape was used in design of the course. That is unless alien life from another planet landed here at one time and created all of those mounds.

Tommy, you know those shapes change seasonally, with the winds.  And, you know that stabilizing non planted areas is virtually impossible.  What the aerial doesn't show are the elevation changes which are significant.[/color]

Please show me where the water rentention ponds are at both Bandon and Pacific and Trails.

Tommy, you tried to represent that this site was on an equal footing with the Bandon sites which is a wild distortion.
Secondly, Bandon had ample acreage to put their retention resevoirs in other locations.  That luxury didn't exist at Sandpines.[/color]

The fact is that they have utilized natural water in and around the area. The point being is that they aren't on the course per say--more OUT of the architecture.
Tommy, how can you make a comparison between a small parcel of land with limited acreage and topography with a vast expanse of land, 5,000 acres, fronting the ocean ?[/color]

And this is my contention--for the amount of money that was spent building those inane mounds and digging the pit that the rentention lake was built in--they could have built something far better and more sensible--remember that this was a bit dug very deep in the center of the property.
How much money was spent on the mounding and retention resevoir ?

Where would you have put the retention resevoir, understanding the need for depth in order to obtain volume ?
[/color]

That being, Pat, would you, given your experience at Boca Rio, build a golf course exactly like this on the same piece of property? Those holes which you speak of, the lower holes are a total of three. Thats on sandy till which they were located. Ted Robinson Jr. could have built something good down there, it was that good.

Now Tommy, you know that holes 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are in and around the wooded areas, that's 5, not 3 holes.  And, you know that they are GOOD holes, so give the Devil his due.

I've already indicated that I didn't like the mounds.[/color]

Why was Florence and Sandpines not a success ala Bandon? (I assume thats what your asking.) Ultimately, it wasn't a world class golf experience. Its been nothing but a black eye for the wonderful seaside town of Florence. Not at least what the . The original owners thought they were building something monumental, and I feel sorry for them because they relied on the Open Doctor to build them the best course money could offer. It was good money. They didn't know much about golf or architecture or even building on such a site. Heck, they still to this day have yet to build a clubhouse!

To make the comparison between that piece of property, located between commercial warehouses and businesses and residential properties to the land at Bandon is a mind boggling stretch.

Perhaps it was the limited budget which produced the product you revile so much.

How do you know that the original owners didn't get exactly what they asked for ?[/color]

People don't even come back for a return visit when they're in Bandon, and I'll tell you this, Florence as a town is a probably better to hang around then Bandon.

People don't come to Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes to hang around the town 20-30 minutes away, they go for the golf.[/color]

That's how much of a disaster this course was from the start. Bad planning, bad advice, bad design. Is Rees to be applauded for such a job where by your account, he got three good holes on land that was infallable?

That's an absurd conclusion.
First, the land was decent, not infallable.
Second there are five good holes in the woods and other good holes elsewhere on the golf course.  # 11 is a spectacular hole.[/color]

The site was a VERY GOOD site for golf. Instead what they got was straight fairways and rudimentary greens with billions of Rees Pieces mounds, most of them covered in the grasses that wouldn't expose what a hack job Rees Jones did here.

How can you say the fairways are straight ?
Let's start with # 2, how about # 3, how about # 4, how about # 6 ?  Are any of them straight ?  And, # 5 is a good par 3.

I already stated that I found the mounds excessive.

As to planting them, if you didn't, they'd blow all over the golf course.[/color]

Mind you that this was Rees first job West of the Mississippi. This fact alone as well as the difficulty in getting to Florence should tell it all.

You never answered my question regarding your architectural guru, your idol.  How many times did Alister MacKenzie visit Augusta during construction of the golf course ?[/color]

Simply put, they hired the wrong guy!

As far as my credibility, Pat, take it for what it is. Personally I don't think much of the whole credibility thing. It involves too much ego, and personally I have other bigger things to worry about.

Tommy, when you posture the the Sandpines site and the Bandon sites were equivalent, you erode your credibility.
You should be able to offer enough of a cogent argument without resorting to distortion.[/color]

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
You like Hole #2. I find it to be overly used on twenty to thirty different courses in the Southern California area. #3 is not a good hole, its a average par 5 with little if any strategic value other then to hit it straight around a long bend. #3 is the best hole on the course to a very good green. #4 is a sorry excuse for a par 3 on a site that offered way more then it got. #6 is just plainly a nothing golf hole to a green that is just as bad. #11, well you like it just because of the skyline nature, I dislike it for not only the orignal bunkering that once existed on its left side--bunkering you never saw--to the horrible excuse for bunkering that replaced it which is laughable at best.

You can argue with that typical New Jersey attitude all you want, Sandpines is a sorry excuse for a golf course and the whole world knows it.

As far as Augusta, I'll take the MacKenzie influences of boomer shaped greens and rough-edged bunkering over that dreck they call a golf course loaded with trees that make no sense and conditioning that has set a precedence to ruin the Game of Golf.  As far as MacKenzie working there, I'll tell you this--if it was only four days, it was four days multiplied by four hundred better then what Rees did at Sandpines. And just to show you how good my credibility is on this subject--I'm ending it here. You won't get me to click on this topic again!

This means I have the last word on it as far as I'm concerned!

Go Notre Dame and Sandpines sucks!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

You like Hole #2.  YES [/color]

I find it to be overly used on twenty to thirty different courses in the Southern California area.

Where ?   I've only played about two dozen courses and I haven't seen it yet.

When CBM, SR and CB duplicate holes noone seems to mind. [/color]

#3 is not a good hole, its a average par 5 with little if any strategic value other then to hit it straight around a long bend. #3 is the best hole on the course to a very good green. #4 is a sorry excuse for a par 3 on a site that offered way more then it got. #6 is just plainly a nothing golf hole to a green that is just as bad. #11, well you like it just because of the skyline nature, I dislike it for not only the orignal bunkering that once existed on its left side--bunkering you never saw--to the horrible excuse for bunkering that replaced it which is laughable at best.

# 4 is a good par 4 not a par 3
# 5 is a good par 3 and # 6 is a very good par 4.
I also liked the bunkering on # 11.

You just refuse to acknowledge any good holes on the golf course.[/color]

You can argue with that typical New Jersey attitude all you want, Sandpines is a sorry excuse for a golf course and the whole world knows it.

I disagree[/color]

As far as Augusta, I'll take the MacKenzie influences of boomer shaped greens and rough-edged bunkering over that dreck they call a golf course loaded with trees that make no sense and conditioning that has set a precedence to ruin the Game of Golf.  

Tommy, you and others hurl comments and criticisms around recklessly.  

You might be surprised to learn that the large bunker lines circa 1935 weren't that much disimilar to what they are today.

And that MacKenzie and Jones had planted trees on the course during the construction phase.

Would you tell me where they recently planted any trees on
hole # 1 ?  How about # 2 ?  # 3 ?, # 4 ?, # 6, # 7, # 8, # 9,
# 10, # 12, # 13, # 16, # 18.  And, on # 15 and # 17 tree planting was an extension of existing trees in the rough and out of the lines of play.[/color]

As far as MacKenzie working there, I'll tell you this--if it was only four days, it was four days multiplied by four hundred better then what Rees did at Sandpines.

Would you equate the sites ?[/color]

And just to show you how good my credibility is on this subject--I'm ending it here. You won't get me to click on this topic again!

This means I have the last word on it as far as I'm concerned!

Go Notre Dame and Sandpines sucks!

I understand you distaste for Sandpines, I just think you've gone to extremes in your criticism.[/color]

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

Candidly, I was greatly underwhelmed about Sandpines. The course provided for me a "star trek" sensation -- it looked like it was "beamed in" from somewhere else because the nature of the holes -- the mounding particularly -- looked out of character with what might have been done on the site. Take for example just two holes -- the long par-4 10th -- little character just as simple and straight as a jet-runway. The par-3 11th with it surround-sound mounding is also emminently forgettable.

I have taken great pains to provide sort sort of balance in my discussions of courses and the architects who design them.

Sandpines is really lacking -- clearly the courses you find at Bandon Dunes are miles beyond what's there in Florence. And, I do agree with a few others, that it's too bad because the course could / should have been something really unique and exciting.

Rees Jones has done some outstanding work in certain instances that I believe is often neglected or under-appreciated because too many raters and even posters here on GCA take the tack that if you've played one Rees Jones course you've played them all. That's really sloppy investigatory reporting but I am quite aware of the preferences, biases, call it what you will, of certain people.

While I don't doubt that many of the 50+ Rees Jones courses I have played provide a formulaic appearance and character there are specific instances where his work does in fact sparkle -- Mike Cirba mentioned Olde Kinderhook as an example and I am particularly fond of Nantucket as well. There are a few other courses I would also include as well done but not necessarily "must play" layouts.

Anyone venturing to Oregon has a range of solid golf
options -- I won't be planning any return visit to Sandpines given what I know of the state and what's really unique there.

[peter_p]

Rees' 11th hole had very basic bunkering on the left side which was about 3' below the green surface. Looked like all the other bunkers. The pit and new bunkering is new.

I play with a group which occasionally plays Sandpines on the way to Bandon. I always excuse myself with a doctor appt or the like.

They have new ownership and a new superintendent who came down from the Reserve Vineyards.

I hear that the dunes on the north property line are encroaching over the mounds on the left side of #7.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter Pittock,

If the mounds to the north of the 7th fairway weren't there, as a buffer, would the shifting, encroaching oblique dunes have buried the 7th fairway ?

[Michael Dugger]

I did not have a digital camera the first time I played Sandpines.  I did have one last month.

Tommy, you are correct, these are images of the 7th and up over the bluff.  I have no comments for Mr. Mucci and Hearst.  Sorry if I ruffled any feathers, I was just posting a picture of some beautiful dunesland.  If one was to go to Sandpines and look around everywhere BUT the golf course they might like what they see.  

[peter_p]

Patrick,
The pictures that Mr Dugger just posted prove the drifting sands are already encroaching. The last time I played there
you couldn't see dune sand on the mounds or near the traps.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I can't begin to tell you how excited I am to see the dunes want to reclaim the land that Rees Jones so ruthlesly destroyed. Really GREAT!  I'm thrilled actually.

That whole left side of #7 was filled with Rees Pieces mounds and some really uninteresting bunkering, and if the winter winds blow a little harder, maybe it will eventually blow some sand in the middle of those uninteresting fairways so we could see some really interesting strategy which Rees simply bulldozed into an oblivion of flat and featureless fairways surrounded by Rees Pieces mounds. Billions of them.

Pat keeps on mentioning that those dunes are Oblique and they are NOT conducive for golf. If that were so, then how come Sandpines was even built? Those dunes in Michael's picture are a variety of Oblique, Transverse, Parabolic and Hummock.

Oblique and Transverse dunes can and are in fact useable for golf. The Oblique and Transverse dunes your trying to make the Sandpines area to be aren't nearly that high. You have to go further past the Siltcoos inlet where they become really HUGE. These are dunes that off-road vehicle use is permitted and where faces and pits of the dunes can get higher then 100'. That wasn't the case at Sandpines. It was no different then the pictures Michael has shown.

You've heard of Cruden Bay and Ballybunion haven't you? Many of the holes are on Oblique and Transverse dunes, just on a smaller scale.

For there to be Oblique dunes, you have to have Foredunes, Hummocks. Transverse and Oblique dunes then occur. Past that, they become Parabolic and eventually transistion into the the native habitat or native lands--the dunes end--and sometimes they even start up again! In Florence's case they start up again higher above in the hills, and this is where the process starts again--all from the natural rocks and boulders INLAND, that have broken up over the years and eventually turned into fine sand.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Also, I want to add that this maybe the best looking bunkering on a Rees Jones course--ever! He didn't even have anything to do with it!

Now, I would surmize that Pat's next step is to tell us that Rees had it planned that way all along.  It just took three or four different owners to go broke to do it!

Keep blowing those winds Mother Nature! We'll make Sandpines into a Top 100 yet!

[Jeff_Mingay]

Hey Tommy:

I don't know anything about Sandpines... never been there. But wouldn't it be cool to see the course age and evolve toward improvement?!?!

Just like Merion for example. That Steve Sayers thread from earlier today proves that Merion took year to become "Merion", right.

Perhaps there is hope for Sandpines. I have my fingers crossed  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

I can't begin to tell you how excited I am to see the dunes want to reclaim the land that Rees Jones so ruthlesly destroyed. Really GREAT!  I'm thrilled actually.
The recent pictures Michael Dugger posted prove my point.
The pictures reveal the unstable nature of the land/dunes and the difficulty in building and maintaining a golf course in its midst.  Without the mounds, which I didn't care for, the shifting, drifting dunes would have overrun the golf course sooner.[/color]

That whole left side of #7 was filled with Rees Pieces mounds and some really uninteresting bunkering,

The bunkering hasn't changed.
The pictures reveal bunkering that has yet to be affected by the dunes.
How is that bunkering uninteresting ?

Try being objective, not emotional in your response.[/color]

and if the winter winds blow a little harder, maybe it will eventually blow some sand in the middle of those uninteresting fairways so we could see some really interesting strategy which Rees simply bulldozed into an oblivion of flat and featureless fairways surrounded by Rees Pieces mounds. Billions of them.
How is the FAIRWAY at # 7 at Sandpines that much different from the FAIRWAY at # 13 at Friar's Head ?

And, you know that the FAIRWAYS at Sandpines arent' FLAT and FEATURELESS.[/color]

Pat keeps on mentioning that those dunes are Oblique and they are NOT conducive for golf. If that were so, then how come Sandpines was even built?

Because a developer owned the land and THOUGHT he could build a golf course and homes on the site.[/color]

Those dunes in Michael's picture are a variety of Oblique, Transverse, Parabolic and Hummock.

Oblique and Transverse dunes can and are in fact useable for golf. The Oblique and Transverse dunes your trying to make the Sandpines area to be aren't nearly that high. You have to go further past the Siltcoos inlet where they become really HUGE. These are dunes that off-road vehicle use is permitted and where faces and pits of the dunes can get higher then 100'. That wasn't the case at Sandpines. It was no different then the pictures Michael has shown.

That's not true and you know it.
Those are Oblique Dunes

Michaels recent pictures reveal their inherent nature and how they've shifted and encroached over a large barrier (mounds) and onto the golf course.

I asked you earlier, and you failed to respond.
Once you plant grass for fairways, tees and greens,
how do you prevent the Oblique Dunes from overrunning the golf course ?  I'd appreciate your answering that question.[/color]

You've heard of Cruden Bay and Ballybunion haven't you? Many of the holes are on Oblique and Transverse dunes, just on a smaller scale.

That's a disengenuous analogy.
You've heard of getting hit by a 20 mm cannon shell haven't you, well, a BB pellet is just a smaller scale of it.[/color]

For there to be Oblique dunes, you have to have Foredunes, Hummocks. Transverse and Oblique dunes then occur. Past that, they become Parabolic and eventually transistion into the the native habitat or native lands--the dunes end--and sometimes they even start up again! In Florence's case they start up again higher above in the hills, and this is where the process starts again--all from the natural rocks and boulders INLAND, that have broken up over the years and eventually turned into fine sand.

Stop the nonsense.
We already did the research on this.
Those are Oblique Dunes.
You yourself admitted it on another thread.[/color]

[T_MacWood]

Pat/Hambone
Those drifting dunes are quite attractive...why don't they let them bury the entire course and then start over again?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

Also, I want to add that this maybe the best looking bunkering on a Rees Jones course--ever! He didn't even have anything to do with it!

The bunkering remains unchanged, or hadn't you noticed.[/color]

Now, I would surmize that Pat's next step is to tell us that Rees had it planned that way all along.

I doubt he planned it, but he might have been aware of the possibility.[/color]

It just took three or four different owners to go broke to do it!

How many owners ?
And how many went broke.
You're exaggerating and going to extremes again.[/color]

Keep blowing those winds Mother Nature! We'll make Sandpines into a Top 100 yet!

It would appear that you're into "the look" since the winds won't change the play of the holes.

P.S.  You never did indicate where the retention resevoir should have been built[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

Had Michael Dugger posted his most recent pictures on a seperate thread and asked what people thought.
I'd be willing to bet that the comments would have been very positive.

Then, if he subsequently revealed it was Rees Jones's work and at Sandpines, the back pedaling from Rees bashers would have been comical.

But, since the cat is out of the bag.

Does anyone find what's depicted in the photos objectionable ?

Tom MacWood,

Have you ever been to and played Sandpines ?

And, if they started over, how would you suggest that they stabilize the dunes ?

[Robert Thompson]

Gents: It is funny how this thread has evolved into a debate about Sandpines.
All I took from the GD Matchplay was that I'd much rather tee it up with Rees that Fazio. What kind of architect guesses Pine Valley as the oldest course in the U.S.? And what's the deal with the comment, once again, about Pine Valley in the U.S. Open thread? Is Fazio just not willing to comment because he doesn't work on many U.S. Open courses?
Lastly, for all the name dropping of Pine Valley that Fazio does in a just a few questions, it struck me that Rees is also a member there, isn't he? He doesn't seem to feel the need to point it out.
I've interviewed both these guys on a couple of occasions -- always interesting experiences, though I always come away thinking Fazio doesn't really have much of substance to say.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
No, I haven't had the pleasure. And I'm not planning on a visit any time in the next decade or two, that is unless God has completed his work and undone Rees's transpression against mankind.

I'd recommed some of Tom Simpson's methods of dealing with drifting sanddunes. Although the real experts are the Dutch who have been dealing with these situations successfully for many years.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
Your arguing just for the sake of arguing. This couse has always been dreck and you know it! It has nothing to do with favoritism or bias. It has everything with doing a hack job by one of the more successful names in golf architecture.

END OF STORY

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
No, I haven't had the pleasure.

And I'm not planning on a visit any time in the next decade or two, that is unless God has completed his work and undone Rees's transpression against mankind.

You've never seen the site, before or after the golf course was built, but plow ahead with an evaluative diagnosis.
A worthless opinion.  Why am I not surprised ?[/color]

I'd recommed some of Tom Simpson's methods of dealing with drifting sanddunes. Although the real experts are the Dutch who have been dealing with these situations successfully for many years.

I doubt that Simpson or the Dutch ever dealt with Oblique Dunes of this magnitude.  Would you cite the courses where they dealt with Oblique Dunes ?   And, would you cite the methods ?

Without calling Tommy or others, and without having them prompt you, tell me the elevation differentiations on the property.  Let's start with an easy one.  The elevation differences between # 9 green and # 12 tee.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()