Punta Brava Press Conference
I had the good fortune of attending the press conference today announcing Tiger Woods' new Mexico project, a Red McCombs-backed real estate and golf development that was originally set to be a Tom Fazio design.
Looking at the site photos, routing and descriptions, it appears Tiger held his ground and landed some truly stunning seaside holes. In fact, based on the awkward chuckling amongst Woods, McCombs and the principals over the decision to use seaside land for golf instead of lots, there surely were battles that Tiger ultimately won. I can't think of any other architect who would have the clout to pull off such a feat (you'll see what I mean when you look at the routing). Certainly Tiger is the only player architect other than Ben Crenshaw who would put up such a fight. (Sorry Jack, but I've seen El Dorado!)
You can check out the site photos and all of the other over-the-top press stuff here (hit the Play link and then the Tiger Woods link in the upper right to see the video we saw today, which looks like a Ridley Scott film).
There is also this press release encapsulating all of the details, and this Christina Lewis interview in the Wall Street Journal.
The event itself was oddly tense, and not because it was poorly planned or executed. Quite the opposite. The Hotel Bel-Air was the site and the invitation list kept very strict (I know, that doesn't explain how I got in). Those in attendance knew almost nothing about the project before the booming video and suits took their seats.
But considering what's going on in the world markets and based on the paucity of the usual butt-kissing enthusiasm during the Q&A, I sensed the media present were not too excited to cheer on a high-end project being built for the kind of people who have just milked our system and will be retiring on their golden parachutes. Obviously bad luck timing-wise for the Punta Brava people.
That said, unlike Tiger's first two design projects which look like real-estate driven deals on weak sites, this is one I can't wait to see. It's also going to raise the stakes for Tiger, as the pressure to produce will be great on such a dramatic site.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 08:24 PM
Reader Comments (20)
that said, the par 3s look cool.
It raises the stakes for me personally because I have no desire to see the first two. This one looks like it will be fun to play, assuming the land isn't too severe.
Good for Tiger letting the land at least partially dictate the routing.
of course, i may be wrong.
the average golfer will not see these places, except in pictures, as all but a fortunate few will actually play here and even fewer, like charlie rangle, will actually own anything on these sites.
what i don't understand is why these events get the outsized coverage and attention as if it matters to anyone other than the chosen few.
geoff, if your really a champion of the people with access, stick to relevant topics and leave the rest to the TMZ's an National Enquirer's of the world - please
frankD
And for the fun of it, who asked the dumbest question?
Jaime Diaz was there from Golf Digest, some business writers from the wires, as were the remaining LA print, radio and TV. I was there for Links.
Dumbest question: "will there be red tees?"
frank,
It's Tiger and the invitation was very cryptic. For all I knew it was going to be a public resort. Wish it was. But if I didn't write about any place not available to the average man, the architecture writings would be pretty limited!
Your instinct to complain that people talk about architecture at courses they'll never play seems correct. (Augusta being the most obvious. What do I care if they grow rough or trees or move tees back. Aside from having to watch bad Masters.) But unfortunately, what private courses do with their architecture begins to infect public courses and people's attitudes. Thus, at a lot of public courses I've seen tree planting, narrowed fairways, higher rough, etc. When, in fact, public courses should be doing the opposite of those things for the sake of playability and pace of play. Moreover, people on public courses want to "play the tips" even though they have no business playing back. And I can only blame it on what people see on TV at courses they'll never play.
thanks for your response.
my i suggest, and what i was thinking of as "relevant", is looking at courses the general public can access which were previously reviewed (say twenty years ago and earlier) and generally accepted architectually (and maybe review the reviews of days past) and see if the "architecture" held up to the "technology" of today.
ie Colony West in Tamarac FLA was one of the favored magazine ranked courses in the 80's and still exists today - so how is this course doing today ?
ie Westchester Country Club NY was one of the favored touring pro stops for the last 40 years (it's private but can be access by the public under certain circumstances (hotel guest or open charity functions etc)) as it had "good bones" - so how did this "architecture" avoid becoming obsolete from the technological improvement despite the fact that it was dropped off the tour anyway ?
why concentrate coverage on "the flavor of the month" ?
anyway be well
frankD
thanks for your response.
pace of play should be the highest priority for any public access course for the sake of everyone or else it eats into ones' drinking time.
as for playing from the tips, the knuckleheads in my group have previously gravitated toward that end because the went out and bought a $600 driver, took lessons practiced, and of course, wanted to "test" their "new" games. to end this foolish pursuit we have instituted a general rule - no metal woods ! - this irons only (except for rescue type clubs) force us to play from the appropriate tees.
the results are to pay attention to managing ones game, which typically means paying at least some attention to the architectural design of a course. one guy has honed it to a two iron, a seven iron, a nine iron and a putter. he plays any course in the mid-90's. yeah really. (if it gets any hotter than that he doesn't play)
anyway be well
frankD
i'm butting in here,i know, but if you want my take on King Klein as an "impartial" media observer, well, i've got a story for you.
frankD
I love your group's approach to playing. I wish others would adopt it. Best.
At what point did I even remotely infer (let alone state) that Klein is impartial? Heck, Klein himself would tell you he's "partial" - he's a columnist, not a reporter. That means he's paid to have opinions, and as you've obviously noticed, he doesn't hesitate to express them.
I suspect you were attempting to say Klein is biased. Which he might be, I couldn't care less. So is Whitten. Regardless, I'd much rather read their opinions than another useless instruction article that completely counteracts the previous useless instruction article.
For that matter, perhaps the most opinionated SOB among golf architecture critics - at least since Doak left the magazine business for design - is the person running this blog! (Geoff, I do mean that with complete respect, though I'll also readily admit I'd hate to be the PR guy for any of the tours dealing with you.)
If you want to butt in to any discussion, that's fine - that's what happens on blogs. But it's not really butting in if you're making a comment that has no bearing whatsoever on the question that was asked, which was simply, "was Klein there?" (among others).
It would seem that neither Whitten nor Klein were there, or I'm guessing Geoff would've told us. If they weren't, then either a) they were occupied elsewhere (which happens, even to Tiger), or b) Tiger's PR folks bungled mightily by not trusting Whitten and Klein with the name of the architect in confidence, or c) Tiger's ego got in the way and the only people who knew ahead of time were the ones he knows will treat him favorably. Interesting that Diaz made the trek all the way there, given that he lives in Pinehurst, don't you think?
What with the timing of the press conference as a whole - given the economic crisis and the ultra-exclusive nature of the development, this conference should've been postponed, even if Tiger were not available again for six months - I'm guessing B or C.
Bill
P.S. If I may return the favor and butt into your post, personally, I want to know about the most compelling architecture regardless of whether I can play it. If I may draw a humorous parallel, if the SI swimsuit issue were limited to women only with whom we might score, well, it would be a rather unattractive issue. Or, on a more serious note, that parallel could also be drawn to Jordan's commentary - the swimsuit issue (and similar media) make men desire and women aspire to an impossible standard, just as Augusta National does for golf. But every spring, I still glance at the swimsuit issue, and continue to watch the Masters. I don't love my wife or my home course any less!
thank you for your response.
i wish i could share your enthusiasm for being exposed to those courses, which i will never see let alone play, but i do understand your explaination.
anyway, be well
frankD
Let's be clear about a few things..
1. Tiger Woods came from a middle class background and has done everything in his power to separate himself from that for years....this latest "caddying" gesture is a ploy and self promoting..nothing else...
2. He NEVER graduated from Stanford..which he acknowledges..and he certainly NEVER studied any aspect of course design or architecture...his Dubai project is disgraceful. He shills to Arab sheiks and always has...they have the money and that's what he goes for...
3. Woods could have started a program for less than entitled youth with a nationwide portfolio of 9 hole courses with minimal membership fees for younger players..instead he did what he always has done..go for the money...
Tiger is certainly "free" to do all these things..but they do expose him for the unrelenting money grubber he is.....