MikeC:
The first photo looks to me (at first glance) like a real old fashioned push-up green. Again, I'm not all that familiar with Rees Jones's style (or his career style, if he has one) but the photos of Olde Kinderhook on here don't look much like what I've thought of as Rees Jones's style.
Many of these holes basically look quite a lot like some old fashioned architecture to me. Call it "Golden Age" or whatever you want to call it but most of these holes (with a few exceptions on detail) look like a pre-WW2 golf course to me. And I've never seen a Rees course that looked this way so what does that tell me--or you?
It tells me, if I'm even remotely right about that, that Rees is changing and doing some different things! On Olde Kinderhook, at least, Rees is into some kind of retro look and design. And judging from these photos he's doing a pretty damn good job of it. But there does seem to be some modern giveaways and indications that he hasn't done a total retro job of it (if he was even trying to). But honestly, who's going to notice, except maybe 50 fanatics on Golfclubatlas, and how much does that really matter?
But what I'm about to say about the modern giveaways are strictly very much my own opinion, and I admit I'm no architect, and I'm still very much in the architectural learning mode. I may even be way out in left field with my observations and I welcome anybody else to say so and tell me where I'm misguided or misinformed.
Again, the first photo looks to me basically like a real old fashioned push-up green. I like the basic archtiectural lines he did with that green (particularly the green surface itself). See the way it transitions with the background like the old fashioned style. Old fashioned push-ups sometimes had a real "manufactured" look to them because basically they were manufactured.
I could be wrong but the "push-up" style green (the old fashioned green surface construction method) I believe was as much a green sub-soil or sub-surface construction method as an architecturally or actually pushed up green (like the one in the first photo). In other words even a green that melded seamlessly into its approach or surround in the lowest of low profile looks was still considered the "push-up" construction method. I could be wrong about that and more knowledgeable people than me on the older architecture or construction methods could confirm or deny that.
But just for a moment let's switch over to the "playability" or strategy of this particular hole; as I understand it this green is on the end of about a 540yd par 5!
I don't get out much but honestly I don't think I've seen a lot of greens that look and probably play like this on the receiving end of a 540yd par 5! Actually, I take that back, I can think of two at Torresdale Frankford (Ross). But still greens like this one are usually at the end of short to medium length par 4s. But what Rees has done here with a green like this on a hole like this one is might be brilliant!
To me a hole like this is basically designed to receive a shortish iron approach, so imagine for a minute what strategic (or tactical) thoughts go through a golfer's mind who is trying to hit this par 5 green in two!! Pretty interesting! This is a bit like the brilliant pyscholological switcheroo #17 at Easthampton G.C. except C&C's is actually much better psychologically because it's about a 485yd par 5 instead of 540yds!
In other words, if you go at this green in two and miss it, strategically are you saying to yourself, "I wish I'd laid up within 100yds of it instead of being around the side of it somewhere--or in a greenside bunker?" Maybe or maybe not!
But even for a short iron approach look at the green design--a narrow front (relatively hard to hit) with deepish bunker danger on either side! Or the safer short iron play to the wider, more accomodating rear with a putt back down a classic early Ross style side to side stair-type tier.
And unless I forget to mention it, the green surface really does look old fashioned in almost every way and the rear line against what it visually transitions into behind is exactly like the old stuff!
The bunkering, though, is a relatively close copy of the old fashioned architecture but has some real modern giveaways. The two "puffy" shoulders forming the two identical capes in the left greenside bunker is some kind of adaptation of various styles, in my opinion. But heh, that's OK if that's what Rees wanted to do. He may have been into some adaptive Retro-combo look at Olde Kinderhook and I think it looks pretty good except for some giveaway regularity of formation (later on that).
Generally a Ross type bunker on a green like this (as an old fashioned example) would have the steepish face and probably the "wiggle" on the bunker face that follows the leftside greenline but probably not with the capes (like this one).
For some mini cape-lines on a greenside bunkers like this one see the right greenside bunker on #12 Merion in GeoffShac's "Golden Age of Golf Design" on page 70! Bunkers and greenside bunkers like this one (Merion's) just don't get any better than in this photo! Note how it has the laciness and maybe even sort of cape-ish elements but how the Merion bunker's lacy features and capes or mini-capes are much lower profile. They have none of that "puffiness" to them! They appear flatter, almost like if someone took a huge masher and hammered on Rees's puffy construction features.
But there's a reason Rees's look like they do and the ones in the photo of Merion's #12 look like they do. Rees's were formed by machinery and the sod was layed onto them and stapled into place. The machinery almost always works these formations into that rounded shape so the end result will be that "puffy" look! Merion's #12 bunker in the photo probably had the sod clumps just layed into the bunker and away it grew. That's about the way it's done still by C&C, Hanse and Doak! But anyway!
The irony is that with a long evolution span that beautiful lacy bunker look (Merion's original #12) will get a bit of a "puffy" look with decades of sand splash! But then the maintenance crews are constantly sort of trimming it up on the edges (hopefully correctly) and it then evolves into something like what Merion's bunkers looked like in 1999 which is a little different than the bunker on GeoffShac's page 70 and a lot different than what they look like today!
How do I get so far afield? Lateness and wine is how! Anyway, the bunkering on the right of this green looks a little better. Also the roundness on the cape (or whatever) on the right side of the left bunker is probably unnecessary.
The bunker in front of this green looks good--it looks old fashioned and could play real strategic for someone going at this green in two!
There may be some other things I forgot but it's too late now. I don't think this particular green appears to have a "false front" on it--a false front technically being a green-surface unpinnable drap-down. Miss this green surface front though and it appears the ball will retreat!
You asked MikeC, and I could be all wrong but what do you think?
I did read your post on concave vs convex and I agree with what you say almost entirely. It is aerial golf probably initiated by the ease of earthmoving of post-WW2 (concavity), the ease of drainage (placing drainage pipes in places in fairways they never did in the old days, etc, etc). Whatever it was, construction possibilities, ease of earth-moving, modern pipe drainage methods or a conceptual or arcthitectural shift (post WW2) for some other reason, something got things going from convex (natural) to concave (manufactured) and helped create more one dimensional aerial golf courses!
I'm wiped out--I'm going to bed! If there're typos--screw it!