Newsflash: Rees designed the fourth at The Country Club!

[Geoff_Shackelford]

I'm sure William Flynn would find this quote from Rees Jones interesting. And maybe Keith Foster, The Country Club's new consulting architect incidentally replacing Rees, would as well!

"I'm making longer holes but I still build short holes, like the fourth at Brookline, one of the great short par-4s I've designed. It was 334 yards with a small green, small landing area and bunkers you can't recover from." -Rees Jones http://www.golfclubatlas.com/board/postings.cgi?action=newtopic&number=1&forum=Golf+Course+Architecture&DaysPrune=20&LastLogin=

Apparently Rees forgets that all he did was put back the green in a similar fashion to the way William Flynn designed it prior to a Geoffrey Cornish redo. Rees Jones, architect of The Country Club! And don't you just love it when architect proclaim their own greatness? Maybe that's why they brought in Keith Foster!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff,

I think this brings up a more interesting point, one I have been trying to get the site to focus on, the club's role in all of these changes.

Here we have a club of note, with a historical connection to a great architect,
so why and how did they go about changing the 4th hole in the first place ?  

What was their thinking ?  Why did they hire Rees, and why did they decide to restore the 4th ?

And now, why have they hired Keith, and what does the club indicate is his mission

I'm more troubled by a club's desire to change their course, or their blanket acquiescence in allowing an architect to change their course.

An architect is a paid consulting professional, like a lawyer, doctor, or an accountant, and before the architect's plans are transfered into the ground, the membership has to approve them.  

My fascination, or field of interest is in the club's process for determining need, selecting an architect, approving the resultant plans, and ultimately, altering the golf course.

Lack of leadership, or misguided leadership is usually the begining of a disastrous alteration.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

I must have been dizzy from listening to Jim Nantz talking about how "fascinating" it is that three of the par-3's at Atlanta Athletic look and play the same. And is it my TV, or do these cameras have trouble picking up the blinding ovals?

Here's the correct link for Rees Jones' interesting remark:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/golf/2001/pga_championship/news/2001/08/18/onthecourse/

Pat, I don't know where you're going with this other than trying to distract us from the point, which is, Rees Jones will say just about anything and probably have people buy it! He's stretching the truth in a way that it so ridiculous, it's a joke! Rees is claiming design credit for a hole he didn't design! He re-interpreted it after it had been changed, most certainly didn't restore it, but does that give him the right to claim it as his design? I guess in the world of mega-ego architects and today's marketing saturated golf, this is a reasonable comment by Jones.

I can see Tom Fazio doing this in five years, if not sooner. "I designed a wonderful double option hole at Riviera,the eighth," or "I envisioned church pews at Oakmont because I thought they framed the hole well...".
Geoff

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff,

Sorry, I thought I saw a bigger issue, but to stay on your specific topic,
I don't know that I object to the statement as strongly as you.  If someone redesigns an original hole, and you come back in and redesign it again, without it being a restoration of the original hole, can you say you designed the hole ?
 
I think you probably can, and I don't take great offense to it, understanding that you should review each situation on a case by case basis.

We also don't know if those were Rees's exact words, or the words interpreted by the writer.

I would think you would be equally, or more upset by NAME players taking credit for courses they never designed, I find that more disengenuous.

One of the things I found objectionable at AAC, was all the stone walled ponds.

AAC isn't the only golf course that suffers from similar par 3's.  It seems that the short par 3 is almost a relic, with 210-250 par 3's proliferating.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

P.S.

I think the issue I raised regarding club responsibility is an important one.

[Slag_Bandoon]

 Rees Jones: "...bunkers you can't recover from."  Umm.. are they filled with water?  

(Like Rees' Sandpines (Oregon) bunkers in the Spring. A plot of land that had great promise but his creation (abomination) is a dozer demolition derby layout.)  

[Mike_Cirba]

I agree that the issue of club responsibility and leadership is a very important one.  However, for those clubs seeking to "keep up" with the times, or more for those who hold important championships, it's easy to see where they get more of their ideas for change.

Let's look at this weeks PGA.  If I'm Joe Greenchaiman at Classic Architecture Hills CC, and I am concerned about the viability of my club for hosting important professional or amateur events (even on a regional and state level), and I watched this weeks tournament, what did I see?

I see changes made to the course to lengthen it significantly.  The two most important holes of the week were a 243 yard par three (being reached with 4 irons!), and a 490+ plus par four with a full-carry second shot over water!

I see an architect who came in to flatten the greens (for faster speeds), add length, add and redo bunkers in a very "fair" manner, tighten fairways with rough, and hear his work is heralded and the primary reason for AAC to be awarded the tourney.

I then look at my course's selection of 210 to 140 par threes, our "killer" par four tipping out at 440 yards, our character-filled, but possibly unfair bunkers, our wildly undulating greens and wide fairways and think....MY LORD, we can never compete!

Why, those lads would rip this place apart, embarassing the membership and diminishing our status in the golf world.  

Let's put together a master plan to get this place up to snuff....

And once again...it begins...and unfortunately, their is often no one in political power in these clubs who understands or appreciates classic architecture in such a way that would prevent unwise architectural or other decisions being made.

After all, let's face it...the work these guys are doing is heralded every time a major event comes back to one of these courses (almost NEVER criticized in any way by the networks or major golfing press), so the club feels...these fellow are the experts...who are WE to question their infinite knowledge?

[M.W._Burrows]

The funny thing is that if you speak to the maintenance staff at TCC they'd tell you that Rees didn't do much of anything there.  They did most of the work, particularly the bunker renovations, in-house.  According to one Assistant Superintendent I spoke to.."Rees Jones didn't do much here.  He came in once in awhile and said 'Bill (Spence) and his staff seem to know what they are doing, let them keep going."  

I know Rees did put in some silly 2" moguls near the 7th green and called them "Chocolate Drops."  Other than that he wasn't around much.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Pat,
I guess I am under the assumption that Rees Jones "restored" The Country Club. At least, that is what he used to say and how the work was portrayed. Either way, whether its a redesign, renovation, restoration, reesstoration, anyone with an ounce of humility and respect would credit the original architects who found the hole, built it and gave it the character that Rees Jones now proclaims he bequeathed upon Brookline. I'm guessing the hole came about through a combination of Willie Campbell and William Flynn's work. I do know that Flynn was responsible for the green complex that Rees Jones attempted to restore (p.113 of Golden Age), but he did throw in his own modifications (closing down the entrance).

I guess there are just two classes of architects. Those who would take credit for the hole as theirs regardless of its pedigree, and those who would talk about what the original architect did and why they tried to put it back and why they don't want anyone to even know they were there doing the restoration work.

This kind of comment by Jones speaks to my belief that certain architects do restoration or pre-tournament touch up work because they admire the beauty created by the original architect and want to return the character for those who play the course (or stick up for the character when the USGA needs to protect par). Then there are those who do this work to boost their credibility and image. This is the key to the argument that we are all having here on the Merion and Riviera issues, and why there is such passion. Sadly, our society today doesn't think twice about the kind of statements that Jones is making in crediting himself or proclaiming his greatness with the fourth at Brookline.

The issue you raised is an important one and I don't mean to disregard it, I just don't think it involves the architect taking credit for someone elses work. As for the writer, Gary Van Sickle, he's one of the best in the business. I can't speak to his quoting ability, but he is a student of design and I would not be surprised if he raised an eyebrow when Rees mentioned one of the great short par-4's he's designed, on a course which dates back to 1895.
Geoff

[Brad Klein]

For the 1988 Open at TCC, Rees did a pretty good job of undoing everything Cornish had done at The Country Club. But most of the bunkers had to be redone, and that was completed in-house prior to the Ryder Cup without Rees' involvement.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Here's where we disagree.

Given the choice to hold a tournament and modify a good or great golf course, my vote is simple, NO TOURNAMENT.  Again, the club, not the architect decides on the direction they want to go.  I also want to state that the final direction is often not without serious internal strife.

Geoff,

I can't disagree that a more thorough credit or explanation should have been given.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

The funny thing is that we really don't disagree.  

I'd love to believe that many prestigious clubs and courses would "just say no" to altering their courses significantly in the hope of hosting major amateur and professional tournaments.  I would hope that there would be the type of knowledable and strong leadership within those clubs that would have the sense to say, "enough already!"

I just wish I saw more of it out there.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
As far as I'm concerend, it is a quote, because it got published. If Rees is reading this, he can call the reporter from CNN/SI and ask for a retraction, and then he can tell him to also retract it here on GCA.

Stop sticking up for this guy and his ego. Yes, he is probably the nicest man on the planet, but making a quote like that has about as much truth to it as me saying I designed the Old Course.

I'm tired of all of the excuses for all of this shoddy work. Some of those bunkers at ACC look as if Ted Robinson was there,and that isn't a good thing! (Those flat monolithic round pots that have a depth of about 2 inches and that you can putt out of.)(That is if you don't need the latest in high-tech lensware from Oakley to prevent yourself from being blinded from the crushed white marble. It was as if CBS had to turn down the contrast to allow programming to continue.)

What a sad state the game of Golf is in. Just a sad, sad state.

Robert Walker, I can hardly wait for the David Tom's ticker tape parade.

[kilfara]

Personally, the 4th at TCC is one of my least-favorite holes on the property (apart from one or two silly holes on the Primrose nine). An awkward short dogleg on which trees are the main hazard, with the fairway canted at strange angles which tend to shove balls into the trees on the right...it has some charm/quirk, but it's not really my idea of a great short par 4, and it's certainly not the first hole I would have claimed to design at Brookline (if indeed that's what Rees has done).

(That does, however, give me the chance to tell a great story about the 4th: I was playing the course in a Harvard intrasquad tournament qualifying round, and one of my teammates pushed his drive slightly off of the tee and hit one of the branches which virtually hang over the front of the teebox. The ball ricocheted backward, finishing just on the back of the teebox - slightly behind the tee markers, and feet away from plunging down the precipice behind the tee. In fact, his next swing was impeded by the guard rails protecting you from said precipice. I thought my friend should have declared the ball unplayable and reloaded from the tee, but instead he took out a sand wedge, made a very upright swing and with a mighty heave just did manage to carry the chasm stretching 80 yards in front of the tee. He then took out a 3-wood and, from the upslope of the chasm, hit a high hook around the trees which chased down the hill to the fairway just short of the green...and then holed the resultant 60-footer for par! Greatest par I've ever seen, bar none.)

As for AAC...I spent much of the weekend gnashing my teeth that such a dramatic tournament was taking place on such an unworthy golf course. But then it hit me: maybe AAC is the perfect major championship golf course for the new millenium. Raise the bunker lips ever-so-slightly, and you're left with the sort of golf course that the pros love (because it flatters their abilities), that the general public loves (because it flatters the pros abilities), that the media loves (because of the drama), that the PGA and the corporate types love (because of the facilities), and that the Treehouse should love (because the bastardization of Atlanta Athletic Club is a far lesser crime than the similar treatment of a truly classic course). What's not to like?

Cheers,
Darren

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

Just because it's printed doesn't mean it's a quote.  Even on this site, people read  someone elses post, interpret it the way they like, and then quote the person inaccurately or out of context.

I too didn't care for the bunker shapes at AAC.  I found them disappointing at best.

As for the white sand, how do you know that it was Rees that selected it ?  And therein lies my problem, allegations not based on a complete set of facts.

In two projects I am familiar with, sand color was an issue, and the club, not the architect made the final decision, so how do you know what went on at AAC ?

I defend Rees, Fazio and others when I think the criticisms are biased, unfair or not based in fact, and, I join in when I think the criticisms are valid.

I liken some of the criticism of architects to the perspective we sometimes have at the begining, and end of a relationship with a woman.  In the begining, she can do no wrong, we love everything about her.  Then after the relationship sours, she can do no right, we dislike everything about her.
But, she really hasn't changed, only our perspective has, because at each point in the relationship, that was how we chose to view her.

And so it is with Rees, he can do no right with you and others.  He does good work at Hollywood and Baltusrol and it goes unnoticed
He does a good job at Ocean Forest and hardly a word of praise is heard.  The bunker sand at AAC is bright white, and it's his fault, what a terrible job !

Come on, be critical, but base your criticism on fact, and when something good is done, give credit.  Give the devils their due, despite your personal dislikes.

Perhaps introspection can answer the apparent "hang em high" tone regarding certain architects.

But, that's just my opinion.

P.S.  Get the Talking Irish, you'll love it.

[SPDB]

This is the type of post that I find devoid of any value, and often the go-to message on this discussion.
Too often posters use this forum to dress down architects they dislike, and too often it is seems personal, rather than constructive, or thought provoking.
I would love to have a discussion about the 4th at TCC (in my mind, one of the great short par 4s), or any other hole at Brookline, for that matter. I love the place.
However, I am not sure what value is added by starting a thread that focuses on the semantics of an innocuous quote by Rees Jones. He may have said he designed the 4th, but do you really think he meant to imply that the entire 4th was his work?
Let's be serious here, and constructive, as well.

[ForkaB]

SPBD

I agree fully.  How are we going to have conversations about Golf Course Architecture if so few people really have the knowledge and/or the inclination to step up to the plate and say what they like or don't like about a golf hole or a golf course without resorting to generalities and/or promoting personal vendettas?

Darren

Thanks for being the exception to the rule above, and sharing your thoguhts on the 4th at TCC.

Also, great story about your friend's par.  I have a similar story that did not have such a happy ending.  After hitting the ball backwards (through missing the ball and then hitting it on his recoil) the player in question did not pass the 1st tee until his 8th stroke.  And this was the 1st hole of a 36-hole competition!  I'll fill you in on the whole story at Bandon in a month or so.  Look forward to seeing you there and playing golf rather than blethering about it!

[SPDB]

to add another funny story (this was related to me, i did not actually witness it). A player steps up to Merion's first tee. Those of you who have played know that the first drive is an almost public display to the entire membership, with the lunch terrace running down your left side, and with the large tree framing your right. The fact that Merion has a strict no-mulligan policy, adds further pressure. Anyway, the player in question nails one off the toe, it hits the tree and ricochets back toward the proshop, where it comes to rest, on the gravel some 20 yards behind the tee. Sufficiently rattled, the player is paralyzed with fear, and confusion. Cognizant of the policy, he frantically walks back to where the ball has come to rest, and addresses it. At this point, everyone lunching on the terrace has fled for fear that the wildness will return. Instead, he nicks a three iron clean, which bores underneath the tree and comes to rest some 160 yards down the fairway. If only Mickelson had this type of composure!

[Bryan Glynn]

Come on now. Mickelson does have that composure in fact he would have stepped up to the tee and drilled a drive 290 yds + right down the middle.  Don't  make it seem that because he beat everybody but one guy yesterday and hasn't won a major that he is a hack or something.

[Willie_Dow]

Geoff: My recollection of Rees work at TCC was that all went well.  Like MWB says the Green Supt. the Powers at Be, and Rees all kept the job in hand, and the membership all loved what they received.
That's teamwork, without giving off to some force who didn't know what was wanted by the membership, or wouldn't listen to anyone who did, but wanted most to get a job done ASAP.

[Matt B]

The fourth to me does not resemble the old fourth, he can have credit for it. In addition to the different green area, the round pot bunkers that threaten the drive are out of character with the course.

I also don't understand 17th, totally out of character with the course, although not possible to restore the famous pivotal hole of the Vardon, Ray, Ouimet match due to land lost.

[Jamie_Duffner]

Rees made a very similar comment conerning all of Congressional.  He stated that since HE has changed the course so much that it should essentially be a "Rees Jones" design.  I recall getting in to this on the other site just before the US Open and thought it was about the most ridiulous comments I had ever heard.  It appears Rees is at it again.  

IF the layout is essentially the same and some modifications are made, should the hole be associated with the redesigner?  I don't think so, unless we're talking about ANGC, in which case I'm certain Dr Mac would be more than happy to remove his name from the design and let Fazio put his there.

[SPDB]

I have heard that Rees Jones did a number to the 18th green complex, restoring a good number of teeth to the front bunker, as well as contour to the green. Is this true?
I must admit, if it is true, he did a splendid job.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jamie Duffner,

Could you provide the exact quote and source of Rees's alleged statement regarding Congressional ?

Thanks.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Rees is actually most enlightening on this sort of thing.  For example, I never would have recognized the 15th and 18th at AAC as being "great holes" if he hadn't proclaimed them so to Peter Kessler on the Golf Channel last week.

It makes my viewing much easier.

[CupCutter]

With regard to the "restoration" work at The Country Club, I just have to say this about Mr. Jones...I lost alot of respect for him when, in early 1999, he called Superintendent Bill Spence and railed him about having The TCC grounds staff do all the bunker restoration...Rees then called Gerald Church (TCC/Ryder Cup General Chairman)at his home and repeated his assault!  Suffice to say the TCC was NOT happy...seems Rees wanted the job to go to one of his "cronies" and not in- house...shame on you Mr. Jones!  

I personally think that Bill Spence and his Staff (Greg Barker, Jeff Baker, Scott Lagana, Mike Poch, Brad McDonald...did I miss anyone??) did a WONDERFUL job in preparing the Championship Course for the Ryder Cup...I know for a fact that is why the relationship between TCC and Rees Jones is now strained beyond repair!

**footnote**
Yours truley measured the entire Championship Course for the Ryder Cup in 1998...is that what Andy Warhal(sp?) meant by 15 minutes of fame???
(sheepish grin)