Rees Jones article in Cigar Aficionado

[Fact Patrol]

Mr. TEPaul

I didn't mean to imply that Ben Crensaw said 118, but rather that he certainly might have been thinking about Perry Maxwell's famous quote when he made the Sand Hills statement in light of Ben's knowledge of history and known reverence for Perry Maxwell.

And mdugger never made the connection between 118 and Ben either.  All he said was "It is very true that when it comes to a poor piece of land we ask a lot of our golf course architects.  It is possible to build Whistling Straits.  But it is another story when there are 118 golf holes there.  Eliminate the 100."

So it was Mr. Mucci that started this blunder!  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mike
You're right Park's Ocean City is Greate Bay...I didn't know that. Park's work at ACCC was a few years earlier in 1919-20 when he added 13 new holes. And then Flynn evidently added to that 18.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

I like GCGC despite some of the artificial mounds
I like Old Marsh despite the artificial mounds.
I like Somerset Hills despite the artificial mounds
I like Preakness Hills despite the artificial mounds
I like Boca Rio despite the artificial mounds.
I like Westhampton despite the artificial mounds.

Does anybody think those are bad golf courses ?

Artificial mounds do not a bad hole make.

I tried to pursuade the owner, Arthur Goldberg, not to attempt a Wynn like venture with Atlantic City.
Billy Ziobro, Rees Jones and Tom Doak also tried to pursuade him to be more conservative in his design theories.

Arthur saw the golf course as an added attraction for his hotels/casinos and a nearby golf course and comp for his customers, hence his perspective on its form and use differed from the rest of us.

Did I take issue with Arthur's desire to change the golf course, Yes.

Do I take issue with Rees Jones and Tom Doak for contracting with Arthur to modify the golf course, No, because Arthur was going to modify that course if he had to do it himself, so I would rather see the fellows involved retained, in the hope that they could soften Arthur's views, which I believe is what happened.

Do I take issue with condemning one architect for altering a classic and not others, YES

Paul Turner,

Most of the course is natural looking with the exception of some tall containment mounds.  You've got the book, look at the pictures and your recall.

My personal conversations with Lowell are none of your business, nor are they public domain

Enviro prohibited certain site use, like positioning the 13th green next to the pond in the southeast corner of the property.  The driveway and parking lot would be further removed from view while playing the hole and mounds other than for hiding the cars wouldn't have been used.

Quantify research.

If you've never seen Sandpines, how can you compare the water features with those of Yale, a course you have seen ?

What did Ross do over 26 years at Pinehurst ?
How does that differ in principle from what Atlantic is doing ?

Now you want to pretend that you didn't know the holes existed at Yale, but we do know they existed and you can't change that. The holes were template copies, pure and simple.

If anybody built a course like Yale they would receive great praise.  

As to your last question, a dream come true,
I'd design and build it myself.

I can only judge by the courses I've played, and I like Atlantic.

Tommy Naccarato,

I've read the book, but thanks anyway.

The water question regarding the pond and requirements, is yet unanswered.

Fact Patrol,

Your quote is INCORRECT !

Maxwell never referenced GOOD holes.

Maxwell said,
"There are 118 golf holes here....... and all I have to do is eliminate 100."

If you're going to hold yourself out to be a fact expert,
try getting them right the next time.

And, TEPaul did tell me that Crenshaw uttered that statement.

Can you fill in the missing middle part of the quote, the ...... ?

Is the quote hearsay, or did Perry Maxwell commit the words to pen and paper ?

MDugger,

What difference does it make, where the artificiality is inserted.  Is it any less artificial in Oregon than it is in Florida, Colorado, Texas or California ?

Artificial is Artificial.

[Fact Patrol]

Mr. Mucci

The quote from "Perry Maxwell's Prairie Dunes" by Mal Elliott says "118 good holes" not "118 golf holes".  So until you provide evidence to the contrary, I think I'll continue to rely on the person who took the time to research and write the book.    I have no proof that Mal Elliott is right, so lets not go there.  But what evidence do you have to refute it?

And why does it matter anyway.  You admit that "TEPaul did tell me that Crenshaw uttered that statement" but TEPaul just told us that the statement was based on 140-150 holes!

[Paul Turner]

Patrick

You have a warped sense of the natural.

You brought your private phone call into this DG, not me.

All I'm saying about Yale is that I would not have recognised the similarities if I hadn't been told so before.   And I think the vast majority of players would feel the same.  So I don't see them as template copies.  Have you seen the original Redan?  How about the Road, the similarity to Yale's 4th is only very general, hardly a "copy".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Fact Patrol,

"Prairie Dunes, the First Fifty Years", held out to be the official history of the club, published in 1987 and distibuted to the contestants in the USGA Mid Amateur by the club, cites the quote on page 17.

Is that FACT ?

Typically, TEPaul's memory is sketchy, he referenced 118 not
140-150, or was it 759 ?

[Michael Dugger]

Pat,

IMHO, it makes a difference where the artificiality is.
Why do you think it doesn't?

As the tremendous Shadow Creek thread of yesterday brought to light, there are some places where golf courses are built that are completely devoid of any natural features.  Shadow Creek is a perfect example.  

If you want to go and get all crazy like I sense you are implying, EVERY GOLF COURSE ever built is artificial.  
So let's not even go there ok?

When Tom Doak and Mike Keiser looked out over the land that was to become Pacific Dunes I bet, they thought to themselves that there is a lot less 'creation' that needs to go on then at other propsective job sites.

When Fazio and Wynn were looking at Shadow Creek's virgin landscape, I bet they thought the opposite.

My point is that when Rees Jones land the commission to build Sand Pines, or Atlantic, or whatever course it is next, I don't think he sees 118 prospective holes out there.  Irregardless of what dead Mother F$%#er it was that said this in the first place, Rees Jones' body of work speaks to me.  It tells me that he is not as 'gifted' in working with the ground as the article that started this whole thread in the first place claims!

I suspect you don't 'get it' because you simply have poor taste.  In your humble opinion, Rees Jones builds good golf courses.  I would travel to Long Island and play Atlantic in a second, if it was free.  I'm sure there would be parts of the golf course that I thought were beautiful, artistic and stunning.  But I suspect that this has little to do with Jones and a lot to do with the property.  Even Rees Jones couldn't uglify Cypress Point.  

It's too bad we can't give two competing architects the exact same piece of land and let them go head to head.  Even in this perfect little scenario you, Pat, probably wouldn't acknowledge when looking at the final product the differences between the two.  

I guess it's like Tommy alluded to.  You haven't the notion of creating artificial features which are indistinguishable from nature herself.  

That, or like I said, you just have bad taste.    

["   "]

Pat Mucci,

I will assume your lack of respond to my question (repeated over and over so you can't miss it) is an indication that you now think the quote is applicable and therefore have nothing in support of your first response to the quote.

[Fact Patrol]

Mr. Mucci

Thanks for the refuting source.  So it remains an open issue as to whether Perry Maxwell said “golf holes” or “good holes.”   But with respect to YOUR assertions in THIS thread, just answer the $64,000 question:   Who was the ORIGINAL source of the quote about “golf holes,” Perry Maxwell or Ben Crenshaw?

Now before doing so, I thought this might help:

mdugger:  “But it is another story when there are 118 golf holes there.  Eliminate the 100."
He said “golf holes”

Mucci:      “Where did you get this notion that 118 holes exist and an architect merely has to eliminate 100 of them, Ben Crenshaw at Sand Hills."  
      You said:  “holes” not ”golf holes” as mdugger wrote.

mdugger:  “Another thing, it was Perry Maxwell, at Prairie Dunes, who originally said 'there are 118 golf holes here', not Crenshaw."
      Again, he said “golf holes”

Mucci:  "I doubt Perry Maxwell uttered your quote about seeing 118 holes and eliminating 100 since Prairie Dunes was built as a nine (9) hole golf course.
      You said “holes”, again misquoting mdugger.

Mucci:  “Maxwell said, ‘There are 118 golf holes here....... and all I have to do is eliminate 100.’ “

So Maxwell, according to your source, said “golf holes” just as mdugger wrote.

First you doubt that Perry Maxwell even uttered the quote.  Then you start quibbling over “good” and “golf”.

You can do it Mr. Mucci.  Just repeat after me:  “Perry Maxwell.  I was wrong.”
Now that shouldn’t be too difficult, and nobody will think the worse of you for uttering those magic words.  In fact, they may just respect you all the more!  

Now just to show you that I’m not BIASED…mdugger, what’s the purpose of telling Mr. Mucci that he has bad taste?  It’s his taste and he’s entitled to it.  And anyway, the world-famous and highly regarded golf course architect, Rees Jones, has the same taste, so how bad can it be?  

[TEPaul]

What is this incredible fact search of 118 holes at Prairie Dunes or Sand Hills or who said it or who borrowed it from whom all about? Who are you guys--etymologists for the Oxford English Dictionary?

About five years ago right here Bill Coore said to me they found a ton of great hole possibilities at Sand Hills while looking at the property from a helicopter and on the ground. I don't remember if he said 118, 136, 140-150. Who cares? It was a lot, over a hundred that he said they could have come at from all kinds of directions. There was no mention of Perry Maxwell or Prairie Dunes. He was talking about Sand Hills and that's just what happened when they were trying to route Sand Hills. Who cares anyway--they narrowed it down to 18 pretty damn fine holes, so I've heard.

And it wasn't Ben Crenshaw who said it to me, it was Bill Coore. As incredible as it may seem to Pat Mucci I've only met Ben Crenshaw one time a couple of years ago at Friar's Head and he never said anything to me about Sand Hills that I recall. I don't even remember what he said except for; "You don't look anything like me" and I said to him; "You don't look anythng like me either."

[Fact Patrol]

Mr. TEPaul

This isn't about fact searching and it's not about Webster's Dictionary etymologists.

You of all people should understand what this is all about.
It's about getting Mr. Mucci to stop this nonsense about BIAS and FACTS.

Here we have a thread about a magazine article about Rees Jones, and Mr. Mucci 6 pages later is yet to express an OPINION about that article.

The saying goes that the only things that are certain in life are death and taxes.  We should amend that saying as "death, taxes and Patrick Mucci's participation on any golfclubatlas.com thread involving Rees Jones."  

I think it's time to retreat back into cyberspace!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Do you think its fair when you say you like GCGC, Old Marsh, Somerset Hills, Preakness Hills, Boca Rio and Westhampton despite their artificial mounds, but you exclude Atlantic and her mounds? What do you have against Atlantic? That's not like you. I've never known you to discriminate, you like  everything. Please stop discussing what you like, and what you don't like....well actually you don't do that.....so just stop telling us what you like and get back to making sure all architects are treated equally well, fairly and without bias. You're starting worry me, I've never known you to get into a pissing contest over simple semantics - '118 golf holes' vs '118 good hole' - a fascinating exercise no doubt, but you've got so much more to contribute.

[TEPaul]

Fact Patrol:

When you say that me of all people should understand what  all this on this thread with Pat Mucci is about, you just ain't akiddin'. I've been going through this Pat Mucci FACT and BIAS thing for years now, but the only thing to do is just humor the man!

You don't see doctors and nurses in the looney bin arguing with the inmates do you? It's the same thing here--most of us who've been around a while just sort of play along with it.

There may be some hope for him though, if you're interested. Personally, I think it's probably just some misfiring synapses in the man and we think one of these days we can probably just get someone to rewire him.

[Michael Dugger]

Fact Patrol....boy, I sure wish I knew who you are.  You are creeping me out man.  Lurkee lurkeee
I bet you are a regular.
Maybe someone I know.  
Email me with the truth, please.

Anyways, down to biz.
Fact Patrol said....

Now just to show you that I’m not BIASED…mdugger, what’s the purpose of telling Mr. Mucci that he has bad taste?  It’s his taste and he’s entitled to it.  And anyway, the world-famous and highly regarded golf course architect, Rees Jones, has the same taste, so how bad can it be?  

The purpose is two-fold.  
1. To be mean, because I'm an angry person.

2. To propogate the notion that there is such a thing as 'objective truth' when it comes to golf course architecture.  To extrapolate on this.....look at it as the belief that there is no greater designer then nature herself.

Mostly, my notion is rooted in environmentalism.  Yet, not so much in regards to pure environmentalism, but more along the lines of naturalism.  If we must create, create features that look like they could have been at the hand of nature.

or not, in the case of some of Pete Dye's work.

But I draw a distinction between pieces of land like Sand Pines and some of the eye sores Pete was "lucky" enough to work on.  When it comes to a Shadow Creek or PGA West, I don't really give a hoot about what you do.  I'd hope you would try to make it look as natural as possible, like it could have been that way before the "hand of man" took its' toll, BUT...as has been pointed out numerous times, desert golf will never look natural.  NEVER EVER EVER

But Sand Pines, in Florence, Oregon, was 118 golf holes waiting to be discovered.  Pacific Dunes was 118 golf holes waiting to be discovered.  What Tom Doak had tp create looks like it wasn't.  What Rees Jones had, or had not, to create looks like it was.  These are facts  

What golf course architect thinks he is a better artist then GOD?
Is Pat Mucci and Rees Jones tastes better than GOD'S?

Take God out of the equation if you wish.  
Finally, now, we are getting into some interesting stuff.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

Dave Miller, Ed Baker, Wayne Morrison and many others can substantiate that I have a very good sense of "natural" and "natural beauty".

I've seen the original Redan and the original road hole.

Certain things at Yale should have given you a clue that some of the holes were copies. Like the scorecard for starters.
When the score card lists # 13 as REDAN that should have set off some alarm bells.  More importantly, during the play of the holes something should have triggered your memory banks with a sense of familiarity about the architecture.  
I'll concede that the orientation of the 4th green makes it less obvious, but the architecture at a number of holes provides adequate signals to detect that these holes are copies of others.

I've stated numerous times that I like those template holes and would like to see them copied more often, but, the architect constructed them into the land, unless you feel all their courses just happened to coincidentally have redans, shorts, roads, edens, etc., etc., lying there naturally.

MDugger,

Sometimes, when trying to interpret or understand a Law or legislation you have to go back to the committee minutes to understand what the framers were trying to accomplish.

Likewise with your question, looking at it in the context of Tommy Naccarato's love of natural sites and minimilist design.

ARTIFICIAL = humanly contrived, often on a natural model.
ARTIFICIAL = based on differential morphological characters
                   not necessarily indicative of natural relationships

Artificial isn't constrained to a location, topogrhaphy or climate.  It is a universal.  Either it fits the natural setting or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, it's artificial and one would have to object to it in the context of Tommy's premise, theory of preference.

But, you haven't explained why you feel "artificial" is acceptable on a selective, subjective basis.  Please explain your theory.

Let's see, you're going to compare the sites at Pacific Dunes to Shadow Creek.

A bluff overlooking the Pacific, laced with dunes, and climate conducive to growing plants, to a barren, arid, flood plain of a desert, hostile to anything that lives.  Great example.
Have you tried comparing Catherine Zeto Jones to Roseann Barr ?  Tell me you see the difference !

I can't comment on Sandpines, the property pre and post golf course since I haven't seen it.  But this notion you have, that
118 holes existed at Atlantic in a contiguous form is sheer lunacy.  If you were familiar with the property and the environmental edicts relative to off-limit land, you would never make such a foolish statement.

Did Sandpines or Pacific Dunes have to go through a SEQRA process for the State of Oregon ?  Does Florence or Bandon have the same restrictive environmental codes as the Hamptons.  
Did they require Hydro-Geological analysis of the aquifier ?  Does the town have an architectural review board ?  The Pine Barrens Society, The Group for South Fork.  Did they have to worry about the Northern Harrier Hawk or similar species ?

More importantly,
Did they have to worry about 5 glacial kettleholes which took up many acres from the 200+ acre parcel ?
Did they have 5 seperate Wetland areas comprising over 50 acres on a 200+ piece of property ?  
Did they have 45 acres out of the 200+ acres composed of woodlands with over 75 species of birds, and 125 species of plants and trees ?

So when you say 118 holes existed on that completely gerrymandered piece of property, you may want to retract your statement, and make a more prudent one based on the land that the authorities altered and finally approved for golf course development, not some pie in the sky concept of a site freely malleable to the architects hand.

Rees's original routings had to be thrown out due to the restrictions put on the property.  Did Perry Maxwell, CBM/SR and Doak have the same problems at Prairie Dunes, YALE or Pacific Dunes ?

And, on a site that you've never seen, you're prepared to make the definitive statement that any beauty, artistry or stunning quality on the site has to do with the property and not Rees Jones.  That's impressive telepathy.

By the way, are you sure that your first paragraph and your next to last paragraph in your January 22, 2003, 3:55 pm post aren't in TOTAL CONFLICT with one another ?  

This is a statement from someone who alleges that I have poor taste, infering that you have good taste.
Someone who alleged that I'm a crazy old man, infering that you're a bright young one.

Your posts don't seem to support your inferences.

Lastly, I could have been cute, and not listed Perry Maxwell's 1936 plans for 18 holes, cited the opening of the first 9 holes in 1937, the second 9 holes in 1957, Maxwell's death in 1952, refuted your contention on the time line, and you wouldn't have had a clue had others not bailed you out.  TRUE ?

"   ",

You're wrong !

I'll elaborate when you identify yourself.

Fact Patrol,

You state that you want me to stop this nonsense about FACTS.  Interesting.  
Why would you want to dismiss FACTS from a discussion ?
Is it too confusing ?

Did Perry Maxwell ever commit that alleged statement to writing, as some of the classic architects kept records, logs and diaries, or is it just hearsay ?

Tom MacWood,

Fact Patrol was holding himself out as the expert, the final word, in the facts department.  I thought it appropriate to inform him that his FACTS were wrong.

Like Slapper indicated with Trump's course, it was better than he expected, and I think those that pan Atlantic will find it far better than they expect.  But, the proof is in the pudding.

[mjdugger1]

Pat,

Your arguments are analogous to brining a BB gun to a Fire-fight.  You select the most minute detail and contest it.  IMHO, it is equivalent to bunches and bunches of small pecks, while I come along and bite your head off.  I don't know many people who believe that the person who argues the longest wins.  In your case, the fancy words and abstract concepts lose all but the Fact Patrol.  Thankfully someone gets you!

I'm sorry that I called you a crazy old man.  

I'm sorry that I said your taste sucks.  

But you are different, and that is the good thing.

Will you please, now having apologized, appease us all by answering, whether or not, THE article, by Jeff Williams, is a fair and accurate description of Rees Jones body of work?  Or, rather, does the article accurately represent his design and construction methods?

["   "]

Pat Mucci,

You need an identity from me?? LOL. That actually makes me chuckle. You are consistently inconsistent, I will give you that.

You did not need an identity when it came to addressing me to say the quote was "inapplicable". But now you do? How consistent.

You seized upon the photo op that I handed to you without an identity because it helped you. How consistent.

You did not need an identity from "Guest" who was kind enough to post the photo. You took that and ran with it. How consistent.

Pat, do you really take your inconsistent discussion style seriously? Oh wait, you can't answer me. Nevermind.

The truth is that you pick and chose when you will deal with that which is posted anonymously. And it all depends on whether or not it helps or hurts your argument. When it helps you, you couldn't care less who posted it.

I guess everyone can then fall back on that line of reasoning when it comes to not commenting on the Pete Dye photo, huh?

Maybe someone will repost the quote so that you cannot use any lame excuses for not addressing it.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick.
I appreciate your response, and apologize for taking so long to reply.  Unfortunately, I still have a feeling we are not quite on the same page.

First, I'd like to set aside the 'bias' discussion for the time being. I don't think I have ever expressed much negativity for Rees (if I have, it was a mistake, because I don't have much negative to say, except that I don't like the look of Sandpines in the photos.)  If you'd like, I would be glad to take up the bias issue later, as I do have some thoughts.

Second, I want to make clear that I could not care less about Sandpines.  I have never seen it in person, and based on the photos, I don't care to.  If it turns out that my evaluation of the photos is incorrect, it is my loss.  If anyone convinces me that it really is worth a look, I might reconsider.  

My disagreement with you is more general than a discussion of Sandpines.  I disagree with your repeated contention that it is improper to blame the architect for style and/or strategy, whether it be original work or renovation/restoration.  

The Appropriate Object of Criticism:  The Architect or the Developer?  

Pardon me if I am retracing a well-trodden trail, but I am little slow on the uptake today and I want to get this right.
The way I understand it, you view the process something like this:
1. Developer or Committee presumably knows something about golf courses, and hires an architect because he likes the architect's "style" and wants that style at the new (or renovated) course.
2.  Architect does the Developer's (or Committee's) bidding, which, not by coincidence, happens to correspond with the architect's "style." (After all, that is why the Developer hired this particular architect.)
3. Because the Developer (or Committee) is the one calling the shots in this relationship, the Developer (or Committee) is the one that should be praised or blamed for the quality of the final project.  

When I asked you:   "Whether we fault Rees or the developer, isn't it still Rees' style that is in question?" you responded "I'd say that a good deal of the criticism is of Rees's style."

I'm not positive what you meant by that, but I assume that you meant to concede that whether we criticize the developer or Rees, a good deal of the criticism is actually of Rees' style.  If I have understood you correctly, then it seems that we are in agreement, at least as far as the "style" of the course is concerned:  The Architect is actually the proper object for "a good deal of the criticism."

Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.  

Of course, this all begs the question:  What is the "style."

Is Strategy Part of Style?

I (and others) claimed that strategy and style are interrelated and inseparable.   You vehemently disagree.  If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that:

1.  Style is a "constant." Architects have a style and elements of that style may remain consistent from one project to another.  As an example, you offer "rough" or "crisp" bunker edges as purely stylistic.
2.  Strategy is a more abstract concept.  It is a "variable."   It can be plugged into a course regardless of "style."  You didn't give me an example strategy, but, if I understand you correctly, you would view a modern cape hole as an example of "strategy,"  A "cape hole" is a "cape hole" regardless of the bunker edges, random or straight fairway lines, or square and free-flow tee boxes.   A rose by any other name . . .

I don't think we can be too far apart on the issue, given that we used very same example of a "style" element that is not strategic at all. I used rough or straight bunker edges, you used rough or crisp bunker edges.  I call these non-strategic elements of style the architect's Esthetic Style.

I don't agree that an architect's style is limited to an Esthetic Style where the stylistic elements are void of all strategic consequences.  For example, while bunker depth, bunker placement, open green fronts, are all elements of Esthetic style, they also all have strategic consequences.  But, I don't think that debating this will get us anywhere.  Fortunately, I think our disagreement is largely semantic.  If we approach it from another angle, we may find that we are not as far apart as we seem.  

In Reply # 103, you speak of copied holes at Yale, and allude to the fact that CBM/Raynor copied quite a lot of holes at Yale and elsewhere.   I assume that you when you say the "copied holes" you are not just referring to the repetition of the "constants" of the architects' "style."  You must also be referring to a repitition of strategic elements from course to course.  While redan, cape, short, road,  etc. may all be strategic variables that can be plugged into any style, they were not variable for CBM/Raynor.  They were constants.  They appear again and again, and distinguish CBM/Raynor's work from all others.  So, at least with regard to CBM/Raynor, I hope we can agree that there are such things as strategic constants, which I refer to as CBM/Ranor's Strategic Style.  

Strategic Style.

CBM/Raynor are not the only architects with a Strategic Style:
--Earlier in his design career, Nicklaus was famous (or infamous) for building courses that favored a long, high fade.  Thus, he was at least perceived to have had a Strategic Style.  
--Many would argue that Pete Dye also had (and has) a Strategic Style.  For example, his two stadium courses finish with a long but reachable par 5, an island green par 3, and a long cape par 4.  This is more than coincidence, it is repetition of a strategic elements.  A Strategic Style.
--Thomas wrote about placing bunkers and trouble in front of greens instead of behind greens, to avoid punishing the aggressive player who strikes a solid shot, and to avoid rewarding the weak player who hits a bad shot.  You can see this Strategic Style element implemented at L.A.C.C.  
--Mackenzie writes of using slope to reward a well placed drive with extra roll and you can see the implementation of this Strategic Style element at Cypress.  (While he doesn't use the term (I dont think), Doak also writes of the use of slope as a key element of his Strategic Style.)  

We can also take a look at a few individual features and elements on golf courses, all of which you have discussed recently:
--Center Bunkers.  In the example in your response to me, you speak of placing a "chevron bunker" in the middle of a fairway.  Forgive my ignorance, but I am not sure what a "chevron" bunker is,  but I will assume that it is some sort of a bunker where the golfer must decide to go left, right, or over.  Thus, it is a feature that influences the strategy of the hole.  Some architects commonly use center bunkers in their designs (Schmidt and Curley, for example) and some architects rarely, if ever use this strategic feature.  I would say that Schmidt and Curley's Strategic Style includes center bunkers.  
--Run-Away Greens.  You recently started a thread on greens that run away from the golfer, suggested that they favored the ground game, and contrasted them to "dartboard greens" canted toward the golfer.   Architects like Gil Hanse commonly use Run-Away Greens in their designs where the land form calls for it.  This is part of Gil's Strategic Style.
--Kick Ups??  While I am pretty sure I have the term wrong, I believe you also recently commented on another Strategic Style element -- greens that canted sharply toward the golfer at the back of the green.  I believe that Gil may also utilize this Strategic Style element.  

These are all examples of Strategic Style, where Architects repeat certain strategic elements from project to project..

The Style - Strategy Continuum

There is, of course, much overlap between Esthetic Style and Strategic Style.  For example, if an architect favors cavernous bunkers placed in or near landing areas, this will influence strategy and also create a certain esthetic effect.  I visualize it as a continuum that might look something like this:

Esthetic                                                                                                                                               Stategic
Style                                                                                                                                                    Style
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------->
-bunker edges-                                    
                                                           - bunker placement-                          
                                                                                                                                                     -redan hole-
-flower boxes-                                      
                                                                         - grass type-
                                                                                                                                            -reverse dogleg-
-low mounds
out of the line
of play-                                        
                                                                      -bunker depth-
                                                                                                              -bunker placement-
                                                                       -fall away green-
-waterfalls out
of the line of
play-

Patrick, are you still with me? (Yes, believe it or not, I am not finished.  Sorry for being so long-winded.  I guess you are used to it with TEPaul.)
Please let me know whether you agree or disagree with this approach.  And, if you disagree, it might help me to hear why.  Thanks in advance for indulging me.

-DM

[Michael Dugger]

Pat,

I was wondering if you happened to catch Kelly Blake Moran's post on page #1.  Do you have any comment regarding Mr. Moran's disposition towards Rees Jones' skill, especially when it comes to "walking the land"?  

[Paul Turner]

Atlantic isn't a natural course and it ain't just the mounds.

I've seen the original Redan and the original road hole.

Certain things at Yale should have given you a clue that some of the holes were copies. Like the scorecard for starters.
When the score card lists # 13 as REDAN that should have set off some alarm bells.  More importantly, during the play of the holes something should have triggered your memory banks with a sense of familiarity about the architecture.  
I'll concede that the orientation of the 4th green makes it less obvious, but the architecture at a number of holes provides adequate signals to detect that these holes are copies of others.

I've stated numerous times that I like those template holes and would like to see them copied more often, but, the architect constructed them into the land, unless you feel all their courses just happened to coincidentally have redans, shorts, roads, edens, etc., etc., lying there naturally.

Patrick

I'll take your above comments about the card as some sort of bizarre joke!  I was writing about a hypothetical situation not what actually happened (I already had prior knowlege of their methods and so was primed to recognise the various holes).

To me, copies are the sort you find at "Tour 18" etc, not the adaptations at Yale et al.   Really, the Redan, Leven and Eden are only loosely based on the originals.  I could show those holes to friends who know the originals intimately; then ask them "what famous British hole do you think this was based on?" And they wouldn't have a clue!  Without prior knowledge of their (Mac's and Raynor's) philosophy, I seriously doubt anyone would.

Why did you state:  "Ask yourself, if Rees did the same thing, would his copying of holes get the same pass as CBM/SR ?"

And then after I reply stating that Rees would be praised if he built a course like Yale, you reply:  "If anybody built a course like Yale they would receive great praise."

Seems like a contradiction  i.e. Rees would be praised if he built a "copy" course as good as Yale (if he was capable of it), he'd get the same pass.

Are there any courses by Rees Jones that you don't like?  I know you've played more than just Atlantic.

[Tim Weiman]

Paul Turner:

I think you should wait in line. Before Pat comments on what Rees Jones course he DOESN'T like, I'd first like to hear which one he DOES like.

For all Pat's defense of Rees, I've never seen him step up and passionately tell us why he likes one of Rees' courses.

Have you?

[TEPaul]

Having read through the recent posts (very good and interesting analysis by D. Moriarty), I would suggest when it comes to the subject of "copying holes" or "copies" to make the distinction of that kind of architectural attempt by calling the creations either "concept copies" or just "copies".

Since it's very hard from site to site to actually exactly "copy" a hole or type of hole, exact copies are probably very rare to nonexistent. It seems odd to me though that some architectural analysts expect or even want architects to actually attempt to exactly copy certain well known types of holes.

To me, though, to use the term "copy" it would be enough that the attempted recreation would be similar enough in look  to be fairly obvious to the observer.

But I see a lot of holes that I call "concept copies" because basically the problems and solutions in play are quite similar although there certainly can be nuancy distinctions and such in play and that makes them interesting in the distinctions from the prototype. "Concept copies" can also very often be difficult to impossible to recognize from the hole whose "concept" has been copied.

CBM/Raynor seem to have done a bit of both--tried to make the copies recognizable to the prototype but thrown in plenty of distinctions in play for obvious reasons of differing sites. But architects like Maxwell occasionally "concept copied" various holes (often his own) where a golfer would be hard pressed to recognize where the "concept" or even the inspiration came from although if put to a strategic comparison a golfer should be able to recognize some real similarities.

I like Coore's remark that there are an array of various "notes" (the broad pallet of golf oriented features and such) in the world of golf architecture, and the deal is basically all in the various arrangements (he went on to make the analogy of creating a musical composition from the array of available notes).

There probably isn't that much more to it than that. Sometimes the arrangements are recognizable to another arrangement, sometimes very vaguely, sometimes not at all. To a large degree they all basically use the same array of "notes", only in a wide range of arrangements.

I also very much like his last remark, or caveat, to this type of musical analogy to golf architecture. It was that unfortunately, if a particular "note" is out of place, or misused, it can create real dissonance in the entire composition.

Even attempted "copies" or "concept copies" are very much prone to this problem.    

[Mike_Young]

Gee guys...I see 6 pages of replies to a golf article written in some cigar magazine.  I have enjoyed playing much of Rees Jones work just as I have many others including many older, classic courses.  If a client decides on a certain architect for a certain piece of land... accept it...whether you like mounding, or greens shaped like fish; it doesn't matter.  Artistic flair or style as you may call it will always change..the playability of the course is what I want to see.  If the strategic elements are sound one should be able to appreciate the course whether one's taste is in agreement with the taste of the architect or not.  
GCA doesn't need 6 pages of this IMHO

[TEPaul]

Mike Young wrote:

"... accept it...whether you like mounding, or greens shaped like fish; it doesn't matter.  Artistic flair or style as you may call it will always change..the playability of the course is what I want to see.  If the strategic elements are sound one should be able to appreciate the course whether one's taste is in agreement with the taste of the architect or not."

Frankly, I would agree with Mike Young on that to a large, maybe to a very large degree, but ultimately not entirely.

The reason I would agree is because I feel a golf course that is truly sound strategically, that is truly interesting, thought provoking, fun, maybe even somewhat unpredictable is very important--and so much of that does fall into the category and definition of "strategy"--"interesting stategy."

And I also believe to a very large extent that various styles, maybe even the entire spectrum of them is part of the fascination of golf architecture generally. Stylistically in architecture a lot of the deal is in the differences, in my opinion.

To me a great example of this point today are the courses of Hurzdan and Fry. Generally they're so much of those things in the first half of my point, or Mike's point, regarding strategy. Their courses are fun and interesting, challenging, optional, sometime unpredictable, just plain enjoyable to play. But the look of them, the style of them, is definitely not always my cup of tee. Sometimes the massive earthmoving and the formations of their architectural shapes that creates a certain stylistic "look" they're obviously going for makes me wince!

And the ultimate fact of the matter is although strategy and such might be the majority of what attracts, after a while to really appreciate architecture to the fullest you definitely do want both--both good strategic offering and also a style that very much appeals too!

The first is so important, as Mike Young says, and can go a long way to enduring enjoyment but unfortunately a particular "style" that appeals is not inconsequential, ultimately!

[Tim Weiman]

Mike Young:

I do not understand your logic at all. What's wrong with discussing the "style" of a golf course? What is wrong with using "style" as one criteria to determine whether you like or even want to visit a particular golf course?

And what is this comment "you should be able to appreciate"?

Have we suddenly lost our rights as consumers to say that some courses are simply more appealing than others?

"Whether you like mounding......it doesn't matter" sounds like a Soviet style command and control approach to golf architecture criticism. If an architect's work is ugly, why can't I say so and advise others not to bother wasting their time and money? Isn't that the sensible counter weight to all the marketing noise proclaiming every course to be "great"?