Rees Jones article in Cigar Aficionado

[Patrick_Mucci]

MJDugger1,

You're asking me to comment on golf courses I haven't seen or played, and I can't do that.  I can only comment on courses I have played.  I've played Atlantic a good number of times and the Pinehurst course once.  I like Atlantic, it's a good GOLF course.  The par threes have good balance and diversity, the Par 5's are mostly reachable and present a variety of challenges, and I find many of the par 4's very good, my favorite being # 8.  

Is it perfect, no.  Would I make some changes, yes, I'd open some of the green fronts a little more, and try to get rid of more trees, but that's just my view.

George Tiska, the former superintendent at East Hampton, and the current superintendent at The Bridge, an individual with first hand knowledge, has already confirmed Rees's involvement at his course.  Why don't you challenge Rees's methods with him ? You and Tommy and all the others have the perfect opportunity to interogate George on specifics, and yet, when he responded, you all ran away.
Never once did you question or challenge him, WHY ?

I know that Rees was very actively involved at Atlantic.  
With respect to other courses that I know nothing about, I can't comment.  
Can you, or any of the others factually refute Rees's statements on a site specific basis, without relying on nebulous or unknown third party sources ?

Again, I suggest, if you're serious, and honest, that you question George, who possesses intimate, first hand knowledge.  Failure to seize that wonderful opportunity would lead me to believe that you're afraid of the answers.

Kelly Blake Moran is entitled to his views.

"  ",

I'm extremely consistent !

I attach MY NAME to EVERY post, rather than hide behind anonymity.

I don't respond to every thread and I'm not obligated to respond to every poster, especially ones who don't have the courage and integrity to post under their own name.

I've learned from Dan King and am trying to avoid responding to any anonymous poster since they don't respect themselves enough to identify themselves, why should I respect them with a reply.

I responded to Fact Patrol only because the club book on Prairie Dunes indicated that he was factually incorrect, and if you're going to hold yourself out as the Fact Patrol, you should have the irrefutable facts.

DMoriarty,

Points 1, 2, and 3 do not accurately reflect my position.
However, there is some truth in them, just reread the Robert Rubin quote on The Bridge.

I'd like to think that Ken Bakst selected C&C because there was a harmony of thought regarding architecture.

I don't think you can divorce the owner/developer from the style of the architect.

Would Wynn hire a minimalist for Shadow Creek.
How about Trump and his projects.
How about Jack Lupton ?
Hall Thomson ?
Do you think they hired architects that they were unfamiliar with, architects who were going to produce other than what they wanted ?

Arthur Goldberg hired Rees Jones. Arthur initially wanted a Shadow Creek like experience, Rees didn't think it was appropriate to "Glitz" up the classic course, result, amongst other reasons, Arthur fired Rees.  Enter Billy Ziobro, who was given the task to salvage the project, who hired Tom Doak.

With respect to the balance of your post, I will address your points when I have more time, hopefully tonight.

Paul Turner,

I can only comment on courses I've seen and Played.
I've played Atlantic a good number of times, Pinehurst only once.  I think I've repeated that a good number of times.

A copy is a copy, whether it's a tour 18 or the 18th at GCGC.

I like the 7th at Westhampton, the 13th at Yale, the 4th at NGLA, the 2nd at Somerset, but, they're all copies.

I can't comment on your friends inability to distinguish copies.

Tim Weiman,

I've said time and again that I like Atlantic.
How many more times do I have to say it.
I'm sorry that I haven't played more courses, but that's the way it is.  Perhaps I'll get to Old Kinderhook, The Bridge and others in the not to distant future, but for now, I can only comment on the courses I've played.

Mike Young,

Be warned, saying something good can get you embroiled,
or attacked.

Everyone keeps harping on the off-play mounds and not focusing on the strategy of the individual holes.  I don't recall anyone evaluating a hole on its strategic merit or lack of same.  It's pictures of the off-set mounds that starts this group frothing and foaming at the mouth.

Mike, also remember, that if I didn't ask my questions five pages earlier, this post would have died.  
Think of me as a catalyst for debate.

["   "]

Pat Mucci,

You are correct in that you are "extremely consistently inconsistent". Pick and choose those "facts" that support your position and ignore the ones that are in conflict with your position all you like. It is a free country.

Oh and remember, the quote I posted was a slice of a written work by Tom Doak. It was like holding the book up to a scanner and pushing send. It was not addressed specifically to you. It hit at the heart of this matter. You took it as an opportunity to reply to an anonymous post and make it about the poster instead of the post. Of course, you did not do that with the photo. How consistent.

Surely you can divorce the post from the poster, no? It is not the style/poster that matters, it is the strategy/post that matters.

By the way, thanks for replying to my last anonymous post.

[Mike_Young]

TE,
You state it better than I do.

Tim,
I respect all consumer rights and your right to enjoy the style of your choice.  I would think most on this site appreciate the same style.  But we must distinguish fact from opinion and fact is there are many consumers that like the work of Rees Jones.  When you say " a course is ugly and don't bother or waste your time and money on it"  ...that is YOUR opinion...I respect YOUR opinion....and in the case of golf architecture probably agree with YOUR opinion more than disagree.  But there are also other opinions . Markets thrive and function on  opinions of the masses.
Both of us are stating opinions.  And one must be careful to not let their opinion of one's architecture become an opinion of the architect as a person.

Pat,
Several times before I have heard you were a catalyst.

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci wrote:

"George Tiska, the former superintendent at East Hampton, and the current superintendent at The Bridge, an individual with first hand knowledge, has already confirmed Rees's involvement at his course.  Why don't you challenge Rees's methods with him ? You and Tommy and all the others have the perfect opportunity to interogate George on specifics, and yet, when he responded, you all ran away.
Never once did you question or challenge him, WHY?"

This is a good point by Pat. Many on here may have plenty of problems and criticisms with many of the things that Rees Jones does in architecture and they may have problems and criticisms with many things he does compared to Coore and Crenshaw.

But I think what I'm going to say should be interesting for all of you, nonetheless. Pat mentioned that George Tiska was the grow-in super at Easthampton and was the same at The Bridge (where he still is I believe).

I can't be talking out of school here (at least I sure hope not) because I can't imagine why George would say this to a virtual stranger, me, but I spent a pretty good amount of time with George one day at Easthampton during grow-in and also a good amount of time with him one day during grow-in at the Bridge.

George said in not uncertain terms that from the perspective of a super it was a lot easier working with Rees before and during grow-in at the Bridge than with C&C at Easthampton.

There could be a huge number of reasons for that that I'm not aware of and George can clarify things in that regard for himself if he happens to see this.

I got the feeling, though, that George was saying that Rees may be more "user friendly" in the way he works his architecture into the eventual maintenance of the course than C&C may be.

I suspect what that may mean to George, though, is C&C may be somewhat more demanding that maintenance just figure out how to maintain all that they want acheived with their architecture than Rees. If a look or playabilty is tough to maintain maybe he means C&C just want it done somehow anyway. Maybe Rees is more tuned into ease of maintenance with his architecture, at least in George's opinon.

I actually ran across this exact same apparent dilemma during the Aronimimk restoration with time on site with Ron Prichard. Ron said that in his mind architecture just came first--it came before some maintenance considerations and at the very least the club should understand in detail what all that means.

I believe what Ron was basically saying (and maybe C&C too) is a club, a membership, needs to be aware of what they can and maybe should have as architecture melds into maintenance or vice versa. If it's harder to maintain or even more expensive at least they should understand why and how in detail or else they won't be able to put a true value on the product or even the cost (and that's assuming it may cost more which of course could be a fallacious assumption).

But specifically to this thread, was Rees on site a lot during the construction of the Bridge, or was he accessible to George Tiska? George Tiska very definitely said he was!

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Yes, over the past couple years I've gotten the impression you liked the Atlantic. I was trying to find out whether there were any other courses by Rees Jones that you really liked and, if so, why you found them appealing.

That would be far more interesting to hear than constant references to bias against Rees, don't you think?

One other point: I see your reference to "everyone keeps harping about off-play mounds". Could you share how you react to unappealing features on a golf course? Do you like going through the exercise of blocking them out of your mind? Or do you prefer seeking out courses that don't have such features?

Finally, given the golf industry's constant reference to the visual appeal of golf courses, don't you think it is fair to point out when a course is visually unappealing?

[TEPaul]

Mike Young:

I find it almost inconceivable that I can state anything better than somebody else. All I'm really sure of is I can take much longer to state it than anybody else.

[Paul Turner]

Patrick Mucci

Which was the first CB Mac/Raynor/Banks course you played?  Were you aware of their "copying" method at that time.  If you weren't, did you instinctively recognise these holes as copies?

The 8th at Atlantic would be my second after the 11th as a somewhat more natural hole.  But the large mounds behind the green on the 5th, spoil the backdrop.

I maintain that the fairways were smoothed and graded at Atlantic and are unnatural.  "Flatten" was not a good word choice: at which G Tiska directed his comments.

[Paul Turner]

Just to clarify:

The large mounds on the 5th fairway, spoil the green backdrop on the 8th.

[Chris_Clouser]

Just want to clear up something in the thread in regards to Perry Maxwell and the quote in question.  

First off, Maxwell did not write out any of his thoughts on architecture except in notes given to the clubs on his designs.  Aside from that, he very seldom even expressed his thoughts on design, with the one notable exception being an interview with American Golfer magazine in the 1930s.  Maxwell was very humble in regards to this issue.

Second, the quote "There are 118 holes out there ... now we just need to eliminate 100 of them" was penned in an article in the Hutchinson paper during one of the first visits by Maxwell to walk the land and lay out the course.  I believe it has been used several times since in just about every piece written about the course because so many people thought it spoke highly of the land the course sits on.  The original intent was for Maxwell to layout 18 holes, which he did, but only 9 were constructed due to funding issues during the depression.  And no, Mr. Mucci, I will not post the article for your perusal.  So I guess you can keep on saying it wasn't proved that Maxwell said the "infamous" quote.  For the life of me, I can't figure out why everyone is hung up about this quote as it seems to be the same thing almost every GCA has uttered since the time of Old Tom when he said, "Providence intended for this land to be a golf course."  Or whatever the line was or is that is being used by today's architects.  Same line but just changes with the times.

Third, Perry Maxwell would never have been caught dead in a helicopter as Tom Paul alludes to because of his extreme fear of flying.  The truth is he only flew once and that was because he was basically hi-jacked by his friends Will Rogers and Wiley Post into an airplane flown by Post so they could allow Perry to view one of his courses from the air.  

Lastly, the "..." in the middle of the quote has basically supplanted some verbage by Maxwell where he talks about some of the characteristics of the land.  Maxwell had a tendency to produce a multitude of run-on sentences (I'm sure you're all familiar with the quote about the land being bloodied in the Geoff Shackelford book, that was only half of the whole thing).  It was shortened over the years to probably be used as a soundbite or for marketing purposes. Even in the 1930s cliches were king.  I would put the quote in the post, but I don't have it in front of me and I don't want to misquote it.  I hope that is "good" enough for you Mr. Mucci and all the others who are bickering about this quote.

[Tim Weiman]

Mike Young:

Reading our post, I can't help but feeling you are longing for the good old days when nobody expressed negative opinions about any golf course or golf architect.

Maybe the world before Tom Doak's Confidential Guide or Tommy N's sometimes passionate posts about various architectural topics, "Rees' pieces" among them. Or maybe the world before Golfclubatlas.com when marketing guys and leading magazines had more of a monopoly on the expression of ideas about golf courses.

If that reading is unfair, I apologize.

But, there is one fact about golf architecture that we seem to frequently ignore: most people don't have an unlimited supply of time and/or money, two things you need to really sample and appreciate the world of golf architecture.

That's why I believe it is so helpful when people express strong opinions, even when they are negative. I don't have the time or money to see everything. Hence, I'll travel from Cleveland to Oregon to see a Pacific Dunes but not do the same for a Sandpines. The feedback I've heard about these courses just isn't the same. One proved worth a special trip; nobody has ever told me the other is even when I lived on the West Coast.

None of this is personal. If it was Rees Jones would always get my blessing if for no other reason than his Dad built my favorite place in the world of golf.

[TEPaul]

Chris Clouser:

I'm not sure which written remarks by Perry Maxwell you're referring to but if it was the one about something to the effect of machinery cavorting around on the land casting up billows of earth that not so vaguely emulated an earthquake, I would have to say that was one of the most descriptive and apropos pieces of writing about a particular form of architectural creation ever known in the annals of golf architectural writing!

[TEPaul]

TimW wrote to MikeY:

"Reading our post, I can't help but feeling you are longing for the good old days when nobody expressed negative opinions about any golf course or golf architect.

Maybe the world before Tom Doak's Confidential Guide or Tommy N's sometimes passionate posts about various architectural topics, "Rees' pieces" among them. Or maybe the world before Golfclubatlas.com when marketing guys and leading magazines had more of a monopoly on the expression of ideas about golf courses."

Tim:

You can't be serious. Just check out some of the correspondence, the magazine writing, book writing from so many of the old guys. It was common for some of them to go after each other tooth and nail, and that was the beauty of it--the fun of it too.

Back then golf architecture had some incredibly strong willed men in architecture, who wrote, had the courage of their confictions and certainly didn't mind expressing their convictions even at the expense of being really critical about and towards others.

Of course, they didn't live in a world of unbelievable preconceptions of what's completely right and wrong from an enormous golfing public, as we do today.

Golf and golf architecture was sort of wet behind the ears everywhere other than the motherland of golf and they could be far more the adventurers than many may feel they can be today.

And they didn't live in our politically correct world either--not that that would have made a difference to them. They also lived in a world pre ASGCA and were never confronted with things like by-laws against trade criticisms.

But to say they didn't say negative things about golf, golf archtitecture and each other---no conceivable way--they sure did!

[Jeff_Lewis]

I would like to try to summarize this thread. It would appear that we have some people in it who dislike Rees' designs and some who like his style, however each participant defines it. But what nobody seems to have addressed, be they a friend or foe of Rees, is whether or not the article that was quoted at the beginning of the thread has true or false statements.

Are these true statements? Could Rees be a good designer if they are not? Why would he make them if he doesn't believe these sentiments? If they are true, should some of his detractors step back and take another look at his work?

[Michael Dugger]

I brought Perry Maxwell into this.
 
The point was to refute Mr. Mucci's claim that the quote, "We have 118 golf holes here, all we need to do is eliminate 100",  was originally spoken by Ben Crenshaw at Sand Hills.  

I think it has been adequately displayed that Crenshaw may have uttered these words, as well.  It's neither here nor there in relation to the original intent of bringing Mr. Maxwell into this.

Furthermore, the point in refuting Mr. Mucci's claim was to point out that he is taking another cheap shot at C & C.

Furthermore, than that, the point in pointing out Mr. Mucci's cheap shot was to point out Mr. Mucci severely discounts the notion of golf course architects "working" with the land, discovering holes, if you will.

The article that started this thread states that Mr. Jones lets the land speak to him, he lets the golf holes show their faces to him.  Or something along these lines.  

The reason, Mr. Young, this thread is 6 pages long is because some of us, Mr. Naccarato, Mr. Weiman and especially, Mr. Daley, included, find this article to be a big bunch of B.S.  Certainly Mr. Moran feels the same way as well.

But we can't talk about Rees' ability to work with the land because we can't get past stopping at every rest stop to pontificate the most mundane, and irrelevant, of details.

My claim has always been there were 118 holes at Sand Pines, waiting to be discovered.  But they weren't.  Instead, per Jones' design, or the wishes of the developer, a big freaking pond was dug, a shitload of dirt was pushed into a big hill and every bit of natural, inherent charm that that piece of property had was destroyed.  

I have a problem with you if your "style" consists of this type of "raping" of my good Oregon coastline.  

I'd like to think this is an isolated incident, but I know it's just not true.  Even from pictures I can tell you that.  

[Chris_Clouser]

Tom,

Yes that is the one.  It appeared in the American Golfer interview with Maxwell.  I love that quote as well.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

But, by "good old days" I wasn't referring to correspondence from the golden era. That stuff was wonderful!

What I had in mind was the modern era where things evolved to a focus on golf course marketing rather than thoughtful golf architecture discussion.

I see GCA as a way to get beyond the emphasis on marketing and back to the way discussions about golf courses were once conducted many years ago complete with negative as well as positive commentary.

[Mike_Young]

Tim and Mdugger,
My only disagreement with you guys is your stating opinions as fact.  Your take on a course is only your opinion.
Mike

[Michael Dugger]

Mike Young,

You raise an interesting point, and I hope that you stay 'on board' to comment further.  

What I find interesting is where, exactly, is the line drawn between what is fact and what is opinion?

Is it fact that Tom Doak did a wonderful job in integrating the artificial with the natural at Pacific Dunes?  Or is it just my opinion that he did?

Is it just my opinion that Rees Jones did a poor job of integrating the artificial with the natural at Sand Pines?  Or is it a fact?  

What is required to "PROCLAIM AS FACT" that such and such is how it is.  

I think what you'll find is that philosophers debate this question to this day.  Ever hear of pragmatics?  Interesting way of looking at "truth", which is what we are ultimately striving for here, correct?

As you may have gathered, the fact/opinion debate is still not settled.  Thus, for the sake of being able to even discuss matters of this type, we rely on our intuitions.  

My intuition tells me that SandPines looks fake, artificial, like it was the hand of man.  

Considering there are numerous other people who agree with my sentiments regarding Sand Pines being fake, many of which have provided NUMEROUS examples of supporting evidence to back this position, are we at least a little closer to fact then we are to opinion???  

[Jeff_Lewis]

Allow me to convey to you via example the difference between opinion and fact.

Pamela Anderson is a woman: Fact
Pamela Anderson is attractive: Opinion


That clear?

[Michael Dugger]

What makes Pamela Anderson a woman?  
Female anatomy, I'm suspecting?

Thus, we state

Premise 1    The possession of female anatomy makes one a woman

Premise 2     Pamela Anderson has female anatomy

Conclusion   Pamela Anderson is a woman

Basic Modus Ponens logic
P
Q
If P then Q

Jeff Lewis,
 
Now try this one,

My friend is a hemaphrodite, but mostly looks like a guy

my friend has female anatomy

Is my friend a female?

by your rational, yes.
But he/she looks like a guy and wears guys clothes?
so we call him a male

what's fact?  what's opinion

try again

[Artificial Mounds]

Jeff,

Speaking of Rees Jones and artificial mounds, your example was a good one, but just a little lacking in scope. May I add to it?

Pamela Anderson is a woman: fact
Pamela Anderson is attractive: opinion
Pamela Anderson is attractive to me: fact

[Tim Weiman]

Mike Young:

When I said that, based on Tommy's pictures, Sandpines looks pretty ugly, wasn't that clearly statement of opinion? What else could it be?

All this talk about people stating "opinions as fact" is really just an effort to get people to tone down their observations of a golf course.

People who pay to travel and play golf courses deserve to hear strongly stated opinions even if they are unflattering.

They are going to be bombarded with marketing influences, so why not give them the other side of the story?

Anyone who thinks Sandpines is visually appealing is perfectly free to come on here and state his opinion. So, what's the problem with strongly worded criticism?

[G Tiska]

Tommy Naccarto,
Answering your post #72
I can't comment on a course I've never seen. But how can you comment on a final product without knowing what was allowed do be done in the building permit process. It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback! Many enviromental issues set limitations to the potental a course can be. To sit back and pick apart designs without knowing ALL the facts is unfair!
Having done two grow-ins [back to back] I've seen  first hand how developers and architects need to have a give and take attitude during the permitting process.

TEPaul:
Well put, I would not correct a single item you said. Rees is a gentleman. To the super.. he is an ideal architect to work for.
He  always asks" Are you comfortable with this?" Plus his shapers gave me great conditions to grow grass on. I think part of an architects job is build something that can be maintained.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

The mounds at Atlantic are not that intrusive or objectionable.
Let me know if you'll be in the New York area this summer and I'll arrange for you to play a round.  I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Don't you think that before you draw a conclusion about a course being visually unappealing that you should at least see and play the golf course ?

Perimeter mounds on the western edge of the property which may appear out of place to some, will probably block the view of enormous homes being built on adjacent sites.  I don't object to mounds far removed from the fields of play or used to screen out objectionable structures.

Paul Turner,

As a teenager I played The Knoll and Montclair, and immediately noticed the similarity between the 3rd hole at The Knoll and the 3rd hole on the fourth nine at Montclair, as well as the 6th hole at The Knoll and the 7th hole at the fourth nine at Montclair.

As I played more courses I noticed the duplicate nature of many holes.  It wasn't until many years later that I became aware of the original hole, but at an early age I recognized that certain holes were clearly copies or duplicates.  
As my exposure increased and broadened so did my recongition.

It is the Skyline nature of the 8th green that I like.
The mounds behind the green aren't visible until you are very close to it.

With flat potato farms bordering Atlantic on three sides, I'm not sure what you mean by flattened fairways.
GCGC and Friar's Head have flat fairways so I'm not so sure I understand what you're trying to say.

Chris Clouser,

What's the harm in posting the article ?

MDugger,

In what professional capacity do you declare that there were
118 contiguous golf holes at Sandpines ?

Are you also stating, unequivically, that the pond was built with absolutely no water need requirements ?

Why don't you ask, and challenge, George Tiska, the superintendent at The Bridge, about your refutation that Rees does not walk and work the land ?  He is emminently qualified to answer your questions from his own personal, first hand experiences, acquired during the design and construction of a Rees Jones golf course in the Hamptons.  
I am shocked that those refuting Rees's statement haven't taken this wonderful opportunity to speak to a man on the line, a man who was in the dirt, a man who is in the know.
Or, as I suggested, are you afraid of the facts and the truth in his answers ?

You state that "your intuition tells you that Sandpines looks fake".  Are you saying that you've never played the golf course

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
If you were in charge of the development of Atlantic would you have hired Rees Jones....and why or why not.