Rees Jones article in Cigar Aficionado

[DMoriarty]

I would say that some architects probably have tendencies, But, I don't know that I view them in a strategic context. I would probablly view them in the context of his style.

I believe that above you talked about playing multiple CMB/Raynor courses as a kid, and recognized similarities between certain holes at the different courses.  

Were the similarities you noticed strategic or stylistic?  

What specifically was it about these holes that reminded you of the others?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Its hard to believe, but 4600 views later we are still dragging Rees through the muck. I am not a big Rees fan, mostly because of his redesign work and his waste of some very prime properties. But he is not a bad architect, I don't care for his style, but I have given him credit for having a style, he has a distinctive look. But having said that, he really doesn't deserve all this attention, as architects go, he should be religated to the middle of the pack somewhere, and this site is about the best work. He gets far to much attention.

Everytime his name comes up on these threads they turn into marathon pissing contests, thanks mostly to Pat. And I've noticed the criticism has become even more vocal and harsh - really too harsh. Probably a backlash against Pat as much as anything. That is why there are so many screen views, people like to see Pat pummeled as much as they like to see Rees pummeled. And the army of Rees critics seems to be growing, and those who used to come to his defense are no longer interested. Even poor GTiska, who was dragged into this by Pat and was obviously not much for the architectural side, has wisely dropped off this subject. I can't imagine that these Rees fests are good for Rees's reputation - who knows, maybe be bad press is better than no press - but I don't think so. The thing is it is only going to get worse, with friends like Pat who needs enemies.

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I'm still waiting for someone - and hopefully more than one person - to comment on the Sandpines site prior to construction.

My understanding from offline discussion is that the site was far more appealing than the final product. Perhaps not as appealing as mdugger's pictures, but still pretty darn nice.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

For several months now I've been thinking Pat does more to hurt Rees' reputation than anyone else here. This is because while he seems to always accuse others of being "biased" against Rees, very rarely does Pat cite a Rees course he really likes and tell us why.

That makes you wonder.

There were people here who criticized Matt Ward's rather strong support for The Bridge. But, in retrospect, that seems pretty refreshing compared to all this talk about "bias" or "fraud".

[Fact Patrol Checker]

Pat, You need to reread post #207. Fact Patrol is correct. mdugger said the land "surrounding" Sand Pines.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

How would you characterize Tommy Naccarato's posts about Rees ?

Go back and reread what the first 20 posts say about Rees.
They were rather negative.  When I made my first post,
# 21 overall, I merely asked legitimate questions, and the attack heated up.

For someone who has been so openly critical of Rees, doing so in many cases, without ever having seen the course being discussed, I find your post bizarre.

You should be so lucky to have a friend like me.

Fact Patrol Checker,

You need to get a dictionary and better understand the use of the word EXPRESS/LY.

Then find an anonymous name that fits better.

The photos were misleading !

Do you feel that the photos were an accurate representation of the land that Sandpines sits on ?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Speeking of bizarre, how many Rees designs have you played?

[Fact Patrol]

Mr. Mucci

Webster’s Dictionary defines “expressly” to mean “in an express manner : explicitly”

So was it “explicit” or “implicit” that mdugger’s photos were of the surrounding land and not of the site itself?  I’m not going to even argue the point, because the post itself speaks for itself.

mdugger Post #207:  “The following are pictures of the land SURROUNDING (emphasis added) SandPines, IF ONLY I HAD A PRE-CONSTRUCTION PICTURE OF THE COURSE (emphasis added).”

THE DEFENSE RESTS!  

Now repeat after me Mr. Mucci:  “PERRY MAXWELL.  I WAS WRONG.”  

[Fact Patrol]

Mr. Mucci

You created the Fact Patrol and you and only you can make it go away.

Here’s how I perceive your style in David Moriarity language:

WALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALL
WALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALL
   MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD
     BICKER BICKER BICKER BICKER BICKER BICKER BICKER
  DISCREDIT DISCREDIT DISCREDIT DISCREDIT DISCREDIT
   MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD
     BICKER BICKER BICKER BICKER BICKER BICKER BICKER
  DISCREDIT DISCREDIT DISCREDIT DISCREDIT DISCREDIT
   MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD MUD
     BICKER BICKER BICKER BICKER BICKER BICKER BICKER
  DISCREDIT DISCREDIT DISCREDIT DISCREDIT DISCREDIT
WALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALL
WALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALLWALL

Here’s just one of many actual examples.
I make fun of your taking Mr. Naccarato to task over .5 miles or 1.5 miles and you can’t help yourself and start talking about how different some great eastern LI golf courses would be if they were moved .5 miles.  Duh!  I perceived that Mr. Naccarato was just giving a point of reference.  Perhaps he meant .5 miles from the eastern edge of the beach abutting the Pacific, or maybe he just underestimated the distance, but what difference does it make?  Can you make a judgment about the site pre-construction based on how far it was from the Pacific?  No.  Isn’t it possible that the largest and most interesting dunes in the area could be farther away from the Pacific?  Yes.  Were you just trying to discredit Mr. Naccarato?  If not, what was the point of the STYLE of your post challenging Mr. Naccarato???

I promise to go away if you stop your FACT and BIAS rants.  This is not a debate club and it’s not a court of law.  It’s a discussion group which, in my OPINION, would be more productive and of greater value to the world of gca if you and others just admitted to your mistakes or mis-statements or mis-interpretations or whatever and moved on and focused on the important stuff.  Your style might result in greater page views, if that’s your intention, but you can’t possibly think that this type of discussion is what the Morrissetts had in mind when they formed this website.  

Tom MacWood was right.  You have so much more to offer!  

[Fact Patrol]

Now let’s agree to move on and talk about something far more interesting.

Mr. Mucci, aren't you the one who started a thread about how to protect classic venues from disfiguring renovations?  Well there are clearly some on this site who are just as interested in protecting great sites from this type of development.  Lets assume that you are right and the developer of Sandpines got exactly what he bargained for.  How can we communicate to and educate the development community to understand what they have in cases like this?  Isn't that really what people are so bitter about on this thread?  Don't they believe that it is the architect's responsibility to make sure that the developer/owner understands the potential of the site?

Now maybe Rees did what he could, but I doubt it.  I just can't imagine the following MADE-UP dialogue:

Rees Jones:  Listen Mr. developer/owner, I'm flattered that you love my style so much, but I think this site deserves more of a Pine Valley-like (just an example) look and feel and we could produce something so much better.

Developer/Owner:  Listen Mr. Jones, I want your style.  Now do you want this job or not?

[Fact Patrol]

John Muir

Shadow Creek???  Talking Stick???
If the pre-construction Sandpines site was of that ilk, then Mr. Naccarato and mdugger have a lot of explaining to do and I’m going to defect over to the Mucci side of this debate!  

Here’s what Bill Coore had to say about the Talking Stick site in his “In Tribute to the Boys” essay in Geoff Shackelford’s Masters of the Links book.

“Rarely have we encountered a site so devoid of natural features for golf, found ourselves standing in the midst of four hundred acres of flat desert floor; one percent grade throughout.  The human eye cannot detect a one percent change in elevation.”

“Later, Ron Despain, the engineering guru who was to guide us throughout this project explained that the work would be made more difficult by the nature of the soil.  Collapsible soil he called it; a new term for Dave, Ben and me.  We listened, not happily, as he described a type of soil that could not be compacted or shaped into any lasting form without first being mixed with water; and just the right amount of water at that.  It was a difficult task, he said.  We came to realize that Ron was a master of understatement.”

Doesn’t sound like SAND to me!  And it doesn’t sound like the type of land that Mr. Naccarato and mdugger have been describing up in Oregon!


Now what’s up with that Sandpines routing?  14 holes with a north-south orientation and 4 with an east-west orientation.  Was the configuration of the site that limiting?

Also, if an irrigation pond was needed, why did they have to build 2 ponds?

[John Muir]

Good try Fact Patrol, however, have you tried to grow grass in your kids sandbox?  You can't do it because there are no nutrients.  Talking Stick not being built on sand in the middle of the dessert of Arizona   ? Give me a break. Its pure sand and if you don't believe that then you have never been there and you don't have a clue. The linksland only grew grass and gorse after hundreds of years of rabbits and other animals depositing their waste to give nutrients to the sand base.  Get your facts correct before you use inadequate quotes from your books.

Someone here used the topo map as an indicator that the site before the golf course resembled the photos shown by Mdugger.  I merely pointed out FACTS about reading topo maps that suggested the site as seen from the topo map in question could have looked like anything from Ballybunion to Talking Stick or Shadow Creek.  Those are the Facts!  I can read a topo a bit from orienteering (using a compass and map to find your way around) to extensive backpacking. That topo map shows NOTHING without a scale of reference and all we know is that the site was on a sand base much like the courses mentioned above.  

Lets see the preconstruction photos with some scale of reference.  

[Fact Patrol Checker]

John,

Fact Patrol is correct about the soil at Talking Stick. It was said to be like grading flour. If you have a problem with the words he quoted, maybe you should email Geoff Shackleford or Bill Coore.

Pat,

As for the express "impression" you got from mdugger's photos, whatever bias led you to "interpret" the word "surrounding" to mean the actual site, is your own problem and one of letting your imagination get the best of you, with all due respect.

[Fact Patrol]

John Muir

Pure sand at Talking Stick???
How big of a bet are you willing to place on that one?  
(Keep in mind that I never said there was zero sand in the soil at Talking Stick)

Inadequate quotes???
You think Bill Coore is the source of an inadequate quote about a golf course that he built???

You are right with respect to the topo map however.  That map is not sufficiently detailed to determine contours and elevation changes.  But given its location (it's not in the desert), and based on Mr. Naccarato's characterization of the site, I would bet a lot of money that it wasn't dead flat like the pre-construction Shadow Creek and Talking Stick sites were!  

[Fact Patrol]

John Muir

I forgot to thank you for making me laugh so hard when you wrote “Its pure sand and if you don't believe that then you have never been there and you don't have a clue.”

I actually live in Phoenix!  
Not only have I played TS many times (great result for a flat non-descript site as described by Bill Coore), I actually went out there when it was under construction.  If you could have seen the dust and dirt caked on the Boys' faces and clothes, you would have known that the site was far from pure sand!  

[RJ_Daley]

Let's try this geography class again:

http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com/addressimage.aspx?t=2&s=13&lon=-124.111926162719&lat=44.0066072090733&alon=-124.10968436&alat=44.0064838300394&w=1&r
ef=A%7c1200+35th+St%2c+Florence%2c+OR+97439

This should bring up the topo map.  Use the navigator buttons to the left to zoom in and out.  Use the directional buttons to slide the map over, north and south a few miles.  Anyone that has taken a geography class should recognise that the USGS maps are regularly on a 10ft elevation scale.  The zoom feature gives you distance scale within the map at bottom.  Now, on the topo, the land is color coded.  See that the 1980 pre-sand pines topo clearly shows that green SNF is Sand Forest.  See that the land where the golf course sits had part sand forest (thus the clever name "Sand Pines"  but that a lot of the golf course land was the white dotted stretch of pure drifting sand dunes with little or no vegitation.  That is because it is "drifting" dune sand.  The course website and photos clearly show where the 7th has bermed out and traversed the sand dune drifting area.  The corridor of 7,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 and the lake clearly were built across the drifting sand area and only the periphery of the golf course was SNF or forested.  

As to the problem with those of you who can't "interpret" the area of the sand barrens drift and say they can't tell if there is much topo elevation frequency or change, that is because it was a 'drifting' area.  It was not stabilized long enough to go out and get meaningful topo elevation lines.  But, if you look at the east within 2 miles of the golf site, you will see a plethora of topo lines of amazing frequency and irregularity that rapidly go to 1000ft!!!  The only lines between the course property and the Suislaw river are at 25ft and typically irregular and are depicted on the topo going through that part of the property stabilized with pine scrub cover.  One can look immediately south of the pennisula and see the coastal cliff is 100ft high right off the sandy dune beach.  It is a no brainer that one can interpret that the drifting sand barrens and pine sand forest that the course was built on was indeed amazingly contoured in elevation frequency just like the detail seen in that part of the barrens bermed out on the north of the golf course.  One can easily see that the elevation of those dunes were atleast 30 ft high at a conservative estimate, and one might be able to see that on the eastern edge they may have gone to 120 ft high.  

Finally, for those who said you can't grow grass in pure sand, you are nuts. You can grow grass on a cue ball if you want. The sand medium is varied in particle size characteristics which effect compaction.  But, you can see by the photos that the sand at the entire oregon coast is conducive to easy turf establishment, once the sand is stabilized from drifting or washing out seed in rain.  And, if you ammend organics into that sand, you have the best growing medium possible.  The very evidence of that is the course itself has healthy turf where it traverses the sand barrens on those holdes 7-18 and the lake.  The bigger problem was probably stablizing the man made lake to hold the water from percking into and disappearing in the sand.  For that they probably needed a pond liner or taconite or D-3.   What Rees did was go in there and pound out and grade away all the character of the dunes.  

To be fair, perhaps the greatest challenge and part of the thinking of the smoothing out grading of the holes that look so out of place is the actual concept of making the fairways smooth enough to get seed down and stabilized, and not run off due to the nature of the high frequency humps and rolls that were the natural terrain elevation irregularity.  Perhaps they felt that a smothed out surface would not have turf drifting into pockets and requiring many more months to establish uniform turf rather than seed running into the low areas and requiring them to seed and stabilize the seed bed over and over again on the windswept natural drifting dunes.

There is just so much misinformation and bickering about nonesense on this thread, that I am disappointed in myself for even trying to get some additional facts into this, because the reality for me remains, it was a wasted opportunity on the developer and Rees's part to create something there that would have befit the beauty and harmonize with what it was in its natural state.  NO doubt the course has strategy and at 72.3/124 from the middle 6550yards I would be happy to break 90.  But, I'd be disappointed to do it and would feel a sadness while walking the property to think what it could have/should have been.  But for those of you who are only interested in the playing challenge, go play it from the gold 75.7/132 at 7250yards and knock yourselves out.  You shouldn't be dissapointed in the least. :-/

[Patrick_Mucci]

Fact Patrol,

Webster's Dictionary defines SURROUND as follows:

TO ENCLOSE ON ALL SIDES

Does the land pictured in MDugger's photos encircle the Sandpines property ?  Does the land pictured in MDugger's photos ENCLOSE SANDPINES ON ALL SIDES ?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

MDugger should have said, here are some photos taken at
___________  which is ________  from Sandpines.
That would have been a more accurate presentation and would have avoided all of the confusion and debate.

How many interesting topics have you posted for discussion on this site ?  Could you identify them ?
I believe, if you review the pages, you will find an abundance of interesting architectual subjects that I've raised for discussion.  Could you describe your contribution.
In your great concern for this site, have you contributed money to the Morrissetts to offset the cost of running this site

How do you know what Mr Naccarato's INTENT was ?

You ask how you can contribute to educating the owner/developer community.

I can tell you, unequivically, that you can't do it anonymously.

Ask yourself, if you were a developer, and an individual didn't have the courage, and the courage to identify themselves, would you listen to their advice?

If you were really serious about the educational effort and the positive influence this site and the participants could have, you'd post under your own name, like me, TEPaul, Tom MacWood, Tommy Naccarato, Gib Papazian, Kelly Blake Moran, DMoriarty, Mike Cirba, Geoff Childs, Ran Morrissett and others who are interested in and concerned about the future of golf course architecture.

It's interesting that you expect Rees Jones to have that conversation with the developer over Sandpines which wasn't a golf course, but don't expect Tom Doak to have that same conversation with Arthur Goldberg, the owner of Atlantic City Golf Club, a William Flynn design that the owner wanted to dramaticallly alter, loosing forever its heritage.  
Why single out Rees Jones, time and time again, to the exclusion of others ?

I've said, adopt a standard, apply it fairly, equitably, and universally, not selectively.  And, I've suggested that everyone get ALL of the FACTS before making blanket statements. The pond/lake at Sandpines is a perfect example.
If it doesn't have a non-architectual value, then I might agree with Mr Naccarato's original assessment.  But, If it does serve a purpose, then Mr. Naccarato's objections might be muted or refuted.  But, before you can make that call, you need all of the FACTS.  When I specifically asked about the pond and any requirements that might dictate its existance, I received a vague, non-answer on the subject.  I also asked about the owner and his motives, vision, and concept for the golf course and go NO answer from anyone.  If this is what the owner wanted, you can't fault Rees and Rees alone.

Did Steve Wynn get what he wanted ?
Did Ken Bakst get what he wanted ?
Did Robert Rudin get what he wanted ?

Do you think that owner/developers spend millions of their dollars, tremendous amounts of time and aggravation on getting a golf course that they don't want ?
I think you may be more than naive with respect to the awareness on the part of the owner/developer.

MDugger,

I appreciate your apology and quest to preserve your integrity
It would therefore be helpful if you could tell us exactly where those photos were taken, thanks.

Tom MacWood,

I've played fewer Rees Jones courses than you have commented on, without ever having seen them.
You're way ahead of me in that department.

["   "]

Pat,

Speaking of surrounding definitions, how's this one?

"The area around a place or thing; the vicinity, the surroundings, the environment."--Oxford English Dictionary

Vicinity--"The state, condition, or quality of being near in space; proximity."--Oxford English Dictionary

Fact Patrol, Pat did in fact use pull the race, eh, anonymous card. But my question is how is it that you get all of his "anonymous" attention? I feel cheated.  

I don't think there is any hope that Pat will find fault with the stylistic efforts of Rees Jones at Sand Pines. He doesn't appear to believe what Tom Doak wrote in his book about enhancing the beauty of a site, but I could be wrong. He won't say because I am anonymous and he made the quote into an issue of anonymous postings instead of related discussion.

Maybe it is time to let this thread die. Like the sand dunes in question, it has been graded flat to accept bad seed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

The 3rd hole at The Knoll is a Redan.
The 3rd hole at Montclair (4th nine) could be called a redan.

I was struck by the similarity of the orientation of the green. and the fore and aft bunkering.  I quickly saw that a draw seemed to be the prefered ball flight for getting to almost every pin location with the most lofted club.

On the 6th at the Knoll and the 7th at Montclair (4th nine) I noticed the fortress like green, elevated and SURROUNDED by bunkers.  I noticed the length of the holes was similar and that the greens contain appreciable contours.  I deduced that the best way for me to play both holes was to aim at the center of the green and try to work the ball to the pin.

When I played Somerset Hills I immediately recognized that the 2nd hole was similar to the 3rd holes at Montclair and The Knoll and played it accordingly.

When I played NGLA I immediately recognized that the 4th and 6th holes were similar to the others and played them accordingly.

# 7 at Shinnecock and # 8 at The Creek are similar to one another and partial mirror images of the others.

Perhaps it's me, but when I play a hole, I'm looking for the strategic signals the architect has intended for my eye and brain.  If I interpret them correctly, and execute properly, the architect and I have been in perfect harmony on the hole.
If I misinterpret the signals, he has fooled me, which may have been his intention, or perhaps I didn't focus enough on the strategic intent.

I think I see the strategic side first, whereas you may see the stylish side first.  Thus I see strategy as a constant and style as a variable.

But, that's just my opinion.

[corey miller]

Steve Wynn got what he wanted in Shadow Creek.
Donald Trump gets what he wants in his courses.
Ken Bakst got what he wanted I think it is fair to say.
Keiser got what he wanted.
Younscap got what he wanted.
Town of Gothenburg got what they wanted.

the usga gets what it wants when it has Rees renovate the courses for the open championships.

Did the owner of Sandpines?  Again this calls into question the honesty of the statements Rees Jones made about his "land based approach".  Wasn't this the origin of this post?  Did Rees do on this property what he says he did?  If this was the same lingo he used at Atlantic,Bridge,Nantucket then did those owners get what they asked for?

I believe most on this site would agree with the sentiments stated including the owners but not sure if some of these owners would know it when they see it.


I cannot comment on the quality of the original work as I have not seen it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Corey Miller,

Which owners wouldn't know it if they saw it ?

The important issue is Sandpines, not a magazine article.

Lowell Schulman got what he wanted.
I believe George Tiska indicated that Robert Rudin got what he wanted.
I don't know the owner of Nantucket.

[corey miller]

"i love to build golf courses that are suggested by the land"
"i love to walk the site and look for holes"
"look for natural sites for tees and geens"
"want to discover as many holes as you can rather than create them"

If that is the sales pitch it is important to note whether the architect adheres to those statements.  Some owners would not know the difference anyway.  

Some people would not admit to a "mistake" haveing been made if they spent millions, have to sell memberships or make the course available to the public.

Maybe this thread should be this is what the owner of Sand Pines wanted, did het get it?  Maybe Rees told him "well the land surrounding the course is really good your land sucks I will have to move a lot of dirt"

[Tim Weiman]

Dick Daley:

Ever since your comment to Mike DeVries about drainage on #18 at Kingsley I always knew you had golf architecture related skills I would probably never have. After reading your latest post, I'm ever more convinced. Thanks for the background.

Pat Mucci:

I'm struck by your comparison of Sandpines to Atlantic City. My understanding was that you had some background information about ACCC, knew the new owner and had seen the course before and after the work Tom Doak did.

By contrast, I thought you were actually unfamilar with Sandpines, that is:

a) you didn't see the site pre-construction
b) you haven't seen it post construction
c) you don't know the owner
d) you don't know anything about the owner's knowledge of golf courses, design, etc.
e) you have no specific knowledge of the marching orders the owner gave to the architect

Nonetheless, you seem to have made some very strong statements about Sandpines and, it would appear, have very little basis for making a Sandpines vs ACCC comparison.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
How many have you played....two of his original designs? I find it ironic that the biggest Rees defender and opologist has seen so little of his work....that's got to say something. Why haven't you sought out more of his work?

Let the pummeling continue!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

Would you cite for me, exactly where I made statements, that I held out as fact, about Sandpines or it's owner.

I asked questions and posed hypotheticals, but not once did I say that I knew anything about the owner, his intent, his selection process, or his satisfaction.

Again, I'd appreciate if you could cite those examples for me,
failing same, a retraction would be in order.

Corey Miller,

You never answered my question.  You stated that some of the owners you listed wouldn't get it if they saw it.
Which owners ?