Rees Jones article in Cigar Aficionado

[RJ_Daley]

Adam and Pat, I don't take Pat's "style" too hard and I don't think of it as villification, now that we have gotten to know Pat over these 2963 Doyen-like posts.  Pat is an interrogator extrodinaire, and should have been an NYPD detective, (without letting him use a rubber hose however )

I wish I could live another hundred years, as I think it would be interesting to see whether people speak more kindly and reverently about all the grandiose golf and other projects a developer like Trump created, or the simple and elegant things more humble appearing men like Bakst, Youngscapp, Keiser and their ilk left behind.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rick,

I've heard the outcry from the usual suspects on this site, but what do the good number of golfers who play or belong to the course have to say ?

Is this a public or private golf course ?

How many rounds are played each year ?

Paul Turner,

Lowell and I had phone conversations during the creation of Atlantic, about architectural features at Atlantic and architectural features and problems at a course in Florida,
and I can tell you that he did have imput.  

You can absolutely divorce style from strategy.
Style doesn't dictate strategy, strategy dictates strategy.

Stances at Atlantic:

# 1  uphill
# 2  sidehill and downhill and uphill
# 3  uphill
# 4  par 3
# 5  slight sidehill
# 6  uphill, sidehill and downhill
# 7  par 3
# 8  slightly uphill
# 9  flat
# 10 uphill
# 11 par 3
# 12 sidehill and uphill
# 13 side hill, downhill and uphill
# 14 slightly sidehill
# 15 par 3
# 16 down hill slightly side hill
# 17 sidehill downhill
# 18 sidehill uphill

Now let's go over the stances at GCGC and Westhampton if stances are your criteria for evaluationg golf courses.

If you think Atlantic is boring with regard to the terrain and the golf course your cognitive skills must come into question.

You assert that Rees flattened the site.
Had you seen the site pre-construction ?
Would you describe exactly where he flattened the site ?

Would you also tell me how the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 14th, 16th 17th holes at NGLA were designed to play the ground game ?  And how failure to do so makes it an inferior golf course ?

With respect to pictures, I'd rather see pictures taken from the normal lines of play, before commenting.  Since I don't have many pictures of golf holes, other than GCGC, NGLA and Boca Rio, I prefer to evaluate the architecture, strategy and playability, by actually seeing and playing a golf course, rather than looking at pictures taken from awkward angles.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ Daley,

I prefer the Manhattan phone directory to a rubber hose.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ Daley,

I understand your desire to leave the land as untouched as possible, but that's not everybodies style.  And it doesn't make them or their designs "de facto" bad.

Pete Dye did the same thing.
Yet his designs are praised

Is anyone going to look at # 17 at TPC and tell me that he just found that hole sitting there in nature.  Why aren't the cognoscente on this site screaming about that hole, or all of the MOUNDS that Pete Dye forced upon the land, at a variety of sites ?  Pete might have been the initiator of this style, yet no one goes on the attack mode, condemning his designs, his holes because of the mounds he created.

How is Old Marsh any different ?  Mounds galore on a flat site.

But what are the strategic values of the holes, that's the test.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Patrick,
Forgive me for not alluding more to the playabiltiy of Sandpines.

I equate it to be about as interesting as either a stick in the mud (very dense mud) or a white-breaded cheese sandwich--dry, no mayo.)

This doesn't mean that Sandpines is totally without strategy, there are in fact four holes that do have, and I suspect by inherit design--strategy. They would be the holes #2,, 16, & 18, and that is more then likely because of water hazards dictating the strategy. For the most part, Sandpines subscribes to the theory a similar theory as Pelican Hill--"left is good, right is good, center is good, don't worry about where the pin is, you have an open shot at it." Here are pictures of holes 7,9,10,12,13,14 (the really only good original Rees-bunker on the course that hasn't been changed) & 15 that depict the massive strategy--lack of it, and show the repetition of both mounding and design.















You have seen this image before, and I will show you again. This image was taken from across the right fairway of #7, looking North and catching a glimspe of the boardering sand dunes. In the forefront are YOUR typical Rees-pieces mounds, which do not figure into any strategy of the golf hole. These mounds are evident throughout the course as far as strategy is concerned. (As in there is none.)




Befor there was a Golf Club Atlas, Bandon Dunes and even Pacific Dunes, on some of the other websites that used to exist, I would try to explain this to many of the Northwest contingent. They would get defensive about Sandpines because it was one of their own. But once I further explained to them, they got their Bandon and Pacific fixes, they finally agreed. Sandpines is a tragic story in the history of Oregon Golf. It shows us how the power of name and the lack of effort can and will produce NOTHING.

I think of what it would have been like for Oregon Golf and Florence in paticular, if Sandpines would have had the same impact as Bandon Dunes. From my viewpoint, it is extremely unfortunate that on the road to Bandon via Portland or Eugene, people bypass Sandpines everytime. They simply drive through Florence in great anticipation of getting to Bandon. They will take another round at both of those courses over Sandpines everytime. What a horrible thing for the beautiful and quaint seaside town of Florence!~

Instead of Golf having a sort of Lewis and Clark Golf Trail up the coast, it has been reduced to "Is Sandpines worth playing?" and the answer by most everytime is a resounding "NO!"

For that, Rees should certainly be accountable for. He certainly had the site and the property to do it with.

[Michael Dugger]

Mucci....

Come on now, give us all a break once in a while, will ya

You know darn well what Mr. Daley was implying, why do you constantly have to go and pull these types of shenanigens??

Of course he doesn't advocate that everyone agree with him.  Only someone like you would assume such a thing.  But, have you ever considered it IS possible to build a golf course that meets all of you logistic and strategic criterion, while being artisitic in nature?  While blending in with the existing terrain.  While taking advantage of the natural "charm" of the land....and still have good drainage...and still have good turf.

It really is

I take your short and smug response to my post as a victory.  Perhaps you'll spare me from having to rent the movie by just telling me about the ending.  What does Rees say on his deathbed???  

"ah,  errr, I built a lot of courses.  A lot of people played a lot of golf on them.  I thought they were pretty."


It's called putting your heart and soul into something, Pat.  For Rees, maybe it's his kids, or wooden ship building hobbie, that he pours it into.  I'd like to think that, I really would, contrary to popular opinion.  But his heart and soul isn't into his golf architecture.  

That, or he's like my golf game.  Pour my heart and soul into it and I still suck.  But at least I know it, and have the courage to admit such.  And I know that it just isn't in the cards for me to ever get better, no matter how hard I try.

It may be difficult for you to understand, Mucci, but I, too, take it personally, as a steward of nature and golf, when Rees Jones F*$# up a piece of property like Sand Pines.  

Maybe he just doesn't care, it probably would be better for his mental health, considering some of the things people here say about his work, if he didn't.  Like you said, got to remember the $$$$.  Gotta pay the bills.  Gotta keep working.  Working for what I ask.  Remember Socrates?  The unexamined life is not worth living.      
  

[Michael Dugger]

Tommy N.

That's about the ugliest set of pictures ever to graze the GCA.  How dare you poison our eyes with such things?

[RJ_Daley]

But Pat, dontcha see.  We aren't talking about the efforts of an architect creating/manufacturing these variations of interesting to gaudy features on relatively unremarkable sites when you bring up those Dye examples.  When we object, we are talking about pounding a trademark style on a site that already has its own beauty, and those developers and archies that can't recognise when less is more.  You are trying to use Pete Dye and his tendancy to build big time mass earth moving projects.  But, where did he do that, and what did he muck up?  Take Whistling Straits and the Irish course.  It wasn't that remarkable of a piece of land before he bombed it out.  He didn't destroy what was lovely to create something austintatious.  I am not the biggest fan of WS, but he put the strategy and many of his signatures features in, but not at the expense of a truly remarkable and beautiful site, in my view.  But, what if he did that to a place like Cypress point?  What if he bombed that site out so to speak to impose his signature cape, bite off par 4, and imposed his typical 5-3-4 finish.  I'd criticize that too.  I can like a manufactured site with strategy just as well as you, Pat.  I like Raynor stuff.  Langford manufactured a lot at Lawsonia, but he did blend in the countryside to some extent as well.  But, he didn't destroy something rare and precious in nature.  It seems that JOnes took something rare and universally distinquishable in costal dunes land with what general consensus recognized as raw beauty of the Oregon coast, and bombed it out to impose his signature.  From all accounts, Tom Doak didn't do that.  There is a difference, Pat.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat, As everyone is trying to explain to you......

Art+Site+Effort=A Strategic Alliance with Nature. All of this proportional to the term GREAT GOLF. (Please read Mike Miller and Geoff Shackelford's "Art of Golf Architecture" for further reference.)

It all cannot be done from a desktop in Montclair, New Jersey

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

As I've said, I've never played Sandpines and photos don't help me much as I don't have TEPaul's talent for analzing aerial and ground level photos, but, if as you say the golf course lacks strategic merit, I'll have to take your word for it.

MDugger,

I won't tell you the ending, which is better than fabulous, you should see the movie and read the book, you won't be disappointed.  But, the answer you seek is revealed.

Do you think that Donald Ross put his heart and soul into every golf course he designed ?

I think you, and others, have a romantic notion with respect to golf course design, viewing it in a vacuum, absent the business and real world elements.

Do you think CBM put his heart and soul or his EGO into his designs ?

I'll ask you the same question I asked above, do you think that CBM, SR, CB and Pete Dye designed courses purely within their natural settings, without manufacturing features ?

Pete Dye altered the landscape long before Rees came along, why no criticism of all the mounds and unnatural features he created that aren't in harmony with the surrounding landscape?

Are you afraid to attack that icon ?
Or, is it just easier to jump on the Rees bashing bandwagon ?

RJ Daley,

I liked the old days, when authority was respected, be it your elders, parents, teachers or the police.

I didn't have to lock my doors and windows.
I could leave my car unlocked in the driveway
And drive by shootings were mooning people.  

Saw a program the other day, a college professor was reviewing the convictions of all the people on death row.
Amazing, how he lectured that none of them were guilty, just victims of the system.

Getting back to architecture, and one of my original points,
I suspect the developer hired Rees because that's the style of golf course he wanted.   And, if Rees produced the type of course he wanted, didn't the developer get exactly what he paid for ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ Daley,

I've never seen WS so I'm unqualified to comment on it.
But, at Old Marsh, one has to question the mounding, it's out of sync with the property and the general landscape.
I do realize that Pete came up with an innovative drainage system to recapture water, but the containment mounds seem excessive in their size, scale and proximity.

How can many criticize the mounds at Loxahatchee ?
And in the same breath not berate the mounds at Old Marsh, a club 15 minutes away.

Is it the architect or the mounds ?

["  "]

"Scratch golfers, who look upon each round of golf as an examination of skill, suggest that the esthetics of the course make no difference to the game, and that any course should be judged purely on its strategic merits. Fortunately, the best golf architects have not paid heed to their opinion."

--Tom Doak, THE ANATOMY OF A GOLF COURSE, The Art of Golf Architecture.

If anyone is able, it would be interesting if someone could post the picture on the book cover. I could be totally wrong, but it might be a Pete Dye course.

[guest]

[G_Tiska]

Having worked with C & C and Rees, I can state some facts:
Rees does not design his courses from Montclair. Just as C & C does not design from Austin! Rees was on site as often as C & C if not more.
Having grown up in Bridgehampton, Rees DID NOT FLATTEN Atlantic.
All developers have ALOT of INPUT. They write the check.
Permit issues [restrictions] on properties play a large part on what can be done. It sets limitations!!
In case anybody cares about facts

[Michael Dugger]

It is Pete Dye...TPC West.  #14, I think.

Pat,

You crazy old man.  I laugh at how often we discuss the same old stuff.  Your argument about Pete Dye and so on was refuted about three posts before yours.  

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.


The point is....while you may like Atlantic, a different architect may have done a far nicer job.  More in harmony with nature.....captured more of the "charm" of the property.  And don't come back with any of your B.S. about "have you seen the course in person",  because it is irrelevant.  A DIFFERENT ARCHITECT may have coaxed more from the property than Rees.  It's not fact, but it is my opinion they would have.  

A different one probably could have coaxed more from Sandpines.  I have no problem with you agreeing based on Tommy's pictures.

It completely annoys and ticks me off that big name guys get to 'disappoint us' with their huge budgets and fabulous pieces of land.....while lesser known guys have to design their asses off to turn an eyesore into something like Whistling Straits.  

I'm sorry, but it's true    

[Patrick_Mucci]

"  ",

The quote is inapplicable in this situation.

The off-line mounding originally pictured was deemed to make the Sandpines golf course architectually unsound, rather than the evaluation of the strategic and playability merits of the holes.

The photo is by Tom Doak, who can tell us what hole it is.

Water, wooden bulkheads, mounds galore, looks natural to me.

What do the critics of Sandpines have to say about this picture, BEFORE Tom Doak responds ?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

A perfect quote with a well-pronouced picture.

The course and hole is PGA West #7. Unbeknowst to many Tom had a hand in this design during his "Pete-days."

Pat, Call it Rees-bashing all you want. He deserves it with this course. If Bill Coore, Gil Hanse or Tom Doak built this course on this land, I would be ranking on them too. But the point is, they didn't and wouldn't.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat, the point of the picture is the strategy. We all know that Pete Dye is a master of earthmoving and mayhem. So is PGA West Stadium.

No, it doesn't really reflect nature or naturalism. That is why it is in Coachella Valley--the model of Modern Golf Architecture Mediocrity! Still the course is fun to play and thats about it!

[Michael Dugger]

G Tiska,

Welcome to the fray.  I hope you last more than one post.
Can you extrapolate on what some of the limitations were at Atlantic that may have lessened the design?  

We do care about facts

May I ask who you are working for now?  As someone who has worked for both Rees and C & C....well, I think it goes without saying that you would be a very interesting person to talk with.  Especially along these lines.  Don't be a stranger.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

I have no doubt that you would be critical of the same course with a different architect, maybe not as vocal, but critical.

But what of the pictured hole ?  What say you ?

RJ Daley,

If I accept your desire to leave the land as untouched as possible, what do you say about this hole.

A Clayman,

Dare to wade in against Pete Dye and Tom Doak ?
Proceed at your own peril !  

Tom Doak,

Please, don't jump in just yet.

Let the mavens have their say first.

Thanks

[Michael Dugger]

Pat....the quote has a lot to do with this.  Strategy over aesthetics is the point.  I say you can both.

Also, you need to brush up on your logic.  It is validity that has to do with building arguments

I.E.
premise
premise #2
conclusion


Soundness has to do with truth

[Michael Dugger]

Pat,

Since you are beating this dead horse....I'll reply.  

Before I do so, however, I suspect my opinion will speak for the Daley/Naccarato camp, as well.  The picture-the railroad ties, the mounds, the TPC style, desert courses.etc....it's ok.

But so what.  What in the world does this have to do with the slaughter at Sand Pines?  Was the land in Florence ever like the desert of Coachella Valley.  NO  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

George,

In all respects to your Bridge, its a lot closer and easier to get to from Montclair then Florence. Of course, I have heard lots of stories about the traffic on Long Island!:)

But in all seriouness, I have seen many pictrures and images of The Bridge and the architecture there does seem to have some really interesting strategy going for it. At least more then Sandpines could have ever dreamt of.

So I ask, have you been or seen Sandpines in person, and do you know more facts about the course then has been posted?
I ask this in all regard to your experiences working in the business and knowing what it takes to supervise the grow-in of a brand new golf course. And yes, I seem to attack Rees on issues as these because I think it is malpractice in a certain sense. But I'm sort of a nihilist when it comes to some of this stuff.

If you can add more comment that can further shed light on why a great piece of ground such as the Oregon Dunes be gifted with such an unispiring course; yet the old Bridgehampton Raceway be so gifted, I'm all ears.

Please give me a reason.

[Patrick_Mucci]

MDugger,

You can have both, but when you exclude strategy, based on your preference for style and aesthetics, you're wrong.

Your dictionary may have some missing pages.

Sound = Free from flaw or defect
Sound = Solid, Firm, Stable
Sound = based on thorough knowledge or experience
Sound = agreeing with accepted views
Sound = free from error or fallacy

Most understood the term "stategically sound", I'm sorry you didn't.

Could you answer my questions relative to Pete Dye ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

MDugger,

And maybe another architect would have gotten less from the property.

How do you know about the supposed charm of the land if you've never seen it.

Tell me about the charm of the environmentally protected scuttle holes and the inability to get to certain prefered areas on the property due to environmental restrictions.

You've summed up your position succinctly,
you don't have the facts, just your opinions.

Who could ask for more,
Opinions without a basis in fact.

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.  
What were the environmental constraints at Sand Hills

I can equate the property, permiting and construction at Sand Hills to Atlantic if I want to fantasize and not deal with reality.

You and others have been arguing about inserting or forcing designs not in harmony with the surrounding landscape, onto the land, and up pops a picture of a Dye/Doak hole that certainly fits that description, and it's OK with you.

What difference does it make if it's in California or Oregon, a departure from the natural landscape is still a departure from the natural landscape, no matter where the course is located.

Isn't that a double standard on your part ?

Or, are you just afraid to tackle Dye and Doak ?