Rees Jones article in Cigar Aficionado

[Mike_Cirba]

HBH;

Could you possibly be more cloying or obsequious?  

Could your posts possibly contain less detailed architectural opinion or information or more broad-brushed generalizations and lack of entertainment and interest?

I'm not sure why I'm responding at all, but I have to ask...which questions that Patrick asked me have I failed to answer to your obviously self-interested satisfaction?

If I came on here and claimed that any new and largely unknown course was Top 50 in the US and did so without much detailed explanation, I would hope that others would ask me to explain myself or I'd truly be disappointed.

Since you're probably like most of us here and haven't played Cascata, why don't you make your largest contribution to date and tell us what you like or don't in the pictures I posted.  

C'mon...give it a shot.  It's not so hard and you might even learn something besides how to kiss Pat's ass.  

[HamiltonBHearst]

I do not understand some of your words but you failed to answer:

Why should they bear the burden of proof on the validity of their statements?

Why should they have to defend their assesments and opinions due to the introduction of some photos you posted?

Where or who did you get the photos from?

If they were raving about Friars head would you question their judgement and post photos?

and for Macwood

What were the dictates from MGM grand with respect to the design of their golf course?

Do FACTS trouble you?

[T_MacWood]

It is strange that Pat, LIRR and Mr. HamiltonBHearst all share the same IP Address...are you all part of some newly formed triumvirate that shares a computer?  

[Michael Dugger]

HBH

You are most indeed being a pain in the neck.  

Just stirring up shit without bringing anything to the table.

Around these parts it isn't very cool

[Mike_Cirba]

HBH;

"Why should they bear the burden of proof on the validity of their statements?"

Hamilton...because we're discussing architecture here.  As I mentioned, I'd be duly disappointed if I claimed that any new course was one of the FIFTY best in the country, classic or modern, without providing much in the way of detailed explanation and no one asked me anything in the way of followup questions.  

One Rees Jones course that I believe should be in the Top 100 Modern courses is Olde Kinderhook in NY state, and when I wrote about it a year or so ago, I provided a lot of descriptive text and was more than happy to answer questions from others here.


"Why should they have to defend their assesments and opinions due to the introduction of some photos you posted?"

Did I ask anyone to defend anything, or did I simply post pictures of the course?  

What is so horrific about the pictures that anyone should feel defensive in the least??  I even qualified the pictures saying that I've never played Cascata and wasn't sure that they were fairly representative.  

"Where or who did you get the photos from?"

From a publicly-availabe website detailing courses in the Las Vegas region.  Unlike others here who simply generalize, I prefer to do research on courses that interest me.

"If they were raving about Friars head would you question their judgement and post photos?"

I used some of Ran Morrissett's photos from this website to supplement some points I was making and questions I asked about Friar's Head.  Those photos are available on the course writeups on this site.  Similarly, I also used photos from this site to comment on Hidden Creek, another C&C course and one I have played.  You can find my comments on both elsewhere on this site.

I only wish that you could be as objective and critically honest as I believe I've been here.  

[B. Mogg]

I guess everyone should have a go at this thread to see if it can hit 30 pages.

I am not sure why the brief from the client to Rees Jones would have anything to do with the merits of the course??

Most architects have a myriad of reasons for why a course did not turn out as good as it should have - and they can tell these excuses to their wives, their kids and anyone else who gives a sh*t. In the end the course will be judged by those who play it STRICTLY on its own merits.

Excuses such as: The client made me do it, the client wouldn't hire the right shapers, the super couldnt grow grass, the budget was too small, the environmentalists screwed up the routing etc. etc. may all get nods of sympathy from those in the professsion, but in the end they aren't worth a gob of goats nuts.

The architects job is to do the best he possibly can based on the particular set of circumstances dictated to him by his clients, by the site and by people and circumstances both within and outside his control. Although the end product will not be strictly the result of only the architects handiwork, what project is.?....so if you can reap the rewards for those projects where everything comes together just right (shaper, client, site and moons in alignment), you should be critisised for those where the end product is not as good even though many of the problems may be the result of forces outside your control. You cannot have it both ways.

[David Wigler]

Mike and Tom,

Come on now...Geoffrey, Lou, John Cummings and I have all given pretty detailed descriptions of what we like and do not like.  As for the pictures, you both know better.  I could walk onto any course in the country and make it look good or bad based on pictures.  Where is the shot from 3 tee box, 12 tee box, 13 tee box, 18 tee box. 2 approach, etc.  The last picture posted is of the putting green for gosh sake.  If ever a picture was posted unfairly, then that is it.  Are we now saying a course is bad because we do not like the way the putting green is set up?  The second to last picture is of #18.  What the picture does not show is the tee box up and to the left.  It is a brilliant risk/reward shot that requires either a safe shot of 210 - 250 yards to reach the area at the top of the photo, then another well executed lay-up or a very exciting tee ball over the side of the rocks that allows for a second thrilling shot of 225-255 into the green over the stream.  The angle of the photo insures that none of the elevation is visible and the best part of the hole (The tee ball options) are discounted.  The first picture is again backwards.  This is hole #1.  It is a very cool straight uphill par four.  Tom, it is similar to #10 (Old #1) at UofM.  The second photo fairly accurately represents my one criticism of the course.  Although this is probably the tamest spot on the tamest green, I have already stated that I wanted more undulation in the greens and more depth to the traps.  The third photo truly highlights why armchair analysis does not replace fieldwork.  Although this is the weakest of the par threes on the course, the hole has 30-40 feet of elevation, is 190 yards long and is a terrific fun golf shot.  In the picture, neither the length nor the elevation is apparent.  

Tom - play the course.  Then I will either agree or disagree with your assessment.  Do not be swayed by a bad set of photos.  Believe me, any architect is capable of both good and bad and Rees did a good job here.

PS - Since Rees always seems to bring up personal agenda, I have never met Pat Mucci and would not know him if I saw him and I have never met Rees Jones and would not know him if I was sitting next to him at a ball park.  He simply built a good course here.

PS - Tom, thank you for the help on Plum.  I owe you one!

[Mike_Cirba]

David;

There is no conspiracy or agenda here.  

I did a search on the web for Cascata and found these pictures.  They were the only ones I could find, and yes, they included a pic of the practice green and clubhouse.  I included everything that was there.

I even said that I don't know if they are representative of the golf course.  I haven't been there.

I'm not trying to make it look good, bad, or indifferent.  I simply posted the only pics I found.

Thanks for describing some of the holes in more detail.  I have been attempting to understand some of the differences of opinion between you, Matt, Lou, JC, etc., as regards Cascata and I take it you must disagree vehemently with your friend who called it "the abortion".  By learning more about what you like and don't (for instance, Lou and I disagree a lot, but I enjoy hearing his detailed perspective), I
get a better sense of the golf course.  I learn.

I fail to see how posting pictures (providing MORE information about this very exclusive course) is a problem.  If there were more available, I would have posted those here, as well.  

[David Wigler]

Mike,

Did not mean it to be personal.  Unfortunately, I did not bring a camera.  I would have loved to show you pictures of what I liked.  I asked for a camera in the pro shop and they do not sell them.  I wish I knew who took these photos.  They were not done well.  The only comment that was specifically directed at you was about the practice green.  If you knew it was the practice green, you should not have included the photo.  It has nothing to do with the golf course and because it shows a boring collection area and flat green, makes it appear that you are trying to highlight the negative about the course.

BTW - Which buddy of mine called it "The Abortion"?  I had heard it was "An abortion" from several people and fell in the trap of relaying that information myself at times.  It was a great lessen for me about fieldwork (Something that I know we agree on, as we have discussed).  I will definitely remember in the future to hold my criticisms to course I have actually seen (Unless Art Hills designs them  )

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Time to put your money where your mouth is.

How much do you want to bet that Patrick_Mucci, LIRR, and HamiltonBHearst don't have the same IP address and aren't the same person ?

I'll make it easy for you, whatever amount you select, I'll give you ten to one ( 10 to 1) odds.
 
Time to put up or shut up.

How do you judge the merits of a golf course you've never played ?

Mike Cirba,

It appeared to me that several people whose opinions you respect, spoke glowingly about Cascata based on their personal experiences gained through playing the golf course.
It seemed that you chose not to accept them, prefering instead to rely on a few photos offered as disputing evidence, asking them to repeat and re-prove their validation of the golf course.  Since you haven't played the golf course, how would you evaluate their answers ?  

When four or five or more people whose opinions you respect state that Cascata is a good golf course, you can admit to yourself that maybe it is a good golf course, instead of trying to deny their opinions.

It won't hurt you to admit that maybe Rees built a very good golf course on a difficult site.  

Bmogg,

The initial or raw "site" is an important consideration in the evaluation of what is designed and built on it.  Hostile sites usually require unusual work.

The directive from the owner is likewise an important factor.

Did Steve Wynn tell Fazio to leave the site as is, in a desert flood plain, and just grow in the grass, or did he want to create something special, something to be marveled at, that would attract his gambling, golfing customers ?

Did Rubin insist on magnificent views as a fundamental objective in the design of The Bridge

One has to consider the genesis of a golf course from a site and owners objective, perspective, and not from the perspective of some armchair architects.

Architects are sometimes hampered in their artistic pursuits by the vision or goal of the owner.

Just ask Tom Doak about Arthur Goldberg's objectives in the redo of Atlantic City.

When you take the King's schilling, you do the King's bidding.

[T_MacWood]

Pat/LIRR/Hamilton
Nice try.

I think it is great you have fan club...and it seems to be growing!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

There's no need to dodge/divert the issue/wager.
Just pick a number.
You're covered at ten to one.

Step up to the plate !  

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

You were so inspired by the golf courses you saw at Bandon that you came back and started about 10 threads here.

That tells me something.

Lou, Jonathan, and David played Cascata and came back and wrote about it very favorably, but without providing much in the way of detail about the course itself.  I asked about it, because in the past, I've heard from others (such as Matt) who played the course and didn't think much of it.  I was trying to understand where the disconnect was, as well as the contention that Cascata might be one of the Top 50 courses in the country, which is pretty lofty stuff.

Why would I have the motivations you suggest?  I've played about fifteen Rees Jones courses, and quite a number of others he modified, and I'll always be happy to tell you what I think.  

On a pretty good site in NY State, he created a SUPERB course at Olde Kinderhook.  See...there, that wasn't so hard, right?    

On a GREAT site in PA, he created a very good course at Huntsville.  If I was so anti-Rees, why would I bring this up?

On a lousy site in PA, he created a really crummy golf course for a private club that shall go unnamed.  

Etc. etc.

Tell me about the course...I could care less who the architect is.  

If someone is making a claim that a course is Top 50, and nobody asks them to detail their claim, then this site is not doing its job.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

All of your points in your above post are valid, but,
your introduction of the photos tainted your questions, and caused me to question your motives.

I thought that David Wigler addressed the photos appropriately, even the photo of the practice putting green.

For future clarification purposes, are you now saying that you accept Matt Ward's evaluations as the gospel ?  

If so, would you care to revisit "The Bridge" thread ?  

[Tim_Weiman]

David Wigler/Matt Ward:

I agree with Tom MacWood that the seven pictures Mike Cirba posted suggest that Cascata has a very artificial look.

But, having not seen Cascata in person, I have no idea whether these seven pictures accurately depict this aspect of the course.

Could you clarify this issue? Does Cascata have an artificial look about it?

[Dan King]

Patrick Mucci writes:
When you take the King's schilling, you do the King's bidding.

Since my name came up, I figured I'd respond.

I don't have anything to add here because I expect anything I want to say has already been said on this thread but I'm too lazy to go back and see. I just figured I should add to this thread because everyone else has, and this morning I have a strong desire to join a crowd.

Besides I'm curious how long it takes to post a response to a thread that is over 500 posts long.

Dan King

He's a real Nowhere Man,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
Doesn't have a point of view,
Knows not where he's going to,
Isn't he a bit like you and me?
 --John Lennon

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I know Mike Cirba can speak for himself, but I see nothing wrong with Mike questioning David Wigler based on comments from Matt Ward.

If you want to suggest our friend Tommy Naccarato or Tom MacWood has some "bias" against Ress Jones, fine. But, I don't think anyone could fairly make this claim about Matt. His enthusiastic assessment of The Bridge surely only serves to highlight how Matt doesn't have any such bias, doesn't it?

My hunch - just a hunch - is that David Wigler may have been struck by powerful aethetics that Cascata may possess. That happens to many people when visiting a golf course for the first time.

As just one example, I remember stumbling upon an assistant professional golfer from some club in the Southwest. This fellow just got back from spending a few months working at The Old Head and gushingly (is that a word?) told me how it was the greatest course in the world.

This pleasant fellow was rather stunned when I told him I didn't think it was that good a course based on things like the greens, green complexes, bunkering, etc. Amazingly, it seemed like he had never even thought about these issues.

Now admittedly The Old Head might be the most spectacular course in the world. It might possess a visual appeal so powerful that most people will have trouble focusing on the details. But, still at some point it is fair to ask people to put these features aside and ask those gushing to discuss the course more thoroughly.

That seems to me all Mike Cirba did. That is appropriate whenever someone makes strong claims like David did in the case of Cascata or Matt did with The Bridge. Asking them to explain why they rate the course so favorably doesn't imply any "motive". It is what we are here for, don't you think.

[Mike_Cirba]

I still don't understand the contention that posting any pictures of a course is inherently damaging or threatening to its reputation.  

I have no idea who took the pictures, but they were on a site that was devoted to Vegas golf.  

I copied EVERY ONE OF THEM en masse, which explains the one of the putting green and clubhouse.  

Since "a river runs through it", I figured that people might want to see that picture, as well.  

No criminal intent...I assure everyone.

Patrick, since I seem to be on the defensive here, perhaps I should ask you what you find to be so horrific about the pictures and why you instinctively believe they are damaging to the arguments presented by the course's proponents?  

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Cirba:

There is nothing inherently wrong with posting pictures. To the contrary, it is a service to the discussion group just like the pictures Ran posts as part of his course reviews. In fact, presenting pictures is pretty standard when it comes to discussing golf courses.

Can pictures be misleading? Yes they can. Take, for instance, pictures of Augusta National. How many really capture the topography of the property?

But, it doesn't make sense for anyone to criticize the posting of pictures without sharing with our group what the pictures actually distort or fail to capture.

We ran into that problem with the famous Merion pictures. People claimed they were unfair or misleading, but ever really explained how so? My own personal experience was that these pictures very accurately portrayed the new look of the Merion bunkers after the Fazio/Macdonald work.

Now, someone is always free to argue that the look may evolve with time. Or they may argue that focusing on the bunkers fails to capture good things done at Merion such as tree removal work. Or something else again. Fair enough. But, that still doesn't negate the value of the pictures presented.

Keep posting pictures. If someone wants to add more to provide a more complete view of the course or offer detailed commentary to help put the pictures in perspective, fine.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

This wasn't the opinion of an isolated individual with a built in homer bias.  This was the opinion of a good number of respected individuals in tune with golf course architecture.

Suddenly, the "great lefty chipper" chose to accept Matt Ward's opinion with respect to a golf course, something he's been reluctant to do in the past, against the opinion of other, independent individuals.

It seemed that his posting of pictures was a form of counter-claim.  Now, you may not see it that way, but that's the way I saw it.

And, we've seen pictures posted that were taken at biased angles in an attempt to support a given position, positive and negative.

Since Mike didn't take the pictures, I felt the source of the pictures might provide additional information relative to the discussion.

What seems amazing, yet consistent to me, is, that if a course designed by an architect who does not enjoy most favored nation status is posted, with positive reviews, negative scrutiny invariably follows, with an added burden of proof required.  But, If a course is designed by an architect who enjoys most favored nation status is posted, only praise and idolatry follow, without any room for questioning or recertification.

Now remember, that's just my opinion, but I believe it.

[Michael Dugger]

Puh-leez

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Let me direct your attention to the following thread where I prove my cowardly reluctance to criticize any of the "sacred cows" on this forum.

It comes complete with pictures, as well.  Just scroll down for my comments.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/YaBB.cgi?board=GD1&action=display&num=1051544803&start=0

[Lou_Duran]

Mike Cirba-

The pictures you posted are very poor and in no way give even the slightest representation of the course.  If I didn't know better, I think that you hired the same guy that doctored up the Clinton/Gore crotch shots to exagerate their package.

Concerning your comment that I didn't provide you with any information as to what Cascata has which makes me like it, please permit me to extract a paragraph from my earlier post:   "Like many on this site, I too enjoy variety, options, a few tricks here and there, temptations, and the opportunity to recover from an indifferent stroke with one befitting a Tiger (and I don't mean Bernhardt!).  I thought that Cascata flowed extremely well with the land, even if it was largely up and down the hills.  The water cascating down from the top of the hill was not a feature that I would have spent my money on as the developer, but it didn't do anything to detract from how the course played.  In fact, the water features that came into play were very well done and added considerable challenge and thought to my round."

I particularly liked the contrast between the short and long holes within each par type (9 iron to 3 wood on par 3s, driver-3 wood to driver-pitch on par 4s, and par 5s ranging from driver-iron, to driver-fairway wood-iron.  Going back to the old cliche, the course made me use every club in my bag.  And the greens have enough slope and speed to hold anyone's interest.

Is it artificial?  Of course it is.  I am not aware of fine grasses naturally growing on the rocky desert floor.  As I said earlier, Cascata, Shadow Creek, Southern Highlands, SouthShore, and several others give serious golfers a great reason to visit Las Vegas.  And based on what I saw, golf is probably one of the least artificial things in Sin City.  

[T_MacWood]

Pat/LIRR/Hamilton
Are all three of you giving me 10 to 1?    

If all three accept - I will pay each one of you $1,000,000 if you are correct.  
 
I didn't even notice the practice putting green in that photo...that photo was obviously meant to capture the clubhouse and waterfall. A major part of the full experience.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I can only speak for myself.

The offer stands.

Name your price.