Rees Jones article in Cigar Aficionado

[Paul Turner]

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 input.  

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


Re: Lowell's input:  well let's here some specifics then.  But the real issue is whether Rees had full artistic control and he clearly did.  

Are you willing to concede that Lowell didn't research Rees's work prior to his project?

You've just looked the general movement in the terrain and equated that to mean interesting stances.  The fairways are softly graded into gentle and broad contours and so on the fairway, you rarely have anything much different from a flat stance.  Where is there any sign of natural contour within those fairways, or perhaps you have a warped sense of the natural?  Can't you see the difference between those fairways and the fairways of rolling courses from the golden age?

Do you think Atlantic looks natural?

You cannot divorce style from strategy, golf is a visual game and style effects what's on the ground, so it has to effect strategy.  And Rees's style is so highly stylised it has absolute strategic ramifications i.e. if you want an unusual stance, hit it in the rough!

I have no idea why you brought in NGLA.  Rees simply stated that Atlantic was designed for the ground game, comparing it with links golf,  I disagree with that, the ground game isn't an attractive option there.

Atlantic is an ok course, it lacks charm and memorability because the holes are repetitive in both style and strategy.  You missed my point about boredom: cognitive skills?

Do you think the hazards (in particular fairway hazards) are interestingly positioned?
 
You're quite happy to comment on photos when it suits; how about the Beau Desert thread and the photos of Fowler's mound?  Or The Berkshire and photos of Fowler's bunker?  You appear to have lost your bottle when it comes to Rees.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick.

DMoriarty . . I would ask you the same question, Is it the style or strategy that is being objected to ?  

That was not my question at all.  My question was:  

Whether we fault Rees or the developer, isn't it still Rees' style that is in question?

 While you are contemplating that question, let me ask a related question:  
Whether we fault Rees or the developer, isn't it still Rees' implementation of style and strategy that is in question?

Could you please answer these questions, or should I assume that you agree with me at least as far as the style of the course is concerned?

As to your question: (Is it style or strategy that is being objected to?) I would have to say both.  Most definitely, both.  Contrary to your assertion later in the thread, you cannot disconnect strategy from style.

If it's the style, and the strategy is sound, then it's just someone's personal preference with respect to style.

Patrick, whether we are talking about style, strategy, or both, it still comes down to personal preference.  But that certainly should not take it out of the realm of critical discussion.  Isn't that what we are all doing on this site-- discussing, defending, and critiquing our personal preferences and the personal preferences of others?  

I will grant you that there are a few elements of style (such as whether bunkers have rough edges or straight edges) that are almost exclusively stylistic.  But there are also many 'stylistic' elements that are very strategic.  Fairway width, green contour and slope, bunker depth, bunker placement, use of mounds, and mound placement, to name a few.

But, when you try to completely divorce style from strategy (You can absolutely divorce style from strategy.  Style doesn't dictate strategy, strategy dictates strategy), it makes me wonder where you play your golf.  Unfortunately, at many of the newer courses I've played (many of which resemble Tommy's pictures) the link between style and strategy is all too apparent, and the strategy from the tee is, all to often, keep your tee shot anywhere between the mounds.

It goes back to the distinction of form versus substance.

As Socrates figured out along time ago (and as his student, Plato, never quite understood), form and substance are always and forever inextricably linked.  The same goes for style and strategy on a golf course.  Strategies are inherent in style, and certain strategies dictate certain styles.

One more thing, I think you are correct to point out that actually playing and viewing a course provides the golfer with a more accurate understanding of its style (including strategy), but your statement that Tommy's last set of photos are unhelpful to your understanding of the course's style (including strategy) is incredulous.  

[TEPaul]

Patrick Mucci wrote;

"TEPaul,

Do you think that Ben Crenshaw is wealthy enough that if he never took another design assignment that it wouldn't alter his living standards ?

How many architects have the luxury of independent wealth ?
Wealth totally unrelated to their architectural pursuits.

If we all had $ 50,000,000 do you think we might be more selective with respect to the clients we cultivate ?

I know you love C & C, but let's be realistic, they can financially afford to turn away clients that others can't, and your example is a very, very poor one.

In the business world, and in life, when you take the King's shilling, you do the King's bidding.  
If you don't, you'll find yourself amongst the unemployed.
If you're independently wealthy, that's not a burden, but if you have to feed your family, and meet a payroll,
those obligations are significant enough to influence your decisions."

Patrick:

I find the opinion and attitude you express with that remark to be ridiculously callous and thoughtless. Apparently in your mind the only principled architect is an independently wealthy architect or at least you seem to think that's what I think. And you convinently forgot to mention Bill Coore, didn't you?

Your remarks, quoted above, are nothing more than hilariously misguided!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

Not at all, both the mound at Beaux Desert and the bunker at Berkshire in the earlier threads were adjacent to the green, not far removed from the fields of play.

Atlantic is an OK course ?

Maybe we have a different understanding of OK.

When golf magazines rank a course in the top 100, I have to believe it's better than OK.  Having played it 100 or so times, I would have to say that it's better than OK, that it's a good golf course.

I think the fairway bunkering is positioned where it should be in the driving areas, allowing you on several holes to bite off as much as you want, like # 5, # 6, # 12, # 13, # 14, # 17 and # 18.

You make a comparison between Atlantic's fairways and fairways from phantom golden age courses with rolling fairways, courses built without environmental constraints.  Compare specific courses with similar sites, not vague generalizations where the course can't be identified and examined.

Have you played Winged Foot, Baltusrol, GCGC ?
Tell me what's so different about the stances encountered on those fairways and the stances encountered at Atlantic ?

A good deal of Atlantic looks natural and some of it looks manufactured, but I can say the same thing about NGLA.

Style and strategy can be divorced, strategy is not married to but one style, it's polygamous.

[H.S. Colt]

I wrote the following in my “Introduction” to Golf Architecture, by Dr. A. MacKenzie, and thought it apropos to this discussion (particularly for those of you who believe that the strategic implications of a golf course can be viewed in a completely independent manner from its aesthetics and surroundings):

“Many years ago now the idea came to [Dr. MacKenzie], as to a few others, that it might not be impossible to create a golf course without doing damage to the natural attractions of the site.  Up to that period the courses which had been designed by man, and not by nature, had in great measure failed in this direction, and although no doubt they had provided necessary opportunities for playing the game, the surroundings in many cases proved a source of irritation rather than pleasure.”

“And it is this enthusiasm for the natural beauty of nature which has helped [Dr. MacKenzie] in all his work, so that in the case of Alwoodley the player not only has the opportunity of displaying his skill in the game, but also of enjoying the relaxation which delightful natural surroundings always give.”

How can one appreciate the strategic implications of a golf course if he or she is so irritated by its surroundings?  Perhaps we should consider as blessed those who can do this, because one must be “deaf” to the surroundings to enjoy many of these modern-day designed courses.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, to double back a few posts ago, I need to tell you that I really don't like the PGA west course I have seen in pics and on TV at the qualifier school.  I look at it about the same as I do the Irish course or some of whqt is found on Whistling Straits.  But, those courses did not get pounded onto a beautiful, rare and unique property.  I know WS and Irish, but have never played PGA west.  The PGA west is obviously filled with strategy and ate the lunch of some good players at the qualifier.  It is considered a great course, and I don't argue.  But, I doubt I would look forward to playing it.  It is a manufactured monster that doesn't appeal much to me.  But, at least he didn't ruin a perfectly beautiful and rare coastal area to manufacture it.  WS in all its manufactured glory does add something to the previously unremarkable Lake Michigan shore line if you can get by the fact that much of it is over the top.  Now, I think that Pete didn't go so hard at Kiawah Island Ocean.  Although he by no means was minimalist, he did manufacture a property that doesn't insult your sense of that beautiful SC coastal strip of land.  And he built a course of great strategy to boot.

Arcadia Bluffs is the same way to me.  It don't think it ruined the preexisting property, I think it enhanced a mediocre property (even if it overlooks the Lake) with an attempt at a Ballybunionesque style and a course of plenty of strategy and fun.  

Pat, you seem intent at trying to get us "mavens" to criticize whom you think is a darling untouchable.  Well, I'll bite.  Tom Doak, if you had major input in that 14th hole at PGA, I don't like it. Yuck!

Now lets talk about what Tom does on his own!  He didn't bomb out the land and pound something on it at Apache Stronghold, another desert venue.  Of course we all know what he did at his masterpiece at Pac Dunes.  I am anxious to give Texas Tech an honest and critical look.  That again seems to me like a chapter out of the Dye book where he took an unremarkable property, turned the dozers loose and had to manufacture style and strategy.  We'll see...

[Ghosts of CB & Seth]

Mr. Mucci

When we utilized unnatural features, did we ever attempt to hide our hands?  No!
When we utilized unnatural features, did we obliterate an entire site in the process?  No!
When we utilized unnatural features, did we string them together in unnatural symmetrical patterns in an attempt to mimic nature?  No!
If this were not true, our dear NGLA would not be what it is today and you would not hold it in such high regard as your favorite golf course in the world.

We did utilize unnatural features, but we left the basic lay of the land as we found it and scattered the unnatural features within, and not out in the periphery, in a highly random and hap-hazard manner?

Can  you say the same in your defense of Mr. Jones?

[Bill_McBride]

Tommy, what course do you like to play when you are staying in Florence?

[TimWeiman]

Dick Daley:

I always thought there was something funny about PGA West. From a style point of view, it is exactly what I don't like. But, truthfully I had fun everytime I played the course.

There is something about the place that while you don't want architects repeating what Pete Dye created, you kind of accept PGA West for being what it is.

I'd be happier playing in Kohler on most days, but a go at PGA West every few years or so wouldn't be bad......especially if I could buy you a beer after.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You asked me why Coore & Crenshaw take so long to sign on the dotted line.  
Having the luxury of financial reserves is a valid response.  
It's not callous or thoughtless, it allows them to be more choosey.  Do you deny that ?

RJ Daley,

Some of the criticisms of Sandpines had nothing to do with the site, they had to do with the mounds.  You may recall the red dot picture's post and the following posts which focused strictly on the mounds, not the site.  Subsequently, the focus conveniently changed.  

You can't blast Rees for mounds and give Nicklaus, Dye, and others a pass for creating the same features.

The lack of response or focus from others on the Dye mounds at PGA West would seem to confirm my view.  
It's the architect not the mounds that they want to criticize.

[Paul Turner]

Patrick

The first pic of Berkshire Blue only showed the bunker and the photo of Beau Desert was a reverse picture, not a photo taken "from the normal line of play", a criterion you stated above.

I haven't played the courses you list, I believe they're generally flat and I bet they still feel natural.  And yes, if they are flat (on the micro scale too) then these courses lack the interest of stance variety.  Most of the great courses in the world have rolling terrain or micro movement at at TOC.

You probably haven't played the UK courses I'm thinking of.  The only example I can think of which we've both played is Yale: a manufactured, rolling, course that retains idiosyncracies in its terrain that Atlantic lacks, look at the 2nd and 8th holes there for example.   Also look at the  man made water hazards and compare.  The 4th at Yale has a very interesting water hazard shape and style, which defines the strategy and is much more interesting than those shown at Sandpines and Oxfordshire.  I know these are different sites but one course has a lot more natural appeal, eventhough it's heavily manufactured.

Which parts of Atlantic feel natural to you?  It just feels phony to me.

To me, the best hole is the 11th, which is the most naturally appealing because it's the shortest i.e. no mounds.  I can see the advantage of challenging the bunkers at the 5th,6th,14th,17th.  Don't see much advantage with the others.  The 12th is a more about the trees, can't remember much advantage at the 13th for challenging the left hand bunker, it's only a gentle dog leg.  Not sure about the 18th, is there really much advantage in challenging the left bunker? Isn't the best tee shot dead straight?

I bet a comparison of a before and after contour map would reveal that the fairways have been smoothed.  They moved 275,000 cub feet of soil and work all the soil into flanking mounds.  If you're gonna move a lot of soil, then why not mix it up a bit?

I don't see how environmental factors have any influence on the stylistic aspects we been discussing: mounding... A more natural course could have easily been built there, I think the fact they're trying to fix the course confirms this (removing mounds from behind backdrop greens).  The routing is pretty good, the walk between 13 and 14 didn't bother me. Although perhaps this could have been avoided by including a hole where the practice range is: not sure about the enviro restrictions there, but plenty of earth was moved for the range in that area.  Put the range down the current 13th fairway?  But you might have to shift the entrance drive for safety reasons?

I'll grant it's quite a spectacular course, but that has more to do with the site.  The best views are towards the central enviro area and away into the cornfields by the 5th/15th.

Please pick two holes that have the SAME strategy but very different styles?

Old Harry's right!

[Fact Patrol]

P.Mucci

Aren't you the one that is always demanding the FACTS, admonishing anybody that renders an OPINION without the FACTS?  Well perhaps you should follow your own advice.

Answer this question:  Do you have any idea what Bill Coore's financial situation is?  Do you have any FACTS that would support your proposition that Bill Coore has greater financial independence than Rees Jones and that's why he can say no to jobs that don't sit well with him?  My GUESS is that you are completely wrong and Rees is in fact more financially capable of saying no, but I don't have the FACTS so I, unlike you, won't go there.

Is it not possible that Bill Coore just might be one of those people that is not driven solely by the almighty dollar, choosing instead to stand true to his passions and beliefs?

[DMoriarty]

Patrick.

I believe I answered your question.  Any chance you will answer mine?

Thanks in advance for your courtesy.

David.  

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I'm always intrigued why you think there is some desire to beat up on Rees Jones.

Like you, I've never been to Sandpines. But, long before the existence of Golfclubatlas I lived on the West Coast for several years and knew people who had played the course. Not once did anyone suggest it was worth going out of my way to see.

Having not been to the site, I would have no idea what course it was if Tommy posted the pictures without identifying it. Nor would it matter to me who the architect was. I simply don't like that very artificial looking mounding. Period.

I agree with Dave Moriarty. Style is part of what we are here to discuss. If a course doesn't appeal aesthetically, it better have other features that make up for it. In its own way PGA West probably does, though I'd quickly grow tired of it as a steady diet.

With Sandpines, I can only go by what I've heard. Apparently, the course disappoints aesthetically and doesn't have much to make up for it.

If you have heard otherwise, why not share what you have heard. Bashing Rees doesn't do anything for me. To the contrary if a course really is worth seeing I'd like to hear about it (and why).

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mr. Colt,
Your verse speaks exactly my feelings when playing the closing holes at Sandpines--Golf On The Oregon Dunes:

"the courses which had been designed by man, and not by nature, had in great measure failed in this direction, and although no doubt they had provided necessary opportunities for playing the game, the surroundings in many cases proved a source of irritation rather than pleasure.”

Once again, thank you so much for leading SOME of us to the promised land of what golf course design is all about. Also, thanks for giving so much material for Paul Turner to research!:)

Sandpines is an irritating golf course. All of it.

[TEPaul]

"You asked me why Coore & Crenshaw take so long to sign on the dotted line.  
Having the luxury of financial reserves is a valid response.  
It's not callous or thoughtless, it allows them to be more choosey.  Do you deny that ?"

Patrick:

I most certainly do. That is definitely not the reason they take so long sometimes to sign on the dotted line, although clearly you're not able for some reason to understand that. Independently wealthy or not they have always adhered to no more than two courses per year when clearly the demand for them may at times far exceed that. But you can call the reasons for that modus operandi anything you want---I do know why they do it that way.

Are Rees Jones and Tom Fazio hurting financially at this point? Both are independently wealthy, right? So what's the difference between them and Coore and Crenshaw in your narrow thinking on this point?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat said:
You may recall the red dot picture's post and the following posts which focused strictly on the mounds, not the site.  Subsequently, the focus conveniently changed.  

Pat, This statement proves to me that you missed the entire point of the picture. It' s just not the red dots, it's the entire landscape that has been destroyed. Do you actually believe that digging a pit and putting in a huge behemoth of a lake in the middle of sandy did this site justice?

It's only the insult to injury that the mounds eventually make their way into the discussion. We are talking about a man that has said in the original jist of the article, "'I love to build golf courses that are suggested by the land,' and 'I love to walk the site and look for holes, look for natural sites for tees and greens, fairways that flow. You have to make golf holes work with a bulldozer, but for the most part you want to discover as many holes as you can rather than create them.'"

To me this isn't creation, it is destruction. The most absolute destruction of a perfect landscape.

[A_Clay_Man]

You cannot divorce style from strategy, golf is a visual game and style effects what's on the ground, so it has to effect strategy.  And Rees's style is so highly stylised it has absolute strategic ramifications i.e. if you want an unusual stance, hit it in the rough!

Paul- I have no idea what that means, could you elaborate, please?

["   "]

Pat Mucci,

How is the quote "inapplicable"?

[brad_miller]

How many courses has Rees built? How many sites were worthy of masterpieces? (Doak 8 or better) What are his best 3 courses? As to the article, he seems to talk the talk, he just doesn't walk the walk. Is it to little time on site? Are the mounds (dunes) his hallmark signature?

I'am not saying I haven't enjoyed the RJ courses I have played (Nantuket being my fav)  just wodering why this all star archie hasn't built a truely world class course. Doak has one with more it seems on the way and C&C have at least 2 and their total number of projects is well short of Mr Jones.

[Michael Dugger]

Pat Mucci

I'm not even going to address the majority of your questions.  Primarily is it because you are a crazy old man who doesn't seem to know how to structure his thoughts in a manner that the rest of the population of planet earth would agree is the definition of rational.  It's like looking at the sun and the sky and arguing with you over whether or not one is color yellow and the other color blue.  

An untouched Sand Pines is not an untouched PGA West.  Simple fact.  Who really gives a hoot what such-and-such architect did with PGA West?  What we are trying to talk about is Sand Pines....Rees Jones.....and the question of whether or not he "does, or does not, work with the existing land", as the freaking article claimed!!


Another thing, it was Perry Maxwell, at Prairie Dunes, who originally said 'there are 118 golf holes here', not Crenshaw.

Always trying to crack on C & C.  Even when it doesn't fit  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'll attempt to answer the questions in reverse order.

MDugger,

I doubt Perry Maxwell uttered your quote about seeing 118 holes and eliminating 100 since Prairie Dunes was built as a nine (9) hole golf course.

Maxwell himself, on September 13, 1937, the day of the formal opening round consisting of the foursome of Johhny  Dawson, Dean Woods, Ross Wilson and Ray Hockaday, said after play, " I told you the boys would agree with me when I said that there isn't another 9-hole course like this one in the whole United States"

The second nine opened in 1957 was based on a plan Perry had drafted in 1936, with a few changes in the design of the balance of the original holes.  But, Perry Maxwell never saw those holes on the second nine as he died in 1952.

I believe that you will find your quote attributed to C&C at SandHills.  I like C&C, I just find the idolatry a little excessive.

With respect to your calling me "a crazy old man who doesn't seem to know how to structure his thoughts",
Perhaps you need a tutor to help explain things to you.

Tommy Naccarato,

I couldn't answer your question about the lake/pond without knowing the water needs, requirements and availability.
I do know that Trump had to dig a very DEEP lake/pond for water needs at his Palm Beach course.  Until I know all the facts, I couldn't comment on that feature.

TEPaul,

When a firm has employees, and they depend on their paychecks to feed their families, it becomes a responsibility of the owner/architect to keep the firm active and financially viable.  If a partner/backer has more than adequate financial reserves it allows a firm to be more selective.
If everybody was broke and needed work to support their firm and their staff, I'm not so sure that many could afford the luxury of turning away work, or perhaps they would be a lot less selective.  This isn't a criticism of anyone, just basic finance 101.  

If firms were in it solely for the creative, artistic opportunity, why do they charge a design fee ?

Tim Weiman,

I objected to the criticisms based on the existance of mounding.  Mounding that was removed from the fields of play.
I further objected to the silence with respect to the Dye and/or Doak mounding at PGA West, and other courses.
TPC and Old Marsh.  When I initially asked about the strategy and playability of the holes, I received a non-answer, which led me to believe it was the look, the style, and not the substance of the course that was the focus of the objections.
Subsequently, Tommy Naccarato went on to evaluate those issues, and since I've never seen Sandpines, I said that I would have to take his word for it.

Paul Turner,

There is a difference between immediately adjacent greenside features which come into play, and mounds that are removed from the fields of play.  I think it's easier to gain a sense of relativity and playability of green side features than it is to gain a frame of reference of off-play mounds taken from non-play angles.

Sure, that's fair, let's compare YALE, a course built with zero environmental restrictions, where the architect could do what he wanted with the land, and compare it to a course built recently in the Hamptons, where the carcass of an Eastern Tiger Salamander can put a halt to the entire project.

The reason you can't see the challenge to the fairway bunkers on #12 and # 13 is because the environmentalists won't let them cut down the trees at the corner of the dog-leg which hide the bunker complexes designed to be challenged.

If you challenge the left side bunker and the left side, successfully, you gain a much better angle of attack into the green and it's approach and reduce the distance to the green should you want to try to get home in two.  Safer drives to the right have to deal with and carry the dell of rough that cuts into the fairway.  They also face a more awkward angle and stance on the right side.

Donald Ross tinkered with Pinehurst for 26 years so I don't feel tinkering with Atlantic is a black mark.

D Moriarty,

I'd say that a good deal of the criticism is of Rees's style

When I asked the question about the strategy, initially I received only one response, a non-answer, no-one wanted to address that issue.  Subsequently Tommy is the only one who responded to the strategy issue, and I indicated that since I hadn't seen the sight, I'd have to take his word for it.  However, I reserve my right to change my mind if I get the opportunity to visit the sight.  To date, the style seems to outweigh the strategy with respect to responses.

Dave, I don't want to see it removed from discussion or criticism, but let those being critical state their case.
When mounds and leaving the land as it occured naturally were the issue and a course with artificial mounding, designed by Dye/Doak was illustrated, noone but RJ Daley dared make a negative comment.  Why are those mounds okay, when they are just as, if not more out of place than Rees's ?
And why was everybody other than RJ Daley afraid to criticize them ?  Why is it fashionable to criticize Rees and Taboo to criticize Dye and Doak ?

I think you and others have misunderstood the divorce of style from strategy.  If a golf hole is designed with a chevron bunker in the middle of the fairway, does it make any difference if the leading edge is crisp and the far edge rough, or the leading edge rough and the far edge crisp, or both edges crisp, or both edges rough.  The placement, configuration and depth of the bunker is the critical element, not its look or style.  That identical hole, that golf course could be a Fazio, Jones, Doak, Dye, C&C and the strategic values and the playability of the hole would be relatively constant, despite the vast differences in style.

One is constant, the other variable.
I don't agree with you that strategy in inherent in style.
I think strategy dictates strategy and style is interchangeable.

Tommy's first set of pictures sure didn't tell me anything about the playable views and play of the holes as they were taken from awkward angles.  Only his subsequent pictures reflected views that the golfer would encounter in the play of the holes and they still don't tell you about the play of the holes and the strategy any more than the good number of, lines of play photos posted on PINE VALLEY, which I have played a few times.  If you can tell me about the strategy and play of the holes at Pine Valley, even from those multiple, golfers eye view of the holes, I'l find that equally incredulous

I hope that addresses everyone's questions.

[Paul Turner]

Patrick

Re: Yale

What are you on about? How on earth do enviromental restrictions influence Rees's choice of mounding, smooth grading and huge amounts of earth movement? Enviro restrictions were fundamentally a routing constraint at Atlantic.  

Comparing Atlantic with Pinehurst is silly.  Atlantic is being "fixed" because it's sick and the club probably wants the GD Top 100 again.  Changing the tee shape from free form to rectangular is an example of superficial cosmetic attempts to make the course feel more classic.

You haven't answered several of my questions and your reasoning about the Beau Desert thread is just plain daft and illogical: there are now plenty of photos on this thread taken from playing angles!  You just appear thoroughly reluctant to comment on Rees's style: tell us whether you like it or not.

A_Clayman

I simply believe that style and strategy are inextricably linked.  Rees's style with flanking mounds defines the repetitive strategy found on many of his courses i.e. hit the ball straight between the mounds (as others have mentioned here).  The "hit it in the rough..." comment was me attempting to be a smart arse, 'cos that's where you find the mounds!

I'm signing off on this one.  I'm going round in circles!

[RJ_Daley]

And why was everybody other than RJ Daley afraid to criticize them ?  Why is it fashionable to criticize Rees and Taboo to criticize Dye and Doak ?

You give me way to much credit, Pat.  I'm actually hiding under my bed tonight afraid that the Dyabolical one will conjure up a deamon to come for me in my sleep.  And, I am scarred stiff to think that Doak might actually invite me to one of his Renaissance Weekend gigs and make me explain myself!

Paulie go round in circles... Paulie fly high like a bird up in the sky...

...see we are all going whacko with you Pat... you win because the guys in the white suits are dragging the rest of us all away :-/

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Paul, Please do not leave this thread, because no matter what, it would seem that a lot of good stuff is in fact coming from it. How else is one supposed to have knowledge of the massive failing of one of the Business's more succesful architects?

Pat, to further explain the other issues of Sandpines--Golf on the Oregon Dunes.........

As far as water is concerned, given the vacinity of the site to the ocean, at the base of some high ground littered with lakes, streams, ponds and even a slough. (i.e. Ocean Dunes is directly above the course about a mile and a half as the crow flies, and while you can hear the ocean waves breaking on the surf there, you can practically look down on the area which Sandpines is located) it is local knowledge of how much the area west of the dunes, floods during the winter season. This is where holes 5, 6, and the tee for #7 are located, and it has to my understanding resulted in the 6th having to be rebuilt numerous times. That paticular area is popular with the locals during the non-golf months for canoing.

A knowledgable local who knows a bit about golf architecture, informed me that Rees knew nothing about the flooding during the winter months, and went off of the local water table studies of the area during two dry-winter years. ( I don't know what the industry standard is for this.)

Another fact is that in some of the images you will see water tanks overlooking the property. I'm told that those ugly tanks were a neccessity to getting the course built because they supply some/all of the residents of Florence with water. Its ironic that on even better Cypress Point quality golf ground, just west of Ocean Dunes is more City Water District-owned wells. I'm told that they feed the tanks down at Sandpines.

It would seem to me that water isn't the problem.