Let's give Rees some props

[Mike_Cirba]

As a frequent critic of many of Rees Jones original courses, and one who was skeptical of his work at Torrey Pines, I think he deserves at least some of the credit for the variability and excitement that has been under display the past few days.

I've argued in the past here that TP's routing was vastly underrated, and that the course prior to the re-work was simply missing internal interest on many of the holes.

Although I'm not a fan of the look of most of Rees Jones' features, I can't argue that they aren't being proven to be effective, counfounding, thought-provoking, and strategically interesting.

Since open-mindedness seems to sometimes be in short-supply here, I thought it was time that we give Rees credit for what is almost inarguably a really good course for a US Open.

[JohnV]

Well said Mike.  I think that there are some really interesting contours on the greens now.  The way the balls move around and some of the pockets where holes can be placed make it very interesting.  I played Torrey a lot when I was in college UCSD.  Watching this week makes me want to go back and play it again, which I have to say, watching the Buick hasn't done.

[John Moore II]

I agree, I think this US Open is providing a chance for players, Tiger especially, to make runs with birdies and eagles, rather than just everyone floundering about trying not to have a train wreck (though train wrecks can happen, just ask Phil).
--I find it interesting that some of the better Opens in recent memory, Bethpage and here, have been extensive Jones redesigns. Perhaps he is better when tweeking courses within certain parameters than when crafting completely new courses.
--I am not certain, however, how a full Jones design would hold up to an Open, though we will find out in 2 years how a Jones design holds up to a USGA major when the Publinx come to Bryan Park in my home state of NC.

[Andy Troeger]

Mike,
Agreed as well, watching the golf this week has been a pleasant surprise after not hearing much positive GCA buzz heading in. The USGA I think also deserves some credit, the course is set up about as well as it could be given their usual preferences. Moving some of the tees up and creating variability within the setup as they did last year really makes a difference.

[David Stamm]

As a frequent critic of many of Rees Jones original courses, and one who was skeptical of his work at Torrey Pines, I think he deserves at least some of the credit for the variability and excitement that has been under display the past few days.

Mike, the course is still pretty much a Bell jr, contrary to what the telecast keeps saying. While I like what RJ did with 3 and 14 and some new tees elsewhere, this isn't enough to call it his course, even if ol Rees thinks it is.

I've argued in the past here that TP's routing was vastly underrated, and that the course prior to the re-work was simply missing internal interest on many of the holes.

It's still missing internal interest. I wouldn't say the routing is underrated, in fact, I think the course would've been better if Rees had reversed it, with 18 being one and go out from there and eventually go to the cliffs via number 6 and return to the clubhouse on 1.

Although I'm not a fan of the look of most of Rees Jones' features, I can't argue that they aren't being proven to be effective, counfounding, thought-provoking, and strategically interesting.

I'm not sure I would call Torrey Pines overall strategic, althoug I do think Ress added a little bit of that with what he did do.

Since open-mindedness seems to sometimes be in short-supply here, I thought it was time that we give Rees credit for what is almost inarguably a really good course for a US Open.

I appreciate that Rees did what was deemed necessasry by the USGA to hold an Open there. And I agree, it's a really good course for the Open, but I'm not sure if it's a really good course in it's own right.

[Mike_Cirba]

David Stamm,

I believe we are in complete, 100% simpatico agreement on every point you just raised.

Thanks,
Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

To deny Rees design credit would be inaccurate and inappropriate.

His changes to the golf course are substantive enough to earn him design credit with the Bells

[Dan Herrmann]

Amen.   An excellent job.

[Jim Nugent]

Some questions and a speculation. 

Are Rees' alterations why we're seeing an exciting tournament?  Or is that more the original architecture combined with the way the USGA set up Torrey for the Open?

Are we more likely to get exciting golf on a course the guys know real well -- because they play it each year?  Up till the last few years, ANGC often produced lots of fireworks.  Now TP is doing the same.  Maybe this familiarity helps someone shoot the lights out in a major. 

If Tiger's knee were 100%, if he hadn't missed two months of golf, would this year be much different from 1997 at ANGC or 2000 at Pebble?  He demolished the other players at the Buick this year.  Even with his bum knee and no competitive golf, he still is leading.  How much of the drama is due to Tiger's injury, and not the course? 

[Willie_Dow]

Mike

Perhaps Rees is a good listener !  As I believe Hugh Wilson listened to the advice he received from various sources.

Doesn't this equate to making something work ?

Willie

[Jon Spaulding]

Rees has to get credit along with Bell for the course.......which will be "good but not great" the other 99.9% of it's existence.

Other than the guys playing the game, Mike Davis and the grounds crew are the stars. They've put heaps of lipstick on a "decent" looking pig. After 2 night's sleep, I am still in awe of what they did with the Kikuya fairways & graduated rough. The concept of mixed tees/pins was a good one and has proved entertaining.

The players, their familiarity with the course, and the setup by Davis have made for a great tournament thus far. TP South has just stayed out of their way.

[John Moore II]

Jon--I agree with you. I think the USGA (Mike Davis) has realized that 5 inch high weeds right off the fairway and playing every hole from so far back on the tee box you might as well be in the parking lot do not yield much entertainment. I am looking forward to seeing this type set up at Pinehurst #2. Maybe I will get the lite version this year for the US Am at Pinehurst. But I really like this set-up. It actually allows for people to do things. Tiger is frankly getting lucky with those huge offline drives, hitting it so far offline he gets out of the weeds, but unless you get rid of gallerys, that will always be a part of it.
--I think the USGA has found a great way to set the course up, excellent.

[David Stamm]

David,

To deny Rees design credit would be inaccurate and inappropriate.

His changes to the golf course are substantive enough to earn him design credit with the Bells

Pat, I'm not saying should not get credit for his work on TP. What I'm saying is that (and I know Cirba wasn't saying otherwise) he has not done enough on the course to warrant Rees himself to call it "his course", that's all. I do think the course has been improved for tournament play and that the changes to 3 and 14 are a definite improvement.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

To deny Rees design credit would be inaccurate and inappropriate.

His changes to the golf course are substantive enough to earn him design credit with the Bells

Pat, I'm not saying should not get credit for his work on TP. What I'm saying is that (and I know Cirba wasn't saying otherwise) he has not done enough on the course to warrant Rees himself to call it "his course", that's all.

I'd agree.

But, I haven't heard or seen anything where Rees claimed that the course was "his" course.

Have you or Mike Cirba heard or seen any article where Rees claimed that TPS was "his" design ?[/color]

I do think the course has been improved for tournament play and that the changes to 3 and 14 are a definite improvement.

The praise for the course seems almost universal, which is unusual for the PGA Tour Pros and U.S. Open courses.[/color]

[David Stamm]

David,

To deny Rees design credit would be inaccurate and inappropriate.

His changes to the golf course are substantive enough to earn him design credit with the Bells

Pat, I'm not saying should not get credit for his work on TP. What I'm saying is that (and I know Cirba wasn't saying otherwise) he has not done enough on the course to warrant Rees himself to call it "his course", that's all.

I'd agree.

But, I haven't heard or seen anything where Rees claimed that the course was "his" course.

Have you or Mike Cirba heard or seen any article where Rees claimed that TPS was "his" design ?[/color]

I do think the course has been improved for tournament play and that the changes to 3 and 14 are a definite improvement.

The praise for the course seems almost universal, which is unusual for the PGA Tour Pros and U.S. Open courses.[/color]

Pat, exhibit A.

http://www.golfdigest.com/golfworld/special/usopen/2008/uso_reesjones?currentPage=4

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

He did say it was a Rees Jones course.   It's not.    He had a terrific routing there to begin with, even though I believe it was underrated.

He simply made some really good changes, particularly as relates to tightening the screws for tournament play, as well as adding flexibility and nuance to the holes.    More power to him for that.

I do wish the old 2nd green wouldn't have been changed so much though...that one I really liked.

[Ryan Farrow]

I think you guys are confusing a great US Open with a great "doctoring" job. Lets give credit where credit is due. To the golfers and a little bit of luck, making things exciting. This event would have been just as exciting on a cow pasture. with some great views. 

[Kalen Braley]

I think you guys are confusing a great US Open with a great "doctoring" job. Lets give credit where credit is due. To the golfers and a little bit of luck, making things exciting. This event would have been just as exciting on a cow pasture. with some great views. 

Ryan,

This is absolutly untrue and I take umbrage to you even making this suggestion.  Clearly Torrey and the course alone is the single factor that made this tournament one of the best in Modern history, if not the best ever!!

Other courses and thier inferior architecture would not and could not produce such fine results...