The Hollywood Challenge

[Tom Macwood (Guest)]

I have been challenged to show the hand of Rees Jones at Hollywood. I have not played the course, but through the use of aerial photos I will give it a try. How successful I have or haven't been is certainly open to debate.

To do the comparison justice I've tried focus on certain sections of the course, so the comparison is not in numeric order. The black & white photo is from 1995 and pre-Rees, it reflects quite a bit of the original Travis (although quite a few bunkers had been removed) as well as features of subsequent alterations by architects like Dick Wilson. The color photograph is a current view and is post-Rees.

http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com/image.asp?S=10&T=1&X=2912&Y=22279&Z=18&W=2

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/print.adp?mapdata=cbPRZSKSHGQzkTk7IvTvfZdPG%2bICs6f04JVr0U%2bps9rRZzBrKvw525zRI8a5ksB1k6yCyamlQIaRrIs6cYPZ%2bpM2aFvBg8vVPJtkUmiqjKI
Q%2fHkvvEEPLUaYoZVPG13CpB0wzqwWSs4v%2fTptAPDkCaIaKiJ2HFop2jWyGOlgdPc8bQGX6NgACMo
X1sbkxLZfpInnFrkhJotDhYn3ShAq4jsm5nN8jEkKR5zwMFRKkv3a9WFKW7OpDOFY%2bVqnvv%2bi8Bp
fkqavn7VHS1D5DJD6hg%3d%3d

#10 The hole across the top of the property. Here Rees completely altered the fairway bunkering. The odd Travis nest of bunkers was retained but Rees replaced its unique angular character with soft curves. New greenside bunkers.

#11 The next hole can only be seen in the black & white photo, heading down the page along the western perimeter of the property is unchanged by Rees.

#12 The Heinz 57 hole because of the great number and types of bunkers. Rees established new fariway bunkers dwon the left and also down the right - they are completely new and do not replicate anything Travis designed. The odd angular nest of bunkers that crosses the fairway about 100 yards short of the green have been Reesified replacing their former angualr look. The massive greenside bunker has been completely altered and is all Rees now.

#6 The hole right above #12. The fairway bunkering on the right (which was original Travis) have been completely altered and now reflect Rees.

#7 The hole above the 6th. Those same altered bunkers come into effect on this hole. There is also newly shaped roundish fairway bunker down the leftside (Rees). The green is not visible in this photo.

http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com/image.asp?S=10&T=1&X=2914&Y=22279&Z=18&W=2

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/print.adp?mapdata=cbPRZSKSHGSad%2bOl%2b6rpQV1LwKLAJZ%2fhP%2f5CpcAZqDNMiKqGAypQlXsH0h%2fuGCjKtlkGn%2baOzQr5RjZo%2botel2z0fpb5m%2b%2f
02IgudmReo%2bCliI1QqhS85PbxIv5GRft7h%2bHfVJP4yCZ7x2lumJBJ2juU0zyZsXo1c0EbxDMneI0
TXwU9ARtFuFKoDlVtoTA9qhi5b3YAe4khfIBslt%2b%2fRFf5CLO%2fz8tnKsJ6nKcerYtBwplDTpJ8y
t2ThEY1aTAVeYUCBz1prYbMEnjJij67%2fg%3d%3d

#7 The green can be seen in this view. Rees reatain the bunkers for the most part inserted in trademark soft curves to replace tha nagular more irregular previous shape.

#17 The green adjacent to #7. For some odd reason Rees chose to build a singualr new very simplistic bunker for this par-3 replacing some of Travis' original bunkering.

#5 The par-4 below the 7th and 17th. New Rees fairway bunkers not reflective of the lost Travis fairway bunkers. Retained the Wilson greenside bunkers.

#13 The dogleg at the bottom. Added completely new Rees bunkering at the outside of the dogleg. And sadly created his own greenside bunker on the left to replace Travis'.

More later.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

This isn't the first time Rees' invovlement at Hollywood has been brought up. Sometime ago Brian Schneider, a diligent student of golf architecture who travels the country carefully studying interesting works of golf architecture, commented after a visit to Hollywood that he could see the hand of Rees. As is his habit Pat immediately came to Rees defense and challenged Brian to detail his claims, which he did. After every post by Brian, Pat would disapear from the site for 24 or 48 hours and then would respond with what he claimed was indiputable proof that Brian was incorrect and then would proceed to brow beat him. Brian who make another detailed response of what he thought was Rees handywork and Pat would then disappear for 24 or 48 hours (which was very odd considering Pat's normal rapid fire responses and his intimate knowledge of Hollywood) and then again reappear with indisputable evidence followed by an even more severe brow beating. By the end of an extended exchange this student of golf architecture with a wealth of information -- who has closely studied more golf courses than Pat and Me together --had had enough and now rarely if ever contibutes to the site, a sad loss. I'm not sure where Pat was gettting his information perhaps from the architect himself his good friend Rees or perhaps a knowledgable source at the club or perhaps from a book that wasn't readily handy (knowing Pat, I doubt it was a book). Who knows, but I find it interesting that after such rapid fire responses of the last few days, that Pat didn't immediately post on this thread.

I'm must admit when Pat challenged me to find the hand of Rees I thought it would be somewhat difficult, especially after Pat's past claims that he had indisputable information that Rees's hand was limited. To my surprise his hand was everywhere and a more difficult challenge would be to find what he didn't touch.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Tom,

To help you a little, here's the entire course, though not as close up, that was AOTD #16 (the thread NLE).  I have not done a complete aerial from Terraserver, but Tommy N (I think) had an "original" aerial of Hollywood that he showed in a separate thread a while ago, and then I showed in the AOTD #16 thread that would be great for your thread.



I can see Rees' hand in it as there are several of his squiggly "Amoeba" bunkers (not in the "before" photo) that we have found so prominent in a lot of his work from AOTD's of Cascata, Bethpage (Black), Atlantic, and Hollywood.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Maybe this will work.

[guest]

I just happened across the course profile on Hollywood.  There are quite a few ground level photos of the bunkers and the golf holes and some look quite nice.  It seems to me that it is exceedingly hard or impossible to discern much about them except their general shape and location from the air.  

Similarly, the aerial of the day on Talking Stick shows nondescript shapes from the air yet I'm sure few here would question their handywork when you look at the photos in the course profile.

This whole exercise is a case of mental masturbation!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

guest
This thread was born out of challenge by Pat Mucci:

"I challenge you to find traces of Rees's work at Hollywood."

The purpose of this exercize was not to determine if the golf holes or bunkers look nice or not, but to show that there are plenty of traces of Rees's handywork. That his work at Hollywood was not a restoration, but a remodeling. I assume that Pat's silence is an acknowledgement that Rees did in fact leave plenty of traces of his hand. And I would hope that Pat, being such fair minded individual always looking out for those unjustly targeted, would issue an opology to Brian Schneider.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

My challenge remains, if you play the course, without prior coaching, you couldn't tell what Rees did or didn't do.

Brian Scneider made the ludicrous statement that Rees ruined Hollywood when he had never seen the course pre Rees' work.

To give you a flavor for his inaccurate assessment, he attributed the mounds on holes # 4, and # 7 to Rees when those mounds had been there for at least 30 years before Rees ever set foot on the property.  So much for his keen eye and judgement.

If anything Brian owes an appology to Rees, for making what I consider inaccurate, even slanderous statements, and drawing foolish conclusions.

I haven't heard one golfer, who played the course pre and post Rees say that the course was better before Rees did his work.  But then again, they played the course pre and post Rees's work.  How can their opinions compare to yours, someone who has never played Hollywood, or Brian's, someone who never saw the course prior to the work.

The Guest was on the mark with his assessment.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I don't need any coaching I just met your challenge by listing the numerous 'traces' of Rees's work - unless you believe my assessment is incorrect, the challenge is over. (It also illustrates what the trained eye can do with aerial photos)

I understand you assay the course is better for Rees's involvement, I have rendered no judgement on the course. Actually I think the course looks fabulous and wildly interesting - the Travis original, after Wilson and post-Rees - although the original course looks the most appealing. Were you aware of how much work Rees did at Hollywood (much of it completely new)? Did he rebuild every bunker on the course? How many new bunkers do you estimate he introduced?


These are a nest of bunkers between #6 and #7 which have been reshaped by Rees.




These are two views of the 7th green whose bunkers have been reshaped by Rees and exhibit very familar mounding. You might want to revisit your source.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Nice photos, now tell me exactly what work Rees did ?

On # 7 green, are you sure those mounds weren't there pre Rees ?

Now you say you're not getting any assistance, any coaching. right ?  

I doubt that, the photos seem to have a familiar Brian Schneider angle to them, am I right ?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
You got me, I admit I've been coached. I really don't know very much about the entire subject, to be perfectly honest. I don't even play golf.

But at least I won the challenge.

[Mike_Cirba]

I don't know if anyone remembers, but awhile back Tommy Naccarato had this cool piece of software, where he took an original aerial of Hollywood from the 30s, and then in real time, you watched the course change into what it is today, all in about 5 seconds!  

Bunkers were disappearing in thin air....very, very cool.

I know that it's probably enormously time consuming to create and put together such a thing for our viewing pleasure, but I for one would be interested to see the same thing here between the 1995 pictures and more recent ones since Rees Jones's work.  

In other words, I can see all of the changes outlined by Tom MacWood, but it gets a little frustrating going back and forth between the pictures.  

One thing this does point out is that Rees's work is probably best termed a "renovation", as opposed to a true restoration of Travis's work, which I understand the club didn't want.  I will say that the extension of the 13th green is by far the best of the new stuff Rees created there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You haven't come close to meeting the challenge.
Comparing what exists today, with what existed 70 years ago,
ignores the many membership changes over the years, to almost every feature of the golf course, save the greens.

Most of your assessment is inaccurate !

Your reference to the exchange between Brian an I is a total lie.  I never disappeared, And I never, repeat never contacted Rees or anyone from his office.  I did point out glaring errors in Brian's assessment.

Brian attributed many features to Rees that existed on the property years before Rees got there.  He attempted a hatchet job, yet HE HAD NEVER SEEN THE COURSE PRE REES.

Someone never sees a course prior to work on it, but alleges that they can judge the results, in the context of what existed previously.  You and Brian can't be serious.

How did Hollywood jump so high in the rankings after Rees's work ?

The challenge stands, you couldn't play Hollywood and tell what Rees did or didn't do, without prior coaching.

As I said, after Hollywood, we'll ride up to Baltusrol and test you consumate skills again, you can even bring Brian.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
The comparsion I made was from 1995 to present, did you read it? Detail where my assessment is wrong, if I'm wrong I should be corrected. I believe the challange was to find traces of Rees' work, not to judge the quality of the finished product. And you didn't qualify how I could show those traces, just find them. I believe I succeeded.

Do you think those photos above reflect Rees's affinity for roundness?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Several of the posts were deleted - possibly because of  Guest (Mr.MM). But if you study the aerials you will see that all but a handful were altered by Rees (2,4, 9 & 11 were the only ones spared I believe) - you will also see some very similar bunkers to what is found on Bethpage today.

By the way I've never met Brian Schneider in my life, I've never spoken to him or traded e-mails with him - and those photos were taken right off of Ran's profile of the course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Your assessment is wrong in its entirety.

You made the statement that Rees performed "completely new design work".  Other than the two areas I named,
# 14 & # 17 can you state/identify what is completely new about each hole.

Like Brian before you, who misidentified and labeled features built by someone else as Rees work, the bunkers you mention are almost identical to their previous configuration, including the MOUNDS around those bunkers which have always been there, and which Hollywood has had an abundance of, prior to Rees's arrival.

It's nice that you show pictures of various features, but why didn't you show the pictures of those same features before Rees did them, to see how little they have been changed.

The sad truth is you've never played Hollywood before or after Rees's work and couldn't in a million years tell what was done or not done unless someone informed you previous to your visit.

The joke is that you are critical of the change to the 13th hole, when EVERYONE recognizes the enormous improvement to the 13th hole with the addition of the bunkers that you think are so terrible.  They look great at the tee, and in the fairway, and add a tactical defense to a previously mundane, driveable par 4.

The other joke is that you attribute every bunker on the course to Travis, when almost every bunker had been modified, eliminated or added in the intervening years.

I find it interesting that you never mention the removal of the pot bunkers on the 10th and 16th holes, right in front of the greens.  Where are they in your photos ?  What do you think of them ?  What do you think of their removal  ?  Please try to respond without assistance from others.

I also know enough to know that the photos you posted aren't your photos, and likely, come from another critical, guiding source.

Hollywood was improved by Rees's work, only BLIND,
REES DETRACTORS who have never played it before and after, think otherwise.

Again, could you identify the "completely new design work" that you allege that Rees did on each hole ?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
The excercize was not to evaluate the merits of the changes only to identify the numerous changes. And I feel totally comforatable with my assessment and that is why I included the links (before and after aerials) - so everyone could see for themselves. (I had the benefit of third aerial the original Travis aerial that I asked if you would re-post. So I had the Travis, pre-Rees and post-Rees aerials). Its all right there for you to see (before and after aerials), if you don't see it, well there is nothing I can do about that.

The photos are Ran's taken from the profile on GCA.

I have no desire to rehash what I went over a month ago.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

If Ran's pictures were taken at the same spot, previous to Rees' work, you would have seen how little was changed.

The mounds at the bunkers at # 6 and # 7 were always there.

I'm more than comfortable with my assessment.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I'll take your word for it on the mounds between 6 and 7 - I never mentioned them.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Perhaps you can find where I mentioned the membership in this thread documenting the numerous alterations to Hollywood.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

It wasn't this thread, the one you conveniently chose, but an early thread, perhaps Brian Schneiders thread where you alleged that the membership wanted a complete Travis restoration.

You may recall that subsequently, you came to realize that the mandate of the membership differed substantially from what you initially alleged was the scope of the project, absolving Rees of not restoring the golf course to an early photo that was posted on this site.

Now that I'm jogging your memory, perhaps you also recall castigating Rees for a partial or incomplete restoration.

We debated at great lengths the scope of the project,
you were doing so without any membership input, and I offered a little insight into the membership's thinking.
We also discussed the possibility of continuing the restoration project, despite costly clubhouse renovations currently under way.  Surely, you remember those discussions.