The Open Doctor

[John Shimp]

How did Rees Jones get to be the "open dr"?   I was reading shackefords article about mike davis' disdain for the wrk Rees did at Torrey. His work at cog hill in an attempt to get the open is widely hated.  So why did other rota courses like bethpage, etc cut Rees loose?  Related, will no. 2 look  smart in bringing in c&c?

[jeffwarne]

How did Rees Jones get to be the "open dr"?   I was reading shackefords article about mike davis' disdain for the wrk Rees did at Torrey. His work at cog hill in an attempt to get the open is widely hated.  So why did other rota courses like bethpage, etc cut Rees loose?  Related, will no. 2 look  smart in bringing in c&c?

they always look smart in the beginning.
that's why they call it a fad......

It comes in different flavors every 10-15 years
Hindsight's always 20-20

[PCCraig]

It really came about after Jones' renovation of The Country Club in Brookline prior to the 1988 Open. In fact, people should thank Rees as it was really the first true restoration of a classic golf course in an era full of big brawny modern golf courses.

[Adam Clayman]

Its probably in the genes. Begging and pleading that is.

[PCCraig]

Its probably in the genes. Begging and pleading that is.

Isn't that a nasty comment...

[Tim Nugent]

He beat Bobby to it. Look to his father for the beginnings.

[JR Potts]

Despite the repeated ribbing many on here like to give Rees (for whatever reason), in the late 80s and early 90s, Rees had the foresight to start marketing himself as a renovator of classic courses that have traditionally held major championships.  Most of the other "big name" architects wouldn't touch these projects with a 10 foot pole.  I think these first few jobs likely led to more jobs and then a reputation.

As far as I'm concerned, good for him.  That's smart business.

And where's this article re: Mike Davis's opinion on Torrey?

[Mike_Young]

It really is not RJ's  fault....there could be a nice book written on how the top guys come to be the top guys....ex: if George Fazio had not been the head pro at Pine Valley would TF have had the opportunities?  Same for RJ and RJ....otherwise it has usually been a professional golfer with of championship caliber...
The fault lies in the decision makers....be it developers or USGA or boards....they don't know enough about GCA nor do they see the need to learn....they can overcome most design issues with $$$$ and over the top maintenance....or either do it again with the same guy....

Same thing happens with top law firms, you pay five times the hourly fee in order to pay some guys rent in the right spot in the right city...might be a better guy down the street in your home town but ....same for doctors ....and in all walks....just the way it works....always has....always will...

[Bob_Huntley]

Is there a bonus from competitors to knock Rees Jones?

Would all the contibutors to this forum who have played a Rees renovation, step up and tell me what their bitches are all about?

How many of the gripers are members of the clubs at which he has plied his trade?

Does anyone dislike Victory Ranch? If so, why?

Bob

[PCCraig]

How many of the gripers are members of the clubs at which he has plied his trade?

Bob:

The obvious answer is zero

I have had the chance to play about 25-30 rounds on a post-renovated (and a few pre) Jones course in St. Louis at Bellerive and the work he did there on his father's work was very well done IMO. I've also playing a significant number of rounds at an original course of his in Charleston called Briar's Creek which is a fun, low country course that I think many on here would be shocked by how much they would like it if they ever get to see it.

And, as I stated before, he deserves some significant credit for restoring many of the classic features on The Country Club....long before current "it" GCA Gil Hanse got the in-house gig.

It's not nearly as one-sided of a story as the Rees haters on these internet discussion boards make it out to be.

[Mike_Young]

Is there a bonus from competitors to knock Rees Jones?

Would all the contibutors to this forum who have played a Rees renovation, step up and tell me what their bitches are all about?

How many of the gripers are members of the clubs at which he has plied his trade?

Does anyone dislike Victory Ranch? If so, why?

Bob

Bob,
I actually like many Rees Jones courses....I am not knocking Rees Jones above......am trying to make people think about how the top guys have been sold over the last 20 years....there are plenty of excellent courses done by all of these guys...but my interest has been in researching how they got there....was not intended to be a knock....

[Jeff_Brauer]

There really could be an architectural discussion point about Rees here.

Brookline was a very good restoration, it still looked like an old course and nothing like a Rees course.

Bethpage looked like Tillie, but had some choices - such as keeping the smaller greens and bunker bases, thus enlarging the bunkers - that could be questioned.

Torrey Pines just looks like a modern Rees course.  Not that the original was considered something to preserve.

So, I think the general perception here is that Rees is going away from a restoration movement that he was key in 20 years ago.  That said, its just an interesting example of how every project has its own unique set of circumstances, plus the one constant of working to USGA Open standards.

[John Shimp]

Jeff,
Thanks for your post.  It was intended to be a discussion about what he did to earn "open dr" status and get the nod at so many great facilities.  I don't have a strong position on Rees (i veer somewhat negative on style in general but appreciate certain things too).  I like being on Torrey Pines South but he didn't do much to make it as fun as it could be and I don't like the look of what he did there particularly the bunkers.  I also am not a fan of what he did to his fathers design at Duke University.  He lengthened it and flattened most of the sidehill landing areas and created one go/no go carry into the greens after another.  It used to be a nice natural RTJ Sr course.  That said it certainly got improved teeing areas, rebuilt greens, new bunkers and was regrassed which all help a course that had tons of sandy washouts, caved in bunkers and mostly common bermuda.
Thanks

[Mike Cirba]

My understanding about Brookline, from a thread here a number of years back, is that all of the shaping work at Brookline was done in-house, and with a very tight rein.

My biggest complaint about Rees and his "restorations" is that he tends to make all his bunkering somehow look like swirling, soft curving Rees Jones bunkers.   I'm not even sure he intends that...I just don't think he can help it, and I think HE thinks it looks good.   

I just don't agree.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,

Well, there is no doubt it was marketing and his fathers similar reputation earlier, plus being closer to golf house than Bobby.   And he did some good work.  

Its fair to say that good work is what continues to get jobs.  I also think its fair to say that being replaced at Pinehurst No. 2 by C&C is somewhat a reflection on what the general golf community is feeling about gca's and their styles these days.  In that rarfied air, it doesn't take much of a falloff for someone to start thinking there may be a new and better way.  Or, it could be just that we have all seen one too many Rees Open courses and simply want a change for change sake.

Mike,

That could be, but Rees is the gca of record, and worked within the parameters of the club as any gca would.  We are basically saying the same thing - that his style has slowly morphed from restoration with minimal changes to a greater free reign, and putting his stamp on stuff.  I think he also did Baltusrol, and that looked a lot more like a Rees course, but then, he was really restoring his father's work, and not Tillie's original either.

[Phil_the_Author]

It is my opinion that Rees Jones has suffered more wrongful criticisms for his work, especially where his renovation/restoration work has been involved, than any other architect practicing today.

A good example is the well-meaning statement by Jeff that "Bethpage looked like Tillie, but had some choices - such as keeping the smaller greens and bunker bases, thus enlarging the bunkers - that could be questioned..."

I personally know that the work that Rees did on the bunkers had nothing to do with enlarging them but was an actual restoration of what was originally there. He and his crews went to the extent of digging down to discover the original base pads and therefor had a very accurate understanding of the bunker sizes and shapes. The "enlarging" of the bunkers then were an actual restoration of what had been originally there.

As for keeping the greens  at the same sizes rather than expanding them out to the bunkers, the decision for that was based upon several things, NONE of which Rees had any control over. The first was that the USGA was paying for the work and therefor had FINAL SAY on what was to be done. Other than the re-do of the 18th green Rees was told that no work would be done on any other green besides replacing of collars. The second thing that came into play is that there have been extremely few photographs of the course and greens itself PRIOR to WWII. That is VERY important because both the Black and Blue courses were abandoned and left fallow from 1942 - late 1945. During those years the grass on each course wasn't mown even a single time. When the war ended the state had to completely rebuild both courses before they could open them for play once again in 1946. As a result, with LIMITED funds available for the project, the putting surfaces on both courses were "restored" to barely 2/3 of their original sizes and all in circular fashion. Shapes and contours that had originally been there were then lost. This piece of Bethpage's history had been long-forgotten by those at the Park. When they were asked for help in finding information about the course when it opened they believed the greens were then as they were prior to the restoration. Since 2002 a number of early photograaphs and information has been unearthed as well as existing ones better understood; hence the recovery of major portions of putting surfaces on the 1, 7, 8, 11 & 14 prior to the 2009 Open. More areas will be rocovered in the next few years.

I use that as an example because the work done at Bethpage is similar to work that he has done elsewhere. It seems that when Rees' name is mentioned, recogintion of the limitations placed upon him by those who hire him are ignored, forgotten or never even considered. Baltusrol has been mentioned and even Tom Doak was surprised when I mentioned that he has done a very good job recovering original Tillinghast features there that had been done away with in the past.

I'm not saying that Rees hasn't done some poor work, he has, But then again so did Tilly and Ross and Mackenzie and Colt and every great architect who ever lived. I am saying that he isn't being judged fairly by most on here. Consider this, how stupid must all of those wealthy and successful beusiness people, major players in corporate America, actually be if Rees Jones is as poor an architect as some portray him to be? What are you actually saying about literally many thousands of club members who for years now have both employed his firm and KEEP DOING SO? He has to be doing something right for someone...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been, but I knew that the then existing green sizes were maintaind, and the bunker bases were maintained, thus forcing Rees to extend only the bunkers lobes towards the putting surfaces, to keep the bunkers in play at the green edge, enlarging them in the process. 

I think the bunkers look pretty good, but others (particularly here) question those decisions, although they had no stake or say in the matter.

Under the circumstances, I doubt any gca would have done it much differently, and I think Rees did a pretty good job there.

[John Shimp]

On #2,  I think there is a "right and wrong" to some degree on what that place is supposed to look like or at least originally looked like when Ross lived there and worked on it.  C&C while clearly in vogue now get that look and how it used to play based on conversations, quotes, pictures, et.  Rees didn't in my view.  The course developed wall to wall deep bermuda and became target oriented and overly soft.  While the greenkeeper did a lot of that the renovations tracked off too I think.

[Tom MacWood]

It is my opinion that Rees Jones has suffered more wrongful criticisms for his work, especially where his renovation/restoration work has been involved, than any other architect practicing today.

A good example is the well-meaning statement by Jeff that "Bethpage looked like Tillie, but had some choices - such as keeping the smaller greens and bunker bases, thus enlarging the bunkers - that could be questioned..."

I personally know that the work that Rees did on the bunkers had nothing to do with enlarging them but was an actual restoration of what was originally there. He and his crews went to the extent of digging down to discover the original base pads and therefor had a very accurate understanding of the bunker sizes and shapes. The "enlarging" of the bunkers then were an actual restoration of what had been originally there.

As for keeping the greens  at the same sizes rather than expanding them out to the bunkers, the decision for that was based upon several things, NONE of which Rees had any control over. The first was that the USGA was paying for the work and therefor had FINAL SAY on what was to be done. Other than the re-do of the 18th green Rees was told that no work would be done on any other green besides replacing of collars. The second thing that came into play is that there have been extremely few photographs of the course and greens itself PRIOR to WWII. That is VERY important because both the Black and Blue courses were abandoned and left fallow from 1942 - late 1945. During those years the grass on each course wasn't mown even a single time. When the war ended the state had to completely rebuild both courses before they could open them for play once again in 1946. As a result, with LIMITED funds available for the project, the putting surfaces on both courses were "restored" to barely 2/3 of their original sizes and all in circular fashion. Shapes and contours that had originally been there were then lost. This piece of Bethpage's history had been long-forgotten by those at the Park. When they were asked for help in finding information about the course when it opened they believed the greens were then as they were prior to the restoration. Since 2002 a number of early photograaphs and information has been unearthed as well as existing ones better understood; hence the recovery of major portions of putting surfaces on the 1, 7, 8, 11 & 14 prior to the 2009 Open. More areas will be rocovered in the next few years.

I use that as an example because the work done at Bethpage is similar to work that he has done elsewhere. It seems that when Rees' name is mentioned, recogintion of the limitations placed upon him by those who hire him are ignored, forgotten or never even considered. Baltusrol has been mentioned and even Tom Doak was surprised when I mentioned that he has done a very good job recovering original Tillinghast features there that had been done away with in the past.

I'm not saying that Rees hasn't done some poor work, he has, But then again so did Tilly and Ross and Mackenzie and Colt and every great architect who ever lived. I am saying that he isn't being judged fairly by most on here. Consider this, how stupid must all of those wealthy and successful beusiness people, major players in corporate America, actually be if Rees Jones is as poor an architect as some portray him to be? What are you actually saying about literally many thousands of club members who for years now have both employed his firm and KEEP DOING SO? He has to be doing something right for someone...

The greenside bunkering at Bethpage-Black bears little resemblemance to what Tilly (and Burbeck) built; Rees & Co admitted they remodeled the the greenside bunkers. They claimed they were going for the Winged Foot look and approach, wing bunkers in front, left and right. In fact he sent his construction people to WF so they would know what he was going for aesthetically. Unfortunately they couldn't even get that right. Rees Jones has a very poor record of preservation when it comes to classic courses, he often takes liberties, and aesthetically he often leaves his telltaled mark.

[Philippe Binette]

Isn't being the Open Doctor really fixing what is not broken...

I mean a course gets selected to host the US Open for its quality and then they ask somebody to go out and change it !!!

except for Bethpage which was a course in difficult shape when it got selected and for Torrey which is a course that probably shoud not have been awarded an Open (it was the Bethpage concept on the West Coast minus the original design quality), most courses that host the US Open are solid course to start with.

But the protecting par philosophy put the USGA in a difficult position:
1) If the course is firm fast and there's a bit of wind, basically any 7000 yards with 27 yard-wide fairways and 3 to 4 inch-rough could host the Open.
2) But if the course gets soft, a bitter slower and there's no wind, the winning score is going to be 12-under easily.

So they bring in some guy who comes up and "over-toughen" the course so they are ready for the 2) scenario.

What is that guy supposed to do:
1) add length
2) more and deeper bunkers
3) add up chipping areas - since it works out fine at Pinehurst
4) change some greens

some of these change have little to do with the quality of the original course that got selected.
now depending on the artistic ability of the architect this could at best turn out OK, at worst well we've seen it

[Terry Lavin]

Rees Jones strikes me as the kind of architect who can do just about anything that the customer wants.  Usually, his customers want a golf course to be retooled so that it can withstand the onslaught of the professional tour.  And not just a tour event, they are often looking for a course that is tough enough for a US Open, a PGA or a Ryder Cup.  He has had success working with clubs and with the PGA and the USGA because he knows how to deliver what they want.

What those "customers" want is seldom what the other customers (i.e., the members, the guests or the paying public in the case of a public course) want when they play the course.  Let's take Cog Hill #4 as an example.  It was a perfectly fine, if somewhat pedestrian, site for a regular tour event.  It had some Dick Wilson character in its green sites, a nice variety of shot values and a lovely rolling piece of real estate.  But as the pros got longer, the course got easier.  The owners were intent on getting a US Open, even though that would seem to be a bit of a longshot, since the course had hosted the Western Open/BMW Championship so many times that it might not have the allure for an Open.

In comes the Open Doctor himself, working with the owner and tangentially with the USGA.  The result is an improved golf course in some respects, principally in the fairway rebunkering and the tree removal which really helped a handful of holes.  The changes to the greens, which were said to be consistent with Dick Wilson's style that featured "fingers" that protruded laterally above deep bunkers, in fact resulted in making access to certain areas of certain greens virtually impossible.  The course also had a number of chipping areas around some of the greens, a USGA fave, which led to some Pinehurst like shots on a non-Pinehurst like track.  The course was easily four or five shots harder for us regular schmoes, so many of us though that Jones had succeeded in his mission, but the pros widely panned the course last year, drilling the final nail in Cog's Open Coffin.

I don't blame Rees Jones.  He did a fine job.  He did what the customer said he wanted.  The customer thought he'd get a shot at an Open.  The customer was wrong.  He may wind up losing the tour event as well, because the sponsor doesn't like the fact that the pros are so hostile to the course.

The regular "customers", my pals who have a regular tee time are left with a course that's easier on the eyes, but not nearly as fun or playable, unless one moves up a tee box or two, which players are sadly loath to do.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Macwood,

You once again show how little you actually know about Bethpage, its history and the work that Rees and his people did there. Unlike you, I actually sat for more than several hours with Rees in person PRIOR to the 2002 Open discussing EXACTLY what was done and HOW it was done. Unlike you I actually spent numerous days with all involved at Bethpage PRIOR to the 2002 Open going through all of the state's documents, photographs, etc... Unlike you I spent numerous days at the archives of the Long Island Studies Institute, the ONLY LOCATION that contains copies of the Farmingdale Press and other LOCAL newspapers contemporaneous to the creation of Bethpage State Park and its golf courses as well as at the New York State archives in Albany going through all of their collection of Long Island State Parks and Bethpage State Parks Commissions documents, files, correspondences, etc... Unlike you I was on site with Rees, Mike Davis and the Bethpage people in 2004 when plans for 2009 preparations were discussed and decided upon, was asked my opinions on them and gave them and ACTUALLY KNOW who was responsible for which decision. Unlike you, I have been in contact with Mike Davis through the years leading up to and since the 2009 Open discussing many continuing items about the Black course including providing the proof that allowed for the green expansions for the 2009 Open. Unlike you who has been to Bethpage State Park one time in your life that I am aware of and has NEVER played the Black to my knowledge, I actually have personal experience with all of Bethpage's courses, including the Black which I first played in the 1960's and more than 400 times since.

Frankly speaking, ALL of your "knowledge" about the work that you believe that Rees and his crews did at Bethpage is derived from either newspaper or magazine articles and not a single piece of first-hand knowledge, whereas mine comes from first-hand, on site and in-person knowledge.

That is why I can unequivocably state that you absolutely don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the work that Rees did at Bethpage. You can choose to like it or not, but you speak without even the credibility of one who saw it before and after...

So you know, this is the last comment I will ever make to anything you ever state to me on any thread. You have shown a complete lack of respect and arrogance and, in my opinion, once again are simply making another attempt to argue with me. Otherwise why do you now make a veiled reference to "Burbeck" as the author of the Black when you yourself don't believe it? No Tom, you are a waste of my time and energy...

I apologize to the others on this thread for the above side comments.

  

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
You've been a Rees apologist for a long time, a little surprising considering his redesign of your favorite Tilly course. Like I said Tilly deserves better...

[JR Potts]

Just trying to put this argument in perspective.

Tom:  is the disparilty of knoweldge between you and Phil as Phil dictates above true?  Have you really never played Bethpage?

[Tom MacWood]

I've played the golf course, but that has no bearing on my knowledge of the make up of the original course and how it was changed. I knew that before I played it.