[Tony Ristola]

Jeff

I cite the great landscape architect. Russel Page, who laid down not just principles of design in The Education of a Gardener but a philosophy with almost spiritual qualities that guided his hand upon the earth.

One  of these principles involved how a path should be laid out; not with multiple looping turns that cluttered ones perspective but sweeping curves that end at a termination whether that be a bend around a point or an unrevealed bordering part of the garden.

A little OT, but the bit above can be said of so many fairway mowing patterns where you have an otherwise open site and the fairway perimeters zig and zag in and out instead of long flowing curves. It sometimes makes me a wee bit nauseous, and the operator of the mower must think he's doing a driving test through pylons.

Michelson invokes "we" in his criticism. Is he the official spokesperson for the players and management of the PGA Tour?

I don't know Dubsdread, only caught part of the event after it was hammered by rain (was that last year)? If Michelson rates great golf as that an average player can play too, then he's leaving some heavy hitters off his great list.

If these pro's are so concerned about an investor getting their money back, I hope they consider it before they sign fraudulent "design" contracts.

[William_G]

Terry: How many courses have been designed by those who we recognize as gca experts - do you think that Ran can intelligently critique a course design, how about Tom Doak when he wrote the CG - just because you don't design courses doesn't mean that you have no credibility in when you critique a course.  Mickelson gave the opinion that AAC is an extremely difficult course that is not member friendly - what do you disagree with in that statement?  I am in agreement with most on this site that every course that I can think of which hosted a major championship in the US did not become a better member's course after the event. I wouldn't want to play AAC on a regular basis without an unlimited supply of free golf balls.

Jones did what AAC wanted him to do.  They wound up with an exciting finish between two no-names, but the course held up tough, which is what they wanted.  Mickelson should stick to talking about whether the course is appropriate for tournament play, not spewing some fake empathy for the membership.  I'm sure the membership would love to tell Mickelson where to go or what to do with his opinion.  He certainly won't help them attract new members.  He's an unabashed Rees basher and his comments are borderline reckless.  He virtually killed Cog Hill's chances of continuing to host the BMW championship with his unabated negativity and, unfortunately, because of his stature, others felt liberated to jump on the bandwagon.  Now, the Jemsek family, which spent upwards of $5 million to toughen its premier course now has no shot of getting an Open and will probably lost its longtime tour stop to some private club.  In my judgment, his anti-Rees crusade has gotten out of hand.

+1

[Tony Ristola]

Terry: How many courses have been designed by those who we recognize as gca experts - do you think that Ran can intelligently critique a course design, how about Tom Doak when he wrote the CG - just because you don't design courses doesn't mean that you have no credibility in when you critique a course.  Mickelson gave the opinion that AAC is an extremely difficult course that is not member friendly - what do you disagree with in that statement?  I am in agreement with most on this site that every course that I can think of which hosted a major championship in the US did not become a better member's course after the event. I wouldn't want to play AAC on a regular basis without an unlimited supply of free golf balls.

Because the USGA now knows the course gets under the skin of some temporary members of the PGA Tour, they should host the US Open there. From the start the course would have a bunch of them mentally half-baked, and golf being a mental game, this would just add to the test. Seeing the level of complaint, perhaps it isn't suited as a Tour Stop, it's too much for the guys who are used to playing resort courses.

As for courses delivering nondescript winners, like ACC; it happens, even on courses the masses overwhelmingly love, and especially today when the talent pool is deeper than ever. It doesn't indicate much of anything any longer, and think we can come up with a fairly long list. Who stomped the field at The Old Course? Louis Whoziun? Augusta? Charlie Schwartzadinger?

From the article ... I'll pay Devil's Advocate:
http://golfinchicago.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/players-pillory-dubsdread-in-advance-of-western-bmw/

“I’m not a fan of deep bunkers and ridges in greens,” Donald said. “There are certain shots out there, certain carries, just the way you have to fit some of the shots into these tight pin locations, it makes it a little bit difficult.

Luuuuuuuuuuuuuke... you're a pro. Show us your skill. And you ever think there are times you shouldn't aim for the hole?

“There’s not a lot of strategy. Like the 18th, you can’t hit 3-wood short (of the bunkers)  because you’re hitting a 4-iron into a green that’s very slopey, so it forces you to take on the tighter (part of the fairway). Just from an architectural standpoint, I think there are a few flaws.”

Hitting the fairway with a 3-wood and having a 4-iron instead of bombing a drive and increasing the chances of hitting it in the bunker is a choice. It's not like the US Open (or most modern courses) allows you to pick sides of a fairway. Suck it up pro. They once said the US Open was to "Identify" champions.

“There’s really no shot-making here that’s required,” Mickelson said. “It doesn’t really test our ability to maneuver the ball because the fronts of the greens are blocked, and the only shot is to hit a high flop shot that stops.”

This was proven to be pure BS as noted by the author of the piece who wrote : "Actually, you can run a shot onto the green on 11 of the 14 par 4s and 5s, but Mickelson was rolling here."

“But being able to maneuver it doesn’t really matter,” the left-hander went on.

How many US Opens really let you work the ball to one side of the fairway or the other? This from a guy Johnny Miller called The Human Haymaker for his wild driving abilities.

“That’s basic stuff. Chipping areas, shot value around the greens, penalties for certain misses, all that stuff wasn’t really well thought out.

Phil is the King of the Lob. Pinehurst may have introduced short grass around the greens, but before that, the US Open was known for it's standard chop-it recovery from inches off the green; Watson's recovery from the back left of  Pebble's 17th wasn't a chipping area, it was ankle deep rough. TC Chen didn't chilly-chop it from a tight greenside lie. Phil had played and watched many a US Open with these conditions.

If Phil's short game were so stupendous, he'd have won numerous Open Championships. Except for this year he hasn't sniffed the trophy. It seems his short game, which is stellar stateside is more suited to US conditions.

“Where this golf course really is going to show some teeth (is) because of the green design, because if the greens are really firm there’s some pins on every green that just are not accessible, that you can’t aim at,” said Jim Furyk, who won on the pre-renovated Dubsdread in 2005. “That’s not going to change really whether I’m hitting 7-iron or 9-iron into the green.”

There might be some positions like that, and they just might use them to sucker idiots, punish those who fail, and to strike fear into the hearts of the players who know the price of executing poorly. Psychologocal warfare isn't just allowed at this level, it should be mandatory.

Jim, I'm sure there are enough hole locations where they can find appeasing locations for the coddled ones.

“I guess to play it well you’ve got to hit it out of the fairway bunkers, (which are) in play on almost every hole,” Ogilvy said. “And the greens, you can get some pretty crazy putts if you miss the pin by a long way on the greens. So I guess a lot of these greens, you’re better off to miss the green on the pin side of the hole. Does that make sense?”

At some US Opens guys were hitting irons or fairway woods off a lot of tees because the rough on both sides was so deep. Hell, it even happened at Muirfield during the Open, where Nicklaus hit 1 or 2 drivers per round. It's your choice pro. As far as choosing where to miss, that's also your choice. And if it isn't your choice, you're not likely to win that week, even if you're playing the BC Open.

Sometimes the US Open tests should be brutal. It's the US Open, and that was the order for Rees Jones it seems. I'd rather have that than what we saw at Congressional this summer. Anyone here play Oakmont and Dubsdread, and can they compare the severity of the greens?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,

Couldn't agree more on your post 50.  One of my great moments in ASGCA meetings was Pete Dye noting that exact thing, and telling me he built soft fw ridges and took the fw cut line right over them, rather than around them.  The curves on the inside mounds look great on plan, but in real space, the curves sharpen to the eye.  I call the resulting look "shark's teeth."  Making the fw on a straight line that gently roll over land forms is sooooo much better.

Come to think of it, most of my best ASGCA moments are somehow related to things either Pete or Alice told me.  As they say in sports, "worth the price of admission alone."

[JR Potts]

Do we have a cult on this board who get their jollies by nailing Rees Jones for sins committed or not?

I could go on about an architect who has done some remarkably good work here in California but did a poor job elsewhere in the State. I don't name names or continue to malign the man for a loss of of his mojo on one or more efforts.

Rees Jones bashing is an embarrassment to this site and should be muted.

Bob

It's not just on this site....our own Jay Flemma has attempted to make a living doing it.  Nevermind the fact that he continually misallocates his work and the work of Robert Trent Jones.

Facts dont seem to matter when bashing Rees Jones....only blind emotion and group-think.

[John Shimp]

I dont think Phil is being phony at a all.  He just doesn't like the course.  Nor does Stricker or Luke Donald who arent' bitchers.
Rees seems to often create a monotonous slog effect defined by deep bunkers, shelf greens, near 100% lob
wedge shots around greens, and not a lot of hole length variety (just long).  Blame on the owner or whoever you want but thats
what he seems to do and players don't find it fun even great players.

And btw, Phil knows a lot more about architecture than 95% of the posters on here.  At least he has been part of designing golf courses. That doesnt make him Tom Doak but that makes him something more than most around here. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I haven't played Cog Hill for 30 years.  However, back then this Joe Lee course was modeled in the Dick Wilson style which seems to have been modeled in the RTJ style - lots of dog legs heavily bunkered.  As mentioned on the AAC thread, it wasn't a great course to start, and for that matter, it appears Rees just did what his father used to do - move the bunkers out from XX to XX + 25 to accomodate the longer tee shots.

I didn't think it lived up to its hullaballou back then.  It was tough by design. Sounds like more of a restoration than a total redesign to me!  And this site loves restoration of the architects original intent, so what gives? LOL

[Tony Ristola]

I haven't played Cog Hill for 30 years.  However, back then this Joe Lee course was modeled in the Dick Wilson style which seems to have been modeled in the RTJ style - lots of dog legs heavily bunkered.  As mentioned on the AAC thread, it wasn't a great course to start, and for that matter, it appears Rees just did what his father used to do - move the bunkers out from XX to XX + 25 to accomodate the longer tee shots.

I didn't think it lived up to its hullaballou back then.  It was tough by design. Sounds like more of a restoration than a total redesign to me!  And this site loves restoration of the architects original intent, so what gives? LOL

ROTFLOL... the last bit cracked me up.

John,
Phil misrepresented the ability to roll the ball into the greens by a wide margin (which allows for a measure of playability) if the author is to be believed (I don't know the course and haven't google earthed it). That tells me something.

Does he know more than 95% of the people here simply because he plays the game well and slapped his name on a project or two and witnessed some construction? Perhaps in some areas. Perhaps not in others. I'll listen, but personally don't put a ton of stock in their opinions.

I'll also say the Rees Jones style isn't my favorite, but that course was altered with the US Open in mind. It seems he's pulled a Pete Dye and gotten under their skin and in their brains already; that's why the USGA should most certainly host the tournament there. There have to be enough hole locations for four days of tournament golf. That it doesn't let the guys hit drivers all day, and they may have to hit long irons into some holes if they want to reduce the risk of hitting it into fairway bunkers, or chose other than "standard" areas to hedge towards when missing a green... Boo Hoo.


Anyone capable of comparing the relative difficulty of Oakmont's greens and Dubsdread's?

[PCCraig]

Do we have a cult on this board who get their jollies by nailing Rees Jones for sins committed or not?

I could go on about an architect who has done some remarkably good work here in California but did a poor job elsewhere in the State. I don't name names or continue to malign the man for a loss of of his mojo on one or more efforts.

Rees Jones bashing is an embarrassment to this site and should be muted.

Bob

It's not just on this site....our own Jay Flemma has attempted to make a living doing it.  Nevermind the fact that he continually misallocates his work and the work of Robert Trent Jones.

Facts dont seem to matter when bashing Rees Jones....only blind emotion and group-think.

Well said.

[Joe Stansell]

Pete - well said.

If I were playing 10 rounds at Torrey Pines, I'd play North 8 times. 

In all fairness, Torrey Pines (South) has always been the more difficult of the two. When I was living in San Diego -- pre Open Doctor -- and playing Torrey Pines on a regular basis (arriving at the lot and getting in line around 4:00 am or so), I almost always played the North Course. The South Course was just never as much fun.

[Robert Thompson]

Rees did work recently at a Toronto club that had a lousy site -- one large hill where the clubhouse rests and a lot of flood plain with a large concrete cauldron running through it. The work is fine -- nothing better -- considering where the course is located. I'd say some architects could have done worse and some better. It is an average job -- the course is better, but not exceptional.

When I played with the club's president I asked why they used Rees Jones. He said he wasn't on the greens committee, but that they interviewed four architects, three of whom were Canadians and the usual suspects for such jobs. He said Rees was the most enthusiastic about the project. So I asked if the board members flew to Montreal to see Jones' work there, or even went to Niagara to see his work at Grand Niagara. I was told they didn't.

I'm always staggered by this. Can't imagine building a $6-million house with an architect without looking at some of his other work. In the case of Rees, he's built two original designs in Canada, neither of which were well received, and both went bankrupt. The experience, in my understanding, at Royal Montreal, which he renovated for the Presidents Cup, is that the players weren't keen on the work and the members have gravitated away from the Blue Course and onto the Red. For what it is worth the shaping of the greens at Royal Montreal's Blue course are among the worst I've ever seen, done by an associate of Jones' firm. BTW, Jones didn't even come to the club and present his plan.

So I guess in many ways the club is to blame. They get what they pay for -- even if they don't like it much afterwards.

I think this is catching up with Rees -- when Luke Donald, a thoughtful player, bashes his work, you're finally getting a true impression of what the players think. After all, most wouldn't say s**t if they had a mouthful, but here they are speaking their minds.

[Howard Riefs]

I dont think Phil is being phony at a all.  He just doesn't like the course.  Nor does Stricker or Luke Donald who arent' bitchers.
 

I'm a Luke fan, but he's not without alterior motives here. He wants his home course Conway Farms to host the tournament in 2013 and years after when it's in Chicago. All the better reason to join the bash Rees bandwagon.

[Jay Flemma]

"Should be muted?"  That sounds a lot like suppressing discussion of architecture.  Are you suggesting "shouting down" opinions of people who disagree with you?  That's the problem with this board that frequently gives it a black eye - not people pointing out that a certain architect is bland, flavorless or says less in 8,000 yards than Dev Emmet cold in 6,250.

Phil Mickelson - one of the friendliest quotes in the room  - has never been outspoken against a course or an architect ever before other than Rees.  When he complains, you know there is a legit problem.  

As I pointed out - Rees knows length and water.  He believes a par-5 must require 3 shots although the best par-5s shoot that down every day.  Royal Melbourne will stand in stark contrast to the courses we got in America this year.  Oakmont, OHCC, Olympic, and WFW have between them 2 water hazards, and they defend par as well or better because of great greens.  Rees is one of the LEAST creative at designing greens.  he eliminates fairway undulations, he rarely if ever designs false fronts.  In short, Rees is watching Doak and CC and Hanse and Phillips and even his own brither run past hom like he's standing still - which his architecture has for years.  You don't sdee Rees's original designs hosting tournaments, do you?

What options are there at AAC?  Hit it in the water or lay up?  And what did we get?  68 holes o the guy who made the fewest mistakes, not who played the most inspiring golf.  That will go down in history as one of the most forgettable PGAs in history.

And Terry Lavin - just because rich clubs want a tough courser does  not make it good architecture.  That is the entire raison d'etre of this website.  That there is a better way forward than spending money to create something tough or get a major.

[JMEvensky]

So I guess in many ways the club is to blame. They get what they pay for -- even if they don't like it much afterwards.

I disagree to this extent--the club isn't to blame in many ways;it's to blame in all the ways.

Why is it Rees Jones',or any other architect's,fault?The club hired him,the club saw the finished work.They presumably paid the bill without suing for non-performance.

If people don't like the work at Cog Hill,why not blame the man who was ultimately responsible for the changes to the golf course?

[Jud_T]

If people don't like the work at Cog Hill,why not blame the man who was ultimately responsible for the changes to the golf course?
[/quote]

I agree with this statement to some extent.  Clearly Cog had their panties in a bunch to get the Open that failed and now they're left with a golf course that virtually nobody prefers to the original.  And it's tough to criticize anyone for not turning down work in this environment.  However, I have known some artists who turn down work if a client's wishes run too counter to their principals.  And frankly if money was one's driving motivation I wouldn't think golf course architecture would not be at the top of anyone's list of career choices.  You make your bed, then you lie in it...

[Terry Lavin]

Jay:

The raison d'être of this site may be great architecture but that is not the case with professional golf, mainly because the groups that host tournaments TEND to overemphasize difficulty when choosing sites. That's undeniably true which is why courses are lengthened, why hazards are added and why greens are given more slope. Unless the club in question is a shrine like Merion it will tend to get bashed if it ain't tough enough. The USGA may be evolving on this point but that's still an open question. So I sympathize with the client Jemsek and the architect because they're altering an organic thing in an effort to woo a powerful organization. It failed at Cog Hill but has worked well elsewhere plenty of times.

[Tony Ristola]

...I asked if the board members flew to Montreal to see Jones' work there, or even went to Niagara to see his work at Grand Niagara. I was told they didn't.

I'm always staggered by this. Can't imagine building a $6-million house with an architect without looking at some of his other work.

Robert, this also blows me away, especially in what you'd consider golf savvy nations. In pioneering countries like central Europe and elsewhere, there's been a whole lot of wool pulled over eyes, and that's understandable; the buyers lack information, people are inherently lazy, and the climate set by the architect association doesn't allow frank talk. Laziness, and the thought of shortcuts contributes to the McSignature architect phenomenon but that comes with its own costs; increased costs, decreased Margin-of-Safety.

Investor Phillip Fisher when writing about stocks had a term called "scuttlebutt". Basically doing your homework and talking to all types of people to get information about the company. In golf architecture it wouldn't be limiting yourself to looking at the work the architect himself promotes, or even what is close by (though it's a wise place to start), but those courses he'd prefer not talk about. Talk to superintendents, members of other clubs, speak with guys who sat on the machines and built his courses. Ask the architects point blank which projects he's not proud of and why. An investor has the right to know how the architect will protect their investment of millions, and prevent repetition of errors or cost over-runs, as well as other challenges.  

Jay: Why would he misrepresent the fact you can run the ball into the great majority of greens at Cog Hill? To me that indicates a blindness of one form or another.

As for your take on the PGA at ACC, forgettable it won't be. The winner played some great golf after making an otherwise fatal error, and the leader made some of his own coming home. Congressional will be forgettable, except for Rory nuking the golf course.

My guess is you've seen both courses, so why not give a comparison of  the relative difficulty of Oakmont's greens and Dubsdread's?

[Tony Ristola]

Does Rees Jones have a reputation for cost overruns? I'm not attempting to be inflammatory, and I hope nobody interprets my post in that matter as there can be several reasons for a project going over budget.

That said, there is a club here in town that recently (last 5 years or so) underwent a complete renovation and hired Rees as their architect. Rumor (small town, big mouths) has it that the project went OVER budget by more than $1,000,000. How does this happen? We just underwent a grass conversion and some work as dicated by the master plan (some new tees, new bunkers, tree removal, new fairway lines, etc.). The course closed June 27 of this year and re-opened August 27 and came in under budget.

Can someone help me understand how a club misses the mark by $1,000,000 - 1,500,000?

Thanks in advance.

Cost overruns:

Weather/Acts of God/Delays/Repairs
Change orders/reworking stuff built according-to-plan.
Adding new technology.
Fuel price increases.
Higher costs for the builder you want vs. the cheapest conscientious builder.
Increased material costs.

For starters.

[Bill_McBride]

Does Rees Jones have a reputation for cost overruns? I'm not attempting to be inflammatory, and I hope nobody interprets my post in that matter as there can be several reasons for a project going over budget.

That said, there is a club here in town that recently (last 5 years or so) underwent a complete renovation and hired Rees as their architect. Rumor (small town, big mouths) has it that the project went OVER budget by more than $1,000,000. How does this happen? We just underwent a grass conversion and some work as dicated by the master plan (some new tees, new bunkers, tree removal, new fairway lines, etc.). The course closed June 27 of this year and re-opened August 27 and came in under budget.

Can someone help me understand how a club misses the mark by $1,000,000 - 1,500,000?

Thanks in advance.

David, isn't this usually a contractor problem rather than an architect problem?   Many overruns come from underbidding by the contractor and failure by the owner to enforce the contract.   Sometimes this is due to not properly qualifying the bidders.

[JR Potts]

While I haven't always been the biggest fan of all of his work at my course, he has always been professional, responsive, passionate and on budget.

He's always been a great person for the membership to work with....in fact, I would say that his work may have suffered because he was too great to work with and sometimes listened and responded when he should have told some of the membership "thanks for your advice, but I'm going to ignore it."

[Jay Flemma]

Isn't the point here that we should be cheering Phil for championing CC, Hanse, Phillips, etc.?   We are here because we promote the growth and dissemination of the concepts of great Golden Age architecture.  Finally, here is a great Tour player who gets it!  For once, a champion player has his finger on the pulse of the zeitgeist of great golf architecture.  I think  he'd be a fascinating person for Ran to interview.  He's passionate about it, seems like he wants to learn, is well-traveled, has good taste in courses...and he's a super-nice guy.  I've never found him phony at all except the few lines he tried saying how a U.S. Open course was "the best set-up he;d ever seen" - he usually likes to throw out the friendly quote.  But he answers every question fully without being evasive.  We should be happy Phil is bringing our issue to the frrefront in the debate on the national stage.

[Mark Saltzman]

When I played with the club's president I asked why they used Rees Jones. He said he wasn't on the greens committee, but that they interviewed four architects, three of whom were Canadians and the usual suspects for such jobs. He said Rees was the most enthusiastic about the project. So I asked if the board members flew to Montreal to see Jones' work there, or even went to Niagara to see his work at Grand Niagara. I was told they didn't.

Robert,

I was told a story by a Royal Montreal member (who is a big fan of GCA and GCA.com and may even be reading this post) that a big part of the reason that Rees was picked was that the guys on the committee were not overly familiar with the other architects.  Because of Rees' work on several US Open courses, etc. he has become something of a household name.  If, in the end, the work that was completed at Royal Montreal was not liked by the membership as a whole and the committee picked a less well-known name, the guys on the committee are blamed.  If the membership doesn't like the work Rees completed, the committee gets to say, "look, we picked Rees Jones, he is world-renowned and worked on X course and Y course, how were we supposed to know he would f*** up our course?".

At least that's the story I was told.  Makes sense.

[JR Potts]

Isn't the point here that we should be cheering Phil for championing CC, Hanse, Phillips, etc.?   We are here because we promote the growth and dissemination of the concepts of great Golden Age architecture.  Finally, here is a great Tour player who gets it!  For once, a champion player has his finger on the pulse of the zeitgeist of great golf architecture.  I think  he'd be a fascinating person for Ran to interview.  He's passionate about it, seems like he wants to learn, is well-traveled, has good taste in courses...and he's a super-nice guy.  I've never found him phony at all except the few lines he tried saying how a U.S. Open course was "the best set-up he;d ever seen" - he usually likes to throw out the friendly quote.  But he answers every question fully without being evasive.  We should be happy Phil is bringing our issue to the forefront in the debate on the national stage.

Jay, absent about 5 courses, the concept of achieving synergy between great Golden Age architecture, major Championships and the desires of the USGA/PGA is dead.  It's an impossible goal to achieve...and if Phil thinks he has the answer (if his design work is any indication), he's on crack.

We would all be best served if the marriage between professional golf and classic courses was annulled immediately.  The last 10 years have been like watching the relationship of Sammy "Sweetheart" and Ronnie on the Jersey Shore.

[George Pazin]

We would all be best served if the marriage between professional golf and classic courses was annulled immediately.  The last 10 years have been like watching the relationship of Sammy "Sweetheart" and Ronnie on the Jersey Shore.

The analogy is lost on me - thankfully - so I'll stick to your first sentence: I thought the Opens at Pebble, Shinnecock, Southern Hills, #2, Winged Foot and Oakmont were all pretty compelling. Bethpage, too, though weather has been such a huge part of both that I think it should be set aside.

From a standpoint of stopping the changes to classic courses, I can see your point. I just think the Opens can be played on them without changes. I'd rather see them keep the classic courses and live with the results as is.

[Tony Ristola]

Isn't the point here that we should be cheering Phil for championing CC, Hanse, Phillips, etc.?   We are here because we promote the growth and dissemination of the concepts of great Golden Age architecture.  Finally, here is a great Tour player who gets it!  For once, a champion player has his finger on the pulse of the zeitgeist of great golf architecture.  I think  he'd be a fascinating person for Ran to interview.  He's passionate about it, seems like he wants to learn, is well-traveled, has good taste in courses...and he's a super-nice guy.  I've never found him phony at all except the few lines he tried saying how a U.S. Open course was "the best set-up he;d ever seen" - he usually likes to throw out the friendly quote.  But he answers every question fully without being evasive.  We should be happy Phil is bringing our issue to the frrefront in the debate on the national stage.

Does he get it, or is he just dropping names like Power Logo's and mouthing buzzwords like a politician? I don't know, only he does, but by misrepresenting the fact most of the greens are open to the ground game at Cog Hill, makes one wonder what his agenda is?

He's not the first to drop names of those that drive the pulse of the architecture of Masters from the past.

This a bit like character and reputation. Reputation is a public perception, and the only person to really know their character (and agenda if they have one) is the individual personally.  

I'd like to see him interviewed here too. Phil... the word fascinating doesn't come to mind. In fact I can't think of one pro on the regular tour that I'd consider fascinating. Ben Crane and his demons perhaps.  Should Phil be interviewed he should have one or two of the questions about Rees thrown his way. Then Pete Dye, and Mike Strantz. I can think of a couple more that would be standard fare for guys putting their names on projects. One I'd love an answer to is how can a guy with such a great short game come up so far short at The Open, where options to use creativity abound, but the interviews here aren't to get deep in areas guys might be uncomfortable; I understand that. That's the role of the professional press hounds; guys who really shouldn't care if Phil or Tiger is their friend, or if they like them. Where's Dan Jenkins when you need him

Mark,
I'd loved to have heard the pitches and services offered. If it was all like-kind, then I wouldn't be surprised by their choosing Rees. If someone was going to take the project to heart and go the extra 10-miles, then you'd think the board would have done more homework. Perhaps they did...

...We'll never know, and their choice and the reasoning... as you noted... makes sense. It was the safe route.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()