News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #50 on: September 17, 2011, 10:22:17 AM »
I would rather have a tour pro like Phil, who is clearly interested in golf course architecture, designing golf courses instead of a tour pro who doesn't have any opinion or knowledge about the subject.  Moreover, if Phil is indeed angling for architecture jobs as Rees alleges, why is he name-dropping guys like Hanse, C&C, and Kidd.

Yep, he's a real prince, a guy who essentially led the charge to get a tour event moved from it's longtime public course site. What a peach!

Which course/tour event are you speaking of?
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #51 on: September 17, 2011, 12:25:02 PM »
This will be the last BMW held at Cog Hill. That hasn't been officially announced yet but I was on a tv show taping last week and a Jemsek family member said the course had released BMW from the final year of the contract.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #52 on: September 17, 2011, 12:28:22 PM »
This will be the last BMW held at Cog Hill. That hasn't been officially announced yet but I was on a tv show taping last week and a Jemsek family member said the course had released BMW from the final year of the contract.
wow..can you tell us why Terry?  I couldnt blame the Jemseks is they said the hell with it, we dont need to listen to these pros constant whining..
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #53 on: September 17, 2011, 12:34:56 PM »
Time to move on I guess. I lay most of the blame at Phil but he wasn't alone in bitching about the redo. Phil and the others would do well to employ what I call the 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not whine.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #54 on: September 17, 2011, 01:45:46 PM »
I've never played Cog Hill, but if it's not that good of a golf course and the tour could find a better venue, shouldn't they?  Regardless of whether it's public or private?
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #55 on: September 17, 2011, 03:22:37 PM »
I've never played Cog Hill, but if it's not that good of a golf course and the tour could find a better venue, shouldn't they?  Regardless of whether it's public or private?

I stand utterly in awe of such brilliance.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #56 on: September 17, 2011, 03:34:35 PM »
Terry,  I am a bit confused by your blaming Phil or any other player . . .   Don't we usually complain about pros because they are afraid to honestly speak their mind?

Is it true that the Jemseks brought in Rees to try and make the course to make it worthy of a major?   If so, shouldn't they take a large part of the blame?
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #57 on: September 17, 2011, 03:46:38 PM »
Let me try to clarify. I don't care if players don't like the course or the renovation. They can complain but they should do it responsibly. Phil's crusade against Jones has now gotten to the point that he made harmful comments about AAC that can't help that club attract and retain members. That's poor form to basically stick your thumb in your host's eye.

The Cog Hill matter is somewhat exacerbated because this is year two of his carping. He got his wish. This is the last BMW at Cog. Hope he feels validated.

It comes down to manners and class. I think Phil failed at each regardless of one's fondness for Jones' redo.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #58 on: September 17, 2011, 03:49:56 PM »
Let me try to clarify. I don't care if players don't like the course or the renovation. They can complain but they should do it responsibly. Phil's crusade against Jones has now gotten to the point that he made harmful comments about AAC that can't help that club attract and retain members. That's poor form to basically stick your thumb in your host's eye.

The Cog Hill matter is somewhat exacerbated because this is year two of his carping. He got his wish. This is the last BMW at Cog. Hope he feels validated.

It comes down to manners and class. I think Phil failed at each regardless of one's fondness for Jones' redo.

Terry,   I think you just sidestepped my question . . .  Don't you think the club/course itself bears some of the responsibility if the club/course had indeed been making changes that many apparently feel have harmed the course?   This question applies equally to AAC.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #59 on: September 17, 2011, 04:03:43 PM »
Sure the owners are complicit. They were also probably a bit naieve but others fared well with the same formula.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #60 on: September 17, 2011, 04:16:10 PM »

Ask anyone associated with the PGA Tour and you will learn that Phil is the biggest jerk on tour.  Terry is 100% correct that Phil is entirely out of line.  His comments have harmed AAC's members and Cog Hill's owners.  He could have complained privately to Finchem, the PGA and USGA and gotten the result that he wanted.  Clearly, he was heard re: Cog Hill.   These courses have been irrevocably harmed for no reason other than Phil being the "know it all" that annoys everyone associated with the Tour.

This is not a Rees Jones problem.  It is a "we don't want the Tour professionals shooting to low on a course" problem.  You cannot fault the owners/members at a club for making their course more difficult in order to get an event.  The notoriety of a Tour event at a course is too big for these clubs.  You cannot fault Rees Jones for doing what the owners/members want - as that is the role of the architect - to serve his client.  The fault is with the Tour for making the criteria primarily based on difficulty.

My solution is make courses more difficult mentally - like Old MacDonald.  Phil will still complain because if he ever has to use his brain, he has no chance of winning.
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #61 on: September 17, 2011, 04:29:37 PM »
You cannot fault the owners/members at a club for making their course more difficult in order to get an event.

Why not?  Obviously the clubs can do what ever they like to their courses.  But if our concern is with quality golf architecture, then why can't we fault them when we feel they are ruining their courses?  

Quote
The fault is with the Tour for making the criteria primarily based on difficulty.
 

I agree that the Tour and the USGA bear major responsibility, but isn't there plenty of blame to go around?  

Is it good for golf course architecture if everyone just sits silently as courses get screwed up?   Isn't that what has been going on for a couple of decades at least?   Has that been good for gca, or not so good?  

Quote
My solution is make courses more difficult mentally - like Old MacDonald.  Phil will still complain because if he ever has to use his brain, he has no chance of winning.

Ironically, judging by some of the designers he has begun routinely praising, and judging by his praise for a few certain courses, this might be what Phil is saying too.   I am not sure why it is okay for us to say it but not him.  Is it okay to express an opinion only so long as it has little chance of changing the status quo?  
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 04:31:15 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JR Potts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #62 on: September 17, 2011, 04:43:42 PM »
Phil never opened his mouth when Rees was hired by nearly every course looking for a major....he only did so last year.....and hasn't stopped.  One can attribute his previous silence to the same ignorance that people are criticizing the Jemseks, et.al. for having.  Phil is great at playing monday morning quarterback....and as Michael George correctly stated, this is par for the course for him.

Whether he is right or wrong in the substance of his words, he is out of line.  I never thought I would think more of Tiger than Phil and shake my head at Steve Stricker's words, but their harmful and unneeded words this week have certainly tarnished them both for me.

Piling on is just dirty....and unnecessary.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 05:43:53 PM by JR Potts »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #63 on: September 17, 2011, 05:16:34 PM »
This entire deal is just business IMHO.  PM is trying to brand himself in GCA.  And it's probably working.
There are many RJ designs I like so I'm not talking like or dislike here.   Would it not be fair to say that most clubs like Cog Hill brought in RJ because they felt the USGA would look favorably on him more so than others?  I think so.  And this also makes me ask a few questions of the USGA.  Yale connections have always had a huge connection there and odds are that many of their opinions on the good and bad of golf design were impressed on them by the Jones family.  Could they argue their points on golf design or did they just allow RJ opinions to form theirs over the last few years.  I say they probably just allowed it because I don't think architecture was of major importance to them. 
The most impressive person in all of the architecture issues at the USGA in recent years has to be Steve Smyers.  He has managed to steer clear of all the politics and arguments.  That is quite an accomplishment.  Others might have taken a different direction entirely.
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #64 on: September 17, 2011, 08:57:00 PM »

Phil does everything for his own personal interests.  He is not doing this for the good of golf or golf architecture.   My guess is that he knows his career is winding down and is starting to think about his design business.  He is using these opportunities to increase his visibility in this business.  Rees is just the first target. 

If you think this is bad, wait until Olympic next year.  Phil will be whining like crazy because he cannot compete on that tight of a course.

"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

John Shimp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #65 on: September 17, 2011, 10:02:57 PM »
I like it on gca when a lousy topic like this one is about to die and someone like Michael George stokes it back up with a personal assessment of phil.  Can pat Craig please jump back in?  I've been coming to this thread for hours for entertainment.  I wish I had some opinions about phil that could let the absurdity continue but I don't know the guy.   But I've learned a lot here -- driver yips, poor short game, not exciting,  malicious, out to get ahead in gca by putting rees down (logic?),  etc.   


Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #66 on: September 18, 2011, 03:35:13 AM »

David and John:

It is mosregretable that you post personal attacks in response to my post on this topic.  I thought this board was above such  responses.   The purpose for my posts was to illustrate the problems with Tour players criticizing golf courses and tournaments.

These tournaments have unfortunately become important in the golf business.  In a tough economy when great courses all over the country are struggling to maintain solvency, having a tour event can be a determining factor.  As has been discussed on this board, it is a factor in the Golf Digest, Golf and Golfweek course rankings and can mean a great deal in new member and outing revenues.  Further, the tournaments are critical to the communities that these courses are located as they raise millions of dollars for local charities.  Many children's hospitals across the country are supported by tour events.  So the membership or ownership feel a responsibility to the community.  That is why I don't fault the courses.

However, I can fault the ungrateful players that are making millions of dollars at these events and don't care about the carnage created by their comments.  When players make their comments publicly, they are hurting not just Rees Jones, but the owner of Cog Hill, the thousands of volunteers that don't care about golf and just want dollars going to their favorite local charities and the charities themselves.   Phil can make his beliefs known privately with Finchem whenever he wants.   

Listen - I agree with most of his comments.  I just don't like the precedent of Tour players dictating golf architecture because, even though I agree with the direction they are going now, that might change and we may be headed to more boring architecture in the future because they find real gems too unfair.
   
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #67 on: September 18, 2011, 09:29:31 AM »
David you said:

"And when you do finally move on to another topic other than Mickelson, we are treated to nuggets of galactic wisdom such as this: "You cannot fault the owners/members at a club for making their course more difficult in order to get an event." Really? REALLY? So who is to blame? "The fault is with the Tour for making the criteria primarily based on difficulty." So let me try and get this straight: owners and members have no say so when it comes to the direction of their club? I can sympathize with members of clubs that are owned by the PGA (such as Valhalla) but I sure have not heard of any clubs where the PGA or USGA held the members/owners hostage until they agreed to redo their golf courses. "

What kind of personal experience is this bit of wisdom based upon?  Ever been a member of a club that tried to host a tour event or even tougher, tried to land a major?  Involved with trying to "sell" changes to a membership?  Do tell.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #68 on: September 18, 2011, 09:37:32 AM »
You cannot fault Rees Jones for doing what the owners/members want - as that is the role of the architect - to serve his client

At what point exactly does the architect bear some responsibility for the work done?
« Last Edit: September 18, 2011, 09:41:08 AM by Jud Tigerman »
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #69 on: September 18, 2011, 09:55:17 AM »
Lets be clear here. Everybody involved bears responsibility. If the project is to take a tour worthy course up to one that could pass muster as a host of a major then the architect, the owner/members, and the sponsoring organization all have fingerprints that can point or catch blame. That's sort of simple but not the point of the thread which sought discussion on whether Phil's passionate denigration of this (and other) Rees Jones major wannabe renovation had gotten out of hand and whether it is reckless on his part. I say yes and I lay much of the blame for the soon to be announced Cog Hill exit from the BMW championship on Phil, who as a pro golfer should be more considerate to his host.

I'm not saying I love the architecture of the place or that it's Open worthy.  Locally, I think Olympia and Butler are far better in most respects and I have high hopes for Erin Hills. But Cog Hill is a very worthy site for the BMW.  And I also think Jones' redo made the course better AND harder which isn't easy to do. The course is four shots harder with greens that are harder to hit and harder to putt. The tree removal really improved vistas and playability. The Mickelson complaints which are couched in terms of empathy for the mopes that have to play after the pros leave are as fake as a politician's smile. Phil wants to piss on Jones and he wants to burnish his near non-existent architectural bona fides in the process.

Cog Hill and AAC?  Collateral damage.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2011, 09:58:14 AM by Terry Lavin »
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #70 on: September 18, 2011, 10:11:19 AM »


Cog Hill and AAC?  Collateral damage.

This is probably and OT, and I don't really want to step into the middle of some heated debate, but was AAC really any better before RJ's work? I have only played it after his reno so do not know.  The only thing I believe he changed that in my mind must go is the fairway-cut run-offs into the water hazards on 7 and 12.

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #71 on: September 18, 2011, 10:16:22 AM »
Spur Ramp Alert!   ;D
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #72 on: September 18, 2011, 11:52:29 AM »
You cannot fault Rees Jones for doing what the owners/members want - as that is the role of the architect - to serve his client

At what point exactly does the architect bear some responsibility for the work done?


If you want a Camaro, you've hired GM to build your car.  If you want a Swedish station wagon, you've hired Volvo.  In an open market, the blame is on the consumer (in this case the members/owners).  Question, is this really an open market, or has the Rees Jones/USGA "partnership" caused a bit of a monopoly.

"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #73 on: September 18, 2011, 12:24:17 PM »

Sven:

What I meant by saying that you cannot fault Rees Jones is that Cog Hill wanted the US Open and got the guy to do exactly what the USGA would want done to the course.  I am not a big Rees Jones fan.  However, I think that he probably did what he was asked to do re: Cog Hill.

David:

Unfortunately, Mickelson has more power than anyone on the Tour right now (since Tiger is away).  He sells tickets.  It is why he was able to demand a private security person at each tournament (ala Tiger) and no one else gets one.  Again, he has every right to complain, just do it in private.  None of us would accept an invitation to play in another club's member guest and then criticize the golf course while playing in it. 

Bobby Jones learned this lesson the hard way with St. Andrews, but at least he learned it.  You always are respectful of your host in any situation.
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #74 on: September 18, 2011, 01:44:47 PM »

Sven:

What I meant by saying that you cannot fault Rees Jones is that Cog Hill wanted the US Open and got the guy to do exactly what the USGA would want done to the course.  I am not a big Rees Jones fan.  However, I think that he probably did what he was asked to do re: Cog Hill.

David:

Unfortunately, Mickelson has more power than anyone on the Tour right now (since Tiger is away).  He sells tickets.  It is why he was able to demand a private security person at each tournament (ala Tiger) and no one else gets one.  Again, he has every right to complain, just do it in private.  None of us would accept an invitation to play in another club's member guest and then criticize the golf course while playing in it.  

Bobby Jones learned this lesson the hard way with St. Andrews, but at least he learned it.  You always are respectful of your host in any situation.

Mike-Although I understand the point you are trying to make to say that an invitee to a member-guest is analogous to a contestant at a PGA Tour event is quite a stretch. Additionally when you make the comment "Ask anyone associated with the PGA Tour and you will learn that Phil is the biggest jerk on tour" or "Phil does everything for his own personal interest" you come off as a hater and it`s hard to get past that when considering your argument. Those are personal attacks yet you admonish David and John for personal attacks in an earlier post. You have also said and I`m paraphrasing now that you are not a big Reese Jones fan but that he probably did what he was asked to do by the ownership. If that is the case then a good bit of the blame must rest with them. So why should everyone tread so lightly? If the players cannot make comments about the architecture then who should and why is Phil the only one getting pasted over this issue?
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 07:18:59 AM by Tim Martin »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back