Tom MacWood,
I wouldn't mind being Rees Jones. We all seem to eat, sleep and dream about this stuff. Imagine the opportunity to do it for real.
Tom, I'm not opposed to commenting on photos, I'm against expanding and extending the process to making judgements about the GOLF COURSE, its tactical merits and playability from one photo, a limited amount of photo's or a thousand photos. Noone can do it with any credibility.
Early on, on this site, Rees's work on the particular golf course in discussion was condemned based on one photo, and his entire body of work was condemned, based on a single photo or photos, by people who never saw or played the course being discussed, and I objected to that, and still do. It is simply unfair.
I was responsible for posting pictures of Atlantic and Nantucket. But, I did not defend Nantucket based on my interpretation of the photos, I objected to the unfair negative, and ridiculous, in some cases, comments about Nantucket, and questioned how individuals who had never laid eyes on the place could make such broad based pronouncements, and then apply them to other courses they never laid eyes on. With respect to Atlantic, my comments were based on my personal experiences walking and playing the golf course, from the day it opened to current date.
I also defended Fazio when I thought some outlandish statements were directed his way.
You may also recall that I defended Rees when someone, who had just seen Hollywood for the first time, posted that he ruined Hollywood by placing mounds on the 4th and 7th holes, my response was that those mounds predated Rees's involvement, and had been there for as long as I could remember. Yet, the bias and unjustified attacks continued, based primarily on a few PHOTOS of the finished product, without the individual ever having seen the pre-project product, where those exact same mounds existed for decades.
My contacts with Rees are random, just as they are with Tommy Naccarato, Gib, Ran, TEPaul, Geoff Childs and others.
I certainly don't call him before or after posts and he doesn't call me before or after I post. Rees doesn't need me to champion his cause or defend him, he's done quite well without me for all these years, and I'm sure he'll continue to do so with or without our my assistance.
You seem to think that I support everything Rees does, and nothing could be further from the truth.
September 7th I learned that Atlantic was planning to make several changes to the golf course. Several members and the Green Chairman outlined them to me. When I returned to my office I wrote the Green Chairman a three (3) page letter with copies to Rees and the Founder of Atlantic. Some of my comments were highly critical of the changes, and some comments suggested changes I perceived would help Atlantic.
I received a three page letter from the founder. In addition phone calls and emails were exchanged. Rees called me and we spent 45 minutes discussing my letter regarding the changes, our differences of opinion, and items we agreed upon.
I have also commented that I didn't like REES's work at Montclair, directly to Rees and others.
So the notion that I have blinders where Rees is concerned is a little silly.
One of several things has become apparent to me since I logged on to this site.
There is a prefered style or bias on this site.
There are architects who enjoy "most favored nation" status.
There are architects who don't enjoy "most favored nation"
Criticism of the second item is heresy
Criticism of the third item is encouraged and becomes a feeding frenzy.
I'd like to think that I played a role in ameliorating some of the extreme positions, and have brought some attention to what seemed to have been a forgotten element in golf course design, playability.
I think we differ in some of our views, one would be that I prefer substance to form where you can't have both, and that you are more in to the art of golf architecture where I may be more in to playability.
But, that's just my opinion.
P.S. Kreskin still wants to know if you're available ?
