Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: John_D._Bernhardt on April 23, 2002, 08:03:05 PM
-
Oh please say no!!!! Gib, Shivas and myself took a look a Torrey Pines south sunday afternoon. I met and discussed the hotel and the course with the owner of the incredibly cool arts and crafts hotel/lodge that over looks the course. The hotel is real and the course is not. Rees Jones has butchered a great/good course and made it look like any course in America that all the sudden has an ocean panarama. Over the weekend a story that Rees was redoing Medina was circulated. Please say no to both!!! The man is a cancer to great architecture. He has raped and burned Torrey to put it in tommy N language. Please do not let this happen to Medina.
-
John,
I would hardly call the former course at Torrey Pines South "great", although it was pretty good, particularly on the back nine, as well as a couple of the greens like the 2nd and the 9th.
What specifically has Rees done that has drawn such sharp objections from you, Gib, and Dave? I know the course was significantly lengthened to some significant total yardage number (not that the original was short by any stretch), and that several greens were moved and/or reconfigured. Are the new greens interesting at all? Has any new strategy been created?
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, mind you, because I haven't even seen the new course on television. I just want to better understand the source of your discontent.
-
John; Rees gave the City of San Diego and the Century Club just what they wanted. I talked briefly to Jay R. from the Century Club and he hoped that "Torrey Pines South would be just like Pine Valley. The tourist would shoot 120 and love it!"
Thankfully they're sending people off at a 10 min. interval, so pace of play is not an issue. Sadly, not one person seemed to mind the loss of our "Billy Bell Classic". Lets hope for a restoration, not a reestoration on the North Course.
-
Would be curious to see how Rees Jones "messed up" this course. I walked the South Course a decade ago and thought it a complete waste of a great site, with no use of the ravines, ocean views, terrain. Sure. it was a popular place to play, readily affordable, and the long-term site of a PGA Tour event. But the holes were boring and totally without imagination or shot-making interest. My sense is in that regard - views, use of land, shotmaking - it's been improved greatly. Would welcome an explanation.
-
In case it was missed by some, this discussion with photos courtesy of Tommy Naccarato was had and should be retreivable in the archives. It was pre SanDiego Tour stop.
Gotta jump in here
Torey a great even good course pre Rees? Yaaaaaaaawwwwwwwn, nah, no way
Rees may not aesthetically be your cup of tea and yes the bunkering on 13 is odd to be kind, but them is strong words there JDB. Haven't seen it but I doubt it. I defer to those out there who have for specific comments. On TV (I know, I know..) it didn't look a hell of a lot different.
Medinah is not above help, either. It is one of two courses very highly rated that lacks some of the character that makes a course truly great. It was my first "BIG!!!" course that I ever played, and I don't think all that much of the last renovation at Medinah #3.
-
Fair enough, if one is to yell foul then back it up. I will grab my notes tonight and post.
-
I'd speculate that John and the boys don't care for the white stuff.
While I haven't seen the course in person, I would imagine ANGC looking bunkers don't fit in with the rest of LaJolla and especially that hillside.
-
I played TPS last Thursday, primarily from the black (back) tee distance markers. There is no doubt in my mind that with managed rough, narrowed fairways, and firm and fast conditions it would make a formidable U.S. Open venue.
At the risk of disagreeing with 2001 USGA International Book Award winner Brad Klein, I thought that the TPS course that I first played in 1987 was a good test of golf. In looking at the site, Bell utilized the terrain pretty well with nine holes having a N/S or S/N orientation, six E/W or W/E, and the remainder
diagonally. The Pacific is more of a backdrop, but it has a huge impact on the feel of the course. The canyons are used laterally on several holes and are very much in play.
With three of the par 3s playing due west into the prevailing wind, and the two on the back 221 to 227 yards, perhaps they are too repetitive as well as too difficult. However, positioning of the tee markers can overcome this.
The par 5s are the weakest holes on the course, specially on the lay-up shot. I am surprised that Jones didn't trap these areas to force more precise play.
Other than being nearly 600 yards longer, I didn't notice that big of a change in the course. I think that the green on 3 was moved closer to the canyon, and the course is more severely trapped. The greens appear to have more contour, but they are not severe (in comparison, the greens at Maderas and Barona have much more movement and more interest). Frankly, unless much of the work was underground for irrigation and drainage, my untranied eye could not detect the expenditure of over $3 Million on the renovation.
TPS is a wonderful municipal facility. The course is in reasonable condition, very walkable (5 hours+ rounds), and the setting is special. IMO, it is not close to being a "Top 100" course, but I would support holding a US Open there in recognition of the importance of public golf.
-
Dave,
Hall of Fame work, that is a funny line. You left your long drive winnings in my trunk. Guess we'll have to get together for golf so I can return it to its rightful owner. I had a nice suprise when I came home the other day. My buddy has us set up to play Lost Dunes so hopefully we can hook up when I trek out your way.
-
I found Torrey Pines South to be a long hardish course with very few really interesting holes on a very good piece of land which overlooks the Pacific Ocean. The ocean and/or cliffs are brought into play, but not in such a way as to compliment the usage. #3 and number 4 are examples of lost opportunities to to create strategic holes which use the wind and the ocean. #3 screams to be a wonderful redanish hole with the wind crossing/quartering with the shot and the cliffs behind to make one understand what can happen it one is too aggressive. #4 is a poor 4 which currently is too long and dull into a strong quartering wind. This could be a great strategic short 5 with the tee shot set slightly toward the ocean and dogleging slightly right making an aggresive tee shot risk the cliff and with significant traping to the right. The green location and size is good for a par 5 but not the current 4. It is too small with a large trap covering the front 2/3 of it. The slope to the right of the green is set up to trap the ball not to feed the ball in. There really is not a ground option on a long hole into the wind. The par 3's have 3 going to the west/south west and one to the east. The greens as noted earlier tend to be highly elevated and sloping and many severly sloping fron to back. Many of these are sloping down wind. The right to left slope seems to be everywhere with no real reason or addition to the green complex. They appear out of a Nicklas cookie jar of greens and layed out on the course randomly. They do not appear to fit the site. The traps are the same. Six holes have doubled sided fairway traps and the other 8 on one side. They all look alike and just do not fit the land. The greens generally have large traps cut out of the mounding/containment of the elevated green. The few greens 3 and 4 which do fit the site have bunkers which seem to fit the site too. I know that both 3 and 4 were bashed but not because of the design of the green, just because in one case a good hole was missed and the other because while it is a good green it did not fit that hole. Rees in general does not seem to understand how the ground game fits into this type of site and environment. Rees should have spent a day at N Berwich East, while not a great course at least understands the environment of the site and has golf holes which fit it. The hotel does get it. It is a wonderful example of Arts and Crafts Architecture with no detail missed. I only wish the golf was done with the same talent, care and attention to the land and environment/nature.
-
John,
Most of what you mentioned (routing, etc.) was done long before Rees became involved there.
Are you suggesting that Rees should have modified the course even further, by changing the original routing significantly?
The original greens, while hardly stellar, included some very good ones with enough interest to make putting a chore. The second, ninth, and 10th greens in particular used to be a lot of fun.
I understand the new greens are larger and flatter. Are they the major source of your contention?
The original bunkering was pretty banal, with just little half-moon pits in the usual left/right configuration on most holes. How has that changed under Rees?
-
Mike, When one is changing the character of a course, one should do so to the point of actually improving it. Change for change sake is not what one does on a site like this.The green at least the ones i looked closely at have significant slope and several times the slope was down wind. The traps and greens were major problems with the course. The techniques used, elevated greens and traps do not feel natural on the course and very little effort was made to bring the land in harmony with them or to make greens and traps in harmony with the land. I feel this was a waisted effort by Rees and all he did was make the course ready for USGA approval for an Open. they can grow the rough and shave the green show ocean views and call it an Open.
-
John Bernhardt,
How much of Billy Bell's original work remained at Torrey Pines after the David Rainville (sp?) Billy Casper alterations, done more than a few years ago ?
How do you compare the original design of Torrey Pines to the Rainville and Casper design ?
Did Rainville and Casper rape Bell's design at Torrey Pines ?
If little of Bell's work remained, why would you care what Rees is doing to the Rainville-Casper design that many have said is, just fair ?
-
I care what Rees is doing for the attention and moniker he is getting as the us open architect. This will be an open course in 2008. I found the work to be very average and frankly beneath what the land and our national championship deserves. This course gets the spotlight as a tour stop, which is one thing, and now as an open site. I and those of us who care about golf architecture and classical design as well as strategic golf should be concerned when all the course has is an ocean view and long holes with minimal design or character. This course is not in touch with the land or the surounding environment. It is not a Pebble Beach, Oakmont, Oakland Hills or in the same discussion with most of our open courses. Yet, the land would have allowed to be with good work on Rees jones part. I did not do this post to be a one man beat up on Rees Jones group. I just found the course lacking and his reputation is taking on a life of its on. I do not want alot of good courses, who desire usga attention, to get a bad facelift because of a average doctor.
-
I haven't played a Rees Jones course, other than his redo of MPCC Dunes (thanks Bob :)). However, I think it is in the best interest of the Open to spread the restoration/renovation work around so that all the Open courses don't eventually have the same look. That is not to say Rees work is good or bad, I just think a variety of styles is more interesting.
-
John D Berhardt,
Could you answer my questions relative to Rainville and Caspers work or were you unaware of it ?
-
I am not aware. I had only seen the course once before Sunday other than on TV of course.
-
John D Bernhardt,
Rees's restoration work has been well received at courses such as The Country Club, Hazeltine, Baltusrol and Congressional. Yet, you label him an average doctor ?
What restoration work, on courses that you have played pre and post restoration, leads you to make that statement ?
-
Patrick, I found the work here to be average. There are circles in which Rees Jones work is deemed very good. It is just not my circle. I have not viewed his work at the courses you noted. His reputation with me is from personal experience and the opinions of others whose experience, judgment and lack of agenda I respect. Many of those people do see his work nation wide on a regular basis. I am very uncomfortable with current Rees, the open architect, reputation that is taking on a life of its own. This post is not meant to be a one man beat up Rees. I am concerned that with a number of noted clubs desire to host an Open and his current reputation as a open course maker. Many will hire him for the wrong reason. Frankly you can find days of posts on here discussing the people with quality reputations for restoration and Rees's name does not surface. He may be a good architect but I do not like what he did here period.
-
John Bernhardt,
But if his previous restoration work, especially at USOPEN courses, is regarded as good, why would you object to his future involvement in restoring any given course.
You indicated that you liked the result of the work that David Rainville and Billy Casper did at Torrey Pines, yet in another post you reference the "rape" of a golf course.
Do you feel the Rainville-Casper redesign improved or raped the original Bell design at Torrey Pines ?
Were you aware that Rees was not asked to restore Torrey Pines by the people in charge of the project ?
If you want to bash Rees, I have no problem with that, as long as you have your facts correct, and issues with his style.
But, before you become critical of him, his work, or anyone else's work, you should have a broad factual data base from which to draw your conclusions, and in this case it would appear that a fair amount of accurate information is missing, and a good amount of research needs to be done.
If you, "Judge for yourself" you'll be better equiped to articulate your assessments, rather than relying on the hearsay of others.
-
Patrick, sorry i touched your nerve. I did not say I like or was even aware of the Casper work. I am not so sure the work he has done on open courses is so well regarded. I do have enough and none of it is hearsay to say I did not like the work he did at Torrey south. I am certain I do not like the idea that Rees may or is considered a open course maker architect. I am not trying to make any more of this than what i did say and again, I do have the right to my opinions as do you and I did not mean to offend you.
-
John Bernhardt,
You didn't offend me.
I just think that before you're critical of any individual's work, you should have more than an ample amount of facts from which to draw your conclusions.
I don't know what business or profession you're in, but would it be fair for others to attack the work you do, without all the facts, or based on hearsay from others ?
What courses have you seen pre and post Rees's RESTORATION work that you don't like ? ...
and for what reasons ?
Were you aware that Torrey Pines was never intended to be a restoration, but a substantial change, at the direction of the powers behind the project ?
-
Patrick, enough, you have made your point and I responded and your making it again. The only fact I do not know is what his instructions were and I saw enough to make my observation here, so lets go on to another topic for only you are still writing on this.
-
John Bernhardt,
I was just trying to counter what I thought was an unfair, inflamatory and unfactual attack as outlined in your original post.
I wasn't trying to damage your reputation.
I'm content to move on.
-
Thanks
-
I've been off the air for a few days and took a look at how this post evolved with interest. John, Shivas and myself took a look out there together and I will not go so far as to state that the work is terrible. It is competent, consistent and presents a good test for Tour players. But that is all it is. Nothing more and hardly inspirational.
Generally, I rarely disagree with Patrick, but this time we are at a fork in the road. I do not pretend to be a Rees expert, but amongst others I have played or seen:
Lake Merced
Pinehurst 7
Atlantic
Poppy Ridge
MPCC
Torrey South
With the exception of MPCC, which works really well, the rest leave me cold.
Specifically, Rees does not seem to have a grasp of how the average golfer plays the game. There is ZERO attempt to engage the golfer with creative approach options, leaving only a narrow entrance to elevated greens.
The putting surfaces themselves are well done, but all look alike after a while. His green complexes are as easily identifyable as something done by Ted Robinson.
It doesn't matter which side of the fairway you hit your tee shot because the prime directive is to keep it between the gutters and hit a high flyer into the green with mind-numbing repetition.
Rees does not seem to understand that hazards are supposed to be placed on the interior of golf holes as a strategic arrangement and not just plopped at the fringes of play for the sake of being penal.
I always feel as if I'm being physically challenged and rarely mentally on his courses and Torrey South might as well be Lake Merced or Pooppy Ridge without the clifftops and nudie beach. It all looks and plays the same. Plug and play and nevermind stretching the envelope.
In addition, the green complexes all look the same visually. He must have been taught that blindness in any form is a mortal sin because every hole has the entire target and putting surface out in front of you. There is no mystery, just read the yardage and rip it.
There is little point in speculating what his marching orders were because every course except MPCC looks alike.
Can you imagine what would have happened if Torrey was handed over to: (I'll leave Neal and myself out of this to avoid drawing fire)
John Harbottle
Todd Eckenrode
Tom Doak
Schmidt and Curley
Gil Hanse
C&C
Jones Jr. (Laugh, it would have had personality)
Mike Strantz
Brian Silva
Ron Forse
Tad Bucchannan
Doug Nichols
Brad Benz
Pick one. Any one. I'd bet the farm John, Shivas and I would have liked it better. It could have/should have been one for the ages. Now it is just another generic tour stop that is going to get handed the U.S. Open.
Naccarato will shoot me for saying this, but Fazio would have at least given them something with panache.
I have said it before, it astounds me that a man whose home course is in the shadow of the sacred windmill cannot come up with anything more than the same formulaic architecture.
SandPines and Bethpage I've not seen, but nobody who knows me has urged me to make a special trip. . . . .
-
Similar to Gib, I have talked about Rees Jones in the past here and offered similar criticisms of his work. I've been amazed that someone who has had incredible exposure to the world's greatest classic courses on a detail level would veer so far from that standard in his original work, for reasons I simply couldn't fathom.
For the record, I have played 2 courses he designed under his dad's name in 1968-74, 9 courses he built solo from NY to FL in the years from 1974-2000, and 6 courses he restored or renovated, either partially or fully.
To be honest, I liked his very early work best. Sometime after 1983, his courses began to all look the same, in a style I found neither site specific nor aesthetically pleasing. We've talked ad infinitum here about the mounds he created, as well as the squiggly amoeba and round circle bunkering, everywhere from the Oregon coast to south Florida, and I'm not sure which if any of those courses could be considered above a 6 or maybe 7 on any scale. Most are 4's and 5's...not bad, but hardly inspiring. Yes, some of them were quite difficult, but more in the way Gib suggests than in anything particularly innovative or thought-provoking.
I understand from some here that he is currently evolving into a more classic mode on his latest creations. Certainly, the pictures shown here last year of Olde Kinderhook looked like nothing I've ever seen from him and seem VERY promising. I hope to get there this year to see for myself.
So, I don't know if that's bashing, but I think I'm keeping an open mind based on what I've seen, experienced, and heard. I personally hope that he improves tremendously in the years to come and builds many great courses; not only because he gets many fabulous sites, but also because I understand that he's a helluva nice guy.
-
Gib and Mike,
If you've played the courses, and don't like them, that's more than fair, and I don't object to that. If you played them and articulated your particular dislikes, that's fair and I don't object to that either.
I have objected to criticism of a course when one hasn't played it, or the relating of negative hearsay when one hasn't played the course being discussed.
Playing a golf course and articulating your evaluation adds to the overall data base and allows us to learn.
But, playing a course may not reveal the full story, particularly concerning environmental problems that may have impacted the design of the course, some of its holes, or its features.
Gib,
There have been some substantive changes at Atlantic, I'd like to get you back there again to see what you think.
-
Patrick,
I would be interested to see what has been done at Atlantic since last summer. Neal and I were fortunate to play with Jay Chiat as his guest and were saddened to hear of his death last week. His nephew tells me that day was his final round of golf . . . . .
Has the routing been rejiggered? It was such a confusing mess and I was terribly disappointed. Somehow I thought it was going to be great.
Contrary to most Treehouse dwellers, although the mounding on the fringes of the fairway looks silly to me, it is not the prime focus of my criticism.
In fact, with the exception of Pinehurst #7, I have never played a Rees course with severe mounding except Atlantic. And Pinehurst #7 doesn't look nearly as manufactured as Atlantic.
Again, it is the sameness of the green complexes and bunkering. The whole expression always appears to look like a combination of Nicklaus *strategies* (sic) and Pascuzzo/Graves formalized "Cape and Bay" bunkering.
Naturally this is not every single hole - #11 and #12 at Atlantic are very good, especially #12 where Rees had some kind of strategic epiphany.
As a matter of fact, there are dozens of individual holes Rees has created that work well and are satisfying to play. Unfortunately, when you string the same thing together 16 or 18 times it loses my interest. Then, when I go to another Rees course and find the same thing with little creative integration into the site, it quite frankly begins to aggravate me.
In reality, Nicklaus (or his minnions) seem to push the envelope harder than Rees - sometimes I hate it, but at least I'm curious to have a look. I know Rees can do better because MPCC came out really well and encourages the ground game.
-
gib, you can save the money and just play Bandon or Pacific dunes and forget Sandpines. It is not worth the trip. I played it, then walked it trying to understand how such a nice piece of land could end up with that course. I also agree about MPCC. I do like his work there. The Rees holes fit the course and the land. I too hope his works moves in a classical direction for it seems he will get many opportunities over the next few years to work on great courses.