[Lou_Duran]

Dick,

I was not aware that I was taking a hard line regarding TP-S.

It seems to me that other folks such as Pernice, Paulson, Geoff and a few others are the ones doing that, and I was reacting to that.  While I really don't much care what the two tour players asserted, I do feel differently about Geoff whose work I've enjoyed.

Statements like the ones I replied to do nothing to enhance his credibility.  To suggest that TP-S has no architectural merit and that what might have been there was stripped away by Rees Jones is plain, unadultarated bullshit.  If Geoff wants to be a positive force for change, his methods will require some work.

Having said all this, I stated earlier that I am not a big fan of TP-S, pre or post restoration.  I don't believe that it belongs in a Top 100 modern list, and maybe not even in the next 100.  But to say that it has no architectural substance is as ludicrous as saying and believing that President Bush, M.B.A., Harvard, is dull and lacks gravitas.

In my humble opinion, if this site is to grow and prosper, it is time we start to address issues critically and objectively.  The way we coddle some and sock it to others is not very "refreshing".  But what do I know?  

[CHrisB]

Personally, I think Tiger and Sergio answers are almost canned, because since when do you hear them saying anything negative about any course?

Tommy,
I don't think you'll be hearing Tiger saying negative things about any course on which he competes. I think he indicates which courses/conditions he doesn't like by skipping the tournaments (e.g., bumpy greens at Pebble) held at those courses. I think Tiger subscribes to the Nicklaus theory of letting others "complain themselves right out of the championship". Did Pernice, Lehman, Waldorf, and Paulson complain themselves out of the championship? Only they know for sure...

It is very rare that the complainer wins the tournament, but I remember a couple of years ago at Greensboro, Scott Hoch complained loudly about how the rough was too short, and that it would allow the long hitters to bomb away without risk...and then he shot something like 18-under and won the tournament!

[Brian Phillips]

Brian, you have studied GCA and have built golf courses;  what do you think?  Perhaps the course could be maintained differently, if it only got limitted play.  But, it gets something ike 100K rounds a year!  The turf on the collars are not conducive to low apron or collar cuts.  I'm not sure what species and cultivar the surrounds there are planted in.  

As one of the commentators mentioned (Kostis I think) the tee shots are all narrow and straight away to pinched in LZs with length and precision as the only real demand.  As I remember, the LZs are not very contoured either.  I remember the angled tee ball from 13 as the most interesting of the whole course.  Then the second for mortals is into an upslope that is now a nest of bunkers on both sides up the hill.  Pros are going for it in 2 routintely.

The two times I played there, I thought that there was enough room to take a few new angles to fairways off tees, and add some interestng contour and width in the LZs to increase strategy.  But, it seems all they could focus on is precision of tee shots and the number 7600yards.  That seems like a very narrow point of view to me.  I like the look of the new (4th?) endless skyline green that melts into the ocean.  And, unlike Tommy, I think 13 is good for a tour sort of hole.  It is about the only thing I like about the remodelling that I have seen only on TV.

Lou, I am surprised you have taken such a hard line on this particular issue.  I'm sure you had a nice time playing the course a few years ago - but did it really give you enough of a quality experience to be ready to lock horns with Geoff or some other detractors who view the course as completely one dimensional and uninspiring in the wake of the remodel?  

I don't know enough about the grass, soils or temperatures to give an educated opinion but if they could then I would widen a lot of areas before fairway bunkers and after fairway bunkers.

A couple of times Daly went into the rough yesterday and was helped by the rough because it still gave him a decent line to the green.  If the fairways had been widened the wild drives would have been even wilder than they were last night.  This is exactly what Royal Melbourne did last week, if your drive was wild the angle into the green would be so way off because the the short grass accentuated the error.

Could you please explain why you think the collars are not conducive to a short cut?

I think the course, architecturally is very poor, but it did the job on the day producing exciting golf.  The green bunkering seemed to be the same everytime...bunkers either side for the entrance.  The driving stategy was none existent...hit the middle for the best shot into the green.  However, it was more exciting watching the golf yesterday than I have seen at Augusta since the Faldo and Norman duel.

Daly was forced a number of times to use his great short game especially on the 18th.  Before he hit that shot I thought that the bunker at the back was penal as it wouldn't encourage anyone to go for the green in two.  I was frustrated that he had been punished by the bunker even though he tried to go for the green in two...but as we saw bunkers are not penal anymore...

Brian

[HamiltonBHearst]

  "I think the course architecturally is very poor".

Brian-Have you seen or played the course?  Will you please send pictures of some of your work to Rees jones so he can make a determination of it's quality from 3000 miles away?  First Jack and now Rees.  

[Brian Phillips]

HamiltonBHearst,

Please do not mention Jack again as I never said anything wrong about Jack Nicklaus on the earlier thread and I am getting sick of you or Tom saying I did.

I was asked an opinion about the course...everyone here knows I haven't played it.  I gave an opinion and I don't think it is very good architecturally...or is it, you tell me?

Can you tell what is good about it architecturally?

All I could see was bunkering in the fairway nipped in at at around 300 yards. The bunkering around the greens was penal in that it was often (not always) placed left and right.

The pond on the 18th didn't look like a pond but more like a swimming pool and didn't seem to blend in with anything. And was built artificially just to create an exiting 18th hole which it suceeded in.

Now, lets hear your opinion...do you have one?

Is this an architectural forum or not?

Or should we just discuss our own local golf courses because we haven't played every golf course that people on this forum want to talk about?  Should we never give an opinion on any course we haven't seen or played?

No wonder Internationals give up posting here when a person is not allowed an opinion from TV.

You didn't see the Australians complaining last week when we discussed Royal Melbourne and brought up points from the scoring and the TV.  No, what they did was come onto the site and give explanation of why certain areas were playing like they were etc..  

I didn't hear one Aussie complain that none of us have seen the course in real life.

I gave an opinion purely based on the TV coverage, no one says you have to agree with it or disagree with it but it is purely based on the coverage.

Some people take opinions on this site too seriously.

By the way I don't think the greens are flat either....that's another opinon from the TV..or am I not allowed that opinion either?

I will send pictures of my designs to Ree Jones if he wants them but I really don't think he cares about the opinion of a 34 year old Golf course architect in Norway 3000 miles away...do you?

Brian

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Redanman,

Tuco (***)

Since when are we giving credibility to Tour Pros?

When it suits our needs, I suppose.

I agree with you.
Suddenly, the PGA Tour Pros are Guru's to this site ?

Tuco,

I've seen but have never set foot on Torrey Pines, pre or post renovation work, and I've heard conflicting comments about the golf course, pre and post renovation work.

You categorized the pre-renovation golf course as a "good" golf course.  By what standard do you make that evaluation, and what course would you compare it to, that is also a
"good" golf course ?

[Mashie1]

From what I cold see on TV, the bunker forms sure did not meld well into the natural landscape. The course seems almost too narrow for the new fairway bunkering to offer many risks and rewards.  18 seems to be stripped of some of its former risk and reward challenge.  Like I said, from what I could see on TV.

 

[Lester George]

Brian,

The problem is that you are debating your opinion with someone who bases his opinion on what he's heard or read or both, not on any real experience.  If he wants to "get in the game" let him.  Let him hang his architecture shingle and compete.  Let him create something and have people question it, criticize it, like it or whatever.  

Until then, you have no reason to debate your opinion.  

Someone once told me never to wrestle with a pig because  your going to get dirty, but the pig likes it.  

Cheers,

Lester

[RJ_Daley]

Brian,

I want to answer your question about what species of grass is planted on the greens surrounds, but I can't.  I assume (I saw the greens in a phase of reconstruction) that they planted a wire to clearly denote the mowing line of the bent greens and the rough collar.  Thus, the greens are designed specifically to have a high rough collar for the tournament style that the US Open is 'generally' known for (except Pinehursts).  I thus assume the collars are blues or a polystand of blue and rye.  But, it may be Kikuyu as well.  I don't know.  But in any case without reseeding the collars, they can't mow them short and have surrounds that can channel balls slightly missing to hollows and areas away from the green.  That is why as Adam has mentioned, there will be a lot of yelling for the slightly wayward balls to "get in the bunker" with its perfect sand and realatively easier recovery shots.

[Allan Long]

As far as the routing of the course is concerned, Jones didn't radically alter the way the holes played. Sure he added length, and moved some green complexes, but the course still has a lot of the same character as when it opened.

My question then is, why during four days didn't I hear Billy Bell's name at all? When Fazio makes changes at ANGC, the commentators speak of it, but it is always referred to as a MacKenzie design. At Bethpage, they talked about the Jones work, but they always gave Tillinghast his due. All I hear about Torrey now is Jones, like Bell never existed.

[David Kelly]

>>>My question then is, why during four days didn't I hear Billy Bell's name at all?<<<

That would be Billy Bell Jr.

I saw a large graphic on Thursday that mentioned William F. Bell (Billy Jr.) as the architect. Billy Bell died in 1953 and the course didn't open until 1957 so while Billy might have had some input at the very earliest stages it was his son who was responsible for the course.  

[TEPaul]

I don't know that course other than what I could see on TV but although it doesn't look all that terrible interesting there's no question #18 has the potential to be a very exciting and strategic finishing hole. Unfortunately, yesterday (or maybe every day since yesterday was the only one I saw) they had the tees back about 20 yards too far to create much interest.

If they'd moved those tee forward about 20 yards yesterday we might've seen all kinds of interesting choices and dilemmas on the second shot. But the numb-nuts put the tees too far back so all we saw was one great wedge shot approach after another. If that hole was 20 yards shorter we would've seen all kinds of cheering as well as wailing and gnashing of teeth!

[Thomas_Brown]

As can be habit w/ GCA.com, this is presented really only on one side.  Who are the advocates since the redesign?  All of the second tier players I talked to.  Who are the promiment advocates - locals like Mickelson, Simpson.

I think the design has improved.  e.g. #1 tee shot is much better strategically. IMO - Lehman's comment Re: #4 are dead on.  It's a par 5 green on a 460+ par 4.  But, this is par for a US Open.

I agree w/ the good label assigned to Torrey.
Sadly, It's at best good.

I'm most intrigued by the US Open on kikuyu.
I've played courses where they've tried to remove it by scalping the course 3-4 months prior.  I know Riv. in 1948, but in the modern era, there's never been anything as absurd as dense kikuyu in summer.

Tommy N. - Talk to me about LMGC sometime.
(Not bragging) - I shot 68 there in a junior tournament and finished 5th.  That course is really boring, bad boring and really easy for anyone who hits it over 240!  I played w/ Gore that day who destroyed that course off the tee.

Tom

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I think I am qualified to comment on Dennis Paulson's comments.  I have been a friend for ages and know his interest in golf course architecture.  He grew up playing Brookside and Santa Ana (which is one of the oldest courses in Ca., but has seen a complete makeover by Rainville, Muirhead, and Fream).  He is very interested in  great courses and has driven out of the way during Nike tour off days in the past to play them.  We played GMC a couple days before he won at Westchester.  We've had a blast playing Barona recently.  Though he stated a negative opinion of Rees, he enjoys such courses from a competitive point of view--he kills the ball and hits high hard penetrating iron shots.  In addition, he has a superb short game--his up shots were very good yesterday.  Unfotunately, he had a nightmare experience with the putter yesterday.  Also, on 14 a gallery member who would be very at home in a Raider fan area deliberately shouted in the middle of his appproach--there was a flinch in the shot--Dennis did not complain --he's too classyto spoil Daly's victory.  I've upset a few Century Club members (they run the tournament and were responsible for getting Rees to create a USGA acceptable Open course) over the years, saying how much they missed an opportunity for greatness.  Unfortunately, their definition of greatness is getting an Open--they are proud of the acievement.

[Rick Shefchik]

It appears that the way to get Rees Jones to create a USGA acceptable Open course is simply to hire him.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

RMD,
Very well said. I too think its a huge missed opportunity, even for Rees Jones. He had so much to work with there, albeit I'm sure the budget wasn't too his liking.

I would enjoy hearing Paulson's comments on just how bad Desmond, Fream and especially Rainville screwed up John Duncan Dunn's Santa Ana.  From what I have seen of it, it must have been a fun track in its day, and Yancey Beamer who used to be a former member there loved it too.

Tom, At #1, other then the completely new green, the shift in direction of that green, plus the razing of the original fairway bunker on the right and replacing it with two new ones, plus adding one left fairway bunker, how is that drive any different then the original?

It would seem to me with the addition of that one left fairway bunker its calling for a pretty one-dimensional, really straight, long drive on the left center of the fairway. I seem to remember the old hole favoring that type of shot off of the tee also, because of the front right greenside bunker.  How is it any different strategically?

Would we be having this conversation if the USGA simply rolled back the golf ball?

I assume your talking Jason Gore, and I'm appalled that he and you would even subject yourselves to play there! (about three miles from where I type this)

The funny thing is that La Mirada rests on a set of hills that are very Merion-like, and I shudder to think of Biily F. Bell or his mom laying it out. It could have been so much better, just like Torrey Pines!

So, relax Rees! Your not the only one getting the blame here! Maybe you could come to La Mirada and honor the spirit of Billy Bell here also! Wait a second! I forgot! Award-Winning Architect, Cal Olson got to it just recently! He didn't honor poor Billy one bit!

[Tuco Ramirez]

at, Redanman,

I had no opinion on this having never played Torrey Pines. I just summarized the article that was all.  The only commentary is my brief one saying it was somewhat
balanced (the article) by getting a retort from R. Jones and a few positive quotes from other pros.  I'm not infatuated with pro opinions as well.  It also goes back to our fairness issue in GCA we've talked about. No one ever calls R. Jones an unfair
archie.. Can you build fair designs that are great? Perhaps a bigger question.

[Allan Long]

David,

I am aware that TP is a Bell, Jr. course. I never said it was a Bell, Sr. design. Since it was mentioned earlier in the thread I didn't feel it necessary to dignify between Jr. and Sr.

However, other than the graphic that USA put up on Thursday, it was never mentioned by the commentators. Every mention of the course was about Jones. A course getting a U.S. Open is quite a feather in the cap. I just don't think that Jones should get all the credit, just because Bell, Jr. doesn't have the name recognition of a Jones, Fazio, etc.

[Thomas_Brown]

Tommy N - #1 used to be just bomb away off the tee.
The bunker on the right was so shallow and carry-able.

Now, the fairway bunkers are really much more hazards.
Put Tiger in the one on the left, and he'll be challenged to get it on the green - He still will, but not all players will be able to.

To me, the teeball is much better framed w/ the redesign.
It's a tough hole to redesign.  There are few trees or sightlines to work w/.

And, yes, Jason Gore's resume is irretrievably damaged.
Tom

[chuck147]

Well, I may be just an amateur golf course arch. nut, but I do know a thing or two about Torrey Pines.  I was a member of the mens club there at one time, so I have played both courses many times.  Mostly before the redesign of the South; but I have played it since.  

Just for your information:

1.  The course was completely rebuilt by Rees Jones.  The holes still run in the same corridors, but that's about the only thing still the same.  He rebuilt every bunker and green on the course.  He added many bunkers (both fairway and greenside) and he moved three or four greens closer to the canyons or cliffs.  This is a Rees Jones course now, not Bell (other than routing).

2.  I don't believe there is any kikuyu on the course; I don't know why.

3.  The course is full of players 365 days a year!

4.  The course was built on sandstone bluffs.  So the soil conditions are fairly sandy; but not soft sand like dunes.  It drains ok, but not that good!

5.  The course is actually built on a mesa.  In other words it is fairly flat.  There really isn't much natural undulation to the land.  There was no way he could have utilized the canyons any more than he did (i.e. environmentalists).

6.  The greens now have some small shelves and ridges; where before they had none.  The old greens were all very standard in shape and sloped from back to front.  Some very steeply!

7.  The third, fourth and fourteenth holes are simply fantastic!  I really think that the third hole is one of the best par 3's around!  Downhill shot to a cape-like green (canyons and cliffs on three sides), with a into/cross type wind.  The ocean forms the backdrop and seems to deceive the player on the distance.  Beautiful to look at and it makes you nervous to play it!  What more do you want from a golf hole!

In summary, it may not be the greatest golf course in the world; but it is a lot better than it was.  Despite the scenery it was quite a boring course to play before. It is a lot more exciting and fun to play now!  I used to like the North course more; but now I like them both!  No it's never going to make anyone forget about Cypress Point or Pine Valley; but it's not bad for a muny either!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()