The Open Doctor

[Phil_the_Author]

Kyle,

In what has Tom made a "sourced argument" that I have not in something upon which we disagreed about Bethpage? For example, the work done on the bunkers prior to the 2002 Open. He has claimed in the past that they were completely redesigned and changed. In his earlier post on this thread he stated that they were deliberately made to imitate the bunkers at Winged Foot. Upon what "sources" does he base these arguments? I can answer it for him since in the past he claimed that his interpretation of an early aerial photograph provided definitive proof that they were redesigned and shapes changed. He also will quickly quote a few newspaper and magazine articles where it mentioned that the contractors went to Winged foot to take a look at the bunkers there and that Rees had sent them.

Unfortunately he proved back then that he can't interpret an aerial photograph. As an example, he stated that there was a bunker in front of the 11th tee that was removed... There was NEVER a bunker there... not ever. You can find that example and a number of others in the back pages of earlier threads going back a number of years, and that was just one of his mistakes. As for Rees emulating the bunkers at Winged Foot... Can anyone tell me one single reason why having a contractor who, up until that time, had NOT worked on a Tillinghast course, could possibly NOT benefit by seeing an example of Tilly's work? And by the way, did you even think to ask Tom exactly for WHAT reason they were examining those bunkers and what relationship there might be to the bunkers as originally designed at Bethpage? You can find that explanation in my writings and as another DIRECT Quote from Rees as well.

Now, what "sources" did I have and did I DIRECTLY QUOTE from that sort of trumps his? Why Rees Jones of course. I have written several articles highlighting how Rees had the crews "excavate down to the original footpads and define the exact original shapes of the bunkers" so that they could be "reconstructed as closely as possible to the original Tillinghast design."

I'm sorry you don't feel this way toward my relationship with all the parties involved and decisions made at Bethpage, but sometimes you really do have to simply accept that what someone who is involved, even as peripherally as I was and am, says that they should be taken at their word over someone who has NEVER had that involvement or even anything slightly a part of it. Look at it this way, if you tell me something about the Penn State University golf course i would take it as gospel because of your relationship top the course and school. My relationship with Bethpage and the others involved with it is many times greater than that. I believe that my word about Bethpage should carry a bit more weight than someone whose experience with it is as limited as Tom's. If you disagree I certainly respect your right to the opinion, but honestly, it baffles me...

All that having been said, I do appreciate that BOTH of us read more into each other's comments that may have been meant.

[Kyle Harris]

Phil:

I think the difference is simply in the construction of the argument. When I wrote my piece on the Penn State Golf Courses, I made sure the subject of my sentences were the sources themselves and not a narrative of the information in the sources.

For example:

"Daily Collegian reported that Willie Park, Jr. spent six days on-site in State College during the Fall of 1922."

read a lot differently than:

"I did the research and Willie Park, Jr. was on site at Penn State for some time."

I must admit that I have kept the scope of my comments to this thread and not the significant plethora of your work contained outside of those limits. I do agree with your assessment of the facts, even if our opinions on some of the changes vary, there is no denying that the changes to Bethpage were conceived through a rigorous and thorough process.

This is really just an attempt to police some of the rhetoric that develops on the board and perhaps parse through to the true nature of the discussion and why things go sour.

[Matthew Rose]

How about Congressional?

[Phil_the_Author]

Kyle,

I appreciate the way you put it!

[Scott Warren]

Jeff Brauer:

If anyone was, it was Mike for a poorly thought out comment comparing a gca he doesn't like to one of the worlds all time worst criminals.

On the league table of World's All-Time Worst Criminals, Bernie Madoff is nowhere near the big leagues - not even in the discussion for a start in Fifth Division.

Please don't try to turn a throwaway line into a thread-wrecking pissing contest.

[Chris Cupit]

Maybe Rees should have stuck to re-modeling!? 

Obviously I'm joking a bit and this horrible business plan/golf development was not his fault but holes 9-18 ARE absolutely terrible.

Bank Ordered Sale – Georgia Golf Course Designed By Rees Jones

SEALED BID SALE
DEADLINE: MARCH 21, 2011
Echelon Golf Course & Country Club
501 Founders Drive East, Alpharetta, GA 30004

Appraised at $23,000,000 but for sale at $5,900,000. Exclusive country club 30 miles north of Atlanta in Cherokee County, among top 5 highest income and top three fastest growing counties in the state. 378 acres total including 18-hole active golf course designed by Rees Jones, son of world renowned Robert Trent Jones. Includes 12, one-acre lots ready for builder and a 71 acre undeveloped parcel allowing 56 one acre lots. 99 lots have already sold between $271,000 and $546,000 and homes range from $2 million to $5 million.

Attachment(s):
bank_ordered_sale_-_echelon_golf_course.pdf

View a Map of:
501 Founders Dr, Alpharetta, GA 30004, USA

Submarket(s):
Cherokee County
Forsyth Co./GA 400 North/Dawson County
North Fulton

Market Detail(s):

Investment: Bank Owned / Foreclosure, Hospitality, Special Use (Churches, Marinas, etc…)

Signature:
Frank Simpson
The Simpson Company of Georgia, Inc.
frank@simpsoncompany.com
P: (770) 532-9911
C: (770) 654-2300

[Bruce Leland]

Just ran into Rees at ORD last week where he had just come from tweaking Medinah for the Ryder Cup.

Courtesy of www.rydercup.com


As part of its 2012 preparations, Medinah is nearing completion of a $1.5 million greens renovation project on Course No. 3, led by renowned course architect Rees Jones. The project included a dramatic redesign of the 15th hole.

The 15th now offers players with a great risk-reward opportunity with a drive-able par-4 by reducing its length by 100 yards and adding a two-acre lake that borders the right side of the fairway and green. The new forward tee allows No. 15 to be set up as short at 280 yards. The original tee area of 392 yards from the championship tees will be preserved to provide the club with flexibility in course set-up.

Jones, who has overseen all architectural design aspects of Medinah's three golf courses since 2000, moved the 15th green to the left (south), which made way for the creation of a new back tee for Medinah's famed No. 16 hole. The tree-lined par-4 now measures 15 yards longer -- playing approximately 470 yards from the championship tees.

The major greens renovation took place on 11 of Course No. 3's original 18 greens and its main putting green, which was rebuilt to USGA specifications. Course No. 3's other six greens were re-grassed and the No. 15 green rebuilt. Jones has overseen all architectural design aspects of Medinah's three golf courses since 2000.

[JR Potts]

Bruce - you don't know what youre talking about.  That work was done over a year ago and given our weather and the fact that it's January, I don't think anyone is tweaking anything right now.

[Tom MacWood]

I think juxtoposing Phil's post with yours is a good idea for any reader and it probably sheds a lot of light on the qualifications and experience upon which to judge your critique.

Ryan
Please explain.

You may not be aware but I've done quite a bit of research on Bethpage, and Tilly for that matter. Here is a link to an essay I wrote about Bethpage. It appears on this site under Geoff Shackelford for some reason.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/geoff-shackelford-a-historians-dream-article-2

Also if you go searching you will find a number of old threads analyzing Rees' redesign of Bethpage, and other courses. Is it your understanding Rees did not redesign Bethpage-Black?

[Ian Andrew]

Michael Jackson named himself the King of Pop
Howard Stern jokingly named himself the King of All Media to make fun of that fact - and now the label is commonly associated.

The media loves a moniker to go along with a celebrity.
Yes, Rees is a celebrity in our world.

I would be even more impressed if Rees was smart enough to grab the title from his father and suggest it to a member of the media.
The media tends to repeat monikers or tags to contextualize the subject.
It's brilliant use of the media if it was his idea.

If not, it's been a most wonderful and effective tag for him to carry.
It's brought a lot of work by the implication that he's the go-to guy.

[Tom MacWood]

This is what Phil Young wrote in his Tillinghast biography:

"If Joseph Burbeck deserves his due credit, Rees Jones should receive this and more praise as well for bringing the magic back to a course that went so many years without proper care. His 1997 work restored every bunker save one (the huge fairway bunker on the 7th hole), bringing them back to their former glory and ferocity and tucking them back into the greens as Tilly favored. Jones believes he had a mission and responsibility to finish the course for Tillinghast so that it would challenge the great players of today and continue to do so far into the future....Yes, Tilly would most definitely have also thanked Rees Jones for restoring his design and 'finishing' his work."

He restored every bunker but one, is that an accurate statement? When I read a modern architect claiming to be finishing a dead masters work I immediately think redesign. If Rees Jones doesn't already have a publicist he should think about hiring Phil.

[JR Potts]

I think juxtoposing Phil's post with yours is a good idea for any reader and it probably sheds a lot of light on the qualifications and experience upon which to judge your critique.

Ryan
Please explain.

You may not be aware but I've done quite a bit of research on Bethpage, and Tilly for that matter. Here is a link to an essay I wrote about Bethpage. It appears on this site under Geoff Shackelford for some reason.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/geoff-shackelford-a-historians-dream-article-2

Also if you go searching you will find a number of old threads analyzing Rees' redesign of Bethpage, and other courses. Is it your understanding Rees did not redesign Bethpage-Black?

No, of course it is not my understanding that Rees did not redesign Bethpage-Black....and I wonder why you post that question.

In my opinion, Phil's on the ground experience clearly gives his statements a greater level of reliability and given your comments on this thread re: Rees and Phil, objectivity.

So I'll ask the question again, besides playing Bethpage-Black once? after the renovation, what have you physically done to view the site, see how it plays, etc.?  I understand you've done research....but sitting in a library or in an office is only part of the equation.

[Tom MacWood]

I personally know that the work that Rees did on the bunkers had nothing to do with enlarging them but was an actual restoration of what was originally there. He and his crews went to the extent of digging down to discover the original base pads and therefor had a very accurate understanding of the bunker sizes and shapes. The "enlarging" of the bunkers then were an actual restoration of what had been originally there.

Ryan
Phil has claimed in the past that Rees did not redesign Bethpage, this comment above is just the latest example. Add to that his claim in the book that Rees restored every original bunker but one, and I'm left scratching my head. What good does on the ground experience do if you are unable to understand what is restored and what is redesigned?

The first and most important action in restoring an old golf course is good documentation of the original course. The same is true in judging a restoration. Once you have that information you can compare the current course against the photographic evidence and make a judgement. The new and improved Bethpage is one of the most widely documented golf courses in the world, and not only have studied that current info, I've played the golf course. What else could I or should I have done to assist in the process?

If you don't understand the original course, and based on his comments Phil must not understand the original course, what good does on the ground expereince do in judging the accuracty of a restotation? And if Phil does in fact understand the original course then the only other explanation is that he is a shill for Rees Jones.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I think Phil and Rees understood what was there.  I don't think it got recreated exactly, because of the goal of the US Open.  I see a lot of gca's claiming "restorations" which by this forum's standards, do not meet the criteria.  However, I see two levels of the definition of "restoration" out there.   I understand that BP and many others use the label in a way you would not.

I see it as a matter of degrees, given the goal of the US Open, the general improvement to maintenance and changes in infrastructure technology, etc.

Maybe the difference is that you view/judge restorations by photographic evidence.  In this case, at least, Rees and Phil viewed its success in that, and also by a host of other practical factors that dictated subtle changes.  There are also arguments as to whether you really can restore a course perfectly, but those threads have also been covered.

In short, I see exactly how you interpret BP to not be a restoration.  But, I also see how the on the ground guys would interpret it to be within the realm of a restoration, albeit, giving some ground to other objectives.  In fact, I think its fair to say in the case of BP, that a pure restoration based on documentation of the original course was NOT by definition the most important action they faced at Bethpage. 

I agree with you its not a perfect restoration.  I think it fairly captures the essence of the original Tillie feel, so you may prefer to call it a sympathetic remodeling.  Hey, you can feel free to call it a total disaster if you want.  Some do, I know.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In reading through some of these posts, I think there's a tendency to forget that NO alterations can be done without the prior approval/consent of the hosting golf course.

The hosting golf course is the sole determiner of what will and what won't be done.

So, any proposed change has to be presented to the host club, and approved by the host club, before it can be implemented.

[Lou_Duran]

I agree with Bob Huntley that Rees Jones gets way too much underserved criticism on this site.  If one is to believe what is often posted here, Rees is little more than an unimaginative shaper leveraging his family's name, intimitately familiar with ugly mounds and pretty white sand, but totally ignorant of strategy, shot values, routing, interesting golf, etc.  As I sit here in Dallas feezing my ----- off, what I would give to be standing on the tee at Torrey Pines-South or MPCC-Dunes or Briar's Creek, or ........!

Regarding the spat on this thread between the architects, a couple whom I know somewhat, this is a difficult time in the industry and indulgences might be extended.  Yes, wealthy, often smart people make mistakes.  But, typically- holding all other things equal- experience begets better results.  For every Madoff, there are a thousand honest, successful financial advisors.  Referencing this crook to rebut Mr. Young's point was indelicate in the intended context, but even more inappropriate given the likelyhood of the mistaken extension to Rees Jones.
 

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jeff Brauer
Phil Got it why didn't you?

I was comparing Madoff to the argument that Phil brought up about being popular.
Madoff was popular.

I started my comment saying this had nothing to do with Jones - did you read that?
I was disagreeing with his argument - not the architect.

Lighten up dude.

I'm not saying that Rees hasn't done some poor work, he has, But then again so did Tilly and Ross and Mackenzie and Colt and every great architect who ever lived. I am saying that he isn't being judged fairly by most on here. Consider this, how stupid must all of those wealthy and successful beusiness people, major players in corporate America, actually be if Rees Jones is as poor an architect as some portray him to be? What are you actually saying about literally many thousands of club members who for years now have both employed his firm and KEEP DOING SO? He has to be doing something right for someone...

Thank you for the info Philip.
I want to comment on your argument in the last paragraph.
It has nothing to do with Jones.
It relates more to the difficulty to break into the certain markets....

Bernie Madoff did pretty good by a lot of people for a period of time.
Cheers