Rees Jones Originals vs. Redesigns

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat/Rees
Please before you change the subject just answer my questions. First did you post pictures of Atlantic and Nantucket and solicit comments? Do you remember that you also gave your impressions of the Nantucket photos, in commenting on those photos did 'you possess the talent, the genius, to look at a photo, or several photos, and from those photos, evaluate the entire golf course'? I'll answer that for you, no you did not. You were simply commenting on your observations in the photo -- its done every day. You are intelligent enough and have seen enough golf courses and enough photos of golf courses to make simple observations. Give it rest, you don't have to be the photo Nazi.

Perhaps I misunderstood the information about your contacts with Rees following your many defenses -- it must have been a phone call.  You defend Rees from unfair, fair, legitimate, illigitimate, personal, non-personal, from any criticism. Pat Mucci your gig is up, the truth is you are in fact Rees Jones.

PS: We agree you can not evaluate an entire golf course from photos.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?  

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

Amen for your comments -- good not be said any better.  

You're absolutely right about some people on GCA who convey "most favored architect status" at will. I, along with others, take a more a pragmatic stance and don't get caught with the "feeding frenzy" (as you so accurately describe) that happens against certain specific architects -- to wit, Rees Jones name on numerous occasions.

Like yourself I do know Rees and I have communicated to him on certain designs he has done that I personally did not feel were well done -- most recently, Tattersall in West Chester, PA. But, I have also weighed in with my opinion on designs that I believe are the very best he's done, to wit -- The Bridge, Olde Kinderhook and Nantucket. I formed those opinions from having tplayed the courses named and after examing over the course of time a range of courses he's designed.

You're absolutely right -- unless people make a conscious effort to play a golf course in question all generalized course comments gleaned from photos or second or third hand sources is really a failure in someone doing one's homework and truly a grave injustice to the team of people who built any golf course. There are a number of people who look at a photo and get sucked into the pre-course spin (witness the comments on The Bridge) and start to automatically ascribe the attitude that if "so and so" built the course it must therefore be "great" or "poor."

Well done Mr. Mucci indeed ...

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Defenders of Rees
I really could care less who are the most favored architects or the least favored architects. My point originally and my point consistently, has been that you two have no right to tell anyone on this site how they must judge Rees's or anyother architect' work - what is fair and what is not fair, as if you two are the guiding lights of equity.  My goal on this thread was not to discuss Rees's work, (I have no desire to bring up his work - it isn't worth it), my goal on this thread was stop all the conditions that you two try to place on the Rees commentary. I'm trying to promote the free exchange of analysis and stop you oligarchs from stifling commentary.

In my mind far too much time is devoted to Rees on this site, he frankly doesn't deserve the amount of words, negative or positive - I suspect he wouldn't be discussed nearly as much if you two weren't so hell bent on attacking/defending even the slightest critical comment. It always turns into a free-for-all that has never added a single interesting thought to this site. One question, is it possible that you two are right and the majority are wrong about Rees or are you actually leading a silent majority?

One man's biases are another man's good taste.

Now back to are regularly scheduled Rees commentary -- it should be extremely stimulating. Sweet dreams.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

You have a great ability to "twist" comments to suit your point. I often scratch my head and ask what it is.

Both Pat and I have pointed out that we are not on Rees payroll and that we do highlight elements in his design that are lacking when we have played the courses in question. Commentary that speaks to entire courses can only be credible when people play the layout(s) in question. Anything less in my mind is just spouting without any real basis. That's neither fair nor appropriate. I'm sure you will disagree because of the point (whatever that is?) you are making.

Pat Mucci's comments are very well presented. If you have an issue with them please respond specifically.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You said that I tell people on this site how to JUDGE Rees.
Could you cite me a specific example, or is this just another WILD statement from you, meant to divert attention from the core issue, but without any basis in fact, similar to your false allegation that I receive emails from Rees.

Am I allowed to remark that your absolutely false statement that I receive Emails from Rees is..... unfair ?

There is an adage some Law Proffesor's quote,
"False in one, False in many."

You're now telling me that I can't tell anyone on this site that I think they are being unfair ?  It seems that you're the one trying to stifle discussion and debate because Matt and I may have some positions that may not be in harmony with yours,  
Is that fair ?
  
Are you permited to tell me what you think is fair ?

When you were critical of Atlantic and Rees' work there,
and you stated that Atlantic was built on a good site,
yet you had never been there to see the property prior to the golf course, nor have you ever seen or played the golf course since, don't you think I'm permited to tell you that I think you are being unfair ?  That possessing no personal first hand knowledge, your assessment is unfair !  
That doesn't sound unreasonable does it ?  

When Brian Schneider attributed the mounds at Hollywood to Rees, even though Brian had never been to Hollywood prior to Rees's engagement, to see that the mounds existance pre-dated Rees, don't you think I have the right, if not the obligation, to tell him that his misdirected and unfactual criticism of Rees was..... unfair.

When an anonymous poster states that Rees's designs don't make him think, and no one on this site says boo about such an idiotic statement, can't I raise the issue of bias ?
Is that fair ?

You state that Rees's work isn't worth bringing up on this site,
Who else's work do you think we ought to censor from discussion on this site, Emporor Tom ?  Is that fair ?