[John Kavanaugh]

I think it is strange that when a hairy bunker guy destroys a work of Palmer it is all good but let Rees add a tee here or there on a Bell course that was crap to begin with he is some kind of evildoer.

[JC Jones]

I think it is strange that when a hairy bunker guy destroys a work of Palmer it is all good but let Rees add a tee here or there on a Bell course that was crap to begin with he is some kind of evildoer.

A Palmer course needs to be destroyed to be good.

Anything done to Torrey short of detonating the entire course would be considered an improvement.

[John Kavanaugh]

I think it is strange that when a hairy bunker guy destroys a work of Palmer it is all good but let Rees add a tee here or there on a Bell course that was crap to begin with he is some kind of evildoer.

A Palmer course needs to be destroyed to be good.

JC,

I guess you have not seen Musgrove Mill...Some of my best friends love the place enough to pay dues there.

[JC Jones]

I think it is strange that when a hairy bunker guy destroys a work of Palmer it is all good but let Rees add a tee here or there on a Bell course that was crap to begin with he is some kind of evildoer.

A Palmer course needs to be destroyed to be good.

JC,

I guess you have not seen Musgrove Mill...Some of my best friends love the place enough to pay dues there.

There are exceptions to every rule.  And no, i have not seen it, however a quick google search reveals that it is a AP "Signature" course.  His level of involvement may speak to its decency.  

Then again, there are several people who pay dues to several terrible courses.

[John Kavanaugh]

Then again, there are several people who pay dues to several terrible courses.

I said friends.  I can't think of a friend who pays dues at a crap course.

[JC Jones]

Then again, there are several people who pay dues to several terrible courses.

I said friends.  I can't think of a friend who pays dues at a crap course.

They would otherwise not be your friend?  Fair enough.

[John Kavanaugh]

I tend to be drawn to men who are members of great clubs and have attractive wives.  It has to be more than coincidence.  I do have a few friends who are not currently a member anywhere but their wives are without exception stunners.  An ugly wife and no club is a deal breaker unless they are really lousy poker players.

[Peter Pallotta]

It seems to me that the symptoms are being diagnosed long before the doctor's even called in. And the same symptoms keep getting diagnosed year after year, regardless of who the patient is. Which is to say, the doctor (any doctor) doesn't have much choice in regards to the treatment he'll prescribe; his only choice is whether or not to make the house call in the first place.

Peter

[Gib_Papazian]

Peter,

"If all you gots in yo toolbox is a hammer, then you bound to be treatin' everthin' like a nail."

[Peter Pallotta]

Gib - "When you're right you're right".

But to stretch the analogy: when a score of 280 is the only measure of a healthy patient, and when that patient has been chosen for you and already diagnosed, I think it limits the number of tools at a doctor's disposal; he might as well just bring the hammer.

I guess my point is that we don't talk often enough here about "choice".  In my necessarily humble opinion, I think the difference between most professional architects in terms of their conceptual understanding and practical talent is actually quite small.

What really separates architects, I think, is their beliefs about what an ideal golf course should be and do, and more importantly, their choice as to whether or not they will honour that belief first and foremost, or instead let other factors (e.g. money, career-building, fame, prestige) come first.

Which is to say, I think that most architects know very well what they'd be expected to do to 'doctor' a course for the US Open, and they probably know that the tools at their disposal would be very limited. The only important or meaningful difference between potential architects is the choice they'd make either to take on, or pass up, that assignment in the first place.

Peter

PS - I actually think it's probably good that we don't talk about "choice" more often. Who amongst would be able to cast the first stone and judge another man's professional choices/priorities? And if anyone did, I think it would pretty much end all disucssion; not a good thing on a discussion board.    

[John Kavanaugh]

What really separates architects, I think, is their beliefs about what an ideal golf course should be and do, and more importantly, their choice as to whether or not they will honour that belief first and foremost, or instead let other factors (e.g. money, career-building, fame, prestige) come first.

Do not question Rees's integrity.  He does not need your money, career-buiding, fame or prestige.

[Michael Dugger]

How about the notion there is no need for an "Open Dr."

It always seemed to me if it wasn't for this tinkering the common man wouldn't even know who Rees Jones is.

I mean c'mon, does every classic course need a facelift before it is deemed capable of hosting the U.S. Open?

[Dan Kelly]

Please give an example where Rees butchered a course.

Butchered? No. But I, for one (and I may be the only one), liked Hazeltine better before it was "doctored."

That and a few bucks will get you a fancy coffee.

[David Stamm]

"While weaknesses in the existing course are usually cited as the underlying reason for redesign work, the real moving force is more often vanity than necessity."


"About the only thing to be said with certainty is that any change to an original design deviates from the original architect's decision on the matter, and stands a great chance of working against the continuity of the design"


"The most universal mistake of redesign work is to rebuild the course by adopting the latest trends in golf architecture."


All quotes are from Anatomy of a Golf Course, Tom Doak.

[Peter Pallotta]

No one's questioning Rees' integrity, John. That wasn't the subject, until you made it so. The thread and my post are about other potental US Open doctors; and even then it's not about integrity but choice.  

Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

Rees is in the title of the thread.

[David Stamm]

How about the notion there is no need for an "Open Dr."

It always seemed to me if it wasn't for this tinkering the common man wouldn't even know who Rees Jones is.

I mean c'mon, does every classic course need a facelift before it is deemed capable of hosting the U.S. Open?

Michael, I agree with these statements. Why does the USGA feel it "needs" to redo these course that they themselves wax so poetically about? Do they not feel some responsibilty to protect the designs of these clubs? Do they not state that they are the "protectors" of the game? The answer to your last question for the most part is no. Does the distance the ball goes today require that longer tee's be installed? Sure, if you want to test the best players. But when greens are altered to accomodate a certain stimp measurement it's assanine. When the artistry of the original bunker styles are changed for one tournament, it's assanine. When the USGA allows such changes at courses, isn't akin to saying that the course wasn't good enough to begin with for their tournament? I believe the blame lies with the USGA since they themsleves could tell Rees Jones at any time that they don't want him altering the integrity of the original design. In some cases, Jones has done just that and has done a pretty good job. (TCC, BB) In some cases he hasn't. But no one has twisted the arms of the members of these clubs to allow these changes as well. There is enough "blame" to go around with all parties involved.

[Cabell Ackerly]

Please give an example where Rees butchered a course.  It was my opinion that both Bethpage and Torrey were improved by his work.

CC of VA - James River Course.

In CCV's efforts to upgrade their facility and potentially get a 3rd US Amateur, they hired Rees Jones in 1993 to renovate the William Flynn design (based on his work at Brookline – Rees was recommended by some USGA folks).

Almost every member would agree that he left the course significantly worse than how he found it, and the club never scared getting the Amateur.

Regardless of whether or not the course ever had enough “architectural integrity" to hold the Amateur, it speaks volumes about Rees’s work that after only 10 years, another architect was brought in to "restore" the course in 2003.

[Michael Dugger]

How about the notion there is no need for an "Open Dr."

It always seemed to me if it wasn't for this tinkering the common man wouldn't even know who Rees Jones is.

I mean c'mon, does every classic course need a facelift before it is deemed capable of hosting the U.S. Open?

Michael, I agree with these statements. Why does the USGA feel it "needs" to redo these course that they themselves wax so poetically about? Do they not feel some responsibilty to protect the designs of these clubs? Do they not state that they are the "protectors" of the game? The answer to your last question for the most part is no. Does the distance the ball goes today require that longer tee's be installed? Sure, if you want to test the best players. But when greens are altered to accomodate a certain stimp measurement it's assanine. When the artistry of the original bunker styles are changed for one tournament, it's assanine. When the USGA allows such changes at courses, isn't akin to saying that the course wasn't good enough to begin with for their tournament? I believe the blame lies with the USGA since they themsleves could tell Rees Jones at any time that they don't want him altering the integrity of the original design. In some cases, Jones has done just that and has done a pretty good job. (TCC, BB) In some cases he hasn't. But no one has twisted the arms of the members of these clubs to allow these changes as well. There is enough "blame" to go around with all parties involved.

I find it interesting, however, that while the powers that be seem to think longer tees are required to test the best players, we are bringing the open back to Merion, once again.

Distance shminstance.......we all know what best protects par against "these guys who are good" is fast and firm greens....a la Shinnecock.

 

[Chuck Brown]

We could cut out the middleman, and just go to Wally Uihlein and his creation, "Ian MacAllister" to provide us with future golf courses.  (In whose commercials Mr. Rees Jones has made a number of cameo appearances.)

There is no doubt that as the bloodline-heir to the title, "Open Doctor," Rees Jones is open to lots of abuse, some of it perhaps undeserved.

But one of the worst offenses with which I have some personal familiarity is Jones' butchering (I simply can't imangine another appropriate term) of the gentle and delicate dogleg 15th hole at Oakland Hills, in preparation for next year's 2008 PGA Championship.  Where there once was a single Donald Ross bunker in the center of the fairway at the dogleg, Jones has now placed another, rearward and slightly left, with the sole consideration being how to make the hole harder for 21st Century touring professionals.  The problem he faced was that the back tee location was already hard against the boundary fence of the property.  No more land was available.  And tour pros now just hit the ball too far for the hole as originally designed.  One can argue that Rees Jones had no choice; he had to do something and there was no way to go backwards, and blowing up the 15th green was not an option.  Jones might be able to say that he had done the best that he could under the circumstances.  But he can't say that -- not as long as he is shilling for Titleist and its ever-longer golf balls.  The best thing for the 15th at OHCC was not to add another bunker.  The best thing for the 15th at OHCC would have been a ball rollback.

[Gib_Papazian]

Chuck,

I might be wrong, but I think the Jones in those Titleist ads was Bobby, not Rees . . . . .

Also - and I am Oakland Hills expert - I wonder if they bunker was located there by Donald Ross or R.T. Jones Sr.

C'mon, someoby on this board has got to know the answer.

[Joe Hancock]

Chuck,

I might be wrong, but I think the Jones in those Titleist ads was Bobby, not Rees . . . . .

Also - and I am Oakland Hills expert - I wonder if they bunker was located there by Donald Ross or R.T. Jones Sr.

C'mon, someoby on this board has got to know the answer.

Cooking with wine tonight, Gib?

 

[archie_struthers]

 


Me....LOL just dreaming....I've got more time than he does

[JC Jones]

We could cut out the middleman, and just go to Wally Uihlein and his creation, "Ian MacAllister" to provide us with future golf courses.  (In whose commercials Mr. Rees Jones has made a number of cameo appearances.)

There is no doubt that as the bloodline-heir to the title, "Open Doctor," Rees Jones is open to lots of abuse, some of it perhaps undeserved.

But one of the worst offenses with which I have some personal familiarity is Jones' butchering (I simply can't imangine another appropriate term) of the gentle and delicate dogleg 15th hole at Oakland Hills, in preparation for next year's 2008 PGA Championship.  Where there once was a single Donald Ross bunker in the center of the fairway at the dogleg, Jones has now placed another, rearward and slightly left, with the sole consideration being how to make the hole harder for 21st Century touring professionals.  The problem he faced was that the back tee location was already hard against the boundary fence of the property.  No more land was available.  And tour pros now just hit the ball too far for the hole as originally designed.  One can argue that Rees Jones had no choice; he had to do something and there was no way to go backwards, and blowing up the 15th green was not an option.  Jones might be able to say that he had done the best that he could under the circumstances.  But he can't say that -- not as long as he is shilling for Titleist and its ever-longer golf balls.  The best thing for the 15th at OHCC was not to add another bunker.  The best thing for the 15th at OHCC would have been a ball rollback.

Chuck

I am looking at the aerial right now and it still only shows the single bunker.

Is the new bunker you speak of towards the inside of the dog leg and further from the tee box?  What is the distance from the back tees to the original bunker and what is the distance from the back tees to the new bunker (presumably) on the inside of the dog leg?

[Chuck Brown]

JC - the aerial you are looking at must be old.

Gib - you ask a very good question; is the first fairway bunker at OHCC 15 a true Ross bunker, or is it a 1951 Trent Jones addition?  I am quite certain (although I was not born yet in 1951) that the original bunker was a Ross bunker, and that it appears on pre-war aerial photos of OHCC.  I have seen two different aerials of the course from before the 1951 changes.  There may well be many more aerials that I have not seen, but I do recall seeing two different pictures.  (As you know, the great absence of trees is overwhelmingly dramatic.)

Others here may know, or may know where to go to take a quick look at the older aerials.  Anyway, I'll be as interested as you in what the truth is.

I will say this.  If I am mistaken in my recollection of the pre-Trent Jones aerials, and if the 15-fairway bunker was a Trent Jones creation, it was genius on Jones' part, because it fit that hole perfectly.  And, talking to OHCC members now, i hear many of them say, "There's just no place to try to be aggressive off the tee anymore; the hole is a much less interesting forced layup."

Gib, what have you been hearing about it?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()