Why doesn't Rees Jones get any love?

« **Reply #75 on:** June 28, 2006, 06:05:25 PM »

Tom Paul,

I assume you married this woman. And, if a woman should ever ask me to go "frog-giggin" in the middle of the night, . . . I think I'd give it a try.

« **Reply #76 on:** June 28, 2006, 06:19:45 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on June 28, 2006, 02:46:19 PM

We do differ on the subject of architects and clients but not exacltly in the way you just mentioned. You think memberships bear responsibility for the outcome of projects in all cases and ways and I'm afraid that is just not the way it works in reality on many projects.

We disagree.

Of course since the golf course is the responsibiltiy of those who represent memberships then obviously they probably do bear ultimate responsibility for it but I've seen a number of clubs who with the best intentions depend on various architects to give them a "restoration", for instance.

A club can't STOP at the best intentions line.
A club's responsibility extends far beyond that.
A club is responsible for all of the plans and all of the work done to their golf course.

If the first bunker isn't right, you don't allow the rest of the bunkers to be built because they're part of the plan.

Oversight and intervention are a club's right, if not obligation.

If the work deviates from the plan, the project should stop, the work should be corrected, the parties reconnected with respect to the ultimate goal, and then the project can resume.

The fact is most all memberships have never done anything like that before and it's impossible to expect them to know all the pitfalls involved for that reason alone.

That's very true, hence they usually entrust an individual or a group to carry the ball.

So, they have this mentality that if they just tell ANY architect that they want a restoration they will get the same thing from any and ever architect or the thing they want.

Here's where we disagree.
When you ask members to spend increasing amounts of money, from $ 1,000 to $ 5,000 or $ 10,000 on a project, their learning curve accelerates rather rapidly, usually in direct proportion to the hit they'll take in their pocketbook.

That is just a flat-ass fallacy because so many architects themselves have vastly different opinions of what to do even if the membership asks for a restoration.

Ignorance is no excuse, under the law, or when your spending millions of the memberships money.

The leaders, those responsible for the project have a clear duty to be well informed, to know what the membership wants BEFORE plans are drawn, to approve those plans, to fund the project and to provide careful oversight on design and construction issues.

Anything less is irresponsible and incompetence

In other words, if you think those who tell any architect to give them a restoration will get the same thing even if they try to monitor the hell out of all the details then you are still denser than even I think you are.

Well, it's quite true.
I'm a lot denser today than I was a while ago.

Requests for restorations result in formal plans
Those plans are reviewed by the committee and the membership.
If the plans are approved, there's a contractual duty for the architect to implement them, with some artistic leeway granted in the field.

But, any committee member or PIC needs to be actively involved as they/he SOLELY represents the membership's interest. That's the duty they've been charged with, oversight.

That applies to the financial as well as the artistic arena.

For God Sakes, I've seen a few clubs whose representatives went into a restoration project virtually clueless of most everything to do with the restoratin project and have the restoration work out beautifully. The fact is they just lucked out and picked a really great restorer without even realizing it.

I would agree.
IF A CLUB DOESN'T KNOW AT THE OUTSET, WHAT THEY WANT, THEY'LL MOST LIKELY END UP GETTING WHAT THEY DIDN'T WANT, unless they get really, really lucky.

« **Reply #77 on:** June 28, 2006, 06:22:41 PM »

SPDB,

I'd agree.

I don't avoid any course.

I'd rather play it and make up my own mind as opposed to listening to someone whose tastes and perceptions may differ from mine.

« **Reply #78 on:** June 28, 2006, 06:49:24 PM »

SPDB,
That's why I'm going to look at his new course in Lancaster Co, Ledgerock.

« **Reply #79 on:** June 29, 2006, 09:18:29 AM »

SPDB,

Ditto Dan Hermann.

Tommy,

Never played Quintero...only basing my comments on its high ranking.

« **Reply #80 on:** June 29, 2006, 09:22:10 AM »

Mike,

How can Ledgerock be on schedule with all this rain...When I talked to them yesterday they said they already had nine holes open.

« **Reply #81 on:** June 29, 2006, 09:30:47 AM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on June 29, 2006, 09:22:10 AM

Mike,

How can Ledgerock be on schedule with all this rain...When I talked to them yesterday they said they already had nine holes open.

John,

The rain couldn't have helped, that's for sure. We were inundated and I'm sure every course in the area had some type of creek and pond overflow.

If the other nine is on high ground, and is just in the final growing in stage, then it might not be such a bad thing.

I'll let folks know when they open.

« **Reply #82 on:** June 29, 2006, 10:01:19 AM »

There's nothing wrong with listening to someone and avoiding a course, provided you understand and respect the other person's opinions.

Quote from: Rich Goodale on June 28, 2006, 02:15:15 PM

Tommy

As Pat implies, you can't have it both ways. If the 1995 PGA debacle (your words) was solely the owners' fault, then the successes of Sand Hills and Friars Head were also solely due to the owners'. By this logic, C&C (and Doak, Rees, Robinson, etc.) are just cogs in the machine with no capacity for independent thought. If so, why are we discussing GCA anyway? Maybe we should be discussing governance and stewardship? If you'd like to do this I'll get some of my B-school buddies to start posting, and if you think you are bored now, just wait for them to start pontificating!

Rich

I guess my poor reading skills are showing up again, because this is remarkably oversimplistic logic, imho.

Each case requires individual analysis. Two different owners could present two entirely different scenarios. One owner might be overly involved and not take the architect's advice, while the other owner might be overly trusting and give the architect carte blanche. If the latter architect resulis in a screwup, sure the owner deserves a little blame for being too trusting, but it was ultimately the architect that screwed up.

In the case of C&C at Riviera, I have always been under the impression that the only aspect of their work that was questioned was the poor green surfaces. AND I was also under the impression that they advised reseeding the greens, but the owner decided to re-sod to get the course open quicker. Hard for me to see how that reflects in any way on them, other than maybe they are too nice of guys.

« **Reply #83 on:** June 29, 2006, 10:12:44 AM »

George

You are generally right, but if you have read what Tommy was posting, you will know that he objected to my statement to the effect that (my emphases) "C&C's work at Riviera was APPARENTLY not a ROARING SUCCESS." All that said is what it says, i.e. C&C worked at Riviera, and from what I can see and hear (viz. the word "apparently") it was not a "roaring success." Tommy has never deigned to deal with that simple statement, preferring to reply with fuzzy logic and personal invectives.

That's his choice.

What do you think, George? Was C&C's work at Riviera a "roaring success?" You know as much as I do as neither of us have played there (I think), but each of us does have a brain and can interpret the information that is available to us. To me, apparently their work there was not a roaring success. That's all I have said and all I will ever say about this "issue" until people like Tommy. who seem to think they know better, will tell me where and how that carefully phrased/mealy mouthed assertion is wrong.

Have a good day!

Rich

« **Reply #84 on:** June 29, 2006, 11:11:32 AM »

George,
You hit the nail right on the head of what my complaint is with Rich.

Are Coore & Crenshaw perfect? Of course not. But if the person (Rich) who is making an innaccurate statement as such, who has never even been on the property, let alone even researched what exactly transpired from an event which they were wrongly asserted blame, and then when confronted can't back any of it up with proof or evidence other then a breakdown of exactly what he meant--which isn't even close to what he was suggesting--well, I rely on your good intellect to figure it out exactly what Rich was getting at. If this is called fuzzy logic, and personal invectiveness, what was Rich doing when he made this statement in the first place?

I think Rich's comments here are more identifying himself as well as his motives. That playing the contrarian is not his strong suit--especially when he can't back any of his ascertations up.

« **Reply #85 on:** June 29, 2006, 11:18:04 AM »

It's hard for me to say one can say someone's work is not a rousing success when one admittedly knows so little of what actually transpired.

It might be literally true - using the "apparently" almost absolves one of all responsibility with regard to the consequences - but it is a highly misleading statement, imho.

« **Reply #86 on:** June 29, 2006, 11:24:15 AM »

Tommy, Tommy, Tommy....

Even if one excludes your continuous use of a word that does not exist ("ascertations") your posts are just thoughtless muddles and drivel. You have obviously not read what I have said, nor even care to. Shame on you.

I'll absolve you if you can give me even a scintilla of evidence that C&C's work at Riviera was a "roaring success." If not, you should look very carefully in the mirror.....

Cheerfully

Rich

PS--I have read "Rough Meditations" just in case you want to resurrect that line of your "argument"......

« **Reply #87 on:** June 29, 2006, 11:34:39 AM »

Quote from: George Pazin on June 29, 2006, 11:18:04 AM

It's hard for me to say one can say someone's work is not a rousing success when one admittedly knows so little of what actually transpired.

It might be literally true - using the "apparently" almost absolves one of all responsibility with regard to the consequences - but it is a highly misleading statement, imho.

George

Thanks for being my Jiminy Cricket

The quote below comes form Sports Ilustrated in 1998, and I found it (in a minute or two) only after Tommy started to niggle me.

"In 1994 Noboru Watanabe, Riviera's owner, hired Ben Crenshaw and Bill Coore to rebuild the club's decaying greens for the '95 PGA. The sod didn't take, and the greens got worse."

Now, if you do not think that that statement does not qualify for the qualifier "apparently" and the substance not qualify for some sort of absence of evidence of a "roaring success" then you'll have to go back to your room, George. PS--I know you might have to parse that sentence, but trust me, it works!

I know you like to spar with me, Buckaroo, but don't try puching back when you are on the floor. Tommy tries to do it all the time and you can't believe how it alters his reputation for the worse........

« **Reply #88 on:** June 29, 2006, 11:51:39 AM »

Dan,

re: Avoidance of Rees.

I know far far more people who like Rees' work than not, so this is likely another example of GCA arteeeeests' being disappointed that a guy who builds Chevy's does not have the chops to pencil out a Porsche.

As a consumer though, it is perfectly legitimate to avoid courses by a particular architect just as it is understandable to choose not to sit through a movie or television show by a creator based on their past offerings.

If Ridley Scott directs a movie, I am likely to see it. If Aaron Spelling pukes another Love Boat onto my television, the remote clicker goes directly to ESPN.

Now, if assigned, I go into any Rees course with an open mind and - if anything - give certain aspects the benefit of the doubt. Mayacama blew me away - so it is possible to instantly change my perception about what is possible. . . . starting with Nicklaus.

However, being a business traveler, when I arrive in a new city and peruse the list of courses to play, if I see the name(s) Doak, C&C or Harbottle. . . . or a remodel by Ron Forse for instance . . . . it is going to pique my interest. If it says Rees Jones, somebody I respect is going to have to tell me to have a look because of an accumulation of negative experiences.

Why doesn't Rees get any love?

The question is poppycock unless confined to this board. The fact is that he gets plumb assignments and makes millions and millions of dollars as the U.S. Open Doctor.

Bethpage is a stunning success, no doubt . . . . I've just not played it. So, maybe that will change my mind . . . . .

Even if he thinks I am an opinionated ass.

« **Reply #89 on:** June 29, 2006, 11:54:58 AM »

So what was wrong the the Love Boat, Gibster!

« **Reply #90 on:** June 29, 2006, 12:00:04 PM »

Rich, the problem with that sentence is that I don't know who wrote it, or what he based his statement on. My understanding is that C&C were very explicit in wanting to re-seed the greens, and that the owner ignored their recommendations and went ahead with a re-sodding. I don't really see how you can fault them for that.

« **Reply #91 on:** June 29, 2006, 12:13:50 PM »

George

Even if what you say is true, does that constitute a "roaring success?" Not by my standards, but yours and Tommy's might be much lower than mine.....

Rich

« **Reply #92 on:** June 29, 2006, 12:24:07 PM »

Rich,
I don't care what you think about my reputation, and I'll continue to think on my own accord, thank you. All of which is to go off of things beyond what Sports Illustrated or the Love Boat try to teach me.

If you have read Rough Meditations, why then didn't you take that into account when you so brazenly made your acceleratory statement in regards to Coore & Crenshaw?

« **Reply #93 on:** June 29, 2006, 12:36:25 PM »

Revelation 3:15-16
(15) I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. (16) So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

« **Reply #94 on:** June 29, 2006, 12:58:56 PM »

Quote from: Rich Goodale on June 29, 2006, 12:13:50 PM

George

Even if what you say is true, does that constitute a "roaring success?" Not by my standards, but yours and Tommy's might be much lower than mine.....

Rich

Are you sure you're not a lawyer?

I don't see how one can comment in any way, whether or not C&C's work was a "roaring success".

If you came to me with a t shirt design, and I told you what would and wouldn't work, and you chose to ignore my advice and go with what I said wouldn't work, and then it didn't work, would you say that my work was not a "roaring success"?

P.S. I enjoy sparring with you because you're so rarely right, imho. However, I will say, when you're right, you are usually very right. But in this case, you're wrong.

« **Reply #95 on:** June 29, 2006, 12:59:30 PM »

Quote from: Tommy Naccarato on June 29, 2006, 12:24:07 PM

Rich,
I don't care what you think about my reputation, and I'll continue to think on my own accord, thank you. All of which is to go off of things beyond what Sports Illustrated or the Love Boat try to teach me.

If you have read Rough Meditations, why then didn't you take that into account when you so brazenly made your acceleratory statement in regards to Coore & Crenshaw?

Cheeso, Tommy!

You keep sending me back to my dictionaries to look for words that do not exist! Please define "acceleratory" and how I used that word (or equivalent) in any discussion of C&C.

Since you don't seem to have a clue I'll remind you what I said, in effect, relating to C&C, and in big letters so you can maybe remember them:

"APPARENTLY C&C'S WORK AT RIVIERA WAS NOT A ROARING SUCCESS."

Nobody--you, Brad, George, or anybody else has disputed that statement. You've danced over it like an exaltation of dead lark angels on the top of a pin, but you cannot dispute it, because it is indisputable. Get over it, Tommy! Your heroes are NOT perfect!

Rich

PS--just because I read Brad's book doesn't mean that I agree with all he said. Far from it. He's just as fallible as you or I, possibly even more so.

R

« **Reply #96 on:** June 29, 2006, 01:06:36 PM »

But Brad has more golf architecture knowledge than 98% of the rest of us. In almost all cases, I'll defer to him and try to listen and learn something.

« **Reply #97 on:** June 29, 2006, 01:09:30 PM »

Dan

Based on what I have read, I'd put the number closer to 90%, but in any case the words "all" and "almost" are the relevant ones.

Rich

« **Reply #98 on:** June 29, 2006, 01:15:36 PM »

Quote from: Rich Goodale on June 29, 2006, 12:59:30 PM

"APPARENTLY C&C'S WORK AT RIVIERA WAS NOT A ROARING SUCCESS."

Nobody--you, Brad, George, or anybody else has disputed that statement.

I will dispute the statement.

If one is commenting on the greens, then one is commenting on the owner's work, not C&C's.

The only thing that remotely saves you is your qualifiers. Find one person who "apparently" doesn't feel it was a "roaring success" and your statement is valid, if highly misleading.

« **Reply #99 on:** June 29, 2006, 01:19:09 PM »

I smell 30+ pages for this thread.

Can we beat Michelle Wie??

News:

Tim Pitner

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Dan Herrmann

Mike_Cirba

John Kavanaugh

Mike_Cirba

George Pazin

ForkaB

Tommy_Naccarato

George Pazin

ForkaB

ForkaB

Gib_Papazian

ForkaB

George Pazin

ForkaB

Tommy_Naccarato

Gib_Papazian

George Pazin

ForkaB

Dan Herrmann

ForkaB

George Pazin

Mike_Cirba