[Andy Hughes]

What you and many others may be missing is this:
Perhaps, this is exactly what the owner/developer wanted.
Most owner/developers, especially ones with millions invested in a large scale housing project, don't give an architect carte blanche.
No owner/developer would risk millions and be willing to be surprised on opening day.
Perhaps the owner/developer saw another Rees Jones course, contacted him and asked him to build a similar golf course at Quintero.
If people are shelling out millions of dollars for a golf/residential community one hour or more outside of phoenix, there must be something of value that they perceive they're getting for their money.
As, I've said, I've never seen or played the golf course, so I'm unqualified to offer an in depth, thorough analysis, as many others are willing to do.  I'm just not that talented.

Pat, I find this to be a somewhat odd perspective when the architectural elements/architecural merits of the course are the discussion.
Even if a course architect creates a course that is 100%, spot-on what the owner wanted, what bearing does that have on how 'good', or 'awful', the course is?  At that point, assuming the (hypothetical) course is awful, all that could be said is that the achitect created an awful course and gave the owner what he wanted.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy Huges,

Don't couch your comments in the hypothetical realm., it's a waste of time.
Let's deal with the courses being discussed

Don't you find your position conflicted ?

Quintera is a golf course that was in the Golfweek top 50 modern course list.  That's pretty lofty territory.

And, somehow, you've transitioned the discussion to convey a mind set of an awful golf course that the owner wanted.

That's an absurd leap, but not untypical of what goes on when Rees and Fazio are discussed.

Have you played Cascata and Quintero ?

If Quintero is so awful, how on earth did it get into the top 50 Golfweek Modern list ?

More then a few people must have liked it, and placed it above other courses.

Is every single positive opinion WRONG, based on the GCA.com Rees principle ?

[Andy Hughes]

Don't couch your comments in the hypothetical realm., it's a waste of time.
Let's deal with the courses being discussed

The hypothetical aspect of this discussion came about because you brought it in Pat, not I. You said: "Perhaps, this is exactly what the owner/developer wanted."
So unless you know that this is what the owner wanted, it remains in the land of hypothesis/supposition.

Don't you find your position conflicted ?
Quintera is a golf course that was in the Golfweek top 50 modern course list.  That's pretty lofty territory.

Nope, I don't feel in the least conflicted, and yes, that is lofty.

And, somehow, you've transitioned the discussion to convey a mind set of an awful golf course that the owner wanted.

Nope Pat, I haven't done that at all.  Again, you are the one who brought in the possibility that the course is exactly what the owner wanted, not I.  All I did was ask you what the owner's wishes for the course had to do with its architecural merits (or lack thereof).

That's an absurd leap, but not untypical of what goes on when Rees and Fazio are discussed.

It would be a absurd leap, if it had anything at all to do with what I said. Since it doesn't, I assume we can agree that there was no absurd leap?
The course itself was being discussed, its features, its strengths, its weaknesses. Someone, out of the blue, injected the possibility that perhaps the course is exactly the way the owner said he wanted it.

Have you played Cascata and Quintero ?

Nope!

If Quintero is so awful, how on earth did it get into the top 50 Golfweek Modern list ?
More then a few people must have liked it, and placed it above other courses.
Is every single positive opinion WRONG, based on the GCA.com Rees principle ?

You will need to point out to me Pat where exactly I said Quintero not just awful, but 'so awful'.  Short of being able to do so, I think it is fair to say you are off on a bit of a rant that isn't really based on fact or anything I said.

[George Pazin]

Matt -

Don't you find it curious that Tommy came to the same conclusion as you on Quintero, yet he hasn't done the heavy lifting on Rees courses that you have?

It's a shame that many here on GCA have such a limited understanding of the courses mentioned.

[Patrick_Mucci]

At that point, assuming the (hypothetical) course is awful, all that could be said is that the achitect created an awful course and gave the owner what he wanted.

This is what you said, emphasis added.

You implied that the course was awful by juxtaposing that qualifier in your hypothetical about the owner, when in fact, the course being discussed, Quintero, made Golfweek's top 50 modern list.

Your premise, that an owner would want an awful golf course, is absurd.

That you see no attempt on your part to mislead or misdirect the reader as to the quality of Quintero is part of your inherent bias ?

I brought up a very real possibility/probability, not the far fetched hypothetical that an owner wanted a bad golf course, that's absurd, and you know it.

Quintero making the top 50 would seem to indicate that the owner got what he wanted, a superior product, with architectural merit.

Tommy Naccarato posts two pictures of A SINGLE bunker and you and others pounce on the quality of the entire golf course, never having set foot on it.

Remind me, how many of Tommy Naccarato's, Matt Ward's or your courses have made it into the top 50 ?[/color]

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Touche' George! Touche'!

Pat, The pictures are of two SEPERATE bunkers on two holes that are parallel to each other, one after the other and are close to the same in look and play and setting. The pictures are not of the same bunker.

I just wanted to clarify that, again.

It is my opinion Quintero is a course that has been overrated and does not deserve to be in any Top 100 ranking. You can decide for yourself all the reasons why it deserves to be there but according to any sort of critieria--it fails on most every level.

For what its worth, I believe Matt shares the same opinion as I do as far as the course is concerned. As far as the club and the property itself, well honestly, its easy to see why some might overrate it. I think as a club, the place is going to outshine the golf course.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

And Pat, How many courses of yours have made it into the Top 50?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

'm not as offended by the picture of the bunker as you and others appear to be.

How did it fit within the strategic design of the hole ?

What strategy?

How did it play ?

I don't know, I was asleep.....

Until I know those answers, I'm unqualified to judge its relative merit.

Then why are you posting on this?

What you and many others may be missing is this:

Perhaps, this is exactly what the owner/developer wanted.

I don't doubt that one bit.

I think they wanted a big name designer and they got exactly what that big name has been known to produce on a somewhat regular basis. Some like it, most don't. I also don't think sales are that brisk.

Most owner/developers, especially ones with millions invested in a large scale housing project, don't give an architect carte blanche.

Pat, you don't know much about Rees Jones' perrogatives when he does his thing, do you?  Rees standing rule is that he has full control of the design of the golf course.

Another way of looking at it is that he could simply turn it down if he didn't like the way the project was going to come out. With his level of success as an architect, you would think he would be more concentrated on producing quality rather then quantity. Quintero more then proves his trust in Fed Ex, UPS and the US Postal system.

No owner/developer would risk millions and be willing to be surprised on opening day.

Perhaps the owner/developer saw another Rees Jones course, contacted him and asked him to build a similar golf course at Quintero.

Pat, I don't doubt this one bit. Your probably exactly right about this. I would also suspect the owner/developer doesn't know much about quality compared to name value. Thus is the problem with most developers in America. The quality takes a back seat to quantity. This is why we are a nation of hype, consumption and compulsion. Those three tools that tap into the American mindset--BUY! BUY! BUY! Whatever it takes to make a buck!

If people are shelling out millions of dollars for a golf/residential community one hour or more outside of phoenix, there must be something of value that they perceive they're getting for their money.

As, I've said, I've never seen or played the golf course, so I'm unqualified to offer an in depth, thorough analysis, as many others are willing to do.  I'm just not that talented.

Pat, your selling yourself short again. Your a tremendous litagator. You just lose every case you litagate when defending Russ Jones!

Time for me to do my part. I'm out the door and on my way to Costco!

[Andy Hughes]

At that point, assuming the (hypothetical) course is awful, all that could be said is that the achitect created an awful course and gave the owner what he wanted.

This is what you said, emphasis added.]

Yes Pat, that is what I said, after you brought in the totally hypothetical notion that maybe the course was exactly what the owner wanted.  By doing that, you changed the entire direction of the discussion from one of specifics on the architecture of this course to hypotheticals as you have no idea if the owner wanted the course like that. Or do you? If not, then you, not me, veered this off-course and brought supposition into play.
My reason for specifically using the word 'hypothetical' I thought was clear: to try and clarify your point when you aparently tried to excuse the architecture of the course by saying in effect 'well, maybe its what the owner wanted.'  I tried to separate my question about that rather odd stance from this course and make it general.

You implied that the course was awful by juxtaposing that qualifier in your hypothetical about the owner, when in fact, the course being discussed, Quintero, made Golfweek's top 50 modern list.

I implied nothing Pat. I was trying to get at the meaning of your end around, whereby you excuse what may be awful architecture by saying 'well, perhaps the owner wanted it that way.' I also specifically said it was a hypothetical course so it wouldn't reflect on Quintero.  

Your premise, that an owner would want an awful golf course, is absurd.

Yes, that is an absurd premise. Its also not my premise.  You're trying way to hard Pat to see a bogeyman where there isn't one.

That you see no attempt on your part to mislead or misdirect the reader as to the quality of Quintero is part of your inherent bias ?

While I have big buckets full of biases, I'm afraid I don't have ANY bias as it relates to Quintero.  I have no strong feeling either way on the course, and I am still awaiting the quotes from you that show I have said Quintero is awful or that Ree Jones is awful.

Quintero making the top 50 would seem to indicate that the owner got what he wanted, a superior product, with architectural merit.

So now you are saying that any course that makes any list is architecturally good?  Careful Pat, this quote could come back to bite you at a later date!

Tommy Naccarato posts two pictures of A SINGLE bunker and you and others pounce on the quality of the entire golf course, never having set foot on it.

Actually Pat, go back and take another look. TommyN posted 2 pictures of 2 different bunkers on 2 different holes. But you have just sorta proved his point

Remind me, how many of Tommy Naccarato's, Matt Ward's or your courses have made it into the top

Sadly, my only effort, a short course in the backyard when I was 12 really sucked.  But I am fairly sure I am still tied with you for the number of courses in the top 50
I have come to learn, though, that Matt Ward is really just a screen name for Jim Engh, and several of his courses have done pretty well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yes Pat, that is what I said, after you brought in the totally hypothetical notion that maybe the course was exactly what the owner wanted.  

Hypothetical ?  You must be losing your mind.

The owner wanted a Rees Jones product.
The owner wanted a superior product.
He got both, the golf course was ranked in Golfweek's top 50 modern courses, that seems pretty superior to me.[/color]

By doing that, you changed the entire direction of the discussion from one of specifics on the architecture of this course to hypotheticals as you have no idea if the owner wanted the course like that.

I guess common sense isn't so common.

You want there to be but ONE explanation of how the golf course was designed and created, to the exclusion of all others.  I didn't change teh diection of the discusson, I merely inserted the element of sanity, or common sense.[/color]

Or do you? If not, then you, not me, veered this off-course and brought supposition into play.

Supposition ?  If you didn't consider the possibility that the owner wanted a certain product, Rees Jones's product, then your thinking is extremely limited.[/color]

My reason for specifically using the word 'hypothetical' I thought was clear: to try and clarify your point when you aparently tried to excuse the architecture of the course by saying in effect 'well, maybe its what the owner wanted.'  

Excuse the architecture ?

Don't you pay attention ?  The golf course was rated in Golfweeks TOP 50 modern list.  It needs no excuse.
I'm sure the owner is delighted with the results.[/color]

I tried to separate my question about that rather odd stance from this course and make it general.

Let's see if I understand this.  You're taking a particular and expanding it to a general statement.  And, you call that prudent thinking ?

Remind me again, how many times have you played Quintero ?[/color]

I implied nothing Pat. I was trying to get at the meaning of your end around, whereby you excuse what may be awful architecture by saying 'well, perhaps the owner wanted it that way.'

By equating, or discussing in unison, Quintero and "awful architecture" you expose your bias.  It's been established that Quintero is a Golfweek top 50 golf course, yet you keep on wanting to create a ridiculous situation where an owner wanted an awful golf course where the architect fulfilled his wishes and produced an awful golf course.
It's so patently absurd that you're subtracting from the total sum of human knowledge about the field of architecture.[/color]

I also specifically said it was a hypothetical course so it wouldn't reflect on Quintero.

That's where the word Juxtapose comes in, or the phrase,
"guilt by association"[/color]  

Your premise, that an owner would want an awful golf course, is absurd.

Yes, that is an absurd premise. Its also not my premise.  You're trying way to hard Pat to see a bogeyman where there isn't one.

My vision and radar are better then you think, or giving you the benefit of the doubt, Tommy Naccarato may have unduly influenced your perspective.  Don't feel bad, it's not the first time it's happened.[/color]

That you see no attempt on your part to mislead or misdirect the reader as to the quality of Quintero is part of your inherent bias ?

While I have big buckets full of biases, I'm afraid I don't have ANY bias as it relates to Quintero.  I have no strong feeling either way on the course, and I am still awaiting the quotes from you that show I have said Quintero is awful or that Ree Jones is awful.

When you continue to harp on a hypothetical that presents the owner wanting an awful product, and the architect providing it, juxtaposed with Quintero, any prudent person can make the connection.

Methinks the man* doth protest too much[/color]

Quintero making the top 50 would seem to indicate that the owner got what he wanted, a superior product, with architectural merit.

So now you are saying that any course that makesANYrchitecturally good?  Careful Pat, this quote could come back to bite you at a later date!

I didn't say ANY list, you've misquoted me.

I specifically referenced the Gofweek Top 100 Modern list.

And, yes, I think that any golf course that makes the Golfweek Top 100 list, modern or classic, has architectural merit.[/color]

Tommy Naccarato posts two pictures of A SINGLE bunker and you and others pounce on the quality of the entire golf course, never having set foot on it.

Actually Pat, go back and take another look. TommyN posted 2 pictures of 2 different bunkers on 2 different holes. But you have just sorta proved his point

As I stated earlier, you've mistaken a casual glance for in depth analysis.  And, anytime that Tommy has posted pictures of Rees Jones's work, it was to reinforce his agenda.[/color]

Remind me, how many of Tommy Naccarato's, Matt Ward's or your courses have made it into the top

Sadly, my only effort, a short course in the backyard when I was 12 really sucked.  But I am fairly sure I am still tied with you for the number of courses in the top 50

I doubt that our architectural experiences are similar.[/color]
I have come to learn, though, that Matt Ward is really just a screen name for Jim Engh, and several of his courses have done pretty well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

Did you play all 18 holes at Quintero ?

Have you personally read the contract that Rees had at Quintero or at any other project ?

Have you personally read the contracts that other architects use when they're engaged in a project.

Is there an architect you know of that doesn't contractually retain artistic license/authority in the design of the golf course ?

Tommy, you have this notion, removed from reality, that architects should turn down jobs, as if they don't have employee payrolls to sustain.  As if they have no responsibility to the people who work for them and their families.  If you keep turning down jobs, you may wake up one morning and not have one.

Quintero was rated top 50 in the country by Golfweek.
Why on earth should Rees have turned that job down ?

Why do you also draw the conclusion that these successful businessmen, who put up millions of dollars, are dopes, totally unknowledgeable about anything related to golf, including architecture.   Most of these men are very bright, very savy.

Are we to look at the Ken Bakst's, Mike Keiser's and Mike Pascucci's of the world as uninformed nincompoops ?
The fellows who embark upon these projects are nowhere near as uninformed as you would have everyone believe.

As for it being all about money and profit, do you think that Friar's Head, Sebonack and others are giving away memberships.  Since when is commerce with the intent of making money a bad thing ?
It's commerce that provides the jobs in America, not charity, and not dreams, but hardworking smart business people who risk their capital, create jobs and ongoing commerce, in order to make money.  That's the entepreneurial spirit that helps make America great.  A spirit that we've all been lucky enough to benefit from.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
Once again you come back with a weak commentary heard time and time again regarding Rees Jones. You haven't seen the course, still continuing the hipocracy of judging it by pictures and slaming those who do the same.

The course was overrated, and in March when the Golfweek ratings come out, will hopefully further prove how overrated it it has been in the past.

Feel free to go aheada and waste your time to go play the course on your next visit to the Southwest, when there are so many other great options in Phoenix and Scottsdale. If you need me, I'll be at Talking Stick, Apache Stronghold or any of the Schmidt & Curley courses around there. (And eventually WeKoPa II)

[pdrake]

since when are ratings the tell-all for a great course.....especially a new one?

they probably comped all these raters and treated them like kings to get a good rating, which in turn = more $$$$ for real estate........

that bunkering at Quintero shows Rees has the imagination of a 5 year old!  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
Once again you come back with a weak commentary heard time and time again regarding Rees Jones. You haven't seen the course, still continuing the hipocracy of judging it by pictures and slaming those who do the same. You say no one is allowed to judge from images of the Rees Jones Quintero course here, YET you were able to come-up with quick fix suggestions for Rustic Canyon threads by looking at pictures of them, no?

Getting back to Quintero........

The course was overrated, and in March when the Golfweek ratings come out it will hopefully further prove to you just how overrated it it has been in the past.

Feel free to go ahead and waste your time to go play the course on your next visit to the Southwest, especially when there are so many other great options in Phoenix and Scottsdale. If you need me, I'll be at Talking Stick, Apache Stronghold, maybe even any of the Nicklaus courses and any of the Schmidt & Curley courses around there. (And eventually WeKoPa II) They are worth my time and study.)

By the way, when Rees' Verrado at Dorrado course is eventually started and finished, don't bother with that one either. I saw the one hole they built out there and it was the same old, same old. From the looks of the plans, the rest is going to be the same! What else would one expect when your designing the course from a drafting table in New Jersey.

"I only use Dr. Jones-brand SNAKE OIL!"

[Neil Regan]

If anyone has received a publication called : "The Best of Northeast Golf 2005" ...
...there is an ad for pencil sketches of famous golfers by a guy named Ron Ramsey from Bronxville, NY. Beautiful work  Does anyone know him?

Kelly,
 
  I tracked down these portraits by Ramsey at GolfOnline

Runyan, Strausbaugh, Bell, Flick

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Thanks Neil.  Incredibly nice don't you think?  I did contact him by email and he does not have a website yet, but boy I think those are nice.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

Once again you come back with a weak commentary heard time and time again regarding Rees Jones. You haven't seen the course, still continuing the hipocracy of judging it by pictures and slaming those who do the same.

I've never judged the golf course.
If you could cite where I did I'd be most appreciative.

You didn't answer whether or not you had played all 18 holes.
Could you please do so.[/color]

The course was overrated, and in March when the Golfweek ratings come out, will hopefully further prove how overrated it it has been in the past.

Because a group of people disagree with you, the automatic default on your part it to declare that the course is over rated.  I don't know if it is over rated or under rated.
What I do know is that it was rated in the GolfWeek TOP 50.
And that speaks to the product produced for the owner.[/color]

Feel free to go ahead and waste your time to go play the course on your next visit to the Southwest, when there are so many other great options in Phoenix and Scottsdale.
Why is it a waste of time ?
Are we to stifle or limit our experiences playing golf courses based on the opinions, biases or agenda of others ?

Didn't Brian Schneider advise this site not to play Hollywood, declaring that Rees ruined it, when in fact Hollywood is a terrific golf course, AND, Brian had never seen the golf course pre Rees, hence he had no basis of comparison, AND, he stated that Rees put mounds on the golf course when in fact those mounds predated Rees and appear to have been Travis's work ?

I'll play Quintero, and see for myself what the course is like.
And, just because I play Quintero doesn't mean I can't play the other courses you reference.[/color]

 If you need me, I'll be at Talking Stick, Apache Stronghold or any of the Schmidt & Curley courses around there. (And eventually WeKoPa II)

Hopefully, I'll be there too.     [/color]

[Andy Hughes]

Hypothetical ?  You must be losing your mind.
The owner wanted a Rees Jones product.
The owner wanted a superior product.
He got both, the golf course was ranked in Golfweek's top 50 modern courses, that seems pretty superior to me.

Before you diverted this thread, the discussion was on the merits of the golf course itself.  Rather than actually address those or deal with those, you chose to instead say in effect, "So what? Maybe that's what the owner wanted".  For example, Tommy N showed photos of two holes that were virtually identical, from the bunkering, to the curve of the hole, even to the backdrop.  
For you to address that particular architecural issue by saying, "Well, maybe that's what the owner wanted" when you actually have no idea if the owner wanted a repetition of holes, an apparent lack of imagination, and perhaps a regurgitation of tired, formulaic design as has been argued by others is, frankly, silly Pat.
And trying to excuse that by saying it made some rankings list so therefore all is well and any criticism of its architecture is therefore wrong is shortsighted and narrow-minded. Common sense indeed!

You want there to be but ONE explanation of how the golf course was designed and created, to the exclusion of all others.  I didn't change teh diection of the discusson, I merely inserted the element of sanity, or common sense.

I neversaid I wanted one, or any, explanation of the course was designed. (You seem to me doing a lot of 'putting words in my mouth' on this thread Pat. Not sure why, as I say plenty of stupid things, you don't need to set up strawmen that have nothing to do with anything I have said)
I merely tried to point out the lunacy of your dual positions:
1. no criticism of the architecture can be made because maybe the owner wanted it exactly as it turned out, though this is pure supposition on your part
2. The architecture must be good because it made a ranking list (if the course drops off the list, is that that then ipso facto proof in your world that the architecture is bad?)

Supposition ?  If you didn't consider the possibility that the owner wanted a certain product, Rees Jones's product, then your thinking is extremely limited.

Pat, come back to common sense my friend.  The issue isn't whether the owner wanted this or that. The issue was the architectural strengths and weaknesses of the course.

Don't you pay attention ?

I do, I do, raptly!

The golf course was rated in Golfweeks TOP 50 modern list.  It needs no excuse.
I'm sure the owner is delighted with the results.

Oh. Well. That's a horse of a different color!  I was under the impression that all courses could be discussed, analyzed, dissected, even criticized (other than NGLA, granted )
Nobody ever told me about the 'Golfweek Top 50' rule

Let's see if I understand this.  You're taking a particular and expanding it to a general statement.  And, you call that prudent thinking ?

Let me see if I understand this Pat--you have no idea whatsoever what the owner wanted architecturally, but you are saying it is appropriate to squash any and all negative commentary on the course because you think there maybe perhaps could been a chance the owner wanted the architecture a certain way, and besides, it made a ranking list somewhere so is immune from criticism?  Is that prudent?

By equating, or discussing in unison, Quintero and "awful architecture" you expose your bias.  It's been established that Quintero is a Golfweek top 50 golf course, yet you keep on wanting to create a ridiculous situation where an owner wanted an awful golf course where the architect fulfilled his wishes and produced an awful golf course.
It's so patently absurd that you're subtracting from the total sum of human knowledge about the field of architecture.[

Well, we all have our gifts, mine happens to be that I lessen the level of discourse wherever I go, and lower the average IQ of whatever group I am in. It ain't much, but it's all I got.

That's where the word Juxtapose comes in, or the phrase,
"guilt by association"

The course was already being critiqued, mostly in a negative way. You tried to excuse away the criticism by saying maybe the owner wanted the course to be as it turned out.  If we add those two together, the silliness of your position becomes crystal clear, and it becomes obvious why you now need to try and throw around big phrases like "guilt by association" which you know I don't understand.

My vision and radar are better then you think, or giving you the benefit of the doubt, Tommy Naccarato may have unduly influenced your perspective.  Don't feel bad, it's not the first time it's happened.

No, I already have nothing but respect for your vision and knowledge.  But for you to excuse away the criticism a course is receiving by saying maybe the owner wanted each hole exactly as it turned out is just wrong.
Also, you keep saying/implying my perspective of bias or outlook on the course is a certian way. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I have yet to give an opinion on the course--why do you insist otherwise?

When you continue to harp on a hypothetical that presents the owner wanting an awful product, and the architect providing it, juxtaposed with Quintero, any prudent person can make the connection.
Methinks the man* doth protest too much

I'm afraid I must continue dothing as you keep trying to insert words in my mouth, as well as trying to run from your original premise.

Actually Pat, go back and take another look. TommyN posted 2 pictures of 2 different bunkers on 2 different holes. But you have just sorta proved his point
As I stated earlier, you've mistaken a casual glance for in depth analysis.  And, anytime that Tommy has posted pictures of Rees Jones's work, it was to reinforce his agenda.

I'm not sure what that means? Does that mean that yes, you now see that you were wrong about that being two pictures of the same bunker and that damn, those two holes do look a LOT alike and perhaps there is the possibility that maybe there was not a lot of original thought there?  Or are you sticking to the story that the owner actually wanted two holes to be virtually identical?

Sadly, my only effort, a short course in the backyard when I was 12 really sucked.  But I am fairly sure I am still tied with you for the number of courses in the top 50
I doubt that our architectural experiences are similar.

Again, as I am just a simple, unschooled man, does that mean that you do indeed have the same number of courses in the top 50 as me?

[Patrick_Mucci]

By the way, when Rees' Verrado at Dorrado course is eventually started and finished, don't bother with that one either.

I saw the one hole they built out there and it was the same old, same old. From the looks of the plans, the rest is going to be the same!

Now you're judging an entire golf course that hasn't been built yet by viewing one hole, that was probably in the dirt and unfinished ?   And, you don't think you're biased, or have a predispositon to bash Rees's work.

Think about how you're allowing your personal vendetta to erode your credibility.[/color]

What else would one expect when your designing the course from a drafting table in New Jersey.

Do you mean like Donald Ross did from Rhode Island and North Carolina ?[/color]

"I only use Dr. Jones-brand SNAKE OIL!"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Before you diverted this thread, the discussion was on the merits of the golf course itself.

How could that be, Tommy's never indicated that he's actually played the golf course.[/color]

Rather than actually address those or deal with those, you chose to instead say in effect, "So what? Maybe that's what the owner wanted".

Again, not true, how can Tommy discuss the merits of the course if he's never played it ?[/color]

For example, Tommy N showed photos of two holes that were virtually identical, from the bunkering, to the curve of the hole, even to the backdrop.

You can't be that stupid.
Do you actually believe that both photos were taken as the golfer sees those bunkers in the course of normal play ?
Or do you think it's possible that the angle of the photos was a preconceived idea to put forth one's agenda ?[/color]
 
For you to address that particular architecural issue by saying, "Well, maybe that's what the owner wanted" when you actually have no idea if the owner wanted a repetition of holes,  

How do you know that there's a repetion of holes ?
You've never seen the golf course.[/color]

an apparent lack of imagination,

How do you know that ?
You've never seen the golf course.[/color]

and perhaps a regurgitation of tired, formulaic design as has been argued by others is, frankly, silly Pat.

What others, one guy who never played the golf course and Matt Ward ?  You must be kidding or obtuse.[/color]

And trying to excuse that by saying it made some rankings list so therefore all is well and any criticism of its architecture is therefore wrong is shortsighted and narrow-minded. Common sense indeed!

That's not what I said and you know it, so stop lying to try to support your argument.  And, it didn't just make SOME rankings list, it made the Golfweek Top 50 modern list.

Are you now calling into question the architectural merits of all of the course that made the Golfweek Top 50 list, or just Quintero ?[/color]

I merely tried to point out the lunacy of your dual positions:

1. no criticism of the architecture can be made because maybe the owner wanted it exactly as it turned out, though this is pure supposition on your part.

That is a blatant lie and distortion of the facts and truth.
It's obvious that you've lost your ability to be intellectually honest, and as such, have zero credibility in my mind[/color]

2. The architecture must be good because it made a ranking list (if the course drops off the list, is that that then ipso facto proof in your world that the architecture is bad?)
Not just A ranking list, the Golfweek Top 50 modern list.
Any golf course that makes that list, even for a fleeting edition, has to have architectural merit, whether Tommy Naccarato likes it or not.

If a course drops of the list it just means that 50 or 100 courses are ranked higher.

This may come as news to you, but if a course is ranked 200-300 it doesn't mean that it's architecture is bad, only that people thought that there were 199-299 courses ranked higher.[/color]

The issue isn't whether the owner wanted this or that. The issue was the architectural strengths and weaknesses of the course.

Then tell me how you determine that when you haven't seen or played the golf course ?[/color]

I was under the impression that all courses could be discussed, analyzed, dissected, even criticized (other than NGLA, granted )
Nobody ever told me about the 'Golfweek Top 50' rule

Then I suspect that no one ever told you about the common sense or intelligence rule, and that is, before you analyze, disect or criticize a golf course you should see and play it.[/color]

Let me see if I understand this Pat--you have no idea whatsoever what the owner wanted architecturally,
Would you like to bet on that ?[/color]

but you are saying it is appropriate to squash any and all negative commentary on the course because you think there maybe perhaps could been a chance the owner wanted the architecture a certain way, and besides, it made a ranking list somewhere so is immune from criticism?  Is that prudent?

That's not what I said, and you know it.

How can you validly criticize a golf course that you've never seen or played ?

Play it first, then fire away.

If you don't think owners decide on the architect of choice because they like his work, you're out of touch with the real world.

If you don't think that owners have input on the golf course, you're naive, at best.

I never said that a ranking makes a course immune from criticism, that's another lie on your part, which seems to be your modis operendi.

What I said was that the course had to have something going for it if a body of raters felt it was good enough to make the Golfweek Top 50 modern list.  That's a pretty lofty ranking for a golf course that you and Tommy Naccarato think is awful.
[/color]

... I lessen the level of discourse wherever I go, and lower the average IQ of whatever group I am in. It ain't much, but it's all I got.

I can see that.[/color]

The course was already being critiqued, mostly in a negative way.

By people who hadn't played it [/color]

You tried to excuse away the criticism by saying maybe the owner wanted the course to be as it turned out.  

Again, I have to correct you.
The complaints were about Rees's style.
And I stated that perhaps, that's exactly what the owner wanted.

I offered no excuse.
I repeatedly said that I'm unqualified to judge the golf course because I haven't played it, and, I'm not willing to take the word of others who haven't, either.  Apparently, you are.

In what context would you evaluate the criticisms of a golf course that you've never seen ?[/color]

But for you to excuse away the criticism a course is receiving by saying maybe the owner wanted each hole exactly as it turned out is just wrong.

That's not what happened.
Others objected to the Rees Jones style and I said, perhaps, that's what the owner wanted.  But, it's not perhaps at all.
That's why the owner hired Rees Jones in the first place,
he hired him because he wanted the style that Rees produces
I think the owner got what he wanted.
A Rees Jones product.
A product that was well received in the golf world, as evidenced by Golfweek ranking it in the Top 50.

Your opinion is evidenced by your analogy[/color]

Does that mean that yes, you now see that you were wrong about that being two pictures of the same bunker and that damn, those two holes do look a LOT alike and perhaps there is the possibility that maybe there was not a lot of original thought there?

It means just what I said it means, that I barely looked at the pictures because I know Tommy's agenda, and his habit of taking photos from and angle that promotes his agenda.

Have you seen the two holes in question for yourself ?
Or are you relying on Tommy's unbiased presentation ?

You just don't understand when you're being duped[/color]

Or are you sticking to the story that the owner actually wanted two holes to be virtually identical?

I never stated that.  It's just another lie and another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

But, tell me, how do you know that those two holes are virtually identical ?  Have you seen and played them ?[/color]

Again, as I am just a simple, unschooled man, does that mean that you do indeed have the same number of courses in the top 50 as me?

It means what it says, that I doubt that our experiences with golf courses and architecture are the same.[/color]

[Andy Hughes]

Before you diverted this thread, the discussion was on the merits of the golf course itself.
How could that be, Tommy's never indicated that he's actually played the golf course.

Tommy hasquite clearly indicated that he's been on the course, but whether he has or hasn't, your argument should then be with whether he is equipped at this point to argue the merits of the course.

For example, Tommy N showed photos of two holes that were virtually identical, from the bunkering, to the curve of the hole, even to the backdrop.
You can't be that stupid.

Actually, I can be as stupid as I like Pat, but I am not sure why you have lowered yourself to be so insulting. I expect that from others; I expect better from you.

Do you actually believe that both photos were taken as the golfer sees those bunkers in the course of normal play ?
Or do you think it's possible that the angle of the photos was a preconceived idea to put forth one's agenda ?

I can only go by what Tommy said and what I see.  The holes must be damn similar, as just a few posts ago you yourself thought they were of the same hole! I am sure you will either ignore that or wiggle away from it, but no matter how you slice and dice it, youwere the one who thought they were of the same hole!
 

For you to address that particular architecural issue by saying, "Well, maybe that's what the owner wanted" when you actually have no idea if the owner wanted a repetition of holes,  
How do you know that there's a repetion of holes ?
You've never seen the golf course.

How do I know?
1. I have now seen photos so similar that you thought they were of the same hole
2. Tommy has been there and made that assessment.
3. Matt has been there and made that assessment
You have never been there--on what do you base your assertion that Tommy is wrong, that Matt is wrong, and that the pictures are wrong?

How do you know that ?
You've never seen the golf course.
and perhaps a regurgitation of tired, formulaic design as has been argued by others is, frankly, silly Pat.
What others, one guy who never played the golf course and Matt Ward ?  You must be kidding or obtuse.

Well, at least I am no longer stupid!
Yes, others have said those things about the course. Perhaps they are wrong, I have no idea, but two people have seen/played the course and seem to agree about it.  Therefore, I am stupid/obtuse/kidding to make the observation that they have both made those comments?? What that heck does that mean Pat, and who has lost touch with common sense here??  

And trying to excuse that by saying it made some rankings list so therefore all is well and any criticism of its architecture is therefore wrong is shortsighted and narrow-minded. Common sense indeed!
That's not what I said and you know it, so stop lying to try to support your argument.  And, it didn't just make SOME rankings list, it made the Golfweek Top 50 modern list.

Great, I am stupid AND a liar. You're on a roll Pat, though your manners are lacking today.
And, in fact, what you accuse me of 'lying' about is, in fact, an accurate portrayal of what you have said.  You have defended the architecture of Quintero, a course you have never seen or played, saying Tommy and Matt are wrong (both of whom have been there), and your only justification is a raking it has received.  So, what I said above is in fact accurate.

Are you now calling into question the architectural merits of all of the course that made the Golfweek Top 50 list, or just Quintero ?

I am not calling into question the merits of ANY course, even Quintero.  Are you, yet again, putting words in my mouth Pat, 'cause that would be, like, lying and dishonest, wouldn't it?
I am STILL waiting for you to point out where I said the course was lousy or lacking or anything else.

1. no criticism of the architecture can be made because maybe the owner wanted it exactly as it turned out, though this is pure supposition on your part.
That is a blatant lie and distortion of the facts and truth.
It's obvious that you've lost your ability to be intellectually honest, and as such, have zero credibility in my mind

Again, this 'blatant lie' is, well, the truth. I am not sure, but I am pretty sure, that just because you keep sticking out your tongue and going "nyah-nyah", that doesn't change what you said before.
You defended the architecture previously by saying it might have been architecturally what the owner wanted.  That is what you have said. If you would like to amend that, fine, do so, but what's the point of calling me a liar for pointing out what you did indeed say?

The issue isn't whether the owner wanted this or that. The issue was the architectural strengths and weaknesses of the course.
Then tell me how you determine that when you haven't seen or played the golf course ?

That's just it Pat, I have NOT tried to determine it. I have been just been listening to those who have been there, Tommy and Matt, as they discussed the course. The only dissenter was someone who has never been there.
As always, please feel free to show me where I was 'determing' that? Yet again, it turns out that you are putting words in my mouth, which yet again makes your frequent accusation of lying on my part sound, well, that perhaps it should have been directed inward by you?

Then I suspect that no one ever told you about the common sense or intelligence rule, and that is, before you analyze, disect or criticize a golf course you should see and play it.

I agree. So, yet again, please feel free to show me where I dissected or analyed this course? This is, yet again, just another instance of you accusing me of saying.doing something I haven't said/done. I see a pattern here Pat, and its not an intellectually honest one. Especially from someone so free and easy about calling others a liar.

Let me see if I understand this Pat--you have no idea whatsoever what the owner wanted architecturally,
Would you like to bet on that ?

Yes Pat, I would. I would be happy to bet that you haven't any idea exactly what the owner wanted architecurally on each hole, what features he wanted or didn't want.

I never said that a ranking makes a course immune from criticism, that's another lie on your part, which seems to be your modis operendi.

Stones Pat. And glass houses.
And yes, the courses ranking surely WAS your defense of teh course.

What I said was that the course had to have something going for it if a body of raters felt it was good enough to make the Golfweek Top 50 modern list.  That's a pretty lofty ranking for a golf course that you and Tommy Naccarato think is awful.

Where have I said it is awful? "That's another lie on your part, which seems to be your modis operendi."

The course was already being critiqued, mostly in a negative way.
By people who hadn't played it

That would be true, except for the fact that it isn't.
Both Tommy and Matt have been there.

That's not what happened.
Others objected to the Rees Jones style and I said, perhaps, that's what the owner wanted.  But, it's not perhaps at all.
That's why the owner hired Rees Jones in the first place,
he hired him because he wanted the style that Rees produces
I think the owner got what he wanted.

How do you know what the owner wanted architecurally? That is what is relevant to what was being discussed?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy hasquite clearly indicated that he's been on the course,

He's been on the golf course, what does that mean ?
that he might have snuck on the golf course and taken a picture or two, and that qualifies him as an expert?[/color]

but whether he has or hasn't, your argument should then be with whether he is equipped at this point to argue the merits of the course.

If he hasn't played it, or fully examined it, how could he argue anything ?  You cited him as an authority, you based some of your comments on his alleged representations.[/color]

I can only go by what Tommy said and what I see.
If Tommy's never played the golf course, or he just glanced at a few holes, how can you take his word on the architectural merits of the golf course  ?  

All of the raters PLAYED the golf course.
And, their collective opinion is that it's a TOP 50 golf course.
[/color]

The holes must be damn similar, as just a few posts ago you yourself thought they were of the same hole! I am sure you will either ignore that or wiggle away from it, but no matter how you slice and dice it, youwere the one who thought they were of the same hole!

This is where my "stupid" comments come into play.
Didn't I explain to you previously that I barely looked at the photos ?  Didn't I explain to you earlier that my friend Tommy has a habit of posting views and angles that could be deemed unflattering ?  Were you around when the Santa Luz (sp ?) bunker photo was posted ?
Were you around, recently, when he posted photos of the bunker/s at # 7 at Sandpines ?  Have you learned nothing from his posting of pictures, beyond what's in the pictures ?
[/color]
 

 
How do you KNOW that there's a repetion of holes ?
You've never seen the golf course.

You never answered this question.
You state that Tommy, who's never played the golf course, maintains it.  That photos, taken from a predetermined angle reflect a similarity, and that Matt Ward maintains it.  I'm not sure that Matt was speaking to the specifics of the photos.

But, is Matt Ward's word, in the absence of Tommy's, now The Gospel for determining architectural merit ?
What about the WORD of all of those guys who played the golf course as raters and thought that it was a superior golf course, does their word count for nothing ?  Is their word to be totally excluded ?   Are 10, 20 or 30 people wrong, and the word of Matt Ward the onlyl right one ?  Think about it before you reply.[/color]

Well, at least I am no longer stupid!
I never said that, I did indicate that you were obtuse.  [/color]

Yes, others have said those things about the course. Perhaps they are wrong, I have no idea, but two people have seen/played the course and seem to agree about it.  Therefore, I am stupid/obtuse/kidding to make the observation that they have both made those comments??
Yes, because you've completely disregarded the word of 10, 20, 30 or more guys who have played it, choosing instead to rely on the sole opinion of one guy who has played it and another guy who admits to a built in bias against Rees Jones, who hasn't played it, but has seen it, whatever that means.[/color]  

You have defended the architecture of Quintero, a course you have never seen or played,

Cite for me, one single example of where I defended the architecture of Quintero ?

What I defended was the method of analysis or attack on the golf course.
Matt Ward has played it, so I can't disregard his opinion.
But, so have the 10, 20 or 30 people who played it and rated it, so I can't disregard their collective opinion.[/color]

saying Tommy and Matt are wrong (both of whom have been there),
Been there.  What does that mean ?  That somebody wandered onto the property and took some pictures ?

Without direct information from Tommy, you don't know if he saw 2 holes, 4 holes, 12 holes, etc., etc..  Yet, as uninformed as you are to the extent of his examination, you're willing to state that his opinion is the definitive opinion on Quintero.
Don't get upset, but how STUPID is that ?

Now, Matt Ward is another matter.  He played the golf course and as such his opinion has to be accepted.  But then, so do the opinions of however many people played and rated it for Golfweek.  You can't accept but one opinion, the one you've embraced to the exclusion of all of the other valid opinions.[/color]

and your only justification is a raking it has received.
And how was that ranking arrived at ?
By people familiar with the process, golf and golf architecture, who actually played the golf course.  Whose individual opinions were melded into a collective opinion which produced an analysis that determined that Quintero was a Top 50 golf course.  Is that imprudent ?[/color]

I have been just been listening to those who have been there, Tommy and Matt, as they discussed the course. The only dissenter was someone who has never been there.
Tommy has never played the golf course.  Matt has.
And so have a good number of raters who determined that it was a Top 50 golf course.  So, let's see, that's 25 to 1 ?
But, you conveniently want to accept one opinion and completey disregard 25 other opinions.[/color]

[please feel free to show me where I dissected or analyed this course?
It's simple, you championed Tommy's opinion of it[/color]

I would be happy to bet that you haven't any idea exactly what the owner wanted architecurally on each hole, what features he wanted or didn't want.

Let's not duck the issue by getting down to "exactly" how he wanted each blade of grass.
Do you want to bet or not ?  If so, how much.[/color]

The course was already being critiqued, mostly in a negative way.   By people who hadn't played it

That would be true, except for the fact that it isn't.
Both Tommy and Matt have been there.

Been there, Tommy's never played it. And as of this moment you don't know if been there means he snuck onto the course and saw a few holes or walked the course from start to finish. Matt has, and so have the 25 or so raters.[/b

How do you know what the owner wanted architecurally?

Why would I reveal that prior to our bet ?[/color]

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
This conversation has become to NARROW minded!

You and I have discussed how many holes I played and how many greens I putted on at Quintero. (Or don't you remember?  I called you almost immediately after I got off the course while I was on my way to Desert Mountain's Outlaw Course, REMEMBER?

I'll repeat this again, once the new Golfweek rating comes out, we'll see if I'm right or wrong about Quintero. My guess is that it is going to come back to Earth from its supposed once lofty status. I have also talked with other raters that have felt the same--Great place, mediocre golf course. That's my viewpoint of it, and I find great humor in the fact that you argue about a course you have never even seen or know anything about other then the pictures I have posted here and the information that everyone else has posted.

That is it for me until the next new thread on Quintero!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

How did the text get narrowed ?

I don't remember that discussion.
Are you sure it was me ?
What date did it occur on.

A collective of people felt that it had enough merit to make the Top 50.  If it should fall to 150, would that not be considered substantive enough to retain it's inherent merit ?

Or, is it such that once a course falls from the top 50 or top 100 that it has NO architectural merit ?

I never judged the golf course, it's individual features, holes or architecture.   I repeated, time and time again, that I was unqualifed to do so because I had never played it, something we share in common.

I do know that a significant body of golfers, raters, played it and found it outstanding enough to classify it in the Top 50.
I'm not as prepared to ignore that fact as you and Andy.

It may be, that after playing it, I'll share views closer to yours then the raters, then again, maybe not.

While I agreed with your assessment on some of the shortcomings at Sandpines, it wasn't as bad as you made it out to be, and a lot further from the Pacific Ocean and the Ocean front dunes that were photographed and depicted as representing the site that Sandpines was built on, when in fact they were many miles removed from Sandpines.

And, you've been known to shoot from the actresses unflattering side.

In all fairness, playing the golf course would be a prefered method of judging it.

While I had walked every hole at Friar's Head while it was still in the dirt, nothing compared to playing the golf course when it was ready for play.

Hopefully, we'll get to play Quintero and other courses and engage in debate regarding their relative merit based on our mutual playing experience.

[Andy Hughes]

How do you KNOW that there's a repetion of holes ?
You've never seen the golf course.
You never answered this question.
You state that Tommy, who's never played the golf course, maintains it.  That photos, taken from a predetermined angle reflect a similarity, and that Matt Ward maintains it.  I'm not sure that Matt was speaking to the specifics of the photos.

Pat, no sense quoting your entire post, since so much of it is more of the same.
You have done a masterful job of diverting what we originally disagreed upon, and banging on about what you know was never the issue and what I originally called you on.
You bleat on and on about how can I possibly be criticizing the course, how can I possibly point out all these negatives, how can I ignore the ranking the course received. And I continue to say to you Pat, please feel free to show me all the negative criticism I have made about the course. Please feel free to show me where I have critiqued the architecture of the course. I keep asking you to show me some of that, and you continue to pretend that it is not being asked.  So is it because you are utterly obtuse (which we both know is not the case), or is it because you know that you can't find any?  Of course, that is the case. I know it, you know it, but you continue to bang on on that knowing full well that continually erecting that strawmen is really all you have, other than asserting that the owner wanted the specific architectural details the course ended up with.
Our discussion was, entirely, about your silly statement that the owner wanted all the architectural details the course ended up with.  No sense in trying to change it to whether I am justified in making critiques of the course based on Tommy's and Matt's comments, as I haven't been making critiques of the course at all.
Please feel free to justify your absurd comment re the owner and what he wished for architecturally and whether he got what he wished for architecturally, but refrain from paragraph after paragraph about my criticizing the course and whether I should or shouldn't.
For example:

please feel free to show me where I dissected or analyed this course?
It's simple, you championed Tommy's opinion of it

That's it? I ask for specifics of where I have been criticizing the course, and after 4 pages, the best you can come up with is 'Its simple, you championed Tommy's opinion of it'??  That's awfully weak Pat, as well as being utterly devoid of any specificity at all. None.  If that is the best you can do, I think it best that you avoid that line of argument as you clearly are firing blanks.  Perhaps it might be better if you explained exactly how you know what architecural detailing the owner wanted?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()