Why doesn't Rees Jones get any love?

[Dan Herrmann]

Who said GCA was getting boring??  

Thanks for the lively discussion!

[John_Cullum]

.... I have no interest in playing Stone Eagle, but I have lots of interest in playing Ocean Forest.

I think you would be disappointed in that choice. Ocean Forest for me is sort of like Longaberger for Glenn Spencer.

That said, I understand RJ has done some good work, I just haven't seen any of it yet.

[Mike_Cirba]

That said, I understand RJ has done some good work, I just haven't seen any of it yet.

Olde Kinderhook seems to be the only one I've seen that's universally loved.

I'm playing a new one of his in a few weeks and I'm keeping an open mind.

[Jordan Wall]

I want to play another RJ.

Sandpines was an utter mess!  
Not all of his work can be that bad...

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Rich,
Yes, I considered it a success given all of the parameters of who they were working with. You say:

"Coore and Crenshaw's work at Riviera was apparently not a roaring success.  Do you really want perfection (or even think it is possible)?"

What are you basing your ascertations on? What critique? this way we can address where you can ascertain that it wasn't a roaring success. and yes, I'm going to "Moriarty-ize" you!

[Cliff Hamm]

Blackstone National in Massachusetts is an excellent public course, among the best in New England.  It follows typical rolling New England land and is very natural in its routing.  Well worth playing...at the same time his bunkering at Baltusrol I found to be abysmal and style wise not fitting with the course.

[ForkaB]

Tommy

You need to answer my question first, please.  That's just common courtesy.  Was C&C's work at Riviera a "roaring success?"  Just because you might sort of think so "given all the parameters...." blah, blah, blah......doesn't make it "roaring" does it?

C'mon, Tommy.  Bite that bullet!  Bill and Ben just might not be perfect.  Kinda like Rees.........

Rich

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Rich,
No you don't, I asked first!

You prove to me where it wasn't--in pictures and other information, and I'll prove to you--in pictures and other information--where it was. Simple as that. You made the claim, or at at the very least insituted it, lets see if  you can prove it.

Of course C&C aren't perfect, only Tom Fazio is perfect.

[ForkaB]

Tommy

I just said it "apparently wasn't a roaring success" and you went ballistic and replied in your inimitably polite way "I DEMAND you to show me some proof where they screwed any of it up."  I never said that they screwed anything up, so I can't answer your question even if I wanted to.  I did do a quick google just to reassure myself that I wasn't completely barmy and found at least one reference to serious problems with the greens.  Of course, it probably wasn't Bill and Ben's fault--let's blame the nematodes or even better invade Canada!

Goodnight Gracie......

[TEPaul]

The question should probably more accurately be why doesn't Rees Jones get any love (ON HERE)? He obviously gets plenty of love elsewhere and has or obvously he wouldn't be working as much as he has and is.

All this sort of begs the question of who any golf course architect should shoot towards designing for and trying to please.

If this website generally hates what Rees Jones has done and does do and there're a large slice of golfers out there who happen to like what Rees has done and does do, then what could be more of a confirmation of the "Big World" theory of golf course architecture than that?  

[TEPaul]

Oh, yes, of course, my fellow GOLFCLUBATLASers, I am aware that plenty on here feel that perhaps up to 99% of American golfers do not have a clue about golf course architecture. I suppose that also means then that they have no idea or even no opinion about what they like and don't like regarding architecture. When one takes a mindset like that and tries to apply it to any form of seriousness, it doesn't really take all that long to realize the foolishness of it---not to mention the arrogance of it and even the fact that it is completely elitist.  

[JR Potts]

TEPaul:

I agree.  I, for one, like Rees' and am constantly amazed at the controversy surrounding his work.  Furthermore, as an interested party, I am waiting for Geoff Shakelford's predictable scathing review of Rees' renovation of Medinah....and those who will invariably ride his coattails.

[Dan Herrmann]

TEPaul,
Thanks for the post.  I couldn't agree more.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Rich,
Then your statement would prove to be a highly-inaccurate one, at the very least an unresearched one, therefore a mistake on your part for even associating it, correct?

It has been most accurately accounted by Brad Klein in Rough Meditations. the problem not lie with the nematodes, or the superintendent, nor Coore & Crenshaw. That responsibility lies with the people in the club who made the decisions. Who went against what many were warning them about laying sod instead of growing in turf, which all of the three, wrongly and innaccurately get blamed (by people like you Rich) for--the debacle at the 1995 PGA Championship.

[TEPaul]

Ryan:

All I am saying is that it is very possible for anyone---me or you or anyone else to like nothing at all about Rees Jones architecture without going so far as to imply that it should not be appreciated by anyone. The problem arises when some try to damn it for all by claiming that no one should like it or that a large slice of golfers who do seem to like it shouldn't like it, or worse yet that they are totally ignorant of golf course architecture generally because they do seem to like it.

[Tim Pitner]

Ryan,

Medinah has certainly been criticized well before the renovation by Rees Jones.  Along with Firestone, it was one of Doak's examples of boring, "hit it here or else" courses.  I've only seen it on television, but it does seem sort of uninspiring.  Of course, I know others who would cite it as what a golf course should be--for them, a traditional, American country club.  

[JR Potts]

It is a traditional American golf course.  There is no shame in that and there is no chaging that...just like Hazeltine....Oakmont...etc.  It is long, tree-lined and fair.   And I don't think Doak's comments are all that fair re: "hit it there or else" as that characteristic is shared by most, if not all, US Open/PGA venues.  [See Winged Foot for an example].

[Brad Klein]

I think the real issue with Rees Jones' work is his aesthetic -- his recurring use of flat line central playing surfaces framed by high vertical mounds or (conversely) by shallow, symmetrical falloffs. I've spotted this aesthetic at work at many of his courses, both new ones and the renovation. I think that basic aesthetic, and how he creates it, leads to the issues with his work. He relies upon that vision even when the site doesn't.

I know he tried, for the most part successfully, to get away from it at Ocean Forest, where he let the dunes do the framing , but even there he turfed them over. Elsewhere, he creates the framing and the flat line down the middle, regardless of the surrounding terrain. I am increasingly convinced that this is his aesthetic or style.

[George Pazin]

TEPaul:

I agree.  I, for one, like Rees' and am constantly amazed at the controversy surrounding his work.  Furthermore, as an interested party, I am waiting for Geoff Shakelford's predictable scathing review of Rees' renovation of Medinah....and those who will invariably ride his coattails.

Glad to see you're just as open minded as the people you dismiss....

And Oakmont is a long, tree lined, fair course? Have you ever actually seen and played Oakmont? The Oakmont in Pittsburgh?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato, et. al.,

You can't use the "incompetance of owner" excuse for C&C at Riviera and ignore it at East Lake, Medihah and Sleepy Hollow for Rees.

In the ultimate, it's the club that solicits change,  they pick an architect to undertake a PREDETERMINED alteration to their golf course.

The architect submits plans for his intended work.

The owners, leaders or members VOTE on the submitted plan.

While Tom MacWood and many others may treasure what existed at East Lake, evidently, the owner/members didn't.

Medinah presents another story.
This isn't the first time architects have been called in to alter the golf course.   Medinah has a history of altering the golf course.

As to Sleepy Hollow, I'm not familiar with WHY Rees was called in, or what his marching orders were.
Evidently, the members decided that they wanted Rees to change their golf course.   Why else would they have voted for and funded the project.

And, when you view this process, called "restoration", you can't view it in a vacuum, ignoring work that WASN'T done, such as a restoration of the 12th green at GCGC.

TEPaul and I differ on this issue.
He feels that architects are more important than the driving force behind a project.   I feel that the driving force will determine the outcome of the project, not the architect.
That the architect is an instrument of the driving force, an artisan, who works his craft within the confines of the marching orders.

Where an architect is given a free hand, his work speaks for itself.

Where other factors come into play, those factors must be revealed and factored into the equation before assigning credit or blame.

[Glenn Spencer]

Ryan,

Medinah has certainly been criticized well before the renovation by Rees Jones.  Along with Firestone, it was one of Doak's examples of boring, "hit it here or else" courses.  I've only seen it on television, but it does seem sort of uninspiring.  Of course, I know others who would cite it as what a golf course should be--for them, a traditional, American country club.  

I have not played Pine Valley, but isn't it the definition of this? I don't understand how so many on this site can recommend tree-removal to all of these golf clubs and then talk about flogging being the ruin of the game all in the same sentence. What am I missing. Don't Medinah, Oak Hill, NCR, Olympic and the like have their place? If everyone wants variety in their shots, why not variety in their courses?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I want to play another RJ.

Sandpines was an utter mess!  
Not all of his work can be that bad...

Are you telling me that holes # 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are an utter mess ?

How about # 11

How can you describe them as being "that bad"

What's bad about them ?

[ForkaB]

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

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
I don't know what went on at East Lake nor care to. However, I do know what has gone on, and is going on there right now at Riviera, thus my ability to call Rich out on his faux paux.

As far as Rees Jones, I'll abstain from making any statement here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

I've always maintained that the best architecture seems to be produced when the visionary driving force and the talented architect are in harmony.

Not necessarily perfect harmony, but, both understand the type of product desired.

If it's solely a golf course, good things usually happen.
If it's a residential or resort property, the stars have to be in near perfect alignment.