Rees On Bethpage Et Al

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Pat, actually I am taking the USGA to task. I am very comfortable with my facts as you so often note to me and others. It is not Rees's fault he wants work and likes to get the best jobs available to him. He does not seem to have a problem with self promotion, nor it seems does the USGA. I have a real problem with the Organization which leads the game I love and respect acting more in the spirit of Bud Selig or the Olympic gentry or even worse the NCAA. The organization by its very expressed purpose ids for the good of the game. Helping Rees get several million in free advertising and maintaining the percieved myth that he is the man to prepare a course to host an Open is dead wrong and not in the interest of golf, much less golf architecture. Please read what I said, for I stand by it.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom

Yale was remodeled and the work ignored the original design.  Bunkers are now 5 feet shallower and slopes were butchered to make them maintenance friendly.  I raised bloody hell and objected.  It is a worse golf course then it was when the work began.  

I think you can see my point as far as Cypress Point is concerned as well.  It may NEVER have been better then the day it opened yet there isn't this outburst on this site over CP.

I think your last post puts us MUCH closer together then we might think.  I agree with what you said about the bunker shapes but for all the reasons we've repeated over and over I simply don't object to them as you do.

Fenway is another story.  I think Gil, Rodney, Jim and Bill might just be the most talented restoration group on the planet as witnessed by their extremely sensitive work on Tillinghast (Fenway), Ross (Plainfield) and Alison (Century) Courses.  At Fenway, Gil was asked to put the course back to the original state as close as possible and he did his homework/research very well and it resulted in a brilliant job. Do I wish that could have also happened at Bethpage Black?  In a perfect world, yes I do.  However, I won't put down what Rees did at the course because final product is SO much better then what he started with (unlike Yale, Riviera etc.)

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Bob, I have not doubt what you say is true. He certainly acted that way the two times I have had the opportunity to visirt with him. I feel the USGA by letting this Open doctor moniker continue to grow is creating a bad situation for golf and golf architecture.  Rees good reputation as a nice decent architect may be damaged because he cannot live up to the status he has.

[Tulsa]

John Bernhardt,

If you have the facts at your disposal, tell us how the USGA promoted Rees Jones at last years open site, Southern Hills.

The hosting golf course, not the USGA, makes the choice of the architect they want to work on their golf course.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Bernhardt,

Is it wrong to ask people to have their facts right ?

Do you feel that having the facts on an issue is immaterial and not relevant to the issue ?

Is it possible that clubs retain Rees because of the overwhelming satisfaction on the part of the parties involved,
the club, the USGA, the players and the members, for the work he has done at The Country Club, Hazeltine, Congressional and Baltusrol  ?

Do you think, that if all, or any, of those parties were seriously dis-satisfied with the job he did, that he would continue to be selected by these clubs for their future work ?

If, as you contend, the USGA is promoting him, why didn't he get the Southern Hills job last year ?

To repeat the question in the above post, what evidence/facts do you have to support your remarks/contention ?

Was anything done to Pebble Beach for the 2000 Open ?
Who was the consulting architect ?

[DMoriarty]

I don't understand why some of us are attacking the USGA's promotion of the restoration work at Bethpage.  From what I have heard, Rees has repeatedly praised Tillinghast's work, and has not oversold his own contribution at all.  Most of the focus has been on his fixing the course from a maintenance perspective — not on fixing the course from an architectural perspective.    

Plus, isn't it good for golf architecture that someone like Tillinghast is being positively and extensively discussed on NBC and ESPN.

Is it self-promotion?  Perhaps.  But a little self-promotion cannot be all bad.  As I recall, even Tom Doak appeared on Golf Channel during the Masters to promote his Mackenzie book.

As for the look of the bunkers, I am not qualified to comment, but will anyway, in the spirit of this thread.  

I have only seen course as restored, but I was very impressed with the scale of the bunkers.  They fit very well on a course where everything feels like it has been blown up to 125%.  I would probably have preferred less stylized shapes, but, as someone commented above, they look much more rugged and less stylized from the golfer's perspective, compared to the blimp's perspective.  Isn't the golfer's perspective the one that should matter most?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

It appears to me you skewed so many facts in your 6/14/12:13pm post as to be almost uncountable! Even what Rees Jones said in one of his interviews.

Maybe I can't hear very well but I would swear he said he sent some of the Bethpage bunker construction crew up to Winged Foot to get a feel for the scale of those Tillinghast bunkers!

[A_Clay_Man]

TePaul- My post of 6/13 at 5;22 p.m. was moments after his interview aired and he said exactly that.

Pat- Since when did the club committees that make these decisions get held up to such a high light? And who is to say they know squat about whats good work?

Plus, don't forget there is usually quite a gap between reality and the perception of reality.

Does anybody think that if the black was put in the hands of a Doak or a Pritchard  they would've made the course more multi-dimensional?

[John_D._Bernhardt]

I troubles me that on this site, whose love and understanding of architcture is so high and generally have good business people along with golfers of all walks of life, would not see the problem with the USGA putting any architect above the rest without actual merit. When a club hires an architect, it does so for many reasons. Often it is a relationship with a significant member, but more often than not it is the percieved reputation of the architect by a memeber or a board. the USGA is creating a perception Rees is head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to preparing Open courses. How can any site that professes to love and understand architecture and constantly promotes lesser known but equally talented people even stand for this for one minute much less year after year. Architecture is alot more than promotion. It is also alot more than the art we often let it reduce itself too. This is about fairness by a parent Organization and the respect professionals deserve. My money to the USGA should be for the good of the game not promotion of one architect over another.

[TEPaul]

John D.Bernhardt:

I would definitely not say this site does not see a problem with an architect being put ahead of others as "the Open Doctor".  

I'm not certain of the genesis of the term "Open Doctor" (I believe it started with Rees Jones) but the fact is the architects that have redesigned, rennovated or restored Open venues have generally gone on to successful careers and often fame because of it. And the fact is the USGA and the clubs in line for Opens have appeared to depend on a very limted number of architects to prepare Open courses for the tournament.

One only needs to track the careers of those architects to establish that fact! Not always Opens but also high visibiltiy tournament sites. That would certainly include Ross, RTJ, certainly the Fazios and certainly Rees Jones.

RTJ, the Fazios (particularly Tom in recent years) and also Rees seem to have had a relationship with the USGA that filters down to clubs that are in line for Opens but I'm not sure that fact could be absolutely established!

It may not seem fair to other architects but it has been a fact for many years. Obviously the USGA and possibly the clubs may view this as producing some sort of "consistency" in Open preparation or maybe it's no more than a "favorite son" situation!

But I don't really think you can say this site does not see a problem with that--certainly not after the on-going thread on all the interworkings of the situation at Riviera, for instance!

That particular one appeared to have become a situation of nepotism within the USGA itself!

And without question those few architects that have become well known because of Opens and such have had reputations of being the best! Obviously the public has come to perceive those architects as the best because they've been chosen to do Open sites although certainly other architectural analysts may not necessarily consider them the best or even that good because of that.

But I'm not sure one could conclude that a course or club must hire a so-called "Open Doctor" to be considered for an Open!

Clearly Aronomink would not shun Open consideration and has just been restored by Ron Prichard to a degree that the course is proabably somewhat Open ready!

Oakmont is clearly in the Open rota and always has been and in its long range preparation planning for an Open called Tom Doak. Doak very well may have another story but Oakmont appeared quite surprised that he did not call them back for over a month or said something to the effect that he couldn't consult with them for a month or so, so they called on Tom Fazio!

That certainly doesn't sound like a situation where the USGA dictated to an Open course and it sounds to me like another architect was not particularly interested in preparing a course for an Open or else he missed that very potential opportunity for some reason!

[John_D._Bernhardt]

TEPaul and Shivas, I think the discussion is moving toward the issue which I believe is the USGA. I feel this forum, because of its mission and makeup should stand tall for the good of the game from an architecture view and on architecture issues. Thanks for moving in that direction.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You missed the point again.

Username professed that the bunkers at WF looked better and more natural than the bunkers at BPB.  I asked him which bunkers ?, since I doubt he's ever set foot on either course.
You'll note, he never answered.

Since you made the allegation, be specific and
tell me exactly which facts I skewed in my post of 06-14-02,
12:13pm.  I don't want to hear your convoluted interpretation, I want you to cite the facts I skewed.
My guess is that you'll dismiss the exercise for some veiled reason, but the real reason is my facts are correct.

A Clayman,

You must deal with the REALITY of the situation.
The club decides which architect will be retained.
It doesn't matter if the committee/board/club are geniuses or as some think, people without a clue.  
THEY DECIDE.

NEITHER THE USGA NOR THE ARCHITECT HAS CARTE BLANCHE

THE CLUB, approves, disapproves or is responsible for any modification in the plans to alter the golf course.
Please tell me you understand that.

John Bernhardt,

You never addressed the questions raised relative to Southern Hills and your allegation that the USGA promotes Rees.  Could you provide some in depth knowledge of the process that took place at Southern Hills relative to the selection of the Architect for that golf course, for the OPEN.

You also stated that you had the facts with respect to the USGA openly promoting Rees to these individual clubs.
Could you share that information with us ?

Who was the consulting architect for the 2000 Open at PBGC?

If a board/committee was selecting an architect for their course, should they select an architect with a proven track record ?  Is that a "prudent man" decision.

If you went in for brain surgery, or a heart procedure who would you pick as the surgeon, someone who's done the procedure a zillion times with good results, or a relatively unknown with no track record ?

All of a sudden everyone on this site is an expert, and the people actually involved in the process, "don't have a clue"
I tend to think it's the other way around.

Who is the consulting architect at Oakmont ?  
Rees,  Or someone else ??

Shivas,

Each club is free to select whichever architect they want.

AS to the bunkers at BPB, don't judge them by the aerial shots
We've seen more than a few aerials of great courses where the bunkers don't look so hot.  Get on the ground, see them, play them, then judge for yourself

What I'm amazed at is that Rees's work on Open courses has been widely aclaimed, even by his critics, why the discontent over BPB, which everyone is raving about ?

P.S.  I'm going to be with people from the golf channel next week and will get a copy of the interview for reference purposes.

[Willie_Dow]

But what about us old folk who liked the course as it was?
Willie

[Patrick_Mucci]

Willie Dow,

I hadn't heard of one person who liked the course the way it was, with bushes and trees growing out of bunkers, etc., etc..
Surely, you're not suggesting that the course should not have been touched ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

As to you skewing facts in your 6/14 post, I withdraw what I said about that! It appears you were making observeations. However, your mention about the scale of BP bunkers vs WF bunkers needs clarification. Is that your observation or what you heard Rees say?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It's my observation.

The bunkers at BPB are ENORMOUS, on a GRAND scale.

While the bunkers at WF are substantial, they don't come close to those at BPB.

The land, and the scale of the course calls for their own distinctive bunkers, not replicas of Ridgewood, WF, or Quaker Ridge.

And when you have bunkers that enormous, you can't put cutesy little features in them, they'd get lost and/or look out of place, and would be difficult to maintain.

It seems to me that a lot of what is being said about the bunkers is criticism for criticisms sake.  It reminds me of the waiter who said to the four demanding women having lunch,
is anything allright ?

Let's hope it's an exciting final with the fans behaving properly

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Well, your feeling about the scale of the bunkering at BP and what can be in them and such is certainly your feeling and your observation and that's fine!

Nothing wrong with stating your feelings and observations on here. But I'm not sure you should also tell others that their feelings about them are all wrong. If you think the scale of Tillinghast bunkering at WF is completely out of place at BP it would certainly appear you have a difference of opinion with Bethpage's latest architect.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm not sure I understand.  The bunkers at Bethpage Black have always been on a large scale, both in total size and depth.  They have always had sand flashed to the top of their lips.  None of that is news.

If I understand what Rees was asking his contractors, it seems he was asking them to emulate the shapes and contouring of Winged Foot bunkers, while keeping them on their historic "GRAND" scale.

Patrick; you maintain that "when you have bunkers that enormous, you can't put little cutesy features in them", but, for those who have an aesthetic issue with the bunkers, I think that is EXACTLY what they are saying that Rees and his shapers did.  The bunkers at Bethpage certainly never had amoeba shapes with all sorts of capes, bays, whales backs, and such within each bunker that they do now.  

The "shapes" and internal contours of the bunkers at Winged Foot are not nearly as stylistic or fussy, regardless of scale, wouldn't you agree?  Is there anything at all on the entire WF property that looks anything like the fairway and greenside bunkers of 18 at the Black, or the greenside bunkers at 6, or the fronting bunker at 14, or the bunkers between 10 & 11?

I'm not talking size now, only shape.  Which Tillinghast bunkers have you played, WF or anywhere else, that have this type of shaping?

[NONE]

Answer, NONE.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Pat, I just started watching today about 3 central time and feel maybe someone is listening. The talk is about Tilli and not who did the preparation. Anyway, I do not feel Southern Hills is relevant for it has been in the USGA rotation for many years.

[Joe Hancock]

John,

I was a bit surprised after his Tillie reference that it was his "fingerprints" all over the course.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't think Rees and I differ.

Mike Cirba,

Shamrock.

I think WF's bunkers are fussier.

John Bernhardt,

Your statement relative to Southern Hills and the USGA would seem to support and augment my position, since Rees was not retained by Southern Hills, they, and they alone selected another architect.

Who was the architect for the 2000 Open ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Did you not say that the scale of the bunkering at WF would not fit at BP?

Did Rees not say that he sent his Bethpage bunker contractors up to WF to observe the scale of the WF bunkers for the work they were going to do at Bethpage?

You may not think you and Rees disagree but if you told the Bethpage bunker contractors what you said on here and Rees told them what he says he told them can you deny they might more than a little confused?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I'm not surprised by your simple response to Mike's excellent question on Tillie. Perhaps you can provide a couple more brief responses to my questions

"I also have to laugh at Tom MacWood's allegation about the dis-satisfaction of the Members at Baltusrol, Hollywood and other courses.  He is so WRONG it's laughable, and it shows the extent he will go to in his attempt to disparage Rees." What exactly did I say about the membership at Baltusrol and Hollywood, I don't recall ever mentioning either clubs members?

"Geoffrey, you will notice that his research in this area is non-existent, and based upon his personal, biased opinion, alone.
And, Geoffrey, you have to remember, Tom MacWood has never seen these courses, but makes his pronouncements, nonetheless.  The hallmark of good, thorough research !
His credibility in speaking for the membership of golf courses he's never played is ZERO, so don't take it too seriously."
As far as the research that went into my ground breaking comment regarding a revolt at WF - I have played the course.  Is that your main criteria for credibility when it comes to analyzing an architect's stylistic tendancies?  If it were that simple wouldn't you be able to discuss the subject in more detail?

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Pat, please try and separate your friendship with Rees from this discussion. It is not about him, it is about the USGA. As TE Paul noted there were several favored Architects before the current open doctor bs started a number of years ago. Rees did a good job with Bethpage. So lets not go forward on his basic skill. I do not think clubs who have never had a USGA event and desire one, select architects in an independent valcum free from percieved biases, particularly when the Organization has a history on this issue. The difference is the industry is in a period of contraction after a 20 year expansion. it has attracted and developed a lot of talent and we should promote a business climate which allows the cream to rise to the top based as much as possible on skill and not relationships or percieved skill. I feel we on this site have an opportunity to assist very talented lesser known architects in having great work noted. I do ackowledge that on architecture any publicity could be called good publicity. In this case I feel the USGA is doing a disservice to the good of the game.