Rees Jones interview on Torrey Pines

[Joe Bausch]

http://www.asgca.org/news/U.S.OpenPreviewReesJonesASGCATalksTorreyPines.cfm

[Pete Lavallee]

"Originally designed by William Bell, Sr. in 1957"

How does someone design a golf course 4 years after their death?

[Mike Sweeney]

"Originally designed by William Bell, Sr. in 1957"

How does someone design a golf course 4 years after their death?

Pete,

The Old Dead Guys did it all. 

Enjoy next week.

[Paul Carey]

Mike,

Now that is funny!

[Mike Nuzzo]

I like their choice of photo...

[Garland Bayley]

Lambrecht, what a hack! If they wanted a really good photo, they would have asked Aidan!

[Kalen Braley]

Aren't doing things like this one of the real downsides to disgifugring golf courses?

"Even though we added 600 yards to the length of the course, we kept the forward tees the same for the public players who enjoy this course all the other days of the year. We pushed the location of the bunkers farther down the fairway; now the good player might be penalized, but the bunkers are out of play for most of the shorter hitters".

As if shorter hitters aka the vast majority of public players don't want to interface with bunkering and be made to think and make decisions off the tee?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Aren't doing things like this one of the real downsides to disgifugring golf courses?

"Even though we added 600 yards to the length of the course, we kept the forward tees the same for the public players who enjoy this course all the other days of the year. We pushed the location of the bunkers farther down the fairway; now the good player might be penalized, but the bunkers are out of play for most of the shorter hitters".

As if shorter hitters aka the vast majority of public players don't want to interface with bunkering and be made to think and make decisions off the tee?

Kalen,

That's really a universal problem, a universal dilema.

How can you design a golf course that will present every level of golfer, from the PGA Tour Pro to the beginer with a challenge commensurate with their respective abilities ?   Especially as the beginer transitions from a novice to an accomplished player ?

Can a single, non-greenside bunker be interfaced with by all players ?

Do you stagger the fairway bunkers from 100 yards off the tee all the way to the green ?

The dilema has been exacerbated by the "distance" problem brought about by hi-tech.

Years ago there was a "compression" of sorts.  PGA Tour players didn't hit the ball that much further than decent amateurs.

Today, the gap is staggering.

So, how do you fill that gap ...... architecturally ?   Feature wise ?

As the need to provide 8,000 yard courses for PGA Tour Pros increases, how does the architect provide an equivalent challenge ?

Sure, off the tee, you can locate fairway bunkers at "equivalent DZ's", but, what happens from there ?

On a 500 yard par 4 hole, with bunkers at the 300 yard mark for the pros, leaving 200 in, how can you provide a drive and approach shot that will interface with the same features for the other levels of golfers, from novices to scratch handicaps ?

Before you and others go bashing Rees, come up with a solution to the problem I outlined. ...... first.

[Kalen Braley]

Patrick,

There is a simple answer to this, not that I'm necessarily advocating it.  Continue building TPC courses that are designed specifically for tournament play and hold all the PGA tour events there.  And leave other established venues alone......

Taken an extra step, there could be a rotating TPC course that is used for the US Open and PGA every year.  At least they could get what they want and not bastardize other courses.

Of course many will not agree with this approach so this is where "Majority Rules" come in.  Simply put, who plays the course the majority of the time?  If its public simpletons who hit it 220-240 off the tee, the build to suit for these types of players.  I suspect many of the courses are already this way and one more reason they be left alone.

There is precedent for this as well.  Other professional sports have fields/venues/ etc set up explicitly for the pros only.  Setup a few venues like this and keep them that way.  Then for revenue pruposes, for all the yahoos who want to challenge thier game, they can show up at said TPCs plunk down thier cash and see how well they can play the same course, with the same setup.  As they will likely be brutal, they won't be too crowded.  And the green fees can offset costs for upkeep when a pro tourney isn't in town.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

There is a simple answer to this, not that I'm necessarily advocating it.  Continue building TPC courses that are designed specifically for tournament play and hold all the PGA tour events there.  And leave other established venues alone......

Theoretically, perhaps, but, where are you going to build these courses in or near the cities that the PGA Tour travels to.

Start with New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington DC and Los Angeles.

In retrospect I would have liked to have seen the PGA Tour build their TPC courses and leave the classics alone, but, that didn't happen, nor do I think it will.[/color]

Taken an extra step, there could be a rotating TPC course that is used for the US Open and PGA every year.  At least they could get what they want and not bastardize other courses.

Again, theoretically, perhaps, but, it ain't gonna happen.[/color]

Of course many will not agree with this approach so this is where "Majority Rules" come in.  Simply put, who plays the course the majority of the time?


I don't think you can determine that.
And, if you did what you suggest, why would anyone who doesn't fit into the targeted golfer category join the club or play at the club.

An architect must forge a disinterested challenge for all golfers, not just a limited segment of the golfing spectrum.[/color]

If its public simpletons who hit it 220-240 off the tee, the build to suit for these types of players. 

The course would perish because all others who don't fit into that mold wouldn't play or join it.[/color]

I suspect many of the courses are already this way and one more reason they be left alone.

I don't understand that comment, can you explain it ?[/color]

There is precedent for this as well.  Other professional sports have fields/venues/ etc set up explicitly for the pros only. 

What sports and what fields/venues ?
Not tennis, not basketball, not football, not hockey, not boxing (sorry I repeated myself). [/color]

Setup a few venues like this and keep them that way.  Then for revenue pruposes, for all the yahoos who want to challenge thier game, they can show up at said TPCs plunk down thier cash and see how well they can play the same course, with the same setup.  As they will likely be brutal, they won't be too crowded.  And the green fees can offset costs for upkeep when a pro tourney isn't in town.

Would you invest in that project ?

Where are you going to get the land near population centers to build these courses ?   At what cost ?

The U.S. Open site selection is still influenced by the local market.
New York is incredibly profitable.
Jasper, Wyoming isn't.
And you can't ignore that fact.[/color]

[Tim Gerrish]

no, the real answer is a tournament ball!  They could call it 'the equalizer'.

[Sean_A]

Aren't doing things like this one of the real downsides to disgifugring golf courses?

"Even though we added 600 yards to the length of the course, we kept the forward tees the same for the public players who enjoy this course all the other days of the year. We pushed the location of the bunkers farther down the fairway; now the good player might be penalized, but the bunkers are out of play for most of the shorter hitters".

As if shorter hitters aka the vast majority of public players don't want to interface with bunkering and be made to think and make decisions off the tee?

Kalen,

That's really a universal problem, a universal dilema.

How can you design a golf course that will present every level of golfer, from the PGA Tour Pro to the beginer with a challenge commensurate with their respective abilities ?   Especially as the beginer transitions from a novice to an accomplished player ?

Can a single, non-greenside bunker be interfaced with by all players ?

Do you stagger the fairway bunkers from 100 yards off the tee all the way to the green ?

The dilema has been exacerbated by the "distance" problem brought about by hi-tech.

Years ago there was a "compression" of sorts.  PGA Tour players didn't hit the ball that much further than decent amateurs.

Today, the gap is staggering.

So, how do you fill that gap ...... architecturally ?   Feature wise ?

As the need to provide 8,000 yard courses for PGA Tour Pros increases, how does the architect provide an equivalent challenge ?

Sure, off the tee, you can locate fairway bunkers at "equivalent DZ's", but, what happens from there ?

On a 500 yard par 4 hole, with bunkers at the 300 yard mark for the pros, leaving 200 in, how can you provide a drive and approach shot that will interface with the same features for the other levels of golfers, from novices to scratch handicaps ?

Before you and others go bashing Rees, come up with a solution to the problem I outlined. ...... first.

I don't have all the answers, but I don't think its a huge problem anyway.  I am not convinced that any of the courses before extra distance were particularly accomodating to ALL players, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the problem (albieit in reverse) continues.  In any case, I do believe that the problem lies with the pros, not with archies and clubs.  I think the pro game is less interesting to watch and the style of play has something to do with that.  These guys need to figure out how to make THEIR product more appealing and if they think reducing the efficiency of their equipment is aprt of the answer, fair enough.  As I said, I don't have the answers, but then the onus isn't on me to find them.  From my PoV the game is suffering much more because of slow play rather than pros hitting the ball too far.

Ciao 

[Willie_Dow]

Pat et all:

I happen to agree with all of the above, for once.  Rees is trying to accomodate all of the above comments, as I read them, not having ever seen Torrey Pines.

The picture I have of the course is reflected in Rees' remarks, and having played The Country Club after/and before his efforts to prepare the site for an Open I can feel where he is coming from.  If the land provides an adjustable site for both types of players, go for it !

Just my thoughts.

[Patrick_Mucci]

no, the real answer is a tournament ball!  They could call it 'the equalizer'.

Tim,

Agreed, but, I'd look to ANGC and not the USGA to come out with it.

Sean,

Isn't slow play a product of the PGA Tour ?
Monkey see, Monkey do.

I find it mind boggling that golfers who have played on the same course for 20 + years, study their putts from six angles, consult with their caddy and partners before putting.

Slow play diminishes the experience but not the challenge.

The equipment has diminished the challenge.

When 17 year old kids are hitting it farther than Nicklaus in his prime, you know something ain't right in Denmark.