Peter Kostis on Rees's Work at Oakland Hills

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

If I hadn't heard it myself I'm not sure I would have believed it since every course Peter Kostis broadcasts from is "fantastic," "superb," or some other inappropriate phrase, but I could have sworn Kostis said of Rees's renovation: "He didn't give you much option in the way you can play the golf course." Then later Kostis said something like, "he's taken away a lot of angles Donald Ross intended."

Holy crap, it's almost like he gets it.


Anthony

[David Stamm]

If I hadn't heard it myself I'm not sure I would have believed it since every course Peter Kostis broadcasts from is "fantastic," "superb," or some other inappropriate phrase, but I could have sworn Kostis said of Rees's renovation: "He didn't give you much option in the way you can play the golf course." Then later Kostis said something like, "he's taken away a lot of angles Donald Ross intended."

Holy crap, it's almost like he gets it.


Anthony

Anthony, I was surprised. I heard the same thing.

[Joe Bausch]

I heard him say it more than once yesterday.  He clearly stated that he didn't like the narrowing up of the fairways so that angles of attacks into certain pin positions were compromised.  I was impressed!

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Did Kostis get hit in the head with a shot or something? If he did, I'd like to buy a drink for whoever conked him into his senses.

Anthony

[Jeff_Mingay]

As you know though, Ross' angles were taken away long before Rees Jones showed up.

I think his dad may have had something to do with this 

[Jerry Kluger]

What was your reaction to 16 - it almost reminded me of a TPC course - bunkers force player to lay back and then play shot over a lake to a tucked pin   - I don't know -  it just seemed to me that it made for forced errors.

17 on the other hand rewarded the two better players who had the ability to make the really difficult shot.

[Dan Herrmann]

Any idea what #16 looked like originally?  I just can't imagine Ross building the hole that way.  To me, it was the most un-Rossian hole on the course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Anthony,

I don't think that Rees had anything to do with narrowing the fairways, that's a function of maintainance, not architecture, and it's been pretty much SOP for the Open and PGA for years and years.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Dan,

The 16th at Oakland Hills-South is actually one of the least changed holes on the course. It's nearly as Ross designed it today, aside from the tee extension and pond expansion.

And, Mr. Mucci's right. I don't think Rees changed the fairway lines (much, anyway). Again, his dad narrowed the fairways to approx. their present configuration, more than a half century ago now.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Pat

That might be but when a course receives accolades that Rees came within 25 miles of he takes the accolades. In this case the criticism falls to him, although the PGA is not within heaps of blame either.

Anthony

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I heard the same thing from Kostis and realized he must have read Lorne Rubinstein's article previously posted by Brad Klein:

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080809.RUBE09/TPStory/Sports

[Jim Nugent]

Any thoughts on how the tournament would have played, if they set up Oakland Hills more forgiving, less rough, wider fairways, more angles and options?  Scores, winner, etc? 

[Jeff_Mingay]

Steve,

I'd be surprised if Mr. Kostis reads Canada's national newspaper... but, who knows!

[Brad Klein]

When you have bentgrass fairway lines specifically established as a permanent delineation and clearly separate from the bluegrass roughs, and you have a fixed line of bunkers (including new ones) that squeeze the landing areas, then that is a matter of architecture, not maintenance. Oakmont and Baltusrol have done the same thing. The maintenance has to do in this case with turf quality, consistency and heights, but the structural aspects are the responsibility of the architect.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff M:

I've seen an old picture of 16 at Oakland Hills where the fairway was far, far wider -- today's fairway would have been the left half of the old fairway, with another 30 yards of fairway running straight into the end of the pond to the right of today's fairway, so you could play down that side to hit across the pond and safely away from the back right of the green.  I believe Trent Jones did in that part of the fairway before the '51 Open.

[Mike_Clayton]

Anthony,

Maybe Geoff Ogilvy has been able to successfully indoctrinate someone at Whisper Rock

[Patrick_Mucci]

The maintenance has to do in this case with turf quality, consistency and heights, but the structural aspects are the responsibility of the architect.

Brad,

We were together on February 28, 2004 when Baltusrol informed us that they were realigning their fairway/rough lines vis a vis removal of the bent and introduction of wall to wall blue grass, and then, they indicated that they were going to move the bunkers in to match the new fairway/rough lines.

This came on the heels of Oakmont doing the same thing.

Rees was not involved at Oakmont.

The Board of each club must make that decision.
That's NOT a decision left to the architect.

Remember, it cost Baltusrol approximately $ 800,000 just to reconfigure the fairway/rough lines, and that money must be appropriated through club channels, usually, through the finance committee and finally to the board.

Irrespective of any architect's plans and recommendations, ONLY the club, through their operating structure, can make those changes, changes that tend to be permanent, especially in view of the cost to undo them.

So when Rees is criticized for narrowing the rough, one must examine the process, with a historical perspective of Major setups over the last 20 or so years, and with an understanding of the inability of anyone, except the club, to alter the field of play, usually at the request of the USGA and/or PGA.

I can recall the MET Amateur being hosted by Upper Montclair many years ago.  Shortly after the MET Am was over, the fairways were cut wider since a PGA Tour event was to be held there the next month.  My how times have changed.

Rees can't be held accountable for narrowing a golf course when that's dictated by the USGA and/or PGA and agreed to and financed by the hosting club.

Next he'll be blamed for narrowing ANGC.

[Brad Klein]

Pat, you're being ridiculous. I never blamed Rees for Oakmont. I used that course as an example. More importantly, if the architect (such as Rees at Baltusrol and Oakland Hilsl) recommends something else, they make that accommodation or have a discussion. And if the architect disagreed he wouldn't do it or wouldn't keep coming back and associating himself with that course professionally year after year. So for you to try to isolate the board and the members on this is to obscure the role and influence that an architect has, esp, someone with the imprimatur of a Rees Jones or a Tom Fazio.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, you're being ridiculous.

I'm rarely ridiculous.

I never blamed Rees for Oakmont.

I never said you did.
I was relating how Baltusrol followed Oakmont in shifting, not only their fairway/rough lines, but their bunkers as well.

There was a common denominator to both courses which I deliberately omitted.  You and I know the identity of that denominator.

I used that course as an example.

But, it's more than an example, one is a descendant of the other, and that was what I was refering to.

More importantly, if the architect (such as Rees at Baltusrol and Oakland Hilsl) recommends something else, they make that accommodation or have a discussion.

Isn't it presumptuous to assume that Rees made those recommendations and that the USGA/PGA and club had no part in it ?

And if the architect disagreed he wouldn't do it or wouldn't keep coming back and associating himself with that course professionally year after year.

I disagree.

Opens and PGA's are held in cycles, usually 10-13 year cycles, so I don't see the architect as the driving force in narrowing venues that will host Opens and PGA's once every 10-13 years. 

Essentially the decision and results are as follows.

Alter the fairway/rough lines for 4 days out of every 3,652 to 4,748 days for a Major at the expense of the membership for the remaining 3,648 to 4,744 days.

To me, it makes NO SENSE.

I'm for horizontal elasticity, which was used in the old days.

Grow the roughs in, and when the big show leaves town, bring out the gang mowers and restore the fairway/rough lines for the membership.

However, ONCE you move the bunkers in to the new fairway/rough lines, it's almost impossible to embark on a restoration project.

While association with the hosting course is a desirable by-product for business, I don't see the affiliation as one requiring ongoing visits on a scheduled basis.[/b]

So for you to try to isolate the board and the members on this is to obscure the role and influence that an architect has, esp, someone with the imprimatur of a Rees Jones or a Tom Fazio.

It's not an isolation, it's a colaboration.

You would have us believe that the USGA and/or PGA are disinterested parties, mere bystanders.

I don't buy it.

Narrowed fairways are the product of the marriage of the USGA/PGA, the hosting club, TV and lastly, the professional brought in to implement the agreed upon changes in the field.

You can't blame Fazio and/or Rees for changes in the culture of Tournament golf at the highest championship level.

There's a consortium that's responsible.

And, at the epicenter of the consortium is the ONLY party with the ultimate veto, the club/board.

You can't spend $ 800,000 to realign the fairway/rough lines without authorization and funding, and the only entity that can implement that change is the club/board, not the architect.
 

[Brad Klein]

Sorry, Pat, but when you have bentgrass fairways and bluegrass roughs the fairway lines are permanent. That's the obvious example of Oakmont last year, as clear as day.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

I have known of only one club which had the confidence to tell either the PGA or the USGA that they didn't think they needed to make significant changes in preparation of an upcoming championship.  That was Shinnecock Hills.  They put in a couple of tees for the last Open, but no more. 

I do not think it is a coincidence that they managed to resist further change because they are the only one of these clubs which DID NOT have a consulting architect on board ready to take bows for his surgery to their course.

I just don't understand why everyone assumes these courses constantly need updating.  If they hadn't lengthened and tightened Oakland Hills this time, would the wrong guy have won?  And how different would the winning score have been?  My best guess is that it would have been 2-3 shots lower over 72 holes.  Why does anyone care about 2-3 strokes??

I care because four times per year, on national TV, every other club in America is being not-so-subtly told that they need to lengthen their course, too.  It's a bad message to be sending.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

I have known of only one club which had the confidence to tell either the PGA or the USGA that they didn't think they needed to make significant changes in preparation of an upcoming championship.  That was Shinnecock Hills.  They put in a couple of tees for the last Open, but no more. 

Tom,

I give SH a lot of credit for that.
They were also the first club where the USGA leased the facility for a fee.

I think more clubs are deciding that they don't want to change their course and inconvenience their members, temporarily or permanently, and are therefore rejecting the opportunity to host a Major.

I do not think it is a coincidence that they managed to resist further change because they are the only one of these clubs which DID NOT have a consulting architect on board ready to take bows for his surgery to their course.

Shinnecock had and probably continues to have a unique culture.
I don't think change comes quickly to SH, either in the form of alteration or restoration.

Being content with what you have is a wonderful attribute, and, as you stated, few clubs have that confidence.

I just don't understand why everyone assumes these courses constantly need updating. 

I see it in the context that the ball goes too far.
JB Holmels hit 9 of 14 fairways one day, averaging 330 yards.
In hosting a championship, a Major, how do you defend against that without adding length ?

I've been an advocate of a competition ball, reducing the size of the clubface, etc., etc.. but, I haven't made much of an impression on the powers that be.

The hosting organizations (USGA & PGA) and TV don't want Majors turning into the "Desert Tour" gone East where 24 under wins by 1, with the entire cut 14 under.

Had the I&B been better regulated this problem wouldn't exist.

I'm still hoping that Augusta will come out with a "tournament" ball that the USGA will adopt for its events.

If they hadn't lengthened and tightened Oakland Hills this time, would the wrong guy have won? 

I don't know if there is a "wrong" guy, but, a different guy probably would have won.

For Majors, most, including the sponsoring organizations want par to be a challenge.  They don't want the "Desert Open" East results.

And how different would the winning score have been?  My best guess is that it would have been 2-3 shots lower over 72 holes.  Why does anyone care about 2-3 strokes??

I don't think anyone cares about 2-3 strokes.
I do think that they care abour 12-13 or 22-23 strokes, ala the "Desert Opens"

I care because four times per year, on national TV, every other club in America is being not-so-subtly told that they need to lengthen their course, too.  It's a bad message to be sending.

I agree.

And, despite the lengthening, they're not long enough to challenge many of these guys.  Didn't someone just hit a driver - six iron into a 600+ yard par 5 ?  The failure to regulate the equipment has produced the distance race that's resulted in longer and longer golf courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sorry, Pat, but when you have bentgrass fairways and bluegrass roughs the fairway lines are permanent.

Brad,

I stated that.

That's what cost Baltusrol $ 800,000

That's the obvious example of Oakmont last year, as clear as day.


Agreed.

Aided and abetted by moving the bunkers in to match the rough lines.

Brad,

I stated that.

That's what cost Baltusrol $ 800,000

[Chuck Brown]

Tom Doak is exactly right about the old sweep of the fairway OHCC #16.

And, I want to assure everyone, beyond any question, that the new narrowed fairways were done as a matter of design, including the stripping out of bentgrass and addition of bluegrass rough.  It was done on the basis of carefully lined-out marks laing down by Rees & Co.  It was no accident, not a long period of inattention, not careless mowing.  Nothing of the sort.  They began the latest work the summer immediately after the Ryder Cup.  I had the pleasure and the illuminating experience of seeing the extent of the narrowing first hand, while playing the South Course and seeing all the yellow lines laid out for the sod cutters and the mowers.

I agree wholeheartedly with Brad Klein; if you view it as a legitimate task to update a classic golf course to pose a competitive challenge to tour players, you will end up doing the kinds of things generally done by Rees Jones at OHCC.  Most of them, I don't care for, simply because I don't like the original task; altering the golf courses, instead of the obvious solution of altering golf ball specs.  But with the current equipment technology as a given, I think what Rees Jones did was in rather good taste.  As I have posted before, what he did to #7 was a huge improvement.  What he did to #15 was a terrible disaster, I think.  But beyond any question, what he did was what was mandated by the equipment technology.  For the most part, Rees Jones wasn't improving OHCC; he was altering it, for a different kind of game.  Not only not "better," but arguably "worse," as Lorne Rubenstein accurately described and as Peter Kostis repeated for a national tv audience.

At Geoff Shackelford's website, I wrote that Titleist-consulstant-Peter Kostis' complaining about the subject of narrowed fairways and enhanced rough elimnating thoughtful angles, is like Tony Soprano complaining about a rising crime rate.

[Dan_Callahan]

When JB Holmes hit 9 of 14 fairways and averaged 330 yards, the key is that he did it for ONE day. Had he been able to do that over four days, he would have deserved to win, assuming his putter was average at best. There's no reason why a course should be expected to defend itself against a superhuman performance like that. But he didn't do it over four days, and the same driver that produced those 330-yard drives also destroyed his PGA chances by bombing his ball deep into the trees off the first tee on Sunday.