The Open Doctor

[Patrick_Mucci]

How did Rees Jones get to be the "open dr"?   I was reading shackefords article about mike davis' disdain for the wrk Rees did at Torrey. His work at cog hill in an attempt to get the open is widely hated.  So why did other rota courses like bethpage, etc cut Rees loose?  Related, will no. 2 look  smart in bringing in c&c?


John,

Which courses that Rees Jones worked on, that hosted the Open, have you played pre and post Rees's involvement ?[/b]

[Mike Nuzzo]

I'm not saying that Rees hasn't done some poor work, he has, But then again so did Tilly and Ross and Mackenzie and Colt and every great architect who ever lived. I am saying that he isn't being judged fairly by most on here. Consider this, how stupid must all of those wealthy and successful beusiness people, major players in corporate America, actually be if Rees Jones is as poor an architect as some portray him to be? What are you actually saying about literally many thousands of club members who for years now have both employed his firm and KEEP DOING SO? He has to be doing something right for someone...

Thank you for the info Philip.
I want to comment on your argument in the last paragraph.
It has nothing to do with Jones.
It relates more to the difficulty to break into the certain markets....

Bernie Madoff did pretty good by a lot of people for a period of time.
Cheers

[Kris Shreiner]

Perhaps some folks could enlighten me, how does the financial arrangement work regarding course-work payments during a lead-up to a U.S. Open, after it has been awarded. Does the club pay a fee to host and then the USGA orders and pays for reno work of Rees or whomever? What are the dynamics. Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
Kris

[John Shimp]

Pat
Only 2, pinehurst and Torrey. My goal w this thread was to open a discussion on how Rees got this designation and why. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
Only 2, pinehurst and Torrey. My goal w this thread was to open a discussion on how Rees got this designation and why. 



John,

You must be very young, otherwise you'd remember that he inherited the title.

His father, Robert Trent Jones, was given that title many years before, due to his work on Open courses.

Rees's work at Baltusrol has been very well received, on both courses.

I was unaware that Rees had made any changes to Pinehurst # 2.
Could you list the changes he made there

Thanks

[Patrick_Mucci]

Perhaps some folks could enlighten me, how does the financial arrangement work regarding course-work payments during a lead-up to a U.S. Open, after it has been awarded. Does the club pay a fee to host and then the USGA orders and pays for reno work of Rees or whomever? What are the dynamics. Thanks in advance.

Kris, the USGA does NOT pay for any alterations to the golf course.

They make suggestions.

The host club decides if they want to act on those suggestions.

If they do, they pay the bill for the work.

Hope that helps

[Mike_Young]

The question was HOW did he become the open doctor...and Pat tells you above...
But so as not to gang up on a Rees Jones or any of the signatures....
Imagine if you had won a US Open and decided to start designing courses after you were the pro at a course like Pine Valley....you have members al over the country and thru them you would have the inside on any of the top projects that even became a "thought" in a community across the country....
Even Pete Dye teams w JN for Harbor Town and at the time it was the JN that brought the attention....and there are more..

these guys have the ability and the contacts to reach the decision makers that have the final say so or the money to do the top projects ....  and not many of these decision makers know or want to know golf architecture....

Think about it....only one guy in the golf industry goes to some big deal in the White house a week or two ago...RTJJ...and check and see who in the golf industry is in Bohemian Grove...one guy  RTJJ....more power to them....
The top projects are all about who you know and working your way in with these groups....and automatically included is marketing , money and contacts for more....  good for them....

[Mike Nuzzo]

 good for them....

Not good for GCA
cheers

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Comparing Rees to Bernie Madoff?  Years ago, I remember someone calling someone else a Nazi here, but next to that, this is a new low for the board.

Rees has been serving clients for over 40 years on his own, and as an assistant to his father before that.  I have never heard of any misdeeds, other than not all of his projects being as well recieved as others.  As Phil points out, the same is true of any gca who has done two or more projects.

As it relates to Open courses, it doesn't surprise me that his better recieved courses are the ones that stuck closest to the original design intent (TCC, BP) since most of us love or expect old, classic courses for the Open.  As to Torrey Pines, we could argue that the choice of venue was flawed architecturally from the start. It may look like a Rees course, which is not traditional, but it looked like a pretty blah Bell course before.  Maybe there was only so much he could do.

[jeffwarne]

 good for them....

Not good for GCA
cheers

Developers such as Keiser (at least on the first course at bandon)are showing the way for other developers to tap the talents of the vast array of architects who aren't well known to the average Joe.
 i.e. build a great course and the consumer won't care who the architect is as long as the course is good/great(granted that's a bit easier on great sites)
Hopefully, the next wave of courses built (or reclaimed from desertion) will involve many of these talented unheralded architects who are on site, in the dirt guys, as opposed to fly in 3 days on site guys)

Now if we can get the Keisers of the world to ditch the management companies once the courses are built.....

[John Shimp]

Pat
Rees redid all 18 greens in 1996 according to some old images found in the tufts archives by then supt Paul Jett who incidentally I played high school golf with.  The greens became much larger and this work was well received.  They did have trouble with the new collars aroundnthe greens that persisted thru the 1999 open.  All in all the course showed great for the 1999 open but this did seems to continue the period where the course drifted away from a sandy faster course with hardpan to a long soft deep rough course with a great set of greens.  

In 2004 Rees lengthened the golf course in prep for the 2005 us open.  This was straightforward and needed but the course only got farther away from it's origins.  My guess is that Rees had little/nothing to do with the playing conditions of the course that evolved over time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
Rees redid all 18 greens in 1996 according to some old images found in the tufts archives by then supt Paul Jett who incidentally I played high school golf with.  The greens became much larger and this work was well received.  They did have trouble with the new collars aroundnthe greens that persisted thru the 1999 open.  All in all the course showed great for the 1999 open but this did seems to continue the period where the course drifted away from a sandy faster course with hardpan to a long soft deep rough course with a great set of greens.  

John, that seems like a maintainance issue, not a design issue.[/b]

In 2004 Rees lengthened the golf course in prep for the 2005 us open.  This was straightforward and needed but the course only got farther away from it's origins.  My guess is that Rees had little/nothing to do with the playing conditions of the course that evolved over time.

The abililty to lengthen should be an integral part of the original design..... elasticity.
But, the PGA Tour Pros hit the ball so far that I doubt you could reasonably lengthen an existing classic to challenge them on length alone.

And, who in their right mind wants to play a special course like # 2 from the PGA Tour Pro/USGA Open tees ?

[JR Potts]

I've played the golf course, but that has no bearing on my knowledge of the make up of the original course and how it was changed. I knew that before I played it.

I think juxtoposing Phil's post with yours is a good idea for any reader and it probably sheds a lot of light on the qualifications and experience upon which to judge your critique.

[John Shimp]

Pat,
Agreed re maintenance issue vs design.  The club let that course get soft and rough long.  There were a number of holes where fairway bunkers had 10 yds of rough between them and fairways too which I don't like.

The green work in 1996 was great and persists today and will thru the C&C work that is ongoing.

To your point on length, I played it once from the open tees.  It really is eye opening.  Hole 10 plays at 625 yds.  Hole 12 is massively long at around 500yds, etc.  Such a change from the way I had always thought of those holes, but some pros can green it or nearly so in 2 on hole 10. Amazing power.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

John,

I've been playing # 2 since the early 60's and always loved the golf course.
It was an enjoyable challenge for the best amateurs in the country, as evidenced by the history of the North-South Amateur.

Sadly, on my last play, the fairways had been narrowed and the rough allowed to grow to questionable heights.

Restoring the width should be high on the priority list.

The dilema seems to be the extreme difference between presenting a course that has to challenge the best golfers in the world at the U.S. Open, while at the same time presenting an enjoyable challenge for hotel guests.

What was that song with the line, "stay away from my door"

I played Seminole recently with Ran and I can't begin to tell you what a great time we had, how enjoyable the golf course was.
Fortunately, they're landlocked in many locations and can't lengthen the course, but, in a make believe world, if they could and if a U.S. Open was to be held at Seminole, I can't imagine liking any of the changes made to prepare the course to test the best golfers in the world.

I believe that Ernie Els drove the first green when he was there.

Like the Maginot Line, the architectural features, meant to challenge and thwart the golfer, are rendered useless by hi-tech today.

A competition ball and additional restrictions on clubhead size and shaft length would seem to be the only way to restore the interfacing of the architectural features with the golfer.

End of rant

[Jeff_Brauer]

KBM,

Mike had his opportunity to express himself.  And he did it in one line, which will stand on the internet forever now, as will my opinion that it was an unfair comparison.  Later, he used another one liner to suggest that Rees doing the Open courses was bad for architecture, and I let that one pass without comment, because its a fair opinion. 

We both know he was going for a pithy little joke at Rees expense, and maybe that's all well and good.  But, I am entitled to my opinion as well, and for that matter, find it hard to see that I am the flamethrower on this one.  If anyone was, it was Mike for a poorly thought out comment comparing a gca he doesn't like to one of the worlds all time worst criminals.

[John Shimp]

Pat,
Similar to my experiences although I extend back to the early 80's.  (Did it deteriorate from the 60's to the 80's?)

I understand that there will be only 2 (maybe 3) grass heights to be used there for the 2014 US Open(s).  A green cut and the rest is what I've heard with maybe a needed difference between the fairways and off putting surface surrounds.  I am really excited about this prospect if it does indeed happen.  I thoroughly enjoyed watching the ball blow and spring around at Chambers Bay at least years US Am.  Pinehurst won't be that firm I don't imagine but it should be really different from most other US Open tests excepting Shinnecock Hills maybe?

I'm looking forward to getting a crack at the course once it reopens and makes it thru a summer of play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
Similar to my experiences although I extend back to the early 80's.  (Did it deteriorate from the 60's to the 80's?)

The alterations to the course, narrowed fairways, higher rough, were probably, strictly a byproduct of hosting the Open.[/b]

I understand that there will be only 2 (maybe 3) grass heights to be used there for the 2014 US Open(s).  A green cut and the rest is what I've heard with maybe a needed difference between the fairways and off putting surface surrounds.  I am really excited about this prospect if it does indeed happen.  I thoroughly enjoyed watching the ball blow and spring around at Chambers Bay at least years US Am.  Pinehurst won't be that firm I don't imagine but it should be really different from most other US Open tests excepting Shinnecock Hills maybe?

I'm looking forward to getting a crack at the course once it reopens and makes it thru a summer of play.

[Kyle Harris]

Jeff:

Mike did not compare Rees Jones to Bernie Madoff.

He used a rhetorical approach which demonstrated Madoff's impact to the impact Rees Jones has in his field.

This is a small, but very acute difference.

[Kyle Harris]

I've played the golf course, but that has no bearing on my knowledge of the make up of the original course and how it was changed. I knew that before I played it.

I think juxtoposing Phil's post with yours is a good idea for any reader and it probably sheds a lot of light on the qualifications and experience upon which to judge your critique.

Negative.

Experience, while a helpful tool, is not a qualifier for the voracity of a statement.

If Phil's experience can refute, with factual data, an argument presented by Tom MacWood then the experience has value.

However, simply having more experience at a certain location does not give value to an opinion in light of fact. This is why so many threads here can degrade to personal attacks as the only rhetorical appeal used is pathos bolstered by fallacious arguments from experience or ad hominem.

[Phil_the_Author]

Kelly and Jeff,

I took no umbrage with Mike's statement. To me he was taking up on the illustration that I used in stating my belief that all of those wealthy and successful people certainly couldn't all be fools and that Rees must have satisfied many of them with his work. In that sense his illustration is the polar opposite showing how an entire group of wealthy and successful people could be misled to their own misfortune. I believe that it was in that vein that he meant his statement and was not making a personal attack on Rees.

In either case I disagree with him yet I respect his right, as well as yours, to his opinion. In the end Rees' judges are the members of the clubs for whom he worked. Still, even if a club decides that his work wasn't what they were hoping for, I can cite a number of clubs that not only told Tilly you won't be doing the new course or remodel but that even fired him and didn't let him finish the original job. As far as I can tell, history considers him to have been a pretty fair architect...

By the way, there is good reason to believe that he may have been the very first true "Open Doctor"; but that's the subject for another discussion or chapter in a book...

[Phil_the_Author]

Kyle,

I'm not going to argue your opinion, but is it yours that Tom Macwood has an equivalent knowledge, background, understanding and/or experience with Bethpage that I do? If so, why would you possibly think that?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle (and Phil and KBM)

I agree Mike's comment was not the end of the world.  I can also agree with the analysis that it was a bigger slam on wealthy people than Rees.  That said, with a quick read, rather than word parsing, many casual readers could easily think he was saying Rees was unethical on that order.  Perception is reality in the real world.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

I'm not going to argue your opinion, but is it yours that Tom Macwood has an equivalent knowledge, background, understanding and/or experience with Bethpage that I do? If so, why would you possibly think that?

I.... just no.

If you can make that leap from that post, it's just not worth it.

While I understand you have been involved in a number of the decision processes at Bethpage, and I understand that you may not be able to divulge all information your involvement has given you, simply taking your word because of your involvement does not completely refute a sourced argument. AT BEST, it demonstrates there is more that can be known and that no conclusion could be drawn. However, until data is presented the only conclusion I can draw is that your experience leads you to disagree with Tom MacWood.

Please, please, read the third line in my post. It is the crux of my statement.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle (and Phil and KBM)

I agree Mike's comment was not the end of the world.  I can also agree with the analysis that it was a bigger slam on wealthy people than Rees.  That said, with a quick read, rather than word parsing, many casual readers could easily think he was saying Rees was unethical on that order.  Perception is reality in the real world.

Why bother commenting if all you gave was a quick read? Or were you pointing out the possibility of the comparison?

I just honestly don't understand what is meant by a casual reader in this case?