[Peter Pallotta]

"Ever wonder why so many Donald Ross course no longer exist?  It’s because no one placed a value on a name."

Good old Pete Dye, I love him. Smart, simple, direct -- and he knows his stuff! (And he's also got more than a touch of Barnum and Bailey in him, which is great, and fun, and American. Showtime. Entertainment. The 17th at Sawgrass. My vote yet again for the first truly "American" golf architect - Pete Dye). I'd never read it put more clearly.

Peter

[Adam Clayman]

Kalen,  think it's more than disagree. It's absurd to think his comments hold water, even to people who don't frequent this forum.  All you have to do is look at Cog Hill as Andy illustrated above.

I was talking to a regular Joe yesterday and he was re-counting his experience play Torrey Pines South. He said it was the least fun he ever had on a golf course. I asked when he played there. A year ago June. He paid $220 which he and I thought was criminal.

[Jud_T]

50 years from now will the Open Doctored courses of 1990-2010 be fondly referred to as "Rees' Pieces"?

[Garland Bayley]

On the other hand, if he did mean to single me out, perhaps the fact that I was recently hired by a club Rees has been involved with for years has something to do with it.

Please be Hazeltine!

I believe that would be Royal Melbourne

[Garland Bayley]

On the other hand, if he did mean to single me out, perhaps the fact that I was recently hired by a club Rees has been involved with for years has something to do with it.

Please be Hazeltine!

I believe that would be Royal Melbourne.

[Phil Benedict]

The Pinehurst redo is a repudiation of Rees.  The course couldn't have a higher profile; it will be the center of the golifing universe in 3-years for 2 weeks.  The pros will love it - they like wide fairways too.

Of course he's pissed. 

[Ian Andrew]

This is great marketing.

You make a statement about why your architecture is better than another type of architecture. If people like your message, you have just made a great case for them to hire you.

I think it's exceptionally effective, well placed and very smart.

Whether I agree with Rees or not has no relevance.

IMHO he's not calling any one out - he's selling himself through comparrisson.
(It's exactly what I do when I talk to magazines)

[Greg Tallman]

This is great marketing.

You make a statement about why your architecture is better than another type of architecture. If people like your message, you have just made a great case for them to hire you.

I think it's exceptionally effective, well placed and very smart.

Whether I agree with Rees or not has no relevance.

IMHO he's not calling any one out - he's selling himself through comparrisson.
(It's exactly what I do when I talk to magazines)

I look at it as though he has never seen, or at least been offered, a site like teh "guilty parties" have and thus looks at their work as he looks at his own... a CREATION versus UNCOVERING/FINDING... only explanation of the expense comment other than pure ignorance which I would be hesitant to label anyone as relatively successful as Jones.

[JR Potts]

Here's a link to the actual article.


http://www.reesjonesinc.com/pdf/is-the-doctor-done.pdf

As you will see, not only did Steve misquote the article but he left out important sections that put the words of Mike Davis and Rees Jones into persepctive.  I must say Steve, your presumably deliverate attempt at creating controversy and conflict with your misleading and incorrect quotes and even worse topic headings is quite dispicable.  I would think that your credibility would be better served by dealing with facts rather than tabloid journalism.

I should have known better than to make a comment on here (especially if it deal with Rees Jones) without reading the actual article...I just gave this board a little too much credit that they would try to post in a facual, objective and responsible manner.  Way too much credit.

Shameful.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks for linking the article, Ryan.

That it is the clubs themselves and not the USGA that choose Doctor Jones for pre-championship renovations made me think that maybe the members of those clubs don't care as much about absolute score as they do relative score, i.e. they don't care if they get killed playing their now-longer and narrower golf course as long as a visiting guest from another club gets killed worse. Ah, that's the spirit! 

Peter

[Kalen Braley]

Ryan,

I've read the article 3 times now and trying to find where he is misquoted.

Yes Steve arrived at his own independent conclusion of what Rees may have meant, but I'm not seeing where he misquoted Rees.

P.S.  I don't agree with Davis remark that Rees courses are strategic.  Where is the strategy to be found in hit it here or else. I don't think the USGA could identify strategy on a golf course if it slapped em in the face.

[Michael Dugger]

The article is a snoozer.  Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Nice post Ian
Would you wear one of those surgeons caps for a photo op?   
It is a memorable image.
Cheers

[Philippe Binette]

Never judge people by what they are saying... just look at what they are DOING.

Go to a Rees course... see if it's strategic (18th at Bethpage is a nice example)
Go to a Doak, C&C, Hanse or anyone... see if it's strategic.

Then make your judgement.

The naturalistic architects I know aren't only about aesthetics, actually they don't talk much about aesthetics... since they know they are doing nice stuff to start with... most of the talk is about strategy.

It's the old way of competition in business... trying to bury the rest of the pack...

Just DO your thing.

[JR Potts]

Ryan,

I've read the article 3 times now and trying to find where he is misquoted.

Yes Steve arrived at his own independent conclusion of what Rees may have meant, but I'm not seeing where he misquoted Rees.

P.S.  I don't agree with Davis remark that Rees courses are strategic.  Where is the strategy to be found in hit it here or else. I don't think the USGA could identify strategy on a golf course if it slapped em in the face.

Kalen - I believe his post has changed a few times and his the title certainly has.  The context of the post was intentionally manipulted to create controversy rather than provide information....tabloid jounalism at its finest.  The article was available for posting/linking...and it wasn't for what I believe to be obvious reasons.

[Kalen Braley]

Ryan,

I've read the article 3 times now and trying to find where he is misquoted.

Yes Steve arrived at his own independent conclusion of what Rees may have meant, but I'm not seeing where he misquoted Rees.

P.S.  I don't agree with Davis remark that Rees courses are strategic.  Where is the strategy to be found in hit it here or else. I don't think the USGA could identify strategy on a golf course if it slapped em in the face.

Kalen - I believe his post has changed a few times and his the title certainly has.  The context of the post was intentionally manipulted to create controversy rather than provide information....tabloid jounalism at its finest.  The article was available for posting/linking...and it wasn't for what I believe to be  obvious reasons.

Fair enough Ryan, I too agree the 1st title of calling out Doak was misleading to a certain extent and glad its been changed.

As has been mentioned in prior posts, a big part of any company's success is being able to differentiate their products from their competitors.  Then when you throw in an industry like golf course design which has been decimated, no doubt a lot of very controversial things are going to be said.

[Tom_Doak]

What I don't like about the quote is that he sets up a straw man argument.  Sure, if other designers are building bunkers that are more expensive to build and to maintain and are unplayable besides, then you ought to like Rees' bunkers better.  But he never actually singles out any particular architect or course as having done that, so we could examine it and decide if the argument was reasonable or a bunch of b.s.  He just says a whole generation of architects has it wrong.  He must be watching too much Fox News.

[Adam Clayman]

So because it was a general statement he hasn't violated the guidlines of the association ?

[Steve Kline]

Here's a link to the actual article.


http://www.reesjonesinc.com/pdf/is-the-doctor-done.pdf

As you will see, not only did Steve misquote the article but he left out important sections that put the words of Mike Davis and Rees Jones into persepctive.  I must say Steve, your presumably deliverate attempt at creating controversy and conflict with your misleading and incorrect quotes and even worse topic headings is quite dispicable.  I would think that your credibility would be better served by dealing with facts rather than tabloid journalism.

I should have known better than to make a comment on here (especially if it deal with Rees Jones) without reading the actual article...I just gave this board a little too much credit that they would try to post in a facual, objective and responsible manner.  Way too much credit.

Shameful.

I think I quoted it exactly as written. I typed it up as I as reading the hard copy issue. There was no deliberate attempt to create controversy. It is my opinion that Jones is calling out Doak, C&C, and probably others. Perhaps it is more C&C since #2 is getting a lot of talk and Rees worked on the course previously. I can go on and on why that work was the strategic low point for #2 in the last 22 years, during which I have played #2 several hundred times. I can't go on and on about the costs of building or maintaining bunkers since I don't know anything about that, but I left that in the part I quote because it was part of the paragraph.

The topic heading was my opinion. I didn't know opinions in such places were frowned upon. I explained the opinion in the very first sentence. Tom didn't like it and asked it to be changed, which I did. I didn't see the need for it but it was his name so I changed it. Changing the topic heading necessitated a change in the first sentence since the two went hand in hand.

The only fact in any of this is what Rees said, which I believe I quoted exactly. The rest, as are most things on this site, is opinion.

I didn't link to the article because I was too lazy to find it and after reading the article that was the only part I found worth mentioning.

[Steve Kline]

And I wasn't even focused on the expense of the bunker part, which Tom is. I was focused on the part where Jones is talking about strategy, playability for the average golfer, etc. That's the part I find interesting because in my playing experience of courses "doctored" by Jones for the Open (Pinehurst #2 and Torrey Pines) both courses were made significantly harder/less playable and one was made less strategic than the designs of the minimalists that I have played.

[Adam Clayman]

Greg, He'll always have Sandpines. Someone of note once remarked to me that Sandpines was great because it basically brought Rees down, which is the point of the article, isn't it?

Ryan, You're way off base. Steve was being nothing but honest with his opinion. The article appears to be written reluctantly, because the author highlights the dichotomy in Rees' philosophy. Seriously, Rees' assessments are factually inaccurate and blatantly bullshit.

[JR Potts]

I wonder how off base I could have been seeing as the title of the thread and content of the post had to be altered.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Rees quotes can be really rich. lol lol

[Tom_Doak]

So because it was a general statement he hasn't violated the guidlines of the association ?

Exactly.  Puts me in good company, I guess:  "Tour pro designers" and "signature architects" are often bashed as a group for the same reason ... it knocks down a whole swath of competing professionals without singling anyone out to where they can object to the statement on a factual basis.

Of course we are also in good company with "tax-and-spend liberals" or "right wing conservatives" depending on your political leanings.  Politicians have made an art form of broad-brush, fact-free denigration of the other side.

[Steve Kline]

  On a side note playing #2 so much you must have an awesome short game or be a basket case one of the two...

The short game is the weakest part of my game. It's usually good on #2 until sometime on the back nine when I have missed one too many greens and I skull my chip shot the green. It usually happens on #15.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()