Does Mike Davis understand great golf course architecture better than Rees?

[Carl Nichols]

If someone can point me toward one of Rees' designs that is fun, strategic and playable for the average 15 handicap I'd love to check it out.  I have yet to see either an original design or remodeling of his that blew me away...I've played his original designs at Pinehurst #7, Fiddler's Elbow and Rio Secco as well as a number of his Open Doctored courses, the best being Bethpage Black and the worst being Cog Hill #4, although he may have simply been executing what the owner wanted in that instance.  The work at the the Dunes course certainly sounds intriguing.  As for Mike Davis, I can't say but I certainly like the direction he's moving with his Open setups and can't wait to see what transpires at Pinehurst (anecdotally a buddy of mine played #2 last week and was underwhelmed with the condition of the course, maybe it won't really be up to snuff till next season)...  

I thought that Ocean Forest was fun and playable, and strategic enough.

[Jay Flemma]

My Dad told me as a kid - "Beware of anyone who believes in anything too much.  Such belief clouds objectivity."

I think this thread is a perfect example of the dangers.  When you're a zealot, you lose your perspective.

There is now doubt that the fanaticism of some permeates this site and sometimes destroys its objective value for others - but any objective idiot can pin these crazies immediately.

There is no chance that Mike Davis has a greater understanding of great golf architecture than anyone who designs golf courses for a living.  Mike Davis is pretty good at using whatever architecture is given to him, and transforming it into a test for the best players in the world for one week.  And, despite the armchair journalists cries to the contrary, credit must be given to those that give him the canvas upon which to work because without said canvas, we're left with very little.

And Tom, are we really now putting tremendous credence into the whims, whispers and whimpers of the PGA Tour professional after playing sub-par golf?  If we are, I will privately share with you comments I've heard from these pros about Augusta National, Cypress Point, Pine Valley and Riviera....all which should be and were, largely dismissed.

This must be some definition of "will continue to be the better person" with which I am not familiar.   But thank you for reminding us how great you are.

I think the Potts cracked guys!    His zeal for Medinah blinds him.   He also attacked Brad Klein too, when Brad said essentially the same thing everyone else says about the course:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,25140.0.html

So here it is:

Anyone who kisses Medinah's ring:  good

Anyone who criticizes it:  bad

Ryan Potts's thought process:  so simple.

[Mike_Young]

There is no chance that Mike Davis has a greater understanding of great golf architecture than anyone who designs golf courses for a living.  

Ryan,
I have to respectfully disagree....Ithere are bad golf architects...(and they may say the same of me)....you have some guys that don't play golf...you have some guys that have no idea what strategy is..some have no idea how far the ball travels today......some just sort of evolved from drawing plans in an office after getting an LAR degree and happening upon a job in an architects office.....there is some bad stuff out there....and Mike Davis knows better than those guys (or girls)

[Bob_Huntley]

I have some doubts about the comments of the Rees Jones detractors on this site. Has anyone played his course on Nantucket? What do you dislike?

Bob

[JR Potts]

There is no chance that Mike Davis has a greater understanding of great golf architecture than anyone who designs golf courses for a living.  

Ryan,
I have to respectfully disagree....Ithere are bad golf architects...(and they may say the same of me)....you have some guys that don't play golf...you have some guys that have no idea what strategy is..some have no idea how far the ball travels today......some just sort of evolved from drawing plans in an office after getting an LAR degree and happening upon a job in an architects office.....there is some bad stuff out there....and Mike Davis knows better than those guys (or girls)

You're probably correct at the extreme.  However, I don't think that Mike Davis has the knowledge or desires the knowledge and skill set to compete architecturally with those architects who design the courses we talk about here on this site and those tha host major USGA events.  I may e wrong bit think it's outside his pay-grade.

Dovetailing those statements into other issues on this thread, I further think that unlike the faux-journalist faux-lawyer who his embarrassing himself certany as a journalist on this thread, Mike Davis and those in the know in the golf world have enough self-awareness and decency to respect the craft of those professionals whose canvases he manipulates for a week and appreciate their craft - even if it means that he personally disagrees with certain choices they make.

And this is my last post addressing this clown of a journalist.  I am self admittedly a Medinah and "big course" homer.  I love playing them....they suit my game.  But I certainly have the objectivity to see that they are not everyone's cup of tee.  I'm fine with that. All I've ever asked is to back up ones opinions with facts - Jay has clearly shown that he's unable to do so (want a good laugh, go to his blog and type Medinah not the search field - he clearly has an axe to grind as he can barely get through a blog post without insulting it and the clubhouse.  Same goes for his YouTube thing).  I dont know, in my profession I deal with facts.  Jay, given his links to everything above has no problem manipulating them, ignoring them or intentionally distorting them....and when dealing with things that I care about like golf, Medinah and the ethics of journalism, he deserves to get called out when his agenda or incompetence gets in the way of facts.

I'm done now....I expect him to make another personal insult or link to another link that doesn't state what he represents it to say but we are where we are. 

I look forward to discussing the merits and drawbacks of big championship courses with the rest of you.

[Sam Morrow]

No Mike Davis doesn't understand architecture better than Rees Jones, he just has a different take on it. Rees is a lighting rod on this site, if you put his name on Sand Hills people would say that it's the worst, contrived POS ever done. If you took his Open Dr. work and put the names Coore and Crenshaw on it people would say it's the greatest thing since the Reformation.

Please provide some sort of evidence to illustrate your point. This gets thrown out a lot, but I have yet to ever see it substantiated. One concrete example will suffice - proposed hypotheticals will not.

Thanks in advance.

I can cite numerous examples of the exact opposite - praise for Rees and criticism of C&C - should you require it.

George,

 Sorry I am just getting back to you, but this recent thread was the first one that I thought of and quickly found it in a search. Rees is a lighting rod of sorts on this site.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,47225.0.html

[Bill_McBride]

Just a couple of thoughts....

Mike Davis has a lot of clout, he gets to change the design of a hole in search of a different challenge for the best players in his Open set ups.  But that's not architecture, just set up.

It's not a good idea for Jay to suggest that GCA.com is capable of taking a unified position in support of anything.  One of the fine things about the Treehouse is its diversity of thought and willingness to publicly express same.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tim got it right in the beginning. I will say between the excess budgets, need to meddle and make changes for changes sake to make jobs make sense, to taking the architecture out of most open courses, it is tough to really make sense out of some if not most of the set up changes. What does make sense is putting in maintenance practices early enough for firm fairways and very firm greens with deep rough. That would take 1/4th the people and 1/10 the budget currently spent. I will not even go into the all the political and financial aspects of keeping club leadership in line. The USGA is probably in the better half of its peers among the other institutional sports governing organizations. It is just ours.  I find the BCS and US Olympic Comm to be the worst.

[Sean Leary]

George,

I can't cite any posts off the top of my head, but I can remember clear instances playing with GCAers in person. As I mentioned above, I think Sam's post might be a bit of an exaggeration, but IMO there is at least partial truth to it.

Please cite concrete evidence. One example on here will suffice- hearsay conversations with friends/acquiantances will not.

There have been many instances to support the exact opposite, including a recent thread criticising C&C for the Dormie Club routing, another poster who thought Sand Hills was overrated (maybe 6-12 months ago, can't remember the invididual, was a pretty good - if contentious - thread), and there has been quite a bit of praise for Olde Kinderhook - a Rees course - as well as praise for Rees' work at Bethpage (though it didn't live up the standards of some).

Call me crazy - John K does almost every day, it's easy to do, I haven't done anything more than joust with him, I'm sure he'd tell you I'm a big pussycat - but I am calling bull shit on this weak proposition.

BS!

Ok George,

You are crazy.

You can believe me or not, I don't care. But I have played a lot of golf with people here on MFA courses, and hosted even more on a course with a whipping boy architect.

[Tom_Doak]

And Tom, are we really now putting tremendous credence into the whims, whispers and whimpers of the PGA Tour professional after playing sub-par golf?  If we are, I will privately share with you comments I've heard from these pros about Augusta National, Cypress Point, Pine Valley and Riviera....all which should be and were, largely dismissed.

Ryan:

I don't give a damn what most Tour players think about architecture.  But, Jeff suggested that Rees' work was generally praised by the good players and professionals, and recently, that hasn't been the case.  Cog Hill and Torrey Pines are two pointed examples; I guess we'll find out how they like your place next year!

[Jay Flemma]

 I further think that unlike the faux-journalist faux-lawyer...

Ryan, I challenge you to defend "faux lawyer."  That is seriously irresponsible of you.  Your vitriol - over opinions on a golf course - has gotten so out of control, you have said something I think even you in retrospect regret as being both false and unfair.  You know God Damn well I am an excellent lawyer, with gold records on my wall and important IP cases all over the country.  You owe me an apology for going so far over the line of truth, manners, and good taste.  You said earlier you were the better person - well let's see it in practice.


Guys, if this is how crazy he gets over discussing GCA...that he falsely demeans a man's business though he knows nothing about it...it's his credibility in question.  Ryan, you have lost control of yourself.  You're a lawyer...you ought to know better and act better...a lot better.

But he is right about one thing - we see exactly whose credibility is suspect here.


As to the sum and substance of the issue, Ran and Ben used to sit in an armchair and criticize, then went out and did it and built a gem.  They aren't architects are they?  Nobody questions their grasp of architectural principles, do they?  Well the same applies to Davis.  He knows a hell of a lot about architecture...he impresses me more on the subject every time I interview him.  You'd almost think he reads GCA.com, he so well-spoken on the topic.

I'd be that if Mike Davis ever decided to build a course, he'd do great.  I think he values and champions many of the interesting strategies we like and sees the need to keep maintenance costs down.  Heck, he even gave C&C a turn at an Open.  I think he should be encouraged to try to design a course - I bet he'd do great.

Deane Beman had a vision too - and look how well that turned out.  To think that bright minds that didn't start asw GCAs can't learn the craft and excel is short sighted.

I stand by my proposition - I like where Mike Davis is taking us more than where Rees is.  Rees is a fine man, and he's had a world of success...but if you look at the ratio of truly great courses he's built as compared to the total in his portfolio, does he have as good a ratio as Doak?  C&C?  Strantz?  Tilly?  Mackenzie?

That's my point.  I am not a Rees hater.  I'm just pointing out we can do better.

[Terry Lavin]

Just waded back into this thread and am sorry to see it take such a negative tone.

To me, the bottom line of the Open Doctor business is that Rees Jones had a great run of retooling courses for major championships.  Owners were drawn to him because he seemed to have the "ear" of the USGA and/or the PGA.  The customer, the owner, wants a major championship at his golf club.  He thinks his chances go up if Rees Jones is on the job because he's had that type of success before.  So he delivers what the customer thinks he needs to get the nod: a much more difficult golf course, with precious few breather holes and very few opportunities to attack the golf course with birdies or better.  The result may be somewhat inhumane for the members or usual players, but the customer doesn't care, because a course/club that hosts a major tournament can greatly improve its business model for the future.

The problem here, of course, is that the customer doesn't know the "new" USGA as well as he thought he did.  So when the Jemseks retooled a perfectly acceptable tour stop golf course and made it four or five shots harder (at least that's what they were trying to do), they thought the USGA would rush to sign up to host another Open in Chicagoland.  Not so fast.  The "new" USGA is not necessarily as seduced by length and high hay as it used to be.  It seems that the new USGA likes courses that look like links courses (wide open spaces, native grasses, treeless landscapes), but that play like old-fashioned ball buster difficult aerial American golf courses.  Enter Erin Hills, which most would agree has some architectural deficiencies, but it will look fabulous on television, will have more space for corporate entertainment and spectators than perhaps any other golf course that has ever hosted an Open.  And they didn't need Rees Jones to retool it.  The same could arguably said for Chambers Bay, although some ardently maintain that it plays like a links course.

Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but great architecture does not a great major venue make.  You can have a decidedly vanilla track (Torrey, Valhalla come to mind) and have a spectacular championship.  These events are made-for-television events, after all.  The customers historically wanted Rees Jones just so their club could be the canvas for golf art on television.  Turns out that the decision makers just may have changed their minds.

[Jud_T]

Terry,

Good point.  However, my issue with the Cog Hill renovation isn't the added difficulty, which was inevitable, or even the aesthetics.  It's that the greens and surrounds now have much less variety than they did previously...

[Terry Lavin]

Terry,

Good point.  However, my issue with the Cog Hill renovation isn't the added difficulty, which was inevitable, or even the aesthetics.  It's that the greens and surrounds now have much less variety than they did previously...

Aesthetically, I think the renovation is a great improvement.  They got rid of a couple hundred trees and opened up vistas across the golf course.  In terms of the greens, I think the use of the so-called Dick Wilson "fingers" was something that they did to add difficulty with a stamp of authenticity.  They sure are hard.  Some of the greens, #7 in particular, are a little ridiculous.  And I'm not all that fond of the many chipping areas they threw in, just to wink at the USGA, which has historically loved that feature.  Doesn't fit on the course, but nobody seemed to care about that!  The only way for a regular chopper (10-20 handicapper) to play the course now is to play a set of back tees, stay short of the fairway bunkers, lay up to the green and try to make a putt.  That ain't fun golf.

[Mike_Young]

As to the sum and substance of the issue, Ran and Ben used to sit in an armchair and criticize, then went out and did it and built a gem.  They aren't architects are they?  Nobody questions their grasp of architectural principles, do they?  Well the same applies to Davis.  He knows a hell of a lot about architecture...he impresses me more on the subject every time I interview him.  You'd almost think he reads GCA.com, he so well-spoken on the topic.

I'd be that if Mike Davis ever decided to build a course, he'd do great.  I think he values and champions many of the interesting strategies we like and sees the need to keep maintenance costs down.  Heck, he even gave C&C a turn at an Open.  I think he should be encouraged to try to design a course - I bet he'd do great.

Deane Beman had a vision too - and look how well that turned out.  To think that bright minds that didn't start asw GCAs can't learn the craft and excel is short sighted.

Jay,
I am sure the people mentioned above could design a good golf course....or develop a good golf course.....there is a difference....And I am sure that Ran and Ben will probably have a "gem"...has it been played yet?  And I am sure that Deane Beman has some good concepts and ideas...BUT when you say  "learn the craft".....what do you mean?  your answer might help me understand....because with all due respect it will take years of on site learning to understand the irrigation, drainage, grassing and  shaping issues before one will learn the craft....I think what frustrates many of us who are in the business is when the roles of all these "architects" are not defined....
It's a question of the tail wagging the dog or the dog wagging the tail.....in many cases the tail ( shapers, irrigation people, finishers etc) are wagging the dog (architect, developer etc)....it takes a while to learn to wag the tail....but it saves the owner a lot of $$$$ in most cases...

[Jay Flemma]

Just waded back into this thread and am sorry to see it take such a negative tone.

To me, the bottom line of the Open Doctor business is that Rees Jones had a great run of retooling courses for major championships.  Owners were drawn to him because he seemed to have the "ear" of the USGA and/or the PGA.  The customer, the owner, wants a major championship at his golf club.  He thinks his chances go up if Rees Jones is on the job because he's had that type of success before.  So he delivers what the customer thinks he needs to get the nod: a much more difficult golf course, with precious few breather holes and very few opportunities to attack the golf course with birdies or better.  The result may be somewhat inhumane for the members or usual players, but the customer doesn't care, because a course/club that hosts a major tournament can greatly improve its business model for the future.

The problem here, of course, is that the customer doesn't know the "new" USGA as well as he thought he did.  So when the Jemseks retooled a perfectly acceptable tour stop golf course and made it four or five shots harder (at least that's what they were trying to do), they thought the USGA would rush to sign up to host another Open in Chicagoland.  Not so fast.  The "new" USGA is not necessarily as seduced by length and high hay as it used to be.  It seems that the new USGA likes courses that look like links courses (wide open spaces, native grasses, treeless landscapes), but that play like old-fashioned ball buster difficult aerial American golf courses.  Enter Erin Hills, which most would agree has some architectural deficiencies, but it will look fabulous on television, will have more space for corporate entertainment and spectators than perhaps any other golf course that has ever hosted an Open.  And they didn't need Rees Jones to retool it.  The same could arguably said for Chambers Bay, although some ardently maintain that it plays like a links course.

Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but great architecture does not a great major venue make.  You can have a decidedly vanilla track (Torrey, Valhalla come to mind) and have a spectacular championship.  These events are made-for-television events, after all.  The customers historically wanted Rees Jones just so their club could be the canvas for golf art on television.  Turns out that the decision makers just may have changed their minds.

That is one of the most lucid, even-handed, and fair statements on this thread.  That might be something I might like to quote, with your permission Terry, and working with you to craft something you'd want in print.  Talk to me off list about it.  Great stuff.

Mike - I like what you say, but no one person is an expert at every issue.  Some who are good at drainage and soils, might be less expert in, for example, shaping or bunkering...but they put a good team together.  MacWood and Doak have a point in that a lot of cooks contribute to simmering the broth that becomes a great golf course, and we should respect and celebrate them too - not to the extent of putting their name on it, but that's an issue for another day.

Beman was very much responsible for Sawgrass...Dye will tell you that, and the new book on Beman has many chapters and verses on that.

My point is not some global point Mike, but a narrow one - there are some people out t5here that aren't architects that 8understand architectural principles so well that when they get their chance to prove it, they shine. 

[JR Potts]

Terry:

I think you're nly half-right.  The reality is a lot these clubs were looking correctly or incorrectly, for "name architects" when trying to upgrade their major championship courses from the mid80s to mid00s as it was the easis way to sell te project to a always skeptcal membership.  Quite candidly though, none of these "name architects" would touch these jobs.  They were too busy with their own original projects and didn't want to step into club politics.  Rees, t his credit, took on these jobs and effectively used it to market himself.

So, it wasn't that these clubs were always picking him....he was ver often the only name who would take on the job.

Sorry for the missed letters and auto-corrects....these iPads are impossible to type on and edit.

Jay - I apologize for the lawyer comment.

[Jay Flemma]

Ryan I thank you for your apology and I have an idea.

I just sent you my phone number.  Call me.  Let's talk.  Too often people squabbling over the Internet and saying bad things is just forgetting a human being is on the other end.  We don't know each other at all, but we're both lawyers, we both know a lot about Internet law, and we both love great golf courses...that's enough to start a good conversation.  Ifr we talk, I bet we can bury the hatchet and who knows, maybe we'll have a feel good GCA.com  story about making up and finding coomon ground.

[Mike_Young]

Mike - I like what you say, but no one person is an expert at every issue.  Some who are good at drainage and soils, might be less expert in, for example, shaping or bunkering...but they put a good team together.  MacWood and Doak have a point in that a lot of cooks contribute to simmering the broth that becomes a great golf course, and we should respect and celebrate them too - not to the extent of putting their name on it, but that's an issue for another day.

Beman was very much responsible for Sawgrass...Dye will tell you that, and the new book on Beman has many chapters and verses on that.

My point is not some global point Mike, but a narrow one - there are some people out t5here that aren't architects that 8understand architectural principles so well that when they get their chance to prove it, they shine. 

Jay,
I still stand by my past statement....never said anyone was an expert on all issues...and I never said the same person would be doing drainage or bunkering......I want to know who is "wagging the tail"  and my bet is a good shaper that has been around for awhile or with Beman it was PD.... 
As for stating "some people out there that aren't architects that understand architectural principles so well that when they get their chance to prove it, they shine"  I am going to assume you mean strategic principles..right?  Sort of like the college football fan that really know the game and the principles....and knows it well....could he coach his first game and win....probably not....but maybe his experienced assistant and highly recruited players could....  JMO

[Jay Flemma]

Mike, yes I meant strategic principles, but I think your college football analogy fails because most fans couldn't even call up a defense to a situation...you say to a fan "Giant, I-Tight Slot Fake 42 Dive 456 X" and they'll have no idea that it means "The largest offensive linemen and three tight ends, I-Tight Slot is the formation, the 4 runningback will fake run through the 2 hole. The X reciever will run a 4 route from the passing tree, the Y receiver will run a 5 route, and the Z receiver will run a 6 route. The X receiver will be the primary receiver.  (This is actually a particularly basic playcall."

But guys like Davis aren't the mental equivalent of a fan, but are deeply immersed in the nuances.  I'd think it might5 be more like the D-backs coach getting the headset and taking over...someone unexpected but talented.  Fans don't fit that profile.

As for Ryan - GREAT NEWS - Ryan and I talked on the phone and ironed it out.  We had a lot in common and once we connected , became much more understanding of each other and both sympathetic and empathetic - I highly recommend calling and phoning the guys form time to time...once we achieve a little more human interaction, we become more humane to one another...and therefore the whole board wins!

[Tim Martin]

Mike, yes I meant strategic principles, but I think your college football analogy fails because most fans couldn't even call up a defense to a situation...you say to a fan "Giant, I-Tight Slot Fake 42 Dive 456 X" and they'll have no idea that it means "The largest offensive linemen and three tight ends, I-Tight Slot is the formation, the 4 runningback will fake run through the 2 hole. The X reciever will run a 4 route from the passing tree, the Y receiver will run a 5 route, and the Z receiver will run a 6 route. The X receiver will be the primary receiver.  (This is actually a particularly basic playcall."

But guys like Davis aren't the mental equivalent of a fan, but are deeply immersed in the nuances.  I'd think it might5 be more like the D-backs coach getting the headset and taking over...someone unexpected but talented.  Fans don't fit that profile.

As for Ryan - GREAT NEWS - Ryan and I talked on the phone and ironed it out.  We had a lot in common and once we connected , became much more understanding of each other and both sympathetic and empathetic - I highly recommend calling and phoning the guys form time to time...once we achieve a little more human interaction, we become more humane to one another...and therefore the whole board wins!

Jay- I sense that you are somehow emboldened that your premise has some merit. You got taken to the woodshed and rightfully so. Take a poll of the poster`s responses and see how many come out on your side. I wonder why you feel the need to remark about a private conversation with another member in the public domain although it is a touching story . Further I wonder why you make overtures publicly to members to include their comments for your stories when this could be more easily and tastefully accomplished by private message. And one more thing, please don`t send me your phone number. Thanks.

[Mike_Young]

Mike, yes I meant strategic principles, but I think your college football analogy fails because most fans couldn't even call up a defense to a situation...you say to a fan "Giant, I-Tight Slot Fake 42 Dive 456 X" and they'll have no idea that it means "The largest offensive linemen and three tight ends, I-Tight Slot is the formation, the 4 runningback will fake run through the 2 hole. The X reciever will run a 4 route from the passing tree, the Y receiver will run a 5 route, and the Z receiver will run a 6 route. The X receiver will be the primary receiver.  (This is actually a particularly basic playcall."

But guys like Davis aren't the mental equivalent of a fan, but are deeply immersed in the nuances.  I'd think it might5 be more like the D-backs coach getting the headset and taking over...someone unexpected but talented.  Fans don't fit that profile.

As for Ryan - GREAT NEWS - Ryan and I talked on the phone and ironed it out.  We had a lot in common and once we connected , became much more understanding of each other and both sympathetic and empathetic - I highly recommend calling and phoning the guys form time to time...once we achieve a little more human interaction, we become more humane to one another...and therefore the whole board wins!

Jay,
I still like the football analogy and after you explain above..even moreso.  Most guys that played football at all know how to decipher plays..even a few female fans...  So these fans that know this are just like the few golfers that would read this site...a higher percentage of football fans can read plays, stunts and audibles than golfers that care for architecture...JMO....

[Tags:]

Tags: